Most Respected Film Reviewers?
Charles Mak
Just wanted to know who are the most respected film reviewers, on either
side of the Atlantic, and where can I read their works. Are any of them
online?
Justin Siegel
Pauline Kael is the most respected, and most overrated in my opinion,
film critic of all time. You can pick up her baglady ramblings -- I mean
books, at any bookstore.
--
Justin Kristopher Siegel
"Everything our parents said was good
is bad: sun, milk, red meat, college"
-- Woody Allen, Annie Hall
Mark.J.Desocio
On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Charles Mak wrote:
> Just wanted to know who are the most respected film reviewers, on either
> side of the Atlantic, and where can I read their works. Are any of them
> online?
My favorite - rarely mentioned; Ebert gets all of the on-line press - is
Jonathan Rosenbaum at the Chicago Reader:
http://www.chireader.com/movies/
Michael
Justin Siegel
Hot4Hose wrote:
>
> >Pauline Kael is the most respected, and most overrated in my opinion,
> >film critic of all time. You can pick up her baglady ramblings -- I mean
> >books, at any bookstore.
> >
> >
> However, we are talking about a woman who seemed to seriously believe that Sam
> Peckinpah was The Great American Director.
Nothing but an elitist with bad taste who was (not as) good (some people
think) with words.
>
> Respected film critics? There may be no such thing.... Mind you, it's a job
> I've always coveted, but waching films is such a subjective experience that
> just about any critic is going to piss you off sooner or later.
Except Johnathan Rosenbaum. He disects everything so well that even when
he's hating something I loved or loving something I hated, he makes
perfect sense.
Hot4Hose
>Pauline Kael is the most respected, and most overrated in my opinion,
>film critic of all time. You can pick up her baglady ramblings -- I mean
>books, at any bookstore.
>
>
Kael is respected because she is extremely erudite and extremely literate.
However, we are talking about a woman who seemed to seriously believe that Sam
Peckinpah was The Great American Director.
Respected film critics? There may be no such thing.... Mind you, it's a job
Mark.J.Desocio
On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Justin Siegel wrote:
> Charles Mak wrote:
> >
> > Just wanted to know who are the most respected film reviewers, on either
> > side of the Atlantic, and where can I read their works. Are any of them
> > online?
>
> Pauline Kael is the most respected, and most overrated in my opinion,
> film critic of all time. You can pick up her baglady ramblings -- I mean
> books, at any bookstore.
I agree that she's probably overrated; she had such a
*capitalist/American* take on everything. But I don't think she's the most
respected, at least, internationally; that would probably go to Andre
Bazin. (Or maybe Sarris.)
Michael
SloGait
I have a terrible memory for names, but there was a critic named Clive
something who wrote for the New York Times. I don't get the Times, so
he may be retired or dead now, but he seemed to be able to weigh in
with the last word for a long time.
SloGait
Where does Rex Reed fit in this picture?
On 07 Jun 1998 02:11:40 GMT, hot4...@aol.com (Hot4Hose) wrote:
>>Pauline Kael is the most respected, and most overrated in my opinion,
>>film critic of all time. You can pick up her baglady ramblings -- I mean
>>books, at any bookstore.
>>
>>
Mark.J.Desocio
On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, SloGait wrote:
> Where does Rex Reed fit in this picture?
In the trash heap.
Ronald J. Whalen
Mark.J.Desocio wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Justin Siegel wrote:
>
> > Charles Mak wrote:
> > >
> > > Just wanted to know who are the most respected film reviewers, on either
> > > side of the Atlantic, and where can I read their works. Are any of them
> > > online?
> >
> > film critic of all time. You can pick up her baglady ramblings -- I mean
> > books, at any bookstore.
>
> *capitalist/American* take on everything. But I don't think she's the most
> respected, at least, internationally; that would probably go to Andre
> Bazin. (Or maybe Sarris.)
I don't know about Bazin. But didn't Kael have an argument ongoing
with Andrew Sarris over the years ?
Ronald J. Whalen
Charles Mak wrote:
>
> Just wanted to know who are the most respected film reviewers, on either
> side of the Atlantic, and where can I read their works. Are any of them
> online?
Pauline Kael is probably the most respected film reviewer though she's
not online. She once wrote for The New Yorker but quit in 1991 and
ocassionaly comes back to write but not often. There is an interview
with her in Modern Maturity Magazine online. And books of her reviews
are called Movie Love, For Keeps, 5001 Nights At The Movies and all of
which can be found at the local bookstore, library or e-mailed off the
Internet
at Amazon Books.com
John Harkness
Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
> Mark.J.Desocio wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Justin Siegel wrote:
> > > Charles Mak wrote:
> > > > Just wanted to know who are the most respected film reviewers, on either
> > > > side of the Atlantic, and where can I read their works. Are any of them
> > > > online?
> > > Pauline Kael is the most respected, and most overrated in my opinion,
> > > film critic of all time. You can pick up her baglady ramblings -- I mean
> > > books, at any bookstore.
> > I agree that she's probably overrated; she had such a
> > *capitalist/American* take on everything. But I don't think she's the most
> > respected, at least, internationally; that would probably go to Andre
> > Bazin. (Or maybe Sarris.)
> I don't know about Bazin. But didn't Kael have an argument ongoing
> with Andrew Sarris over the years ?
Yes, they did. Kael said auteurism was stupid and basically accused Andy
of being a fag, though not in so many words. Kael, of course, was one of
the biggest auteurist critics around, when it came to her favorite
directors -- she was even willing to argue idiocies like "Brian DePalma
is a really good writer" (see her review of Dressed To Kill) if one of
her favs was involved.
