Discussion:
A clockwork orange
(too old to reply)
Krustov
2005-03-14 13:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Do you find it rather amusing that many people will be watching or
taping this tonight thinking its going to be a good film .

My only memory of it is a pile of crap .
Sam Nelson
2005-03-14 13:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krustov
Do you find it rather amusing that many people will be watching or
taping this tonight thinking its going to be a good film .
My only memory of it is a pile of crap .
It's interesting as an experiment, but experiments do fail.
--
SAm. All sweeping generalisations are false
Krustov
2005-03-14 14:01:31 UTC
Permalink
<uk.media.tv.misc , Sam Nelson , ***@ssrl.org.uk>
<d14583$i9t$***@dulnain.stir.ac.uk>
<Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:57:23 +0000 (UTC)>
Post by Sam Nelson
Post by Krustov
Do you find it rather amusing that many people will be watching or
taping this tonight thinking its going to be a good film .
My only memory of it is a pile of crap .
It's interesting as an experiment, but experiments do fail.
15 / 03 / 2005 CH4 Tuesday 11:05 pm CRIMES OF PASSION
Part of the CH4 banned season .

Kathleen Turner play a successful fashion designer who becomes a high
price prostitute at night .


This film looks a bit more interesting - has anybody seen it .
--
www.krustov.co.uk
(krustys tv pick of the week)
Mark A
2005-03-14 17:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krustov
Kathleen Turner play a successful fashion designer who becomes a high
price prostitute at night .
This film looks a bit more interesting - has anybody seen it .
Typically over-wrought Ken Russell effort. But probably worth a watch
anyway.

Regards

Mark
Von Gibbling
2005-03-14 20:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark A
Post by Krustov
Kathleen Turner play a successful fashion designer who becomes a high
price prostitute at night .
This film looks a bit more interesting - has anybody seen it .
Typically over-wrought Ken Russell effort.
He made one too ?
Presumably a homage to the Kubrik production. ;)

But probably worth a watch
Post by Mark A
anyway.
Regards
Mark
sofa-spud
2005-03-14 14:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krustov
Do you find it rather amusing that many people will be watching or
taping this tonight thinking its going to be a good film .
My only memory of it is a pile of crap .
The last time it was on TV we watched it and it was a cringemaking pile of
late 60's early 70's tosh.
Goody goody gumdrops
2005-03-14 14:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by sofa-spud
Post by Krustov
Do you find it rather amusing that many people will be watching or
taping this tonight thinking its going to be a good film .
My only memory of it is a pile of crap .
The last time it was on TV we watched it and it was a cringemaking pile of
late 60's early 70's tosh.
The 'Singin in the rain' dance sequence was amusing!
Von Gibbling
2005-03-14 15:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goody goody gumdrops
Post by sofa-spud
Post by Krustov
Do you find it rather amusing that many people will be watching or
taping this tonight thinking its going to be a good film .
My only memory of it is a pile of crap .
The last time it was on TV we watched it and it was a cringemaking
pile of late 60's early 70's tosh.
I think 'tosh' is being too charitable.
There's only one conceivable explanation for what inspired such crap : -
acid !
Post by Goody goody gumdrops
The 'Singin in the rain' dance sequence was amusing!
LJM
2005-03-14 16:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Friends, Von Gibbling, countrymen, lend me your newsreaders:
[..]
I think 'tosh' is being too charitable. There's only one conceivable
explanation for what inspired such crap : - acid !
I don't think it was really being used recreationally when Anthony
Burgess wrote it.
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Von Gibbling
2005-03-14 19:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
[..]
I think 'tosh' is being too charitable. There's only one conceivable
explanation for what inspired such crap : - acid !
I don't think it was really being used recreationally when Anthony
Burgess wrote it.
But it was being used ? ;)
LJM
2005-03-14 19:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Von Gibbling
Post by LJM
[..]
I think 'tosh' is being too charitable. There's only one conceivable
explanation for what inspired such crap : - acid !
I don't think it was really being used recreationally when Anthony
Burgess wrote it.
But it was being used ? ;)
In 1962? For medical research perhaps. We were still a few years away
from using it recreationally.
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Grant
2005-03-14 19:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
Post by Von Gibbling
Post by LJM
[..]
I think 'tosh' is being too charitable. There's only one conceivable
explanation for what inspired such crap : - acid !
I don't think it was really being used recreationally when Anthony
Burgess wrote it.
But it was being used ? ;)
In 1962? For medical research perhaps. We were still a few years away
from using it recreationally.
Aldous Huxley was dropping acid in 1955.
LJM
2005-03-14 19:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grant
Post by LJM
Post by Von Gibbling
Post by LJM
[..]
I think 'tosh' is being too charitable. There's only one conceivable
explanation for what inspired such crap : - acid !
I don't think it was really being used recreationally when Anthony
Burgess wrote it.
But it was being used ? ;)
In 1962? For medical research perhaps. We were still a few years away
from using it recreationally.
Aldous Huxley was dropping acid in 1955.
Really? I thought it was only being used for things like psychiatric
research around that time.
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Sam Nelson
2005-03-14 20:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
Post by Grant
Post by LJM
Post by Von Gibbling
Post by LJM
[..]
I think 'tosh' is being too charitable. There's only one conceivable
explanation for what inspired such crap : - acid !
I don't think it was really being used recreationally when Anthony
Burgess wrote it.
But it was being used ? ;)
In 1962? For medical research perhaps. We were still a few years away
from using it recreationally.
Aldous Huxley was dropping acid in 1955.
Really? I thought it was only being used for things like psychiatric
research around that time.
Doors Of Perception was published in 1954. Dr Hofmann seems to have
taken his (first?) trip in 1943.
--
SAm.
LJM
2005-03-14 20:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Nelson
Post by LJM
Post by Grant
Post by LJM
Post by Von Gibbling
Post by LJM
[..]
I think 'tosh' is being too charitable. There's only one conceivable
explanation for what inspired such crap : - acid !
I don't think it was really being used recreationally when Anthony
Burgess wrote it.
But it was being used ? ;)
In 1962? For medical research perhaps. We were still a few years
away from using it recreationally.
Aldous Huxley was dropping acid in 1955.
Really? I thought it was only being used for things like psychiatric
research around that time.
Doors Of Perception was published in 1954. Dr Hofmann seems to have
taken his (first?) trip in 1943.
But he was responsible for its synthesis wasn't he? It was a select few
investigating the substance and getting high on it...and I was under the
impression that it was little known about before 1962 (when AB would've
been writing ACO).
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Andy Clews
2005-03-14 16:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by sofa-spud
The last time it was on TV we watched it and it was a cringemaking pile of
late 60's early 70's tosh.
Yebbut it was groundbreaking stuff when it was first shown back in 1972(?).
Thirty years from now people will be pouring scorn on some of the films we
regard as good today, I'm sure.
--
Andy Clews University of Sussex IT Services
(Remove DENTURES if replying by email)
frankie
2005-03-14 16:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Andy Clews on Monday 14 March 2005 16:17 in message
Post by Andy Clews
Post by sofa-spud
The last time it was on TV we watched it and it was a cringemaking pile
of late 60's early 70's tosh.
Yebbut it was groundbreaking stuff when it was first shown back in
1972(?). Thirty years from now people will be pouring scorn on some of the
films we regard as good today, I'm sure.
damn sorry thought this was a post about the glasgow underground
--
-\|/-
LJM
2005-03-14 17:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Clews
Post by sofa-spud
The last time it was on TV we watched it and it was a cringemaking pile of
late 60's early 70's tosh.
Yebbut it was groundbreaking stuff when it was first shown back in
1972(?). Thirty years from now people will be pouring scorn on some
of the films we regard as good today, I'm sure.
The premise is actually quite interesting but I think it works much
better in print. Unfortunately though, a lot of people put it down
before getting to the second page due to the NADSAT...which they
inevitably complain about for being too difficult and/or pretentious.
It's a shame really because NADSAT is one of A Clockwork Orange's major
strengths. Just as Alex is brainwashed by Ludovico's Technique, the
reader is brainwashed into learning minimal Russian. (You suddenly have
a vocabulary of about 200 words by the end of it.) Clever touches like
that were never going to be conveyed via film...and viewers without an
artistic eye were never going to decipher the symbolism (both audio and
visual) if they hadn't read the book. Talk about a film made for a
select audience! ;)
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Frank Booth Snr
2005-03-14 21:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
The premise is actually quite interesting but I think it works much
better in print. Unfortunately though, a lot of people put it down
before getting to the second page due to the NADSAT...which they
inevitably complain about for being too difficult and/or pretentious.
It's a shame really because NADSAT is one of A Clockwork Orange's major
strengths.
Yeah! Whatever NADSAT happens to be???
osc
2005-03-14 23:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Booth Snr
Post by LJM
The premise is actually quite interesting but I think it works much
better in print. Unfortunately though, a lot of people put it down
before getting to the second page due to the NADSAT...which they
inevitably complain about for being too difficult and/or pretentious.
It's a shame really because NADSAT is one of A Clockwork Orange's major
strengths.
Yeah! Whatever NADSAT happens to be???
As always... if in doubt, Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadsat
Johannes H Andersen
2005-03-14 17:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krustov
Do you find it rather amusing that many people will be watching or
taping this tonight thinking its going to be a good film .
My only memory of it is a pile of crap .
Some of the scenes was filmed in corridors and gangways of my old university.
It was supposed to be part of the asylum :-)
Johannes H Andersen
2005-03-14 17:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johannes H Andersen
Post by Krustov
Do you find it rather amusing that many people will be watching or
taping this tonight thinking its going to be a good film .
My only memory of it is a pile of crap .
Some of the scenes was filmed in corridors and gangways of my old university.
It was supposed to be part of the asylum :-)
Found it: http://www.brunel.ac.uk/research/qi/aco/gallery.html
Major Major
2005-03-14 19:35:44 UTC
Permalink
It's a brilliant film. Undeniably one or two of the humorous moments
slip into ludicrous farce - that's the nature of experimentalism. But
taken as a whole, the film is disturbing, compelling and very bold.
Kubrick is a superb director and anything he does merits respect;
MacDowell turns in a stunning performance.

