Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

english.elpais.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 170 posts

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#111

Post by abecedarius »

jyunwai wrote: post #9
donatj wrote: post #3

> The 2023 documentary Orange mécanique, les rouages de la violence (in English, A clockwork orange: the prophecy) I don't speak French, and yet something leads me to believe that's not a direct translation.

A direct translation is: "A Clockwork Orange, the workings (machinery pieces [1]) of violence." An even more literal alternative is: "A mechanical orange, the machinery pieces of violence." [1] https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/rouage/69972

I would've said the gears of violence (though French is a second language for me).

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#112

Post by tsujamin »

I remember when, in our high-school english class, the teacher asked us to reflect on Chapter 21 of A Clockwork Orange and a girl in the back of the class interjected "but there's only 20 chapters in my book!". Turns out the school had both the English and American editions co-mingled.

The omission of that chapter in the American book and Kubrick's adaption undercuts the whole point of the story in my opinion. When the film ended, I felt like my time had been wasted and that I'd been dragged back to the beginning all over again.

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#113

Post by haspok »

AlexandrB wrote: post #67
blindriver wrote: post #20

Kubrick’s version was a failure because he missed the most important part and the last few pages of the book. In the book at the very end Alex decides out of his own free will to stop being violent. Which is the entire point of the book: free will vs being forced to do something. It’s so powerful, I don’t think any book affected as much as that did at the time. Kubrick focused on the violence and the rapes and by lea…

This take reminds me of how Stephen King considers Kubrick's The Shining a terrible film[1]. I had the misfortune of accidentally renting the Stephen King approved The Shining miniseries[2], and I have to say - it's worse in every way: slow, plodding, and forgettable. I can't comment how either compares to the book - I've never read it - but the Kubrick version is the superior film. This is all a long way of saying t…

Or take Tarkovsky: both Stalker and Solaris are based on books, but only loosely. Stalker, for example, was a short sci-fi / horror story, if I remember correctly, and in the movie this is just a remote backstory, setting the scene to more serious topics and mysticism.

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#114

Post by mycodendral »

spillguard wrote: post #106
mycodendral wrote: post #29

I've never met anyone who has interpreted either the novel or film to glorify violence.

> I've never met anyone who has interpreted either the novel or film to glorify violence. From the article: "Kubrick himself, in response to a series of murder trials where the defendants explicitly mentioned his work ..."

I meant personally. I'm not saying psychopaths don't exist. It would make sense that psychopaths would identify with the story, as it's about them.

I'm saying the story is not a call to violence for normal individuals.

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#115

Post by westmeal »

haspok wrote: post #113
AlexandrB wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This take reminds me of how Stephen King considers Kubrick's The Shining a terrible film[1]. I had the misfortune of accidentally renting the Stephen King approved The Shining miniseries[2], and I have to say - it's worse in every way: slow, plodding, and forgettable. I can't comment how either compares to the book - I've never read it - but the Kubrick version is the superior film. This is all a long way of saying t…

Or take Tarkovsky: both Stalker and Solaris are based on books, but only loosely. Stalker, for example, was a short sci-fi / horror story, if I remember correctly, and in the movie this is just a remote backstory, setting the scene to more serious topics and mysticism.

I haven't seen Solaris but Stalker really really sucked.

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#116

Post by jhbadger »

hnbad wrote: post #76
AlexandrB wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This take reminds me of how Stephen King considers Kubrick's The Shining a terrible film[1]. I had the misfortune of accidentally renting the Stephen King approved The Shining miniseries[2], and I have to say - it's worse in every way: slow, plodding, and forgettable. I can't comment how either compares to the book - I've never read it - but the Kubrick version is the superior film. This is all a long way of saying t…

Stephen King is not a filmmaker. There used to be a running joke that you can judge the quality of a Stephen King adoptation by whether he liked it: if he liked it, it was likely trash; if he didn't, it was likely good. The problem is that films are not books (shocking, I know) and what works in one medium of storytelling doesn't necessarily work in the other. As in actual translation, there has to be some liberty in…

>Stephen King is not a filmmaker.

You haven't seen Maximum Overdrive then. You fortunate, fortunate person.

