Clockwork = Artificial, mechanical, and man made. Orange = Organic and found in nature. A Clockwork Orange = Forcing something natural to function artificially.
People are still commenting on this video even though this video has been online for a while. I guess A Clockwork Orange truly is a timeless masterpiece.
That's the ONLY interpretation. And there's also the old English phrase, "queer as a clockwork orange"..."queer" meaning strange; which pre-dates the novel and the film. Supposedly, Anthony Burgess overheard someone using the phrase in a pub, and borrowed it for his novel.
I used to think this movie is unrewatchable too until I watched again about two days ago, and I was wrong. I think I appreciated some things that I didn't appreciate the first time. The first time I thought it's just meant to make you feel sick and weird. But this time around like, I felt like everything made sense. and the lead actor's performance, hands down one of the best in history.
This movie is just so hauntingly beautiful, the characters speak like robots yet they feel so alive to me. Clockwork Orange is a contradicted masterpiece.
i’ve just watched the movie for the first time and i’m completely obsessed. something i’ve noticed: when the doorbell rings at the man’s house, the ringing follows the theme of symphony no. 5 in C minor composed by beethoven. this theme is used in movies when something bad is about to happen. both times we hear the doorbell, bad things occur. is the film also brainwashing viewers with beethoven? haha, thought i’d share that!
Well I don't trust the government in this movie because they are like the Pharisees in Jesus's time. They seemed to be outstanding citizens on the outside but inside they are corrupt more so than a common criminal!
u should not side with anyone in this movie because everyone is either corrupt or commits horrific and selfish acts. it's all about the brutality of human nature
Yet wasn't the book about the palatable turning non-palatable. I am not disagreeing with you as the film glorifys violence. Where as in the book it is the young teenage Alex who glorifys the violence incontrast to the establishment.
It's weird how this guy does horrendous awful things and all of the beatings / torture he got in return may be arguably deserved, but we still feel sorry for him
Michael Greenwood the movie and book are much different- at a certain point I begin to wonder myself if they’re even comparable despite the same name. The book isn’t about palatability in any sense other than that “art should unease the comfortable and ease the uncomfortable”- paraphrasing but. The movie focuses on the violence and aggression, the idea that no one in this world is good. The book is about the very opposite, human nature, immaturity to maturity, redemption. In the original printing of the story the very last chapter was showing DeLarge’s maturity and natural change. In the original American printing they removed the last chapter, believing it made it too fluffy. Kubrick follows this version for the film adaption. In the film Alex acts like this because he wants too. In the book it’s because he’s young and immature. Because violence is how young boys entertain themselves. Destruction before maturing to creation. The only time palatability was introduced was with the film, as the book is a true work of art, uncomforting the comfortable and comforting the uncomfortable.
I loved this movie, but throughout the movie i kept checking how many minutes are left, every long lasting scene feels like hours. in the end, this movie has achieved what it set out to do, make us uncomfortable for 2 hours straight
i had to watch it over the span of a day because it felt like it dragged on for so long so i had to take breaks. there’s so much to look at as well so it kinda hurt my head LMAO
IMHO A Clockwork Orange raises the question of what is the correct way of going about changing someone who is evil into an individual with integrity. Do you forcibly impose your views and belief system down their throat? No, because thats just as evil and all you end up with is a clockwork orange - an android who superficially acts good on the outside(perhaps for fear or punishment) but has never really changed inside. This is ultimately cruel because its mental torture for that individual. So in my opinion the story is prompting us to think about finding humane, ethical and insightful ways of reforming dysfunctional or evil people in society.
I agree. Alex is compelled by Pavlovian reflex to be good, not by any moral impulse within himself. After Alex passes his behavioral test, I think the conversation between the prison chaplain and the Prime Minister sums up the heart of the movie: Prison Chaplain: _Choice! The boy has not a real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to_ _that grotesque act of self-abasement. The insincerity was clear to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He_ _ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice._ Minister: _Padre, there are subtleties! We are not concerned with motives, with the higher ethics. We are concerned_ _only with cutting down crime and with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons. He will be your true Christian,_ _ready to turn the other cheek, ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the heart at the thought of killing a fly._ _Reclamation! Joy before the angels of God! The point is that it works._
Who's to say Alex doesn't have integrity? Is Alex really evil? Or is he just a representation of human nature? Just because someone does "wrong" doesn't mean he isn't honest with others or himself. Morality is just an allusion, the only morality you have is your own. And morals vary from person the person. I absolutely love it when someone deems himself the pillar of morality. Cause honest words break them rather easily. Its hard to play morality games when following the rules doesn't do you any favors. It just makes you an easier target.