It isn't as well-rounded as Performance, for example, but it is
certainly a classic of Brit film-making.

MM
LJM
2005-03-14 20:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Major Major
It's a brilliant film. Undeniably one or two of the humorous moments
slip into ludicrous farce - that's the nature of experimentalism. But
taken as a whole, the film is disturbing, compelling and very bold.
Kubrick is a superb director and anything he does merits respect;
MacDowell turns in a stunning performance.
It isn't as well-rounded as Performance, for example, but it is
certainly a classic of Brit film-making.
Rape, violence, sexual sadism, one woman having the circle of her
sweater around her bosom cut out with a knife....and you want to ban
Mullen's posts on account that they might be offensive to women? Even
Malcolm McDowell said that Liberals would hate that film. So where do
you draw the line exactly?
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Major Major
2005-03-14 20:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Reading your posts.

PS. In case your brains have fallen out tonight, A Clockwork Orange
*condemns* the precise things you have highlighted. In contrast, The
Mullen et al openly glory in their sexist and Onanistic nonsense.

The words 'foot', 'shot' and 'yourself' spring to mind.
LJM
2005-03-14 20:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Major Major
Reading your posts.
PS. In case your brains have fallen out tonight, A Clockwork Orange
*condemns* the precise things you have highlighted.
No it doesn't. The Clockwork Orange is merely a work of art and it
doesn't, in itself, condemn anything. It is up to the reader/viewer to
interpret the metaphors, symbols and ideas within it. More to the
point, this particular work of art was banned due to fear of emulation.
Post by Major Major
In contrast, The
Mullen et al openly glory in their sexist and Onanistic nonsense.
The Mullen is pretty much a one man show.
Post by Major Major
The words 'foot', 'shot' and 'yourself' spring to mind.
The words 'failed', 'to', 'address' and 'issues' springs to mind.
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Krustov
2005-03-14 20:23:24 UTC
Permalink
<uk.media.tv.misc , LJM , ***@gmail.com>
<***@gmail.com>
<14 Mar 2005 20:18:03 GMT>
Post by LJM
The
Post by Major Major
Mullen et al openly glory in their sexist and Onanistic nonsense.
The Mullen is pretty much a one man show.
The mullen has yet to state one way or the other if he can change hands
without missing a beat - what gives you the right (or left) to make an
assumption like that .
--
www.krustov.co.uk
(krustys tv pick of the week)
Major Major
2005-03-14 20:24:48 UTC
Permalink
You are talking rollocks, dear chap, absolute rollocks. Presumably you
would have us believe that 1984 was not a bleak satirical fantasy but
"...merely a work of art..." which doesn't "..in itself, condemn
anything."

Any shrewd adult could reasonaby guess that both Burgess and Kubrick
were making powerful social observations even without familiarising
themselves with the originals. But a student of such things knows
absolutely that "A Clockwork Orange" is acres more than a 'mere..work
of art'.

MM

('Good griefing' at LJM's sheer bloody obstinacy.)
Major Major
2005-03-14 20:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Really, all one need do is surf the internet and refer to the IMDB
website to validate that the overwhelming consensus opinion is that ACO
is a brilliant, disturbing and highly political film.
Izo
2005-03-14 21:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Major Major spat
Post by Major Major
You are talking rollocks, dear chap, absolute rollocks. Presumably you
would have us believe that 1984 was not a bleak satirical fantasy but
"...merely a work of art..." which doesn't "..in itself, condemn
anything."
No, because 1984 isn't A Clockwork Orange.
--
Izo
LJM
2005-03-14 21:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Major Major
You are talking rollocks, dear chap, absolute rollocks.
How very patronising of you (again) dear chap.
Post by Major Major
Presumably you
would have us believe that 1984 was not a bleak satirical fantasy but
"...merely a work of art..." which doesn't "..in itself, condemn
anything."
So now you're comparing a film like A Clockwork Orange which relies more
on vivid visualisation than dialogue for narrative purposes, to a film
(?) / book like 1984 which is staged / narrated in the traditional
fashion? That seems a bit bizarre "dear chap".

My problem was with your statement that A Clockwork Orange concerns
itself with condemning violence and sexual violence.

Such a declaration is never actually made, and the average filmgoer is
unlikely to deduce such a message of condemnation from the book or film
because it encourages little empathy towards anybody but the central,
most violent character (Alex). The intellectual author and his wife
(who was raped) are as symbolic of the rotten mechanical fruit that is
the clockwork state as the men who dreamt up Ludovico's technique.
Hardly surprising then that neither book nor film encourages us to feel
sorry for Alex's victims; in fact the film begs us to partake in the
rape experience with lots of fun camera work and jolly music. Oh what
fun. Hence the very naeve fears of emulation.

Far from condemning the behaviour you suggest, the suggestion is that
the methods of project socialism (behavioural science experiments,
propaganda, etc.) would actually feed rather than control such acts.
And ISTM that Burgess was suggesting that such behaviour must be allowed
to continue at a certain level because we tamper with the rhythm of our
natural instincts at our peril. So how that is a clear condemnation of
rape, violence and sexual sadism, I don't quite understand.

But you might disagree. That is the prerogative of the spectator. But
I hardly think the meanings in a work of art like A Clockwork Orange are
as clearly defined as those in the didactic works of an
essayist/journalist like George Orwell.
Post by Major Major
Any shrewd adult could reasonaby guess that...
Any shrewd adult could reasonably guess that Mullen is in an extreme
minority (less than 1%?), that his posts aren't representative of the
whole group, and trying to get him censored by a commercial entity isn't
an acceptable way of dealing with him.

I apologise for the long post. Question my interpretation of art, and
I'll explain myself.


