121–130 of 170 posts
I don't have a lot to add but I'm impressed at the level of discourse.
I have read both versions of the book and seen the movie several times, there are lots of interesting ideas presented here at HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
One of the weirdest and most interesting things I've ever seen was how this crazy book created gang violence by illustrating dystopian gang violence...And I can guarantee you that some of the youth ("hooligans") in England that were committing Droog gang violence -- inspired by this book -- have reformed as elderly adults. It's not unrealistic. When you remove people out of cults and gangs and they begin to self-refl…
I do think people change, but it happens slowly, not quickly. Kubrick's ending still leaves us with the ability to imagine an older, wiser, regretful Alex. But you can't credibly force that into his youth, and the movie is already 2 hours 15 mins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what editors are supposed to do. And authors gaining editorial control is why so many books later in a popular author's career are worse and worse - no one able to trim them. As examples I'll pick Neal Stephenson and J.K. Rowling. Even the fans have to notice how their work has gotten bigger and sloppier.
Honestly, Neal Stephenson's later writings are awesome. I don't think he's gotten sloppier at all.
But I think that has to do with the clear change in his writing style, which has diverged from my personal tastes. So it's not a judgement call on his writing either way -- we've just grown apart.
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 found the movie itself to be very unrealistic. Something in the way it looked (costumes and everything) and the way actors acted and talked made me not believe any of it. It felt more like comic movie then something that attempts to be realistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? It was clear right from the series start that he has problem with the drug.
His problem is that others disapprove. He goes cold turkey a couple times and proves that he's in actual pain. I ain't watched much of the show for a while, my wife is fond of it.
This doesn't contradict the fact that he's an addict, which is clearly portrayed in the show from the very beginning.
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…
A Clockwork Orange is not about a happy ending in which a young, violent and brilliant teenager finally decides to get an apartment and a job; it's about that teenager realising that he can channel his violence in a much more productive way. Or to put it more clearly: the minister that spoon-feeds him at the end is a psychopath possibly worse than Alex- but one in a suit, with vast resources and power, because he uses violence in a more covert and clever way. So the growth of the main character that we expect at the end of a good story is there, it's just not a happy ending (for us).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
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 ..."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the weirdest and most interesting things I've ever seen was how this crazy book created gang violence by illustrating dystopian gang violence...And I can guarantee you that some of the youth ("hooligans") in England that were committing Droog gang violence -- inspired by this book -- have reformed as elderly adults. It's not unrealistic. When you remove people out of cults and gangs and they begin to self-refl…
Are you really suggesting that real gang violence was caused by a novel?
You also hear examples of "suburban father tries to make meth because of Breaking Bad" but those are one-off individuals who are probably not of sound judgment.