Neil Papier A brilliant movie about rather evil can be fixed by conditioning. In the end he was conditioned but still had the evil thoughts but was under control. It's true because of the soul and those lacking a soul. One can't commit evil acts that harm others directly when they have a soul. It's guaranteed so ofcourse they won't change at the core even if they are conditioned. Orange represents flesh and their evil and the nature of good is like ckockwork with flesh. Basically you're either good or evil from birth and that can never truly change. The above is why the meticulous Kubrick have the breaking into ‘Real people’s houses’ line in this scene. It’s a brilliant movie. Alex is supposed to be confused and surrounded by violence. That’s what his love of music represents and is supposed to be seen in his friends beating him up and leaving him behind but I don’t know how much Kubrick respected that depth Alex was originally written with because of the way it ended. In a sense Alex wasn’t supposed to have evil thoughts he was just acting out of pure pressure from his surroundings and him getting caught in the middle of this evolution divide where people are trying to deal with violent animals and come up with a way to condition them...by them choosing Beethoven a beast doesn’t care about music but that’s supposed to highlight the tragedy of Alex being caught in the middle because the condition ties pain and revulsion to the music that touches his soul so it’s supposed to be tragic but then in the film the tone is kind of uneven cause Alex is having this violent fantasy running through his head which indicates that Kubrick may not have fully understood the material but it wouldn’t be the first time an adaptation missed the point but still it’s one of the best movies ever Kubrick was right in a sense of how reality, a person’s soul will stop them from doing anything atrocious but that’s not what the writer was going for.
I'm not sure that this was placed in the future. In the scene were a newspaper was read by the father the date says 1977. It could just be a theatrical, metaphorical way of seeing the present in that time.
No, I've studied this film extensively, as it's my favorite movie. The future can be depicted right in the scene where Alex and his "droogs" steal and then use "a Durango 95'" to get around the city of New York, believe it or not, to eventually go to the outskirts of the suburbs, and commit the burglary and rape scene in an isolated home.
Me niether. There were dozens of accents a hundred years ago, but not in the 70s. But yeah, in the movie he says he lived by "the marina, Municipal flatbloc A" let me look that part up, bc i remember it throwing me into total confusion when I think he referred to New York.
Sorry, disregard my comment until I'm sure. The movie was on Hulu, so I go to check the movie, as I borrowed the book to a friend, and find out it's no longer on Hulu!...damn, man...I'm pissed. Why would they take it down? But anyways, I have some distant memory of hearing "New York" and how it made no sense to me. I don't want to be misleading, so, go w ur guess before mine, lol. K, ttyl ;)
The film shows the present or very near future, which was the late 70's. It's Kubrick's interpretation of the mechanisms of society and society itself.
I just watched 7 of stanley kubrick's films and I swear the god I have never seen such attention to small details as him . Literally every one of his movies has a rewatch value in them because you can't grab all details and plot from the first watch. And right now I'm depressed because I can't another director whose movies has such a beauty in them so can you please recommend someone who has similar style?
To me the part where his parole officer appears in his home is so disturbing, and smacking alex’s fist against his crotch. It’s something straight out of a weird nightmare I would have had as a kid.
@@haeleigh I’d compare it to a dream where your worst principal or school teacher enters your home and invades your privacy, or a dream where you’re naked in your school hallway and everyone is laughing at you
Hopefully no legal trouble comes from this version. I believe I got rid of all the music Serndip LLC flagged me for last time. I also rerecorded my lines and added a few touches. Thanks for all the support!
I think psychopaths are born like that, not sociopaths, but psychopaths nonetheless. I think they can learn to live with it and stay harmless though, especially considering 2% of ceos and 1% of the general population
I saw it as an extra viewing project for my psych class, I saw it and thought of it as an allegory for human free will, and the right for everyone to choose which power they act upon, their good or bad nature. People have to have an outlet for their nature and control over their own actions. Harry potter briefly deals with a similar theme, people are not split into good an evil, there is light and dark inside all of us, what determines out nature is what power we choose to act on. Alex has chosen to act on his evil nature but unnaturally made to conform to a sick sub for good nature. he looses his free will and thus a part of his humanity, much like seven of nine looses her humanity upon entering the collective, and then gains it back slowly upon entering voyagers crew.