Anyway, Kael may be influential, but she retired several years ago.
John Harkness
whose thesis advisor was Andrew Sarris, just we know where people's
sympathies lie.
Mark.J.Desocio
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998, Steven Chung wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.98060...@bama.ua.edu>,
> " Mark.J.Desocio " <deso...@bama.ua.edu> wrote:
> #I agree that she's probably overrated; she had such a
> #*capitalist/American* take on everything. But I don't think she's the most
> #respected, at least, internationally; that would probably go to Andre
> #Bazin. (Or maybe Sarris.)
>
> My God, did you just compare Bazin to Pauline Kael?
>
> (Incidentally, while a great critic, he wasn't much of a reviewer...)
Wasn't that what we were talking about, film criticism? What's the
problem?
Michael
John Harkness
Apples and oranges
Bazin was more of a film theorist/critic -- not the sort of practical
reviewer/critic that Kael was -- virtually an extinct breed in terms of
popular magazines today. They didn't have the same agenda at all.
John
Rod Lightning
>Just wanted to know who are the most respected film reviewers, on either
>side of the Atlantic, and where can I read their works. Are any of them
>online?
Have you tried to make a search on the Web? At this stage, I gotta
think there is some serious criticism accessible somewhere.
I did a search from Netscape's search site and got this URL, which is
a list of movie-oriented publications.
http://www.lycos.com/wguide/wire/wire_969351_50417_3_1.html
Not sure if the URL in that form is going to work for you, but as you
can see it is on Lycos, so you could find it with relatively few
clicks yourself. I think exploring this list may lead you to what you
want in online criticism sources.
scott tobias
It's funny you use the phrase "Apples and Oranges," because Kael wrote a
very famous response to Sarris' importing of the auteur theory called
"Circles and Squares" in Film Quarterly. While Kael cannot be described
as a film theorist (she tends to reject models like the auteur theory
and Bazin's "Myth of Total Cinema"), her understanding of theoretical
issues informed her work as a critic.
Scott
scott tobias
> On Sat, 6 Jun 1998 20:44:16 -0400, "Charles Mak"
> <jvas...@interlog.com> wrote:
>
> >Just wanted to know who are the most respected film reviewers, on either
> >side of the Atlantic, and where can I read their works. Are any of them
> >online?
Here's a list of the more interesting critics online:
The Nashville Scene-- Jim Ridley, Noel Murray, Donna Bowman
(http://www.nashscene.com)
Village Voice-- J. Hoberman, Amy Taubin, Dennis Lim, etc. --
(http://www.villagevoice.com)
The Chicago Reader-- Jonathan Rosenbaum --
(http://www.chireader.com/movies)
L.A. Weekly -- Mahnola Dargis -- (http://www.laweekly.com)
The New Republic -- Stanley Kauffmann --
(http://magazines.enews.com/magazines/tnr)
For net critics, you can't beat Mike D'Angelo --
(http://www.panix.com/~dangelo) -- though his output has...um..slowed of
late.
Then, if you feel inclined...
New York Magazine -- David Denby -- (http://www.nymag.com)
New York Times -- Janet Maslin, Lawrence Van Gelder, Stephen Holden --
(http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/arts)
And if you want to see how bad film criticism can be in a major
publication, check out The Washington Post
(http://www.washingtonpost.com), particularly the reviews of Rita
Kempley.
Scott
And if you feel inclined....
New York Magazine -- David Denby -- (http://
John Harkness
scott tobias wrote:
>
> John Harkness wrote:
> > Bazin was more of a film theorist/critic -- not the sort of practical
> > reviewer/critic that Kael was -- virtually an extinct breed in terms of
> > popular magazines today. They didn't have the same agenda at all.
> > John
> It's funny you use the phrase "Apples and Oranges," because Kael wrote a
> very famous response to Sarris' importing of the auteur theory called
> "Circles and Squares" in Film Quarterly. While Kael cannot be described
> as a film theorist (she tends to reject models like the auteur theory
> and Bazin's "Myth of Total Cinema"), her understanding of theoretical
> issues informed her work as a critic.
>
> Scott
Kael rejected models like the auteur theory WHEN IT SUITED HER. When it
came to her pet directors, notably Altman in the 70s and DePalma in the
80s, she was the biggest auteurist around.
John,
Who had Andrew Sarris as his thesis advisor, just so we know where we
stand
scott tobias
Yes, it's true that Kael played favorites occasionally (in addition to
Altman and DePalma, she also loved Ichikawa, Renoir, Demme, Peckinpah
[though she acknowledged his intellectual limitations] and plenty of
others). But there's far more evidence to suggest her rejection of
auteurism. Directors she admired at the beginning of their careers, such
as Scorsese and Spielberg, she grew weary of later on; others she would
normally dismiss as hacks, she would praise for making a surprisingly
good movie, such as Alan Parker for "Shoot The Moon." Hell, even the
"auteurs" you mention didn't get off scot-free. Check out her negative
reviews of "Brewster McCloud," "Fool For Love," "Images," "Quintet,"
"Three Women," "Body Double," "Bonfire of the Vanities," and "Scarface."
Besides, playing favorites -- or even acknowledging the style of
particular director -- is not the same as accepting or applying the
auteur theory. In order to do so, a critic would have to embrace three
tenets: (1) The technical competence of a director as a criterion of
value (to quote Sarris: "A great director has to be at least a good
director) (2) The distinguishable personality of the director as a
criterion of value. (3) Interior meaning, which Sarris describes as
"the tension between a director's personality and his material." In
"Circles and Squares" Kael forcefully objects to all three points, as I
wrote before, her reviews reflect this far more often than not.