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#117

Post by CM30 »

sevagh wrote: post #16

Tangential: I remember reading a criticism about the South Park ginger episode leading to redheads getting bullied. I was curious (and still haven't wrapped my head around) what blame can be placed, if any. 1. Shitty people had latent bullying and cruelty instincts and South Park gave them the idea of diverting that to redheads 2. People were just chilling until South Park taught them to be cruel and bully gingers

Sadly, it's probably the first one. Awful people were bullying others for all sorts of reasons before that episode, and have done so for all sorts of other reasons afterwards too. If someone wants to be a bully, they'll find something to bully others about regardless of how their victim looks or acts.

On a related note, it's interesting that folks in the US tie the anti redhead thing to South Park, given it's been an unfortunate prejudice here in the UK (and presumably other commonwealth countries) for decades. I guess that episode ended up importing a prejudice from one country to another?

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#118

Post by polygotdomain »

I think the most important aspect of "A Clockwork Orange" is it's use of language as a literary tool. It's also key to its misunderstanding, as it tends to lead towards secondary interpretations (i.e. Kubrick's film) more than the text itself.

In addition to freewill being a key theme in the book, the nadsat language is used to disassociate the reader from the actions and events partaken in by the narrator. Alex describes in clear detail the fact that he's beating the crap out of old ladies in the book, but you, the reader, don't interpret it that way. Those acts are hidden behind a language that doesn't hold the same connotations to you, the reader, so you don'tt look at Alex the same way because of it.

Conversely when his punishment and "re-education" begins you view that as harsh and inhumane, because those things are expressed in more familiar terms simply because the reader is more comfortable with the language Alex uses. Worse, he had something that he loved taken away from him (his classical music), which you understand wholeheartedly as the reader.

The fact that Alex punishment was arguably justified (if not grotesque in it's own way), is something that's missed because language disassociates the crime and amplifies the impact of the punishment. It makes you question the humaneness of criminal punishment, because it's expressed from a perspective rarely portrayed.

All of these things are completely lost once the story is taken into any visual medium. The idea of making it a film was flawed before Kubrick even touched the project, and any other director would have struggled to have the same impact as the book. I genuinely think that the project attracted Kubrick for the wrong reasons and he was far more interested in making something provocative, which "A Clockwork Orange" had plenty of opportunities.

If you haven't read "A Clockwork Orange", I strongly recommend you do, and I strongly recommend reading it as quickly and in as short a timeline as possible. Understanding the language is key, and it makes it a slow read at the start. The quicker you can become familiar with it, the easier the rest of it goes.

Then after you're done reading it, reread it again. Being familiar with the language from the start makes some of the more graphic scenes at the start really stand out in a way that they don't the first read through.

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#119

Post by hindsightbias »

mordymoop wrote: post #89
ryandamm wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree, having read the book and seen the movie. The “point” of the book is irrelevant; chapter 21 is disconnected from the main text, set at some remove from the events in the previous chapters, and utterly banal. It’s an extended internal monologue of the most boring sort where the author states his moral. But the best works of literature, in my opinion, transcend simple morality tales and touch someth…

To hear Burgess talk about his book, one would never realize that it is a comedy. The book is extremely funny, darkly funny obviously, but still uproariously absurd and filled with set pieces that possess the structure of comedy. The subject of humor is usually Alex’s misfortunes and the consequences he reaps from his terrible choices. He is a sort of George Costanza figure painted in shades of ultraviolence. Burgess…

> Veerhoven's

I stopped talking to people about the film because I discovered that most of them didn't see it as satire or think the book (which they read as teens) was proto-fascist.

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#120

Post by JohnFen »

Hasu wrote: post #52
blindriver wrote: post #20

Kubrick’s version was a failure because he missed the most important part and the last few pages of the book. In the book at the very end Alex decides out of his own free will to stop being violent. Which is the entire point of the book: free will vs being forced to do something. It’s so powerful, I don’t think any book affected as much as that did at the time. Kubrick focused on the violence and the rapes and by lea…

> Kubrick’s version was a failure because he missed the most important part and the last few pages of the book. The American version of the book doesn't have the final chapter, and was the basis for Kubrick's film. He was aware of the final chapter but never considered using it, as he didn't agree with Burgess and thought it didn't make sense (this was also the opinion of the American editor who had the final chapter…

> I think the film is a masterpiece and the book's original ending is unrealistic nonsense.

I think the film is very good, but the book's original ending is is essential to the whole point of the story. The film is inferior to the book because it's missing.

But I'm not sure what you mean by "unrealistic". On one level, neither the book nor movie is very realistic anyway. On a deeper level, they both speak real truths.

Post reply on HN