Me Meno I have read the book mate. The film left out the last chapter completely in which Alex grows up and pretty much gets himself a life. He's in a cafe with his new friends, he has a picture clipped from a newspaper of a random baby, he's looking at it and imagining himself with a faceless nameless wife and a faceless nameless child. Then realises he really doesn't want to participate in violence and non-consensual sex anymore. Not because of his conditioning, but just because it has lost his interest. It ties up the story nicely but the movie just looped it off, leaving a lot of loose ends.
Alex Desmall I don't remember him truely showing empathy. Him being mentally ill wouldn't ruin the message of the movie. If you look at what sociopaths or psychopaths are like it certainly sounds like him. Although I haven't seen the movie in a while. I just have a different theory.
sadistic poser who surprise-punches people who can't fight back or faces a group when numbers are in his favor however runs to the priest for aid and protection when alone.
made the mistaque of watching this for the first time infront of my parents. thinking it would be similar to kubricks take on 'the shining' and '2001 a space odyssey'. needless to say it went off in under 15 minutes. i'll try watching it again in my Uni apartment if its worth a second chance.
I watched with my mom and she said "what in the holy hell is this were watching." I thought it was an appropriate first response to seeing this movie for the first time.
I whole-heartedly believe that this movie is about karma and the idea that we create our own hell, yet we are so egocentric with the psociopathic nature rooted in each of us through human nature, we refuse to change and that nobody really ever knows if someone is being genuine about anything, even themselves. Bad people will be bad. In the end, he didnt change, and there's no point? Maybe that's the point. Super prevelant in today's social media, self-centered, competitive, man-eat-man world where we hurt others in the process.
It's about post industrialism, and facets of English culture concerning generational warfare. A surreal film with realistic aspects, it is unique to the film world. The cinematography and color scheme creates a fun house effect. Sort of a reverse or inverted Oliver Twist.
I just recently read the book. And I have to say; the final chapter that was taken out of the American version of the book, and not featured in the movie, added a great new thought and meaning that I won't dare spoil here. But it's a shame it wasn't featured in the movie.
Alex sees Pete in the last chapter and Pete is with a woman and has a family. Alex wishes he had that and has nothing other than himself. He realizes the great picture of life the end great book read it
Yes it would’ve been a better ending to the movie honestly because in this movie we feel bad for Alex near the end but like he’s just going to do the same shit again so you isn’t feel bad anymore, it’s still a great movie though
he scratched his retinas irl after that, has to wear contacts i think. shelley duval had a nervous breakdown on the set of the shining. tom cruise got a stomach ulser on the set of eyes wide shut. some other stuff happened in full metal jacket that i can't remember. kubrick may be evil, but he makes a damn good film.
I rather think you're missing the central point of the story. Going back to its source material, the 1962 novella by Anthony Burgess, we find that, as a self-confessed 'lapsed' Catholic, Burgess was troubled by the fundamental issue of how organized religion viewed the human condition. In essence, Burgess was exploring the theme 'is it better to allow a man to choose evil than force him to be good?'. Indeed, Kubrick did introduce this theme to his movie but it was somewhat overshadowed by the sex and violence (that doesn't actually appear in the source material) that he appeared to convey for the shock value alone. Personally, I think it's a shame that Burgess's script for the movie was rejected - we might have had something more artful (if that were possible) yet also more thinking.
Eddie Willers What do you mean not in the book? There was even more violent and sexual things in the book than the film. There were some more sexual things added to the film like the old lady dying from a penis (which Kubrick contrasted with her attacking with a bust of Beethoven, showing how Alex's lust overcomes his intelligence) when in the book if I remember correctly he only strangled her, but Kubrick still took out a lot, like the beating and stripping of a scholar, or raising the age of the two around twelve year old girls Alex sleeps with in the book. Just because there's now imagery to show these acts taking place doesn't mean there's more of it, it just means you notice it more. The book is even more gruesome in its descriptions.
You're kidding, right? Yes, Burgess describes things sexual and violent, but with great circumspection. Don't confuse the literal words with the scene they paint and keep in mind that the original novel was published in 1962. In case you're not aware of the history of censorship in England, this pre-dates the lifting of the infamous 'Chatterley Ban' - the complete publication ban on DH Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover", on the grounds of obscenity. Burgess was not able to be bluntly literal as he would have faced the wrath of the Censor. He even had to have a character, in "Inside Mr Enderby" (published at around the same time) say, "for cough" - couldn't even use the asterisked 'f**k off' to issue an imperative to go forth and multiply. For example, in describing the afternoon's debauchery with two ten-year old girls, Alex tells us, "what was actually done that afternoon there is no need to describe, brothers, as you may easily guess all." whereas what follows is so obfuscated by Burgess's use of Nadsat that imagination is the only recourse the reader. That was Burgess's genius.