Scott,
Who doesn't believe one's authority on Sarris is related to one's
proximity.
Mike D'Angelo
scott tobias (sto...@herald.infi.net) wrote:
: For net critics, you can't beat Mike D'Angelo --
: (http://www.panix.com/~dangelo) -- though his output has...um..slowed
: of late.
(Thanks.)
Yeah, my work ethic's taken a nosedive this year, largely because I'm
goofy in love with a woman on the other side of the freakin' country and
spend most of the time that I used to spend writing reviews composing
romantic e-mail messages. However, I've committed myself to sitting down
this weekend and tackling the (considerable) backlog, so check the site
around Monday, when things should finally be hoppin' again.
Meanwhile, here's a list of critics who make me feel inadequate, none of
whom has yet been mentioned in this thread:
Godfrey Cheshire and Matt Zoller Seitz, _New York Press_. Cheshire's
obsession with Iranian cinema is getting out of control, but he's
probably second only to Jonathan Rosenbaum in terms of general acuity,
and he's got a much more accessible prose style. Seitz is a terrific
meat-and-potatoes-style critic (as opposed to an academic theorist, I'm
saying), a terrific writer whose genuine love for the medium is apparent
in every review, even the dismissive shoulder shrugs and hostile rants.
Unfortunately, this NY-only paper isn't yet online, so these two guys are
pretty much unknown outside of the Apple.
Michael Atkinson, _Mr. Showbiz_, occasional pieces for the _Village
Voice_. He used to be _Spin_'s main critic; I don't know what happened.
Sharp, knowledgeable, really funny.
Theo Panayides, _Theo's Century of Movies_. Has an uncanny knack for
compressing a lot of first-rate critical thinking into a brief
capsule-style review. Only drawback is that he lives in Cyprus, and so
is inevitably anywhere from 6 months to 3 years behind U.S. viewers (the
poor guy's *still* waiting for SLING BLADE).
<http://leonardo.spidernet.net/Artus/2386/>
I could go on, but I'm falling asleep in my ergonomic chair; check out
the links on my site (URL below) for more.
Mike "peer pleasure" D'Angelo
--
-The Man Who Viewed Too Much-
http://www.panix.com/~dangelo
"My troika was pursued by wolves."
John Harkness
scott tobias wrote:
>
> John Harkness wrote:
> >
> > John,
> > Who had Andrew Sarris as his thesis advisor, just so we know where we
> > stand
> Scott,
> Who doesn't believe one's authority on Sarris is related to one's
> proximity.
John,
Who was less claiming authority than identifying a certain prejudice
about Pauline Kael, an intellectual baglady.
Alex Crouvier
scott tobias wrote:
> And if you want to see how bad film criticism can be in a major
> publication, check out The Washington Post
> (http://www.washingtonpost.com), particularly the reviews of Rita
> Kempley.
>
What's wrong with WASHINGTON POST in recent years? I heard in the 60s it
continually put out some of the most challenging pieces of journalism
but now --it seems to employ hacks and cowards. Rita Kempley has been
the butt of jokes in Usenet of course but you gotta see the pomposity of
one Hal Hinson (see how this brave iconoclast wrote about Akira Kurosawa
(in the review of DREAMS) as a director with "bad ideas and deficiency
of taste."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/akirakurosawasdreamspghinson_a0a999.htm
...or the defender of barbaric cinema, Stephen Hunter. Brave new
writers, vocal, stylish, angry, lashing out at the establishment, and
ultimately clueless and purposeless?
Mark.J.Desocio
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998, John Harkness wrote:
> Mark.J.Desocio wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Jun 1998, Steven Chung wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.98060...@bama.ua.edu>,
> > > " Mark.J.Desocio " <deso...@bama.ua.edu> wrote:
> > > #I agree that she's probably overrated; she had such a
> > > #*capitalist/American* take on everything. But I don't think she's the most
> > > #respected, at least, internationally; that would probably go to Andre
> > > #Bazin. (Or maybe Sarris.)
> > >
> > > My God, did you just compare Bazin to Pauline Kael?
> > >
> > > (Incidentally, while a great critic, he wasn't much of a reviewer...)
> >
> > Wasn't that what we were talking about, film criticism? What's the
> > problem?
> >
> > Michael
>
> Apples and oranges
>
> Bazin was more of a film theorist/critic -- not the sort of practical
> reviewer/critic that Kael was -- virtually an extinct breed in terms of
> popular magazines today. They didn't have the same agenda at all.
Sorry; I know all of this, it still doesn't sway me from the belief that
Bazin had more of an impact on film than Kael. Kael may have been read by
a larger audience, but Bazin's theories and ideas and opinions were put
into practice; unlike Kael, whose opinions tended not to have an impact on
the way filmmakers applied their talents. Personally, I find Bazin's
essays from the Cahiers du cinema (available in good bookstores and
libraries) highly accessible, insightful and pleasant reads (I'm speaking
as a non-professional, strictly a fan of film). Kael herself, when writing
for The Atlantic Monthly, wrote very long essays which went beyond mere
"film reviews" (her essays on Marlon Brando and "Last Tango in Paris" can
be found on the Web:
http://www.theatlantic.com/atlweb/aandc/movies/movies4.htm
http://www.voyagerco.com/criterion/indepth.cgi?lasttango
Michael
Justin Siegel
Hmm, baglady... I wonder where you got *that* one from.