[..]
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Paul Dormer
2005-03-14 23:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
My problem was with your statement that A Clockwork Orange concerns
itself with condemning violence and sexual violence.
Such a declaration is never actually made, and the average filmgoer is
unlikely to deduce such a message of condemnation from the book or film
because it encourages little empathy towards anybody but the central,
most violent character (Alex).
The film does not glorify violence, it is not shown in a positive
light - rather it is surreal and disturbing.

If you have a problem with Clockwork Orange, I can't imagine your
disdain for ultra-violent blockbusters like Terminator 2 or Kill Bill.
Tim S Kemp
2005-03-14 23:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Dormer
If you have a problem with Clockwork Orange, I can't imagine your
disdain for ultra-violent blockbusters like Terminator 2 or Kill Bill.
Must watch kill bill again, don't remember any violence...
--
We are the keepers of the sacred words: Ni, Pang,
and Ni-wom!
Paul Dormer
2005-03-14 23:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim S Kemp
Post by Paul Dormer
If you have a problem with Clockwork Orange, I can't imagine your
disdain for ultra-violent blockbusters like Terminator 2 or Kill Bill.
Must watch kill bill again, don't remember any violence...
Doesn't one of Lucy Lui's bodyguards get a slight scratch when
confronting Uma Thurman in the latter part of the film?
Tim S Kemp
2005-03-14 23:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Dormer
Post by Tim S Kemp
Post by Paul Dormer
If you have a problem with Clockwork Orange, I can't imagine your
disdain for ultra-violent blockbusters like Terminator 2 or Kill Bill.
Must watch kill bill again, don't remember any violence...
Doesn't one of Lucy Lui's bodyguards get a slight scratch when
confronting Uma Thurman in the latter part of the film?
Ahhh I'll watch out for that.
--
We are the keepers of the sacred words: Ni, Pang,
and Ni-wom!
LJM
2005-03-15 00:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Dormer
Post by LJM
My problem was with your statement that A Clockwork Orange concerns
itself with condemning violence and sexual violence.
Such a declaration is never actually made, and the average filmgoer is
unlikely to deduce such a message of condemnation from the book or film
because it encourages little empathy towards anybody but the central,
most violent character (Alex).
The film does not glorify violence, it is not shown in a positive
light - rather it is surreal and disturbing.
Indeed.
Post by Paul Dormer
If you have a problem with Clockwork Orange, I can't imagine your
disdain for ultra-violent blockbusters like Terminator 2 or Kill Bill.
I don't have any problem whatsoever with A Clockwork Orange. It was one
of my favourite books when I first read it fifteen years ago, and it
remains one of my favourite books today. I like the film also. I just
don't think it's as condemning as somebody here would have us believe.
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Major Major
2005-03-15 13:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
Post by Paul Dormer
Post by LJM
My problem was with your statement that A Clockwork Orange concerns
itself with condemning violence and sexual violence.
Such a declaration is never actually made, and the average filmgoer is
unlikely to deduce such a message of condemnation from the book or film
because it encourages little empathy towards anybody but the
central,
Post by LJM
Post by Paul Dormer
Post by LJM
most violent character (Alex).
The film does not glorify violence, it is not shown in a positive
light - rather it is surreal and disturbing.
Indeed.
Post by Paul Dormer
If you have a problem with Clockwork Orange, I can't imagine your
disdain for ultra-violent blockbusters like Terminator 2 or Kill Bill.
I don't have any problem whatsoever with A Clockwork Orange. It was one
of my favourite books when I first read it fifteen years ago, and it
remains one of my favourite books today. I like the film also. I just
don't think it's as condemning as somebody here would have us
believe.
Post by LJM
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Yes, I think it's becoming increasingly apparent that you can't
tolerate opinions that don't agree with your own.

It's equally apparent that many people - both here and via the 10,000+
IMDB reviews - do agree with me that A CLOCKWORK ORANGE does condemn
violence. The fact that it uses Chris Morris style subtleties (dark
humour, brutal imagery and freakish new words etc) simply means that it
might be too subtle for some.

If you find the sexual scenes arousing whilst disturbing (as would seem
to be the case) then don't go blaming Kubrick for being irresponsible.
Look into your own subconcious to find the reason for your moral
discomfort. All that Kubrick set out to do was explore the issue from
*both* sides - that of the aggressor and the victim. I think he
succeeds, just as McNaughton did with HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL
KILLER. And let's not forget the book's genesis (of which Kubrick would
have been fully aware): that Burgess authored it to exorcise the demons
that haunted him after his own wife was sexually molested by American
servicemen.

Sun-readers would argue that ACO glorifies violence, just as they
erupted with rage over the Brass Eye paedophile show. That is precisely
the view you are now supporting. You simply will not accept that many
critics of both film and literature believe the book to be a powerful
condemnation of ultra-violence. Viddy-well my friend, and pray leave us
deeper-thinking 'Guardian' types alone, and allow us the courtesy of
holding alternative opinions on the subject.

Right-right?

MM
LJM
2005-03-15 14:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Friends, Major Major, countrymen, lend me your newsreaders:
[..]
Post by Major Major
Post by LJM
I don't have any problem whatsoever with A Clockwork Orange. It was
one of my favourite books when I first read it fifteen years ago, and
it remains one of my favourite books today. I like the film also. I
just don't think it's as condemning as somebody here would have us
believe.
[..]
Post by Major Major
Yes, I think it's becoming increasingly apparent that you can't
tolerate opinions that don't agree with your own.
Wrong. I've already pointed out that you might disagree with my
interpretation. How is that intolerant exactly? As Oscar Wilde said,
diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is complex
and vital. What's apparent is that you think you can not only trash
interpretive opinions that conflict with your own, but call people
stupid for having them. If you expect somebody to treat you with kid
gloves after you called them stupid, then you're thicker than I thought.

[.snip a lot of bizarre irrelevant bullshit in the name of brevity.]
Post by Major Major
Sun-readers would argue that ACO glorifies violence, just as they
erupted with rage over the Brass Eye paedophile show. That is
precisely the view you are now supporting.
No it's not. Because I don't think it glorifies violence. I'm sorry to
shatter your binary little world, but just because I don't think ACO
condemns violence doesn't mean I think it glorifies it. I offered an
interpretation of the film that is hardly uncommon (I can cite you some
professional reviews from the Times Literary Supplement if you like) and
based on my own experiences as a fan of the book and film for a very
long time. You OTOH can only use the uncited opinions of miscellaneous
reviewers because you seem incapable of thinking for yourself. And many
of those opinions hardly back you up. For example (note the relevance
of the title to my own interpretation about the methods of Project
Socialism):

Behavioral conditioning is unacceptable
Emanuel Goldman from Greater New York City area

"By setting up such an extreme situation, where virtually everyone in
the audience would condemn Alex's activities, Kubrick has placed the
issue of free will versus behavioral conditioning in the forefront.
There are no mitigating circumstances in Alex's behavior to confuse us
morally; if ever anyone should be reconditioned, Alex is the
candidate. Thus, what a shock to discover in ourselves the feeling
that even if Alex becomes a criminal again, it would be preferable."

And what about this one?

David Lockeretz
Richard Nixon Parkway, CA

"Like all Kubrick films, it cannot be read simply on a literal level.
It does not endorse or condemn violence; it simply attempts to show
its role in society and the effects of different ways of dealing with
it."