Eddie Willers You say it was Burgess's genius to not tell too much as a writing mechanism, but you also say he did it only to get past the censors, implying he would have wanted to include more vulgar things but had to avoid outright saying it only to appease the censors. That seems contradictory. Anyway, I argue that the book is viciously cruel in its descriptions, but he uses either the part Russian made up lingo or Alex's own disorienting state of mind to distort the interactions into something the censors would not get angry over, but close readers would be able to see the true horrors. Even if you disagree with me, you have to admit that there are more violent and sexual acts (shown or not) that take place in the book than the film.
As I recall, there was plenty of sex and violence in the book. The effect was blunted a bit by it being described in a fictional slang that the writer made up. But it was there all right.
Eddie Willers Kubrick didn't inject violence for shock value, he got it straight from the book. Moreover, I think the message comes out just as well as in the book, which is about state control vs individual freedom.
@@djsixto62 I have a few, but to be honest most of the gruesome films have to be streamed online, because they’ve been banned from public viewing. The Human Centipede 2 I would say is deeply disturbing and surpasses the first one surprisingly.
He's a sociopath, albeit a pretend one. Most everyone else are conformists, miserably conformed, or wish to be, as it were. Interesting interpretation.
I watched this and it is truly beautiful. I think I've been cured too after watching. The music always playing in the back of each scene and it's unique aspect, feel its horrifying when something is happening. this movie makes my blood boil and my anxiety skyrocket, my heart pump, and I think my love for classical music is gone.
I did get the idea that artificial reform was bad, but I felt more like the message of the movie was “would people even accept a criminal into a society, even if they could never commit crimes again?” I mean, it’s enforced almost the whole time Alex is out of prison. When his parents kick him out, when the homeless beat him up, when his ex-partners in crime beat him up, and then when the journalist tortures him.
A beautifully put synopsis on a beautiful film, a masterpiece in every sense of the word and it is truly wonderful to hear the true undertones of the film put into words of such clarity.
Can you do an analysis of Requiem for a Dream, Citizen Kane, Schindler's List, Apocalypse Now or City of God, please. Great video by the way. I really enjoy your channel.
In Kubrick's movie we see a lot of themes from the ancient Greek tragedy "Oedipus", especially the cat lady scene and the beginning of the movie are a strong evidence of this.
i knew there was a connection between Tommy's and Stanley's work. Who couldn't notice it? You should do your own video and compare/analyze the films together and their similarities.
I also feel like a large theme of this movie is Good vs. Evil. How everything good has a bit of evil, and everything evil has a bit a good. This is shown through the violent scenes, that they have classical music playing in the background. Also, from how when Alex is talking about the bible, the main thing he gets from it is the sex and violence
I absolutely loved the unhinged chaos of this movie. So much so that I bought the book after watching this. Whether it had a deeper meaning or not, it’s completely charming in its strange, exaggerated and perverted reality. It touches a note in our own existence meanwhile being completely surreal.
Main theme of the film is everyone has good and evil, it's all up to your own perception. We see this at the end of the film with flowers and a fake happy smile for alex and the minister. The perception is changed to see the government is good. Alex is not cured by the government, by he is cured because he is back to his normal self, not an artificial being
I've watched this channel with absolute amazement that you could just clarify these messes like this. Ive watched these movies years ago and only half got the idea. Thank you for bringing clarity and peace.
Did any other viewer of the film notice when he was in prison and not in society, he never broke a SINGLE rule. So, over a year, he never got in a fight with a single prisoner. (men were winking at him). The priest agreed he never got in any trouble there. He cured himself on his own. Then he wanted the experiment, only to be released early. I don't think he was faking in prison. Remember, "the cure" didn't even exist when he entered. It was society that made him a maniac. I always found that a crucial point in this story. I think Kubrick was suggesting he cured himself in prison, when RULES were in place. Outside those walls, with barely any rules or structure in this "future society", he becomes a maniac. People need structure - I believe is the real message. Without rule and law, people (not all), will become like him.