MuseMalade
A great list, Scott. Here's a few comments:
scott tobias wrote:
>
> L.A. Weekly -- Mahnola Dargis -- (http://www.laweekly.com)
I think Dargis is, after Rosenbaum, among the best weekly reviewers I
know. Actually, I think the LA alternative weekly reviewers are all
terrific critics. Check out Peter Rainer and Michael Sragow (he mainly
writes for SF Weekly, New Times LA's sister publication:
Follow the "film" icon.
> The New Republic -- Stanley Kauffmann --
> (http://magazines.enews.com/magazines/tnr)
Kauffmann's critical faculties have diminished with age. I still read
him, but I take everything he says with a grain of salt.
> Then, if you feel inclined...
>
> New York Magazine -- David Denby -- (http://www.nymag.com)
As much as I like to knock Denby, he's really a pretty good critic. On
the other hand,
> New York Times -- Janet Maslin, Lawrence Van Gelder, Stephen Holden --
> (http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/arts)
the _Times_ critics are pretty much worthless. Maslin's stab at a
contrarian response to THE TRUMAN SHOW fell on its face. Holden fares
no better in most of his reviews. I'd recommend Kenneth Turan, one of
the few daily newspaper critics that isn't a complete studio kiss-up.
MM
scott tobias
Steven Chung wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980613...@bama.ua.edu>,
> " Mark.J.Desocio " <deso...@bama.ua.edu> wrote:
> #Sorry; I know all of this, it still doesn't sway me from the belief that
> #Bazin had more of an impact on film than Kael.
>
> Of course--that was my point. Bazin was a brilliant critic and theorist;
> Kael was a hack, the very archetype of our modern 'reviewer.' I don't find
> much that's comparable here.
How exactly is Pauline Kael a hack? How is she the "archetype of our
modern 'reviewer'"? I'm interested to know why a critical mind as witty
and penetrating as hers can be casually dismissed in this newsgroup as a
"hack" or "an intellectual baglady" (whatever the hell that means)
without so much as a sliver of argument.
Also, I'm equally interested in the now-exalted status of Bazin, an
admittedly brilliant man nonetheless done in by his fundamental
rejection of the Soviets and their "montage of attractions" in favor of
the Italian Neo-realists and their use of mise en scene, real locations,
non-actors, etc.
Please, indulge me.
Scott
RalphBener
Why would you want to be indulged by someone who thinks Kael is a hack? The
comment alone is worthy of your contempt.
Ralph Benner
http://members.aol.com/RalphBener/Benner.html
Ronald J. Whalen
Mark.J.Desocio wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Justin Siegel wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Just wanted to know who are the most respected film reviewers, on either
> > > side of the Atlantic, and where can I read their works. Are any of them
> > > online?
> >
> > film critic of all time. You can pick up her baglady ramblings -- I mean
> > books, at any bookstore.
>
>
What do you mean by saying that Kael had such a capitalist/American
take on everything ?
Mark.J.Desocio
On a personal level, being a fan of film without knowing the ins and outs
of filmmaking, from the reviews of Kael that I have read, I didn't like
her exaltation of U.S. films at the expense of European films. She
hated Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange," trashed "L'avventura" and "8-1/2," and
generally defended the capitalist marketplace as a sort of ideal to best
cultivate talent, which I don't agree with. In other words, I don't agree
with her politics. Having said that, I still get a kick out of reading her
insights, although I don't always agree with her opinions as much as I
do, say, Janet Maslin or Jonathan Rosenbaum.
On the other hand, I love the Italian neorealist films (Open City, Paisan,
Bicycle Thieves, Umberto D) and the films of Renoir and Bresson which
Bazin championed, as well as the early French New Wave films which Bazin
was very instrumental in helping to create. (Although I don't think I'll
ever understand the infatuation with westerns or John Ford; a huge
gereration gap I guess). The films produced by Bazin's "understudies"/
co-critics - Breathless, Jules and Jim, Shoot the Piano Player, Hiroshima
Mon Amour, My Life to Live, Pierrot le fou, The Cousins, Celine and Julie
Go Boating, Claire's Knee, The 400 Blows, The Lovers, etc. - there's just
never been a period like it in film (and it continues to this day in the
persons of Chabrol ["La Ceremonie"], Rohmer ["Rendezvous in Paris"] and
Godard).
I don't see how Bazin's reputation is damaged by his championing of the
Italian Neorealist films. In my opinion, these films are every bit the
equal of something like Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," Dickens' portrayal
of child labor, or Rebecca Harding Davis's exposure of "Life in the Iron
Mills." It took a crackdown by the Italian government to stop these films
from being made, and I imagine if these kinds of films were made in the
U.S. today, the U.S. government would crack down as well. (And for some
people, conditions here can be just as harsh as they were in postwar
Italy.)
Michael
Mark.J.Desocio
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Michael.DeSocio wrote:
> I don't see how Bazin's reputation is damaged by his championing of the
> Italian Neorealist films. In my opinion, these films are every bit the
> equal of something like Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," Dickens' portrayal
> of child labor, or Rebecca Harding Davis's exposure of "Life in the Iron
> Mills." It took a crackdown by the Italian government to stop these films
> from being made, and I imagine if these kinds of films were made in the
> U.S. today, the U.S. government would crack down as well. (And for some
> people, conditions here can be just as harsh as they were in postwar
> Italy.)
I want to explain my last sentence because the last time I said something
like this, the responses were unequivocally "go to India if you think
you've got it bad here" (as though that has anything to do with poverty in
America!)