So your IMDB justification is dismissed as bullshit.
Post by Major Major
You simply will not accept that many critics of both film and
literature believe the book to be a powerful condemnation of
ultra-violence.
I've explained why I think otherwise, citing direct examples of the
book. You have used imdb reviewers to back your case, and it transpired
not to be a wise move. Far from aligning yourself with them, you've
marginalised yourself because it seems the reviewing minions don't agree
with you en masse at all. All you've demonstrated is that you think art
is as 'instructive' as a lecturer's blurb. Might I refer you to the
'commandments' <g> at the beginning of Wilde's TPODG?
Post by Major Major
Viddy-well my friend, and
pray leave us deeper-thinking 'Guardian' types alone, and allow us the
courtesy of holding alternative opinions on the subject.
You'll find me on Page 39 of last Saturday's Guardian Review you
condescending prick. I find it very difficult to believe that somebody
who indulges in embarrassingly sixth form methods of psychoanalysis to
avoid the point at hand, who thinks art can be interpreted in such black
and white terms, who pigeonholes people based on the newspapers they
read, would even read such an astute magazine as that. Let alone the
newspaper it comes with. Far from it, you appear to be wearing the
Guardian like a Chav wears a burberry baseball cap. As some bizarre
expression of status. How very sad that you think anybody cares.
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
mick
2005-03-15 14:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
You'll find me on Page 39 of last Saturday's Guardian Review you
condescending prick.
What, what, what?! Is it (review?) online?

mick
LJM
2005-03-15 14:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by mick
Post by LJM
You'll find me on Page 39 of last Saturday's Guardian Review you
condescending prick.
What, what, what?! Is it (review?) online?
Ha! I wish it was a review! I won the Folio Incognito competition for
the second time in four months. Not only that, but I was the only
entrant according to my congrats pack (another £100 UKP worth of Folio
Society books) - presumably because the answers weren't available via a
search engine. This "deeper-thinking Guardian type" <vbg> recognized
the passages himself.

They don't put page 39 (events, competitions, etc.) online, but here is
me on page 39:

Folio Incognito
Answers to competition no 133. Winner: Lee J. Moore, Staffordshire.

[Followed by the extracts I identified: Ezra Pound's _The Gypsy_,
Matthew Arnold's _The Scholar Gipsy_, George Eliot's _The Spanish Gypsy_
and Ralph Hodgson's _Time, you old gipsy man_.]

Fancy being told to leave "deeper-thinking Guardian types" alone - when
I was mentioned by name in the very rag just three days ago. ;-)
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
mick
2005-03-15 14:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
Post by mick
Post by LJM
You'll find me on Page 39 of last Saturday's Guardian Review you
condescending prick.
What, what, what?! Is it (review?) online?
Ha! I wish it was a review! I won the Folio Incognito competition for
the second time in four months. Not only that, but I was the only
entrant according to my congrats pack (another £100 UKP worth of Folio
Society books) - presumably because the answers weren't available via a
search engine. This "deeper-thinking Guardian type" <vbg> recognized
the passages himself.
Swot, swot, swot!:-)
Post by LJM
They don't put page 39 (events, competitions, etc.) online, but here is
Folio Incognito
Answers to competition no 133. Winner: Lee J. Moore, Staffordshire.
[Followed by the extracts I identified: Ezra Pound's _The Gypsy_,
Matthew Arnold's _The Scholar Gipsy_, George Eliot's _The Spanish Gypsy_
and Ralph Hodgson's _Time, you old gipsy man_.]
Congrats.

Staffordshire sounds so..so....what`s the word? Posh!!;-)
Post by LJM
Fancy being told to leave "deeper-thinking Guardian types" alone - when
I was mentioned by name in the very rag just three days ago. ;-)
I noticed that you`ve been accused of being a Sun reader; whereas we all
know you only buy the Sun to hide the Guardian:-)

mick
LJM
2005-03-15 15:51:06 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by mick
Post by LJM
Post by mick
What, what, what?! Is it (review?) online?
Ha! I wish it was a review! I won the Folio Incognito competition for
the second time in four months. Not only that, but I was the only
entrant according to my congrats pack (another £100 UKP worth of Folio
Society books) - presumably because the answers weren't available via a
search engine. This "deeper-thinking Guardian type" <vbg> recognized
the passages himself.
Swot, swot, swot!:-)
I think they should let the winner set the following weeks competition,
and if there are no winners, then they should get prize. Or maybe I'm
being greedy. (I do now collect FS and fine print books so I'm not
without a motive.) ;-)

[..]
Post by mick
Post by LJM
Folio Incognito
Answers to competition no 133. Winner: Lee J. Moore, Staffordshire.
[Followed by the extracts I identified: Ezra Pound's _The Gypsy_,
Matthew Arnold's _The Scholar Gipsy_, George Eliot's _The Spanish Gypsy_
and Ralph Hodgson's _Time, you old gipsy man_.]
Congrats.
Staffordshire sounds so..so....what`s the word? Posh!!;-)
LOL! You're in Staffordshire aren't you? Just wait until I move back
to Cheshire. I'm going to enter again so I can look posher. <g>
Post by mick
Post by LJM
Fancy being told to leave "deeper-thinking Guardian types" alone -
when I was mentioned by name in the very rag just three days ago.
;-)
I noticed that you`ve been accused of being a Sun reader;
Was I? LOL!
Post by mick
whereas we
all know you only buy the Sun to hide the Guardian:-)
Ha!! Actually, I do read The Sun, The Guardian, sometimes The Times,
sometimes Boyz, sometimes Gay Times, etc., which is probably why I don't
make assumptions about the type of folk who read said rags. But the
funniest revelation in that pile of Major Major shite was that I might
be "aroused" by the male <> female rape scene in ACO. Apart from
missing the point about the brainwashing aspect of such scenes, I
couldn't help but think, "she really hasn't familiarised herself with
the people of this group has she". I mean fucking hell. When I first
read A Clockwork Orange as a sexually charged fifteen year old, my
biggest fantasy involved being penetrated by the droog reputed for the
size of his penis. But I also had the strangest of ideas about sink
plungers and snooker cues around that time, so it doesn't seem so
unhealthy by comparison. ;)

[..]
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
LJM
2005-03-15 18:35:46 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by mick
Post by LJM
Folio Incognito
Answers to competition no 133. Winner: Lee J. Moore, Staffordshire.
[Followed by the extracts I identified: Ezra Pound's _The Gypsy_,
Matthew Arnold's _The Scholar Gipsy_, George Eliot's _The Spanish Gypsy_
and Ralph Hodgson's _Time, you old gipsy man_.]
Congrats.
Ha! And I've only just realised that there's a scene from A Clockwork
Orange on the same page (Books in the media section).


[..]
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Major Major
2005-03-15 19:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Jesus, an obsessive competition entrant. *That's* your meagre claim to
fame?

If I could laugh any harder, methinks my sides would split and my head
would fall off.