THIS this is what I was looking for, I’ve watched the movie 3 times and looked for all the reviews and analysts that I could find, but I still couldn’t get it to click in my head. THIS comment is what made me understand thank you
Just finished watching it, very weirded out and disturbed, but it was beautiful written and shot, Stanley Kubrick is a master behind the camera. Keen to watch more of his films
I watched "A Clockwork Orange" by chance in 1989 as an 11year old at a slumber party. While everyone else passed out. Me and nother boy were still up watching cable and it came on like Cinemax or HBO. I don't think we ever blinked once during whole movie. It was literally life changing for me. Like 2 years later hearing Nirvana for first time. So forever if I ever saw that friend we would say. "..singing in rain, just singing in rain." Cuz he wasnt really a close friend but a friend. So literally all way up till we graduated High School 6 years later in 1995? We would STILL talk bout the night we accidentally watched "A Clockwork Orange." Weird irony? Found out decades later "A Clockwork Orange" was set in not so distant future of 1995. Alex's 95 Durango
Kubrick birthday was July 26th. His astrological sign was Leo. Leo (Jul 23 - August 22) _They love drama, theatrics, and encouraging others to express their true selves. Leo Power Color: *Orange*. There's nothing more head-turning than the color orange, and the bold color is just what a Leo needs to feel at home._
People always think "I wouldn't do that" or simply can't imagine doing what Alex does. Because society as a whole can't even comprehend the fact, that violence and any sort of monstrous behavior, is as human as loving another person. That is why I find it near impossible to judge anyone, even the worst of people. Because I always wonder "am I any better?". Take the scene where Alex is slapped, pushed to the ground, and forced to lick another mans boot. Like you can really tell the man stepping on top of Alex and hurting him, enjoys it as much Alex would enjoy it in his natural state. Karmic justice or not, is anyone really any better? It's like watching people torture a Lion without its teeth or claws. Honestly that just makes me hate the guy even more and sympathize with Alex. Its one thing to be a violent asshole, its another to be a cowardly violent asshole. And you can tell how cowardly he is because of how tame his violence is compared to Alex. Almost like he would never commit any sort of violence, unless it is permitted or deemed "okay". That just shows you how fucked the human race is right there. Say what you will about Alex, but at least there are some qualities in his character that I like and he's honest with himself. Most people rationalize their actions, or need a good excuse. Psychopaths at the very least can admit to themselves "I enjoy it".
Not even close to our society, unless you live in North Korea witch you don’t. Our reform systems are very much flawed but we don’t torture people. Unless they are suspected terrorists and it’s outside of the country. You comment is so corny
That was actually pretty well explained. I didn’t think you were gonna go anywhere with it at first. I see k8nd of a central conflict in the movie as beng “man vs nature” in that kind of poses the question, does man administer justice, or does justice unfold on it’s own? ,Because in the movie, after the main character has his “treatment” which is supposed to be this man made cure to the problems of delinquency in society, what ends up developing in the aftermath is justice administers itself by way of Karma. These events of Karma unfold quite methodically in terms of the screenplay after his man-made treatment, so the central question becomes, is he reaping what he sowed by force of natural justice, or is it due to the political interference? Anarchy vs Control. Man vs nature. Which administers justice better? Both are at play, so it leaves the viewer to ponder.
this is just a bunch of baffling crap from a emo's diary are you joking me did you even watch this film or do you over think things to the point that you lose focus on the ideals that is the storyline to the film the movie is broken down into simple things you just overthought the film to a nonsensical amount of emo bull shit re-watch this video after reading this comment and tell me some emo isn't going on about a bunch of bull shit it may sound smart to a moron but someone with a good iq will know what I'm talking about
The movie is a political masterpiece on how the 3 major ideologies of the 20th century (fascism communism and democracy) handle "evil". Fascism tries to educate it; communism try to eradicate it: and democracy feeds it to serve its own agenda. Its a very straightforward film actually, if you are not politically dim.
the ludovico technique was taken from a real life psychiatric method that was being used back in the day to correct behaviour issues, even tho not quite as dramatic as seen in the movie. The concept of a government imposing itself on indivuals blocking all possibilities of freethinking is very much related totalitarianism. Infact when Alex is going through his treatment in front of the big screen, one can see that one of the images being flashed at him was the Nazi svastica. Kubrik also used the pyramid to convey this concept, one can see it on several promotional posters and ads or in the movie, on the prison's wall, the pyramid which represents society's traditional hierarchy model.
my uncle, babysitting us for my mom, took us to the movies. A Clockwork Orange was playing. I was 8, one brother 7, and the other brother, 3 yrs old. wtf? going to watch it again for the first time since I was 8, to see what it was I saw then. would be interesting to see it again with my brothers ... but one is ill right now, the youngest died at age 50 .. paranoid schizophrenic , he died of a forced overdose by his ex- wife whom he met at the psychiatric facility in Hickory NC. major dramas like this in my life ... think I will start a journal that no one wants to read.