In De Sica's film "Umberto D," an old man with no living relatives
and very little income - just a little pension which has just run out -
is being evicted by his landlord. With no possessions, very little money -
not enough to pay one month's rent, - and all of his friends buried or
penniless as well, he is turned out of his apartment. He contemplates
suicide, but the film ends with him taking a short one-way bus ride using
up the last of the change he possessed.
Anyone who thinks this doesn't happen in America is crazy; take a look in
any city and you'll see them sleeping on the pavement or sifting through
garbage for food. Don't yell at me; I didn't cause it. (Also, don't tell
me they're mental defectives; I've lived on the streets and can tell you
dementia sets in *after*, when the anger and resentment overwhelms beyond
carrying capacity.)
Michael
Stephen Wellington
In the "Most Overrated Directors" thread, on the subject of
uber-mediocrity John Landis, Norman Wilner wrote:
> He's made some good films since the "TZ" tragedy - "Into the Night" and "Innocent
> Blood" come to mind - and a lot of poor ones. I have noticed that whenever he gets
> away from former cast members of "Saturday Night Live", his work invariably
> improves.
Those two were "good films"??? Guess we can strike Norm from the list
of nominees.
scott tobias
Pauline Kael didn't necessarily favor American films over European
films, as evidenced by her positive reviews of many efforts from the
major directors: Godard ("Weekend," "Breathless," "La Chinoise," "Bande
A Part," and many others); De Sica (esp. "Shoeshine," "Umberto D." and
"The Children Are Watching Us"); Truffaut (esp. "Jules and Jim," "Story
of Adele H." and "Shoot the Piano Player"); all of the German
expressionists (i.e. Murnau, Lang, Pabst, etc.); all of the Soviets
(Dovzhenko, Eisenstein, Pudovkin); Renoir ("Rules of the Game," "Grand
Illusion"); early Fellini ("I Vitelloni" [the standard by which she
judged one of her pet films, "Mean Streets"]; "La Strada"); Dreyer ("La
Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," "Day of Wrath," "Vampyr") and, of course,
Bertolucci and many more. It's true that she rejected "8 1/2," but she
had mostly kind words for "L'Avventura": "Visually, it's extraordinary:
a calm hangs over everything-- Antonioni's space is a vaccuum in which
people are aimlessly moving... This is upper class neo-realism-- the
poetry of moral and spiritual poverty. There had been nothing like it
before, and it isn't fair to blame this movie for all the elegant
sleepwalking and desolation that followed. There's something great
here--a new mood, a new emotional rhythm-- even with all the
affectation." As for "A Clockwork Orange," I happen to agree with her
charge that Kubrick stacks the deck in advancing his argument against
dehumanization (he's about the last guy who should be taking this stand,
given what he puts his actors through) by making Alex's victims
repulsive. There's no better example of Kubrick acting as cruel,
manipulative puppeteer.
I also can't find any evidence that Kael favors the capitalist
marketplace as "an ideal to cultivate talent." She loves American film,
no doubt, but it's hard to see where she makes associations with
capitalism.
> On the other hand, I love the Italian neorealist films (Open City, Paisan,
> Bicycle Thieves, Umberto D) and the films of Renoir and Bresson which
> Bazin championed, as well as the early French New Wave films which Bazin
> was very instrumental in helping to create. (Although I don't think I'll
> ever understand the infatuation with westerns or John Ford; a huge
> gereration gap I guess). The films produced by Bazin's "understudies"/
> co-critics - Breathless, Jules and Jim, Shoot the Piano Player, Hiroshima
> Mon Amour, My Life to Live, Pierrot le fou, The Cousins, Celine and Julie
> Go Boating, Claire's Knee, The 400 Blows, The Lovers, etc. - there's just
> never been a period like it in film (and it continues to this day in the
> persons of Chabrol ["La Ceremonie"], Rohmer ["Rendezvous in Paris"] and
> Godard).
>
> I don't see how Bazin's reputation is damaged by his championing of the
> Italian Neorealist films. In my opinion, these films are every bit the
> equal of something like Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," Dickens' portrayal
> of child labor, or Rebecca Harding Davis's exposure of "Life in the Iron
> Mills." It took a crackdown by the Italian government to stop these films
> from being made, and I imagine if these kinds of films were made in the
> U.S. today, the U.S. government would crack down as well. (And for some
> people, conditions here can be just as harsh as they were in postwar
> Italy.)
I share your love of the French New Wave and Italian Neo-Realism, and I
made a mistake by not acknowledging Bazin's instrumental role in
igniting the former and championing the latter. My complaint with Bazin
has to do with his views on film and reality. Bazin believed in "The
Myth of Total Cinema," a concept he believe inspired the invention of
the medium. The ideal, in Bazin's view, was to work towards a complete
recreation of the world in its own image and he held up "The Bicycle
Thief" as a model. In doing so, he embraced mise-en-scene for its
realism while rejecting the "plastic" imagery of Expressionism and the
use of montage. To me, his theory is too rigid, not only in it failure
to exploit the possibilities of the cinema, but also in its assumptions
about film realism. For example, here's a claim about "The Bicycle
Thief": "Not one gesture, not one incident, not a single object in the
film is given a prior significance derived from the ideology of the
director." It seems to me that the entire Neo-realist movement is linked
by ideology, which is as evident and powerful as works like Sinclair's
_The Jungle_.
I don't think it's especially fruitful to compare Bazin and Kael, unless
one is referring to her pre-New Yorker days at Film Quarterly, when she
concerned herself more with film theory. I have yet to read her
"Raising Kane" piece, so I can't respond to the other posts, though from
what I understand, it's motivated by her tendency to consider film as a
collaborative art, rather than simply crediting the director. Is this
true?