MM
LJM
2005-03-15 20:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Major Major
Jesus, an obsessive competition entrant. *That's* your meagre claim to
fame?
Nope. That's my retort to somebody (yourself) trying to hide behind the
Guardian in order to project some kind of intellectual prowess. And no,
I'm not an obsessive competition entrant. I'm a heavy reader of
literature who enters a related competition (Folio Incognito) now and
then. A competition which, btw, is undoubtedly way out of your league.
Post by Major Major
If I could laugh any harder, methinks my sides would split and my head
would fall off.
That's because you're a judgemental arse. Note to Major Maror: nobody
gives a shit about the opinion of somebody who can't hold an argument in
a bucket.
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Major Major
2005-03-15 19:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
[..]
Post by Major Major
Post by LJM
I don't have any problem whatsoever with A Clockwork Orange. It was
one of my favourite books when I first read it fifteen years ago, and
it remains one of my favourite books today. I like the film also.
I
Post by LJM
Post by Major Major
Post by LJM
just don't think it's as condemning as somebody here would have us
believe.
[..]
Post by Major Major
Yes, I think it's becoming increasingly apparent that you can't
tolerate opinions that don't agree with your own.
Wrong. I've already pointed out that you might disagree with my
interpretation. How is that intolerant exactly? As Oscar Wilde said,
diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is complex
and vital. What's apparent is that you think you can not only trash
interpretive opinions that conflict with your own, but call people
stupid for having them. If you expect somebody to treat you with kid
gloves after you called them stupid, then you're thicker than I thought.
[.snip a lot of bizarre irrelevant bullshit in the name of brevity.]
Post by Major Major
Sun-readers would argue that ACO glorifies violence, just as they
erupted with rage over the Brass Eye paedophile show. That is
precisely the view you are now supporting.
No it's not. Because I don't think it glorifies violence. I'm sorry to
shatter your binary little world, but just because I don't think ACO
condemns violence doesn't mean I think it glorifies it. I offered an
interpretation of the film that is hardly uncommon (I can cite you some
professional reviews from the Times Literary Supplement if you like) and
based on my own experiences as a fan of the book and film for a very
long time. You OTOH can only use the uncited opinions of
miscellaneous
Post by LJM
reviewers because you seem incapable of thinking for yourself. And many
of those opinions hardly back you up. For example (note the
relevance
Post by LJM
of the title to my own interpretation about the methods of Project
Behavioral conditioning is unacceptable
Emanuel Goldman from Greater New York City area
"By setting up such an extreme situation, where virtually everyone in
the audience would condemn Alex's activities, Kubrick has placed the
issue of free will versus behavioral conditioning in the forefront.
There are no mitigating circumstances in Alex's behavior to confuse us
morally; if ever anyone should be reconditioned, Alex is the
candidate. Thus, what a shock to discover in ourselves the feeling
that even if Alex becomes a criminal again, it would be
preferable."
Post by LJM
And what about this one?
David Lockeretz
Richard Nixon Parkway, CA
"Like all Kubrick films, it cannot be read simply on a literal level.
It does not endorse or condemn violence; it simply attempts to show
its role in society and the effects of different ways of dealing with
it."
So your IMDB justification is dismissed as bullshit.
Post by Major Major
You simply will not accept that many critics of both film and
literature believe the book to be a powerful condemnation of
ultra-violence.
I've explained why I think otherwise, citing direct examples of the
book. You have used imdb reviewers to back your case, and it
transpired
Post by LJM
not to be a wise move. Far from aligning yourself with them, you've
marginalised yourself because it seems the reviewing minions don't agree
with you en masse at all. All you've demonstrated is that you think art
is as 'instructive' as a lecturer's blurb. Might I refer you to the
'commandments' <g> at the beginning of Wilde's TPODG?
Post by Major Major
Viddy-well my friend, and
pray leave us deeper-thinking 'Guardian' types alone, and allow us the
courtesy of holding alternative opinions on the subject.
You'll find me on Page 39 of last Saturday's Guardian Review you
condescending prick. I find it very difficult to believe that
somebody
Post by LJM
who indulges in embarrassingly sixth form methods of psychoanalysis to
avoid the point at hand, who thinks art can be interpreted in such black
and white terms, who pigeonholes people based on the newspapers they
read, would even read such an astute magazine as that. Let alone the
newspaper it comes with. Far from it, you appear to be wearing the
Guardian like a Chav wears a burberry baseball cap. As some bizarre
expression of status. How very sad that you think anybody cares.
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Temper, temper!

Actually, you are becoming very boring. So...."whatever". I'm not
interested in you nor your silly prevarications.

MM
LJM
2005-03-15 20:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Friends, Major Major, countrymen, lend me your newsreaders:
[..]
Post by Major Major
Actually, you are becoming very boring. So...."whatever". I'm not
interested in you nor your silly prevarications.
Of course you're not interested in the retorts of somebody who just
single handedly demolished every single point of you made.

10,000+ IMDB reviews agree with your view... - Disproven.
...that A Clockwork Orange condemns violence - Disproven.
...that I find any sexual scene in ACO disturbing - Never said nor
implied it.
...that my view is somehow comparable to that of
Sun readers' response to Brass Eye - Absolutely bizarre
considering I think
ACO is one of the
best literary works
since 1950.
That you are a deep-thinking Guardian type - The funniest angle
of defence I've
heard in umtm in
about seven years.
The assumption that I'm not a Guardian reader
myself - You really don't
pay much attention
in this ng do you?

I mean really. Every squirming piece of judgemental crap you're now
coming out with is funny because it's classic "last-word" mentality from
somebody who can no longer defend their POV but would rather not admit
defeat.
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Frank Booth Snr
2005-03-15 01:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
My problem was with your statement that A Clockwork Orange concerns
itself with condemning violence and sexual violence.
Such a declaration is never actually made, and the average filmgoer is
unlikely to deduce such a message of condemnation from the book or film
because it encourages little empathy towards anybody but the central,
most violent character (Alex). The intellectual author and his wife
(who was raped) are as symbolic of the rotten mechanical fruit that is
the clockwork state as the men who dreamt up Ludovico's technique.
Hardly surprising then that neither book nor film encourages us to feel
sorry for Alex's victims; in fact the film begs us to partake in the
rape experience with lots of fun camera work and jolly music. Oh what
fun. Hence the very naeve fears of emulation.
Far from condemning the behaviour you suggest, the suggestion is that
the methods of project socialism (behavioural science experiments,
propaganda, etc.) would actually feed rather than control such acts.
And ISTM that Burgess was suggesting that such behaviour must be allowed
to continue at a certain level because we tamper with the rhythm of our
natural instincts at our peril. So how that is a clear condemnation of
rape, violence and sexual sadism, I don't quite understand.
But you might disagree. That is the prerogative of the spectator. But
I hardly think the meanings in a work of art like A Clockwork Orange are
as clearly defined as those in the didactic works of an
essayist/journalist like George Orwell.
The film is pure satire. It looks at both ends of the behavioural spectrum;
at the one end delinquent youth, and at the other end delinquent government.
The viewer is not drawn towards empathising with Alex's behaviour in the
first half. It is only in the aftermath of the Ludovico treatment of Alex
that one begins to empathise more with him.
Alan Hope
2005-03-14 22:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Major Major
You are talking rollocks, dear chap, absolute rollocks. Presumably you
would have us believe that 1984 was not a bleak satirical fantasy but
"...merely a work of art..." which doesn't "..in itself, condemn
anything."
Any shrewd adult could reasonaby guess that both Burgess and Kubrick
were making powerful social observations even without familiarising
themselves with the originals. But a student of such things knows
absolutely that "A Clockwork Orange" is acres more than a 'mere..work
of art'.
Burgess disowned Kubrick. Where does that leave you? Who was right?

And what does "acres more than a 'mere..work of art'" mean? Can you
tell us anything else that's "more than a work of art"?

I first thought, "the Universe" but then I thought nah, let's wait to
hear what his criteria are first.

Because the Universe is no more than a work of art, like Beethoven's
Ninth, unless you insist on a God. Which is skewing the competition a
little.
--
AH
Paul Dormer
2005-03-14 23:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Major Major
You are talking rollocks, dear chap, absolute rollocks. Presumably you
would have us believe that 1984 was not a bleak satirical fantasy but
"...merely a work of art..." which doesn't "..in itself, condemn
anything."
Any shrewd adult could reasonaby guess that both Burgess and Kubrick
were making powerful social observations even without familiarising
themselves with the originals. But a student of such things knows
absolutely that "A Clockwork Orange" is acres more than a 'mere..work
of art'.
Burgess disowned Kubrick. Where does that leave you? Who was right?
And what does "acres more than a 'mere..work of art'" mean? Can you
tell us anything else that's "more than a work of art"?
Eraserhead? ;-)
LJM
2005-03-15 22:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Friends, Alan Hope, countrymen, lend me your newsreaders:
[..]
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Major Major
Any shrewd adult could reasonaby guess that both Burgess and Kubrick
were making powerful social observations even without familiarising
themselves with the originals. But a student of such things knows
absolutely that "A Clockwork Orange" is acres more than a 'mere..work
of art'.
Burgess disowned Kubrick. Where does that leave you? Who was right?
Wasn't Burgess just pissed about all the flak he got upon release of the
film? I remember something about Burgess resenting the film being
marketed "Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange" but I'm not sure if that
was media bullshit. I've been looking for this msg because I wanted to
ask if you've read The Clockwork Testament (aka Enderby's End)? I heard
that Burgess used it to answer his critics...and er Kubrick...but I
can't find a copy of it anywhere. Not even a free copy at the library.
Post by Alan Hope
And what does "acres more than a 'mere..work of art'" mean? Can you
tell us anything else that's "more than a work of art"?
I first thought, "the Universe" but then I thought nah, let's wait to
hear what his criteria are first.
Because the Universe is no more than a work of art, like Beethoven's
Ninth, unless you insist on a God.
If there exists nothing that is any more than a work of art, I suppose
that means everything imaginable is quite useless.