0:25 "The specific ... year [is] not disclosed." Actually, it is. In the scene with Alex's parents and the boarder reading newspapers after Alex's release from prison, Alex's mother can be seen reading The Daily Telegraph (at 1-28-29), right above her teacup is the date: August 1970. That's not the date of the newspaper, though. It's a notice of an increase in the circulation of The Telegraph since the previous year (August 1969). Since it was for the entire month of August, this article must have been posted after, probably sometime in the beginning of September 1970. Since Alex spent two years in prison, the very start of the movie must have been sometime in 1968. AND ... since the world in the movie doesn't resemble anything that happened here, A Clockwork Orange must take place on an alternate universe, which diverged from our timeline sometime after WWII. (BTW, that is the only date seen or spoken in that entire movie (and I looked hard) -- just that one instance I just stated above. Any keen-eyed viewers want to prove me wrong on this, I welcome it.) Mistake? Or was it deliberate? IMHO, I don't think it was an accident. The camera lingers on their newspapers for a few seconds each, long enough for someone to spot it, even without pressing pause, which didn't even exist then. Watch that scene again yourself, - don't take my word for it. I always thought of A clockwork Orange (the book very much more so than the film) as a cautionary tale, like George Orwell's 1984. "If you don't watch your step, the world could be like this, so be careful!" :-)
I am so confused. In the book he is utterly helpless -- totally evil to the core, and then he just "grows up" and stops. And in the movie everyone is corrupt and hopeless, and Alex never improves. Either way, I am still struggling to see the parallels to much of society.
It's the concept of being trapped in duality, a farce, bizarre, something unreal. That can be archieved through mind control. The state of the current society.
I got to speak with Malcom McDowell during a screening of Clockwork Orange, (The sex scene made me uncomfortable to talk to him during wierd) He said the eye clasps were so painful after a friend came to his house and gave him a needle of morphine, and he said it was heavenly and he went to sleep. He also didn't like Kubrick very much. He did some odd stuff on set just to bug him, like during the sex scene he knew Kubrick had a thing for brunettes, so after Kubrick yelled cut he kept going, Kubrick yelled again he kept going and finally he said Kubrick screamed at him to stop cause he said he knew Kubrick was getting turned on. There was a lot of other cool stuff he told me it was one of the coolest experiences I ever had. Oh I just want to say he said the lady in red he rapes she had a scratchy voice and he said she was such a filthy mouthed lady, she'd goad them on to do worse. Yeah it was odd but awesome.
seen it a few times out of the glorification of it and the fact kubrick banned it in the uk and read the book - still think both are shit - am i missing something ?????
The face of the Minister is similar to that of David Lee Rockefeller, big nose ears etc. The prison wall- the pyramid. On stage when Alex was" cured" the light is also of pyramid shape .In the center Rockefeller and Alex - in the light- in latin means lluminatus…
Ever since I saw this at home in the 80s, I thought it was one of the best films of all time.... The scene where alex attacks his droogs and cuts Dim's hand is my vote for the best movie scene of all time. I would look at Alex as a modern version of an ancient Greek "Tragic Hero", like in a Sophocles play. Alex suffers from the greatest ancient crime against the Gods, namely hubris, and is punished for it. He tries to control everything and everyone, being a big fish in a little pond-- only to be slapped down, becoming a non-existent fish in a big pond. The last line, "I was cured, all right." is the best last line in movie history.
@@joesmith9216 he has fantasies of having sex, which means he is back to his old-self, the people standing and clapping mean that Alex is now with government and can do whatever he wants and people cheer him up for it
I remember first reading the book my freshman year of high school, 1996. Kubrick’s portrayal was naturally excellent, but the dystopian feel of the actual book is even more vividly unsettling. The gang uniforms were also way cooler in the book; Alex’s codpiece, for example, bore the menacing image of a spider. I don’t know where the clothing inspiration came from for the film, but it was still good. If you haven’t read the book yet, please do. It’s fantastic.