Scott
scott tobias
Mark.J.Desocio wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Michael.DeSocio wrote:
>
> > Italian Neorealist films. In my opinion, these films are every bit the
> > equal of something like Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," Dickens' portrayal
> > of child labor, or Rebecca Harding Davis's exposure of "Life in the Iron
> > Mills." It took a crackdown by the Italian government to stop these films
> > from being made, and I imagine if these kinds of films were made in the
> > U.S. today, the U.S. government would crack down as well. (And for some
> > people, conditions here can be just as harsh as they were in postwar
> > Italy.)
>
> like this, the responses were unequivocally "go to India if you think
> you've got it bad here" (as though that has anything to do with poverty in
> America!)
>
> In De Sica's film "Umberto D," an old man with no living relatives
> and very little income - just a little pension which has just run out -
> is being evicted by his landlord. With no possessions, very little money -
> not enough to pay one month's rent, - and all of his friends buried or
> penniless as well, he is turned out of his apartment. He contemplates
> suicide, but the film ends with him taking a short one-way bus ride using
> up the last of the change he possessed.
>
> Anyone who thinks this doesn't happen in America is crazy; take a look in
> any city and you'll see them sleeping on the pavement or sifting through
> garbage for food. Don't yell at me; I didn't cause it. (Also, don't tell
> me they're mental defectives; I've lived on the streets and can tell you
> dementia sets in *after*, when the anger and resentment overwhelms beyond
> carrying capacity.)
>
> Michael
Absolutely. It's a shame that some people, in their eagerness to defend
the capitalist system, fail to so much as acknowledge those who come out
on the losing end. It's a double shame that few contemporary American
films (the recent "Bulworth" excepted) bother to address these issues.
Ironically, such films probably don't get made because they're not
sellable.
Scott
Cathryn Mataga
Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
> Agreed, I don't agree with her views on other Kubrick films but I do
> agree with her about Clockwork. It's Kubrick worst, most sexist, racist,
> pornographic, ugly, not sexy, not exciting just dull boring nauseating
> dull predictable would-be political satire and medicore 1984 up-date.
> I despise Kubrick's lessons in Clockwork that we should love all
> murders/rapists and Clockwork is one of the few films I've walked out of
> and I'm glad that I did.
Yeah, that's what Clockwork Orange is about. "We should love all
murders/rapists." .... okay.
Alien Bastard
Sweet Jesus, Kubrick, my favorite director, has more to say in
Clockwork Orange, than we should all love murderer rapist, read into
it more, think about it.
Alien Bastard
"There's no fighting in the war room!!"
The President
Dr. Strangelove
Ronald J. Whalen
Alien Bastard wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:15:19 -0700, Cathryn Mataga
> <cat...@junglevision.com> wrote:
>
> >Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
> >> Agreed, I don't agree with her views on other Kubrick films but I do
> >> agree with her about Clockwork. It's Kubrick worst, most sexist, racist,
> >> pornographic, ugly, not sexy, not exciting just dull boring nauseating
> >> dull predictable would-be political satire and medicore 1984 up-date.
> >> I despise Kubrick's lessons in Clockwork that we should love all
> >> murders/rapists and Clockwork is one of the few films I've walked out of
> >> and I'm glad that I did.
> >
> >Yeah, that's what Clockwork Orange is about. "We should love all
> >murders/rapists." .... okay.
>
> Sweet Jesus, Kubrick, my favorite director, has more to say in
> Clockwork Orange, than we should all love murderer rapist,
Like what ? What does Kubrick have to say ? Except that we should love
criminals because they people they hurt are just as bad if not worser
than the criminals. Kubrick tells us in the film that those who want to
stop violence are destroying humanity's will. I would be able to
understand that message better if there was somebody here to feel sad
for, somebody who earns sympathy for being a good person but there isn't
a single nice person in the movie. Kubrick makes all of the victims, the
people who get hurt in the film just as nasty and mean as Alex. The film
wants us almost and most sickeningly disgusting to laugh at people
getting killed, rappedand murdered. It's done in the ugliest style ever.
Kubrick's world of Clockwork Orange is a world where everybody's evil,
a world that does not exist. Kubrick's film is not a reflection on
society or real life violence but a make-believe movie in which Kubrick
tells us we should love criminals because by committing crime they are
free to do as they please because committing violence is good and the
people who do commit violence are better than those people that they
hurt, abuse, and injure and according to Kubrick, you shouldn't feel
sympathy for the people who get hurt because they're just as bad as the
criminals and that the victims got what was coming to them. That's as
amoral as any message in any film I've seen. The criminal acts in the
film are disgusting, sick, ugly, depressing, gross, mean and evil but
Kubrick says we should love people who commit such acts because those
people are humanity at it's most free and we should love and cheer them
on as they hurt people. That's a pretty dumb message coming from Kubrick
and while I agree that dehumanization is bad how can Kubrick tell us all
that we should be free so as not to hurt the good people in society when
there are no good people in society. The Alex character is mean, a liar,
a cheat, a bad person and yet Kubrick says we should love him because
he's capable of being bad because in Kubrick's world to be bad is to be
better than not to be bad. Kubrick's film seems to be saying we need to
have violence, murder, abuse, sexism, rape, and evil in our society
because they are the good things about society. These are not good
things about society, instead they are the worst most terrible
unbearable mean cruel things about society. To hear Kubrick preach
against dehumanization (when in fact, Kubrick makes movies that take
years to film and make
and on how he demands that his actors to perform take after take after
take after take until they become robots and mechanized in their roles
thus ruining the movie) is hypocrisy from somebody who seems to love and
even worship the idea of dehumanization and violence against other
people and sees everybody as evil and asks us to embrace evil. The film
wants to be a morality tale against dehumanization vs. free will but is
instead a film about evil vs. evil, Kubrick's film is a stacked deck of
cards.