/I'll get me prozac.
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
John L
2005-03-16 09:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
Wasn't Burgess just pissed about all the flak he got upon release of the
film? I remember something about Burgess resenting the film being
marketed "Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange" but I'm not sure if that
was media bullshit. I've been looking for this msg because I wanted to
ask if you've read The Clockwork Testament (aka Enderby's End)? I heard
that Burgess used it to answer his critics...and er Kubrick...but I
can't find a copy of it anywhere. Not even a free copy at the library.
Did you also check for The Complete Enderby as a title? That's more
likely to be still in stock as it's a 1995 reprint of all the books
featuring the character. Certainly the library where I work still has
it.

John L
LJM
2005-03-16 09:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John L
Post by LJM
Wasn't Burgess just pissed about all the flak he got upon release of the
film? I remember something about Burgess resenting the film being
marketed "Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange" but I'm not sure if that
was media bullshit. I've been looking for this msg because I wanted to
ask if you've read The Clockwork Testament (aka Enderby's End)? I heard
that Burgess used it to answer his critics...and er Kubrick...but I
can't find a copy of it anywhere. Not even a free copy at the library.
Did you also check for The Complete Enderby as a title? That's more
likely to be still in stock as it's a 1995 reprint of all the books
featuring the character. Certainly the library where I work still has
it.
Thanks for the info John. I'm going into Manchester this afternoon so
I'll have a good look for it. :-)
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
John L
2005-03-16 18:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
Post by John L
Post by LJM
Wasn't Burgess just pissed about all the flak he got upon release of the
film? I remember something about Burgess resenting the film being
marketed "Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange" but I'm not sure if that
was media bullshit. I've been looking for this msg because I wanted to
ask if you've read The Clockwork Testament (aka Enderby's End)? I heard
that Burgess used it to answer his critics...and er Kubrick...but I
can't find a copy of it anywhere. Not even a free copy at the library.
Did you also check for The Complete Enderby as a title? That's more
likely to be still in stock as it's a 1995 reprint of all the books
featuring the character. Certainly the library where I work still has
it.
Thanks for the info John. I'm going into Manchester this afternoon so
I'll have a good look for it. :-)
According to their online catalogue their only copy in on loan.
Strange that a "local" author isn't better represented...

I should have added that there are 2nd hand copies of "Clockwork
testament" on http://www.abebooks.co.uk/ for as little as 52p (plus
postage). Warning: "reading copy" translates as "looks like the dog
chewed it then dropped it behind the sofa where it stayed until the
overpowering mouldy smell alerted us to its presence".

John L
LJM
2005-03-17 13:21:28 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by John L
Post by LJM
Post by John L
Did you also check for The Complete Enderby as a title? That's more
likely to be still in stock as it's a 1995 reprint of all the books
featuring the character. Certainly the library where I work still has
it.
Thanks for the info John. I'm going into Manchester this afternoon so
I'll have a good look for it. :-)
According to their online catalogue their only copy in on loan.
Strange that a "local" author isn't better represented...
Ha! You'd think Arnold Bennett would be better represent at Potteries
libraries (Hanley and its Stoke-on-Trent subsidiaries) but he's not
because people keep nicking the books. _The Grim Smiles of the Five
Towns_ has been 'permanently acquired' every time it's been replaced
over the past three/four years. Presumably because it's difficult to
come by a brand new inexpensive copy (it was out of print last time I
checked). I wonder if Mr Burgess's out of print works are suffering a
similar fate.
Post by John L
I should have added that there are 2nd hand copies of "Clockwork
testament" on http://www.abebooks.co.uk/ for as little as 52p (plus
postage). Warning: "reading copy" translates as "looks like the dog
chewed it then dropped it behind the sofa where it stayed until the
overpowering mouldy smell alerted us to its presence".
Someone must've told him that a book well-read should look like a woman
well-bedded. ;-)

Erm, I did actually hit reply to let you know I've obtained a copy of
_The Complete Enderby_ from Newcastle-under-Lyme library. Suprised they
had it - tiny underfunded place that it is. Thanks for giving me the
title or I'd probably still be looking for _A Clockwork Testament_ with
little success.
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
jayembee
2005-03-16 13:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
Wasn't Burgess just pissed about all the flak he got upon release of the
film? I remember something about Burgess resenting the film being
marketed "Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange" but I'm not sure if that
was media bullshit.
That might be part of it, but Burgess was also put out by the fact
that Kubrick's film did not take the final chapter of the book into
account. Not surprisingly, because so did every American edition of
the novel until circa 1980 or so.

Freeing Alex of his conditioning so that he was free to rape and kill
again seems to be the triumphant moment of the end of the film.
Burgess thought this was the wrong message to send. In his final
chapter, he shows Alex simply growing up and away from his
antisocial tendencies.

-- jayembee
Grant
2005-03-14 21:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
Post by Major Major
Reading your posts.
PS. In case your brains have fallen out tonight, A Clockwork Orange
*condemns* the precise things you have highlighted.
No it doesn't. The Clockwork Orange is merely a work of art and it
doesn't, in itself, condemn anything. It is up to the reader/viewer to
interpret the metaphors, symbols and ideas within it. More to the
point, this particular work of art was banned due to fear of emulation.
It wasn't banned in the UK, Kubrick withdrew the film on police advice
following threats to himself and his family.
Paul Dormer
2005-03-14 22:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
Post by Major Major
PS. In case your brains have fallen out tonight, A Clockwork Orange
*condemns* the precise things you have highlighted.
No it doesn't. The Clockwork Orange is merely a work of art and it
doesn't, in itself, condemn anything. It is up to the reader/viewer to
interpret the metaphors, symbols and ideas within it.
What a limp wristed attitude. Of course, there can be no consensus
about statements made in art... NEVER!
Post by LJM
More to the
point, this particular work of art was banned due to fear of emulation.
Bzzzt!

Kubrik withdrew the film himself after receiving death threats. It was
*not* banned. The film was actually shown for a year in London before
he pulled it.
LJM
2005-03-15 00:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Dormer
Post by LJM
Post by Major Major
PS. In case your brains have fallen out tonight, A Clockwork Orange
*condemns* the precise things you have highlighted.
No it doesn't. The Clockwork Orange is merely a work of art and it
doesn't, in itself, condemn anything. It is up to the reader/viewer to
interpret the metaphors, symbols and ideas within it.
What a limp wristed attitude. Of course, there can be no consensus
about statements made in art... NEVER!
So my mistake was to say it doesn't condemn anything? <g>
Post by Paul Dormer
Post by LJM
More to the
point, this particular work of art was banned due to fear of emulation.
Bzzzt!
Yes....
Post by Paul Dormer
Kubrik withdrew the film himself after receiving death threats. It was
*not* banned. The film was actually shown for a year in London before
he pulled it.
I did know that. For many years I thought it had been banned, and I
I learned the contrary in this newsgroup some years ago. It was a fit
of exaggeration during a moment of 120wpm typing. ;-)

Regardless, a quick look at The Times Digital Archive reveals a bit of a
shitstorm about the influence of the film. So "fear of emulation"
existed, it just wasn't banned because of it. Those stories remind me
of all the Doom/Quake/GTA bullshit of recent years.
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Izo
2005-03-15 17:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Paul Dormer spat
Post by Paul Dormer
Post by LJM
More to the
point, this particular work of art was banned due to fear of emulation.
Bzzzt!
Kubrik withdrew the film himself after receiving death threats. It was
*not* banned. The film was actually shown for a year in London before
he pulled it.
Slightly ironic, that.
--
Izo
Alan Hope
2005-03-14 22:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Major Major
Reading your posts.
PS. In case your brains have fallen out tonight, A Clockwork Orange
*condemns* the precise things you have highlighted. In contrast, The
Mullen et al openly glory in their sexist and Onanistic nonsense.
The words 'foot', 'shot' and 'yourself' spring to mind.
I suppose it's never occured to you that The Mullen might be
satirising sexist posters, in much the same way that Chris Morris is
not exactly a fan of tabloid TV news values, although a superficial
eye might be led to think so.