I saw the film one time on Cable and that was enough for me. I really
admire Kubrick as a film director and I think 2001 is his most pretty
fantastic mysterious ultimate science fiction story, I believe that
The Killing is the finest film-noir crime story ever filmed, Lolita
is a wonderful adaption of the novel, that Dr.Strangelove is one of
cinema's finest accomplishments (the AFI list may be horse but at least
they were smart to put that film on the list of all-time great movies)
and the best comedy satire I have ever seen. Both Paths of Glory
and Full Metal Jacket stand out as the best war movies ever made,
The Shining is a great horror film that gets better and better on
repeated viewings and while it's nothing like the novel it comes closer
to capturing the novel's terror and fear, more than the mini-series
ever did (I liked the mini-series for being a faithful adaption of
the book which I loved and for Steven Weber's brilliant funny sad creepy
peformance but the film just wasn't as scary as Kubrick's film)....but
every director has a few bad films in the closet and Kubrick's worst
film is A Clockwork Orange. If there's a more pro-violence, sexist,
boring film than A Clockwork Orange out there that I haven't seen, I
don't want to see it. Kael was right-on in disliking and giving a bad
film review
to A Clockwork Orange. Kael is a person who has good taste in films and
knows what's a bad movie and what's good movies. I agree with her on
that ACO is bad, just plain ugly sick bad movie.
Ronald J. Whalen
Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
>
> Alien Bastard wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:15:19 -0700, Cathryn Mataga
> > <cat...@junglevision.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
> > >> agree with her about Clockwork. It's Kubrick worst, most sexist, racist,
> > >> pornographic, ugly, not sexy, not exciting just dull boring nauseating
> > >> dull predictable would-be political satire and medicore 1984 up-date.
> > >> I despise Kubrick's lessons in Clockwork that we should love all
> > >> murders/rapists and Clockwork is one of the few films I've walked out of
> > >> and I'm glad that I did.
> > >
> > >Yeah, that's what Clockwork Orange is about. "We should love all
> > >murders/rapists." .... okay.
> >
> > Sweet Jesus, Kubrick, my favorite director, has more to say in
> > Clockwork Orange, than we should all love murderer rapist,
>
Like what ? What does Kubrick have more in say in Clockwork Orange other
than we should love all murderers and rapists ? The only thing Kubrick
says in Clockwork Orange is that we should love criminals because they
people they hurt are just as bad if not worser than the criminals.
Kubrick tells us in the film that those who want to stop violence are
destroying humanity's will. I would be able to understand that message
better if there was somebody here to feel sad for, somebody who earns
sympathy for being a good person but there isn't a single nice person in
the movie. Kubrick makes all of the victims, the people who get hurt in
the film just as nasty and mean as Alex. The film wants us almost and
most sickeningly disgusting to laugh at people getting killed, rapped
and murdered. It's done in the ugliest style ever. Kubrick's world of
Clockwork Orange is a world where everybody's evil, a world that does
not exist. Kubrick's film is not a reflection on society or real life
violence but a make-believe movie in which Kubrick tells us we should
love criminals because by committing crime they are free to do as they
please because committing violence is good and the people who do commit
violence are better than those people that they hurt, abuse, and injure
and according to Kubrick, you shouldn't feel sympathy for the people who
get hurt because they're just as bad as the criminals and that the
victims got what was coming to them. That's as amoral as any message in
any film I've seen. The criminal acts in the film are disgusting, sick,
ugly, depressing, gross, mean and evil but Kubrick says we should love
people who commit such acts because those people are humanity at it's
most free and we should love and cheer them on as they hurt people.
That's a pretty dumb message coming from Kubrick and while I agree that
dehumanization is bad...how can Kubrick tell us all that we should be
free so as not to hurt the good people in society when there are no nice
kind non-violent good people in society to like ? The Alex character
(played by Malcom McDowell and voice-over narrator of the film) is mean,
a liar, a cheat, a bad person and yet Kubrick says we should love him
because he's capable of being bad because in Kubrick's world to be bad
is to be better than not to be bad. Kubrick's film seems to be saying we
need to have violence, murder, abuse, sexism, rape, and evil in our
society because they are the good things about society. These are not
good things about society, instead they are the worst most terrible
unbearable mean cruel things about society. To hear Kubrick preach
against dehumanization is hypocrisy. Furthermore, Kubrick makes movies
that take years to film and make and how he demands his actors to
perform take after take after take after take after take until they
become not actors but emotionless robots and their performances in the
movie become mechanized, dull, predictable, dumn and thus ruin the
movie. An example of Kubrick's meaness and hurting actors is Eyes Wide
Shut a movie which started filming in 1996 and yet has gone through two
actors,
both have been replaced because one did not agree to do take after take
and one was even carried off the set in tears, one even after doing
endless takes to be told the actor would be in the movie was even
replaced by yet another actress who now also has to do take after take
after take. It's currently summer 1998 and Kubrick has yet to finish the
film and has just hired a new actor to work on the film meaning more
acting and more take after take after take will be done until Kubrick is
"satisfied" in filming his "vision of the movie" and it will take a year
after that to edit the film to Kubrick's desire and need meaning we
won't see the film this winter nor will we see it the summer...at the
rate Kubrick is going we may not even see the film until 2010 or even
beyond that and I bet that Kubrick in his old age is probably going to
die before he even finishes the movie. The movie wil probably be shelved