Do you think Steve Coogan supports cheesy TV presenters? Because he
does portray one very convincingly. That seems to be your criterion
for judgement.
--
AH
Mark A
2005-03-14 23:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
I suppose it's never occured to you that The Mullen might be
satirising sexist posters
Well if he is the joke's worn exceedingly thin and gone so far past
breaking point as to make it immaterial.

Regards

Mark
Derek R
2005-03-15 10:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Major Major
Reading your posts.
PS. In case your brains have fallen out tonight, A Clockwork Orange
*condemns* the precise things you have highlighted. In contrast, The
Mullen et al openly glory in their sexist and Onanistic nonsense.
The words 'foot', 'shot' and 'yourself' spring to mind.
I suppose it's never occured to you that The Mullen might be
satirising sexist posters...
Has it never occurred to you that he might just be a wanker?
Alan Hope
2005-03-15 21:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek R
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Major Major
Reading your posts.
PS. In case your brains have fallen out tonight, A Clockwork Orange
*condemns* the precise things you have highlighted. In contrast, The
Mullen et al openly glory in their sexist and Onanistic nonsense.
The words 'foot', 'shot' and 'yourself' spring to mind.
I suppose it's never occured to you that The Mullen might be
satirising sexist posters...
Has it never occurred to you that he might just be a wanker?
I tend to start from the position that all Usenet posters are wankers,
so the answer to your question would be "Yes".
--
AH
Fr J. Hackett
2005-03-14 22:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
Rape, violence, sexual sadism, one woman having the circle of her
sweater around her bosom cut out with a knife....and you want to ban
Mullen's posts on account that they might be offensive to women?
Saw the film on C4 when it was last shown and one of the problems I had
with it was the style of the violence. I gather that a lot of furore
was caused on its original release by the violence being treated in an
almost comical way (the Singing In The Rain sequence etc) but that's
one of the reasons why it didn't really work for me - the violence was
*too* ridiculous.

The look of the film, especially the first twenty/thirty minutes I like
- an abstract version of the early seventies - and Wendy Carlos'
soundtrack was offbeat and very fitting but I do think it's style over
substance.

I'll be watching the quite good but not very talked about Comedy
Connections on BBC1 followed by something as yet undecided.

Fr Hackett.
Frank Booth Snr
2005-03-14 23:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Major Major
It's a brilliant film. Undeniably one or two of the humorous moments
slip into ludicrous farce - that's the nature of experimentalism. But
taken as a whole, the film is disturbing, compelling and very bold.
Kubrick is a superb director and anything he does merits respect;
MacDowell turns in a stunning performance.
It isn't as well-rounded as Performance, for example, but it is
certainly a classic of Brit film-making.
Curious to spot a young Warren Clarke (Dalziel & Pascoe) playing Dim ?
jayembee
2005-03-15 05:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Booth Snr
Curious to spot a young Warren Clarke (Dalziel & Pascoe) playing Dim ?
I had the opposite reaction. The first time I saw an episode of D&P, I
thought, "My God, is that Dim?!"

-- jayembee
Brian McKenna
2005-03-15 11:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by jayembee
Post by Frank Booth Snr
Curious to spot a young Warren Clarke (Dalziel & Pascoe) playing Dim ?
I had the opposite reaction. The first time I saw an episode of D&P, I
thought, "My God, is that Dim?!"
-- jayembee
Fred Elliot from Corrie in it as well!
Izo
2005-03-15 17:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Brian McKenna spat
Post by Brian McKenna
Post by jayembee
Post by Frank Booth Snr
Curious to spot a young Warren Clarke (Dalziel & Pascoe) playing Dim ?
I had the opposite reaction. The first time I saw an episode of D&P, I
thought, "My God, is that Dim?!"
-- jayembee
Fred Elliot from Corrie in it as well!
Yeah, he's in Battle of Britain briefly as well.
--
Izo
Marcus Houlden
2005-03-15 17:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian McKenna
Post by jayembee
Post by Frank Booth Snr
Curious to spot a young Warren Clarke (Dalziel & Pascoe) playing Dim ?
I had the opposite reaction. The first time I saw an episode of D&P, I
thought, "My God, is that Dim?!"
Fred Elliot from Corrie in it as well!
Not to mention Darth Vader and John Steed from the Avengers. Interestingly,
I see Patrick Macnee has also played a character called "Mr Mullen".

mh.
--
Reply-to address *is* valid. "From" address is a blackhole.

"If you don't vote, you get morons in charge."
- Maurice Chavez (GTA Vice City)
Halmyre
2005-03-15 21:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcus Houlden
Post by Brian McKenna
Post by jayembee
Post by Frank Booth Snr
Curious to spot a young Warren Clarke (Dalziel & Pascoe) playing Dim ?
I had the opposite reaction. The first time I saw an episode of D&P, I
thought, "My God, is that Dim?!"
Fred Elliot from Corrie in it as well!
Not to mention Darth Vader and John Steed from the Avengers. Interestingly,
I see Patrick Macnee has also played a character called "Mr Mullen".
mh.
Patrick McNee appears in a bit-part as a surgeon in some godawful
American comedy from back in the 80s. His only line is when he's asked
which nurse he'd like to assist him in the theatre and his reply is
"I'll take the one with the big tits."

Perhaps the Mullen is Patrick Macnee...

Halmyre
jayembee
2005-03-16 03:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcus Houlden
Post by Brian McKenna
Post by jayembee
Post by Frank Booth Snr
Curious to spot a young Warren Clarke (Dalziel & Pascoe) playing Dim ?
I had the opposite reaction. The first time I saw an episode of D&P, I
thought, "My God, is that Dim?!"
Fred Elliot from Corrie in it as well!
Not to mention Darth Vader and John Steed from the Avengers. Interestingly,
I see Patrick Macnee has also played a character called "Mr Mullen".
It's Patrick Magee in ACO, not Patrick Macnee.

-- jayembee
Marcus Houlden
2005-03-16 08:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by jayembee
Post by Marcus Houlden
Post by Brian McKenna
Post by jayembee
Post by Frank Booth Snr
Curious to spot a young Warren Clarke (Dalziel & Pascoe) playing Dim ?
I had the opposite reaction. The first time I saw an episode of D&P, I
thought, "My God, is that Dim?!"
Fred Elliot from Corrie in it as well!
Not to mention Darth Vader and John Steed from the Avengers. Interestingly,
I see Patrick Macnee has also played a character called "Mr Mullen".
It's Patrick Magee in ACO, not Patrick Macnee.
Looks like I got mixed up between the 2. Given that both were in The
Avengers, it must have been fun on set.

mh.
--
Reply-to address *is* valid. "From" address is a blackhole.

"If you don't vote, you get morons in charge."
- Maurice Chavez (GTA Vice City)
Dan Owen
2005-03-14 22:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krustov
My only memory of it is a pile of crap .
It's a classic movie, but has become quite dated unfortunately. Still, the
latter half of the movie still has an impact.

Dan
Marcus Houlden
2005-03-14 22:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Owen
Post by Krustov
My only memory of it is a pile of crap .
It's a classic movie, but has become quite dated unfortunately. Still, the
latter half of the movie still has an impact.
Compare the line "The point is that it works!" (used in the film after Alex
gets his treatments) to the line "Prison works!" (used by Michael Howard at
a Tory conference a few years ago). Almost exactly the same intonation. It's
strange that politicians don't tend to discuss the film wrt their own law'n'
order policies.

mh.
--
Reply-to address *is* valid. "From" address is a blackhole.

"If you don't vote, you get morons in charge."
- Maurice Chavez (GTA Vice City)
jayembee
2005-03-14 22:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krustov
Do you find it rather amusing that many people will be watching or
taping this tonight thinking its going to be a good film .
My only memory of it is a pile of crap .
Different squids for different kids.

Personally, I think it's one of the few near-perfect films ever made.

-- jayembee
Major ChrisB
2005-03-14 23:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krustov
Do you find it rather amusing that many people will be watching or
taping this tonight thinking its going to be a good film .
My only memory of it is a pile of crap .
I love it...
Izo
2005-03-15 17:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Major ChrisB spat
Post by Major ChrisB
Post by Krustov
Do you find it rather amusing that many people will be watching or
taping this tonight thinking its going to be a good film .
My only memory of it is a pile of crap .
I love it...
I like it as well. Some people don't like it because of the comical (or
farcical?) portrayal of violence - that's the reason I like it. I think
Malcolm McDowell was perfectly cast, I can't imagine who else could play
Alex. The character is brilliant.

Having said that I haven't read the book. I was really disappointed with
1984 the film (the John Hurt one) because it just didn't come across on
the screen at all for me. There was no real sense of repression or fear.

I'll need to get around to reading ACO.
--
Izo
LJM
2005-03-15 20:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Friends, Izo, countrymen, lend me your newsreaders:
[..]
Post by Izo
I like it as well. Some people don't like it because of the comical
(or farcical?) portrayal of violence - that's the reason I like it. I
think Malcolm McDowell was perfectly cast, I can't imagine who else
could play Alex. The character is brilliant.
Having said that I haven't read the book. I was really disappointed with
1984 the film (the John Hurt one) because it just didn't come across on
the screen at all for me. There was no real sense of repression or fear.
I think it would've worked better had it been made a lot sooner,
because it appeared less of a prediction of a hypothetical future with
each passing year. (Actually, I think Michael Anderson made one a lot
sooner but I have no idea how that faired.) It was also a little too
simplified in places for my liking.
Post by Izo
I'll need to get around to reading ACO.
Just promise to come back here and tell us what you thought of it in the
sexiest minimal Russian imaginable. NADSAT was invented for somebody
with a name like Izo. ;D
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Izo
2005-03-15 22:29:56 UTC
Permalink
LJM Spat
Post by LJM
I think it would've worked better had it been made a lot sooner,
because it appeared less of a prediction of a hypothetical future with
each passing year. (Actually, I think Michael Anderson made one a lot
sooner but I have no idea how that faired.) It was also a little too
simplified in places for my liking.
Is the Michael Anderson the B&W version? Yeah I agree with the
simplification - though I can't think how you would get the Goldstein
book across in a film. I never really thought the torture scenes were
convincing either. It just didn't feel atmospheric enough.
Post by LJM
Post by Izo
I'll need to get around to reading ACO.
Just promise to come back here and tell us what you thought of it in the
sexiest minimal Russian imaginable. NADSAT was invented for somebody
with a name like Izo. ;D
;Da!
--
Izo
LJM
2005-03-15 23:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Izo
LJM Spat
Post by LJM
I think it would've worked better had it been made a lot sooner,
because it appeared less of a prediction of a hypothetical future with
each passing year. (Actually, I think Michael Anderson made one a lot
sooner but I have no idea how that faired.) It was also a little too
simplified in places for my liking.
Is the Michael Anderson the B&W version?
Yep. I only recalled it whilst typing so I had to look that up.
Michael Redgrave's in it. Somebody's published the 1956 Times review
here with some screenshots:

http://www.geocities.com/pleasence/1984/1984-1.html
Post by Izo
Yeah I agree with the simplification - though I can't think how you
would get the Goldstein book across in a film. I never really thought
the torture scenes were convincing either. It just didn't feel
atmospheric enough.
I'm going to watch this again later this week. Haven't seen it for a
while and should probably see how its aged now I have my 30+ eyes. ;)

[..]
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
LJM
2005-03-16 20:13:38 UTC
Permalink
WTF is going on here? Mindspring reposting my messages after they
erroneously cancelled them? Why the hell are mindspring cancelling the
messages of a non-mindspring user?
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
Marcus Houlden
2005-03-16 23:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJM
WTF is going on here? Mindspring reposting my messages after they
erroneously cancelled them? Why the hell are mindspring cancelling the
messages of a non-mindspring user?
Sounds more like some juvenile has discovered what a cancelbot is, they have
been discovered, and someone is running Dave the Resurrector to uncancel
them.

mh.
--
Reply-to address *is* valid. "From" address is a blackhole.

"If you don't vote, you get morons in charge."
- Maurice Chavez (GTA Vice City)
LJM
2005-03-17 13:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcus Houlden
Post by LJM
WTF is going on here? Mindspring reposting my messages after they
erroneously cancelled them? Why the hell are mindspring cancelling the
messages of a non-mindspring user?
Sounds more like some juvenile has discovered what a cancelbot is, they have
been discovered, and someone is running Dave the Resurrector to uncancel
them.
Ah yes, posted that before I realised it was happening to others too. :-)
--
Lee J. Moore
"Life is short, art is long."
osc
2005-03-15 21:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Izo
I like it as well. Some people don't like it because of the comical (or
farcical?) portrayal of violence - that's the reason I like it.
It's the use of music that does it for me. I can't help laughing and being
ashamed of it during the 'Singing in the rain' beating.
Post by Izo
I think Malcolm McDowell was perfectly cast, I can't imagine who else
could play Alex. The character is brilliant.
McDowell plays it with so much swaggering malevolence the character is
just irresistible... even if he is despicable. My favourite 'Alex' bit
comes right at the end. He's sitting in a hospital bed talking with the
minister and keeps opening his mouth to be fed -- it's funny and
disturbing.

[snip]
Post by Izo
I'll need to get around to reading ACO.
'A Clockwork Orange' has been on my to-read list for a while, but it
keeps getting bumped down by other stuff.
Izo
2005-03-15 22:35:34 UTC
Permalink
osc spat
Post by osc
Post by Izo
I like it as well. Some people don't like it because of the comical (or
farcical?) portrayal of violence - that's the reason I like it.
It's the use of music that does it for me. I can't help laughing and being
ashamed of it during the 'Singing in the rain' beating.
Yes, I like the bastardised classical soundtrack that's all 70s synths.
It's got a very distinctive soundtrack. I find it weird that people were
offended - it's so obviously comical. Maybe back then it was violent in
comparison with other films.
Post by osc
Post by Izo
I think Malcolm McDowell was perfectly cast, I can't imagine who else
could play Alex. The character is brilliant.
McDowell plays it with so much swaggering malevolence the character is
just irresistible... even if he is despicable. My favourite 'Alex' bit
comes right at the end. He's sitting in a hospital bed talking with the
minister and keeps opening his mouth to be fed -- it's funny and
disturbing.
Great description. Yes I love that bit too. The other character I like
is P.R. Deltoid, because he's so sleazy.
Post by osc
'A Clockwork Orange' has been on my to-read list for a while, but it
keeps getting bumped down by other stuff.
Same here. I've still got loads of books sitting here waiting to be
read. The list keeps growing.
--
Izo
Derek R
2005-03-15 10:28:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:50:32 -0000, Krustov
Post by Krustov
Do you find it rather amusing that many people will be watching or
taping this tonight thinking its going to be a good film .
My only memory of it is a pile of crap .
Your opinion counts for *so* much as well....
sofa-spud
2005-03-15 13:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek R
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:50:32 -0000, Krustov
Post by Krustov
Do you find it rather amusing that many people will be watching or
taping this tonight thinking its going to be a good film .
My only memory of it is a pile of crap .
Your opinion counts for *so* much as well....
Its as valid as yours like it or not
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...