by the studio and never seen except in bootleg copies of the film that
will probably circulate around when people realize Kubrick never
finished the film before he died. I bet that movie buffs, fans of
Kubrick, and people will wonder for years how a person like Kubrick who
had all the time in the world, an unlimited access by the movie studios
to film whatever film he wanted made so few movies when he could have
made so many. To see Kubrick make a movie like Clockwork Orange or
nicknamed ACO is pure and simple ugly stupid dumb moronic hypocrisy
somebody who seems to love and
even worship the idea of dehumanization as shown in his carrer as a
filmmaker which I've mentioned up above. If hurting people's emotions
isn't bad enough, Kubrick according to ACO seems to be in love with
violence and likes to see violence against other people and Kubrick
seems to enjoy seeing people suffer. Kubrick's film, ACO sees everybody
as evil and asks us to embrace evil. The film wants to be a morality
tale against dehumanization vs. free will but is instead a film about
evil vs. evil, Kubrick's film is a stacked deck of cards. I saw the film
one time on Cable and that was enough for me. I really admire Kubrick as
a film director and I think 2001 is his most pretty fantastic mysterious
ultimate science fiction story, I believe that The Killing is the finest
film-noir crime story ever filmed, Lolita is a wonderful adaption of the
novel, that Dr.Strangelove is one of cinema's finest accomplishments
(the AFI list may be horse but at least they were smart to put that film
on the list of all-time great movies) and the best comedy satire I have
ever seen. Both Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket stand out as the
best war movies ever made, The Shining is a great horror film that gets
better and better on repeated viewings and while it's nothing like the
novel it comes closer to capturing the Stephen King novel's terror and
fear, more than the mini-series ever did (I liked the mini-series for
being a faithful adaption of the book which I loved and for Steven
Weber's brilliant funny sad creepy peformance but the film just wasn't
as scary as Kubrick's film)....but every film director has a few bad
Cathryn Mataga
A dream I had was that sometime back there was a fork in the road, and
either we could go to the 2001 future or the Clockwork Orange future.
Back in the decade that youth was seen as all good -- and, why, if only
we'd listen to the children and smoke lots of pot, peace and love would
prevail. But, right in the middle of all that comes this film -- where
the kids are the killers, the parents are wusses, the government
is brutal, art is pornography, god is dead, and the liberals, well they
want to help, but all they give a damn about is power -- really.
Gosh, why is this so familiar? Clockwork Orange called it, I think.
On the 'Kubrik is mean to actors' issue, I believe that if Kubrik
is paying the salary and not cheating actors out of money, he has
every right to ask for as many takes as he likes. Nobody has ever
forced anyone to be an actor in a film. If it's too boring
that's just tough. Doing a lot of takes never hurt anyone. Really,
in any visual media, the actual creation of it usually
involves extremely anal painstaking attention to detail -- that is
if you want something good.
Phil Noir
Ronie, are you on fucking crack, or what? I have read *all* of your
diatribes over the past few months, -- and have even have given you
credit for tenacity, if nothing else -- but sometimes, kid, you are in
much deeper waters than you are capable of paddling around in. May I be
the first (but certainly not the last) to blast you on your complete,
utter blindsided stupidty in misunderstanding and misrepresenting
Clockwork Orange. I could go a rampage here but I'll just zero in on a
few salient observations, such as:
>What does Kubrick have more in say in Clockwork Orange other
> than we should love all murderers and rapists?
How about -- the capacity to love is directly related to the capacity
for violence, a double-sided coin. What makes us human and capable of
love is free will. Take away the ability to make distinctions, and lose
the ability to love. Alex cannot love after the Ludvico technique is
applied.
> Kubrick tells us in the film that those who want to stop violence are
> destroying humanity's will. I would be able to understand that message
> better if there was somebody here to feel sad for, somebody who earns
> sympathy for being a good person but there isn't a single nice person in
> the movie.
Thank you, Forest Gump. Or would that be B.F. Skinner? First of all,
there is no such thing as "humanity's will" since that is a province of
individual traits. Have you ever read Richard III? He wasn't such a nice
person. He's the goddamned protagonist. Do you even know the difference?
Is everything Indiana Jones to you?
>Kubrick makes all of the victims, the people who get hurt in
> the film just as nasty and mean as Alex.
The difference being, Alex is engaging and clever. He has a potential
that the others don't possess -- therefore his violent proclivities and
transformation are made all the more ironic.
>The film wants us almost and most sickeningly disgusting to laugh at people getting >killed, rapped and murdered.
No, the film *never* asserts that Alex's behavior is to be condoned.
Only the ugly side in yourself makes this seem possible.
>It's done in the ugliest style ever.
Define "style." Ever more than what?
>Kubrick's world of Clockwork Orange is a world where everybody's evil, a world that >oes not exist.
They call it fiction, Ronie and allegory in particular. Miss that class?
>According to Kubrick, you shouldn't feel sympathy for the people who
> get hurt because they're just as bad as the criminals and that the
> victims got what was coming to them.
Not only have you missed the point by a wide margin, now you've been
appointed as the spokesman for Kubrick. What hubris!
>That's as amoral as any message in any film I've seen.
CO is perhaps the most moral film Kubrick's ever made (since POG at
least) and to not understand that, even if one doesn't like the message
or presentation, is the biggest shame of all. The rest of your rant
sounds like it's speed-induced. Christ on a pogo stick, learn how to
avoid a run-on sentence (even if you have no idea how to interpret
film). I give up.
Mark.J.Desocio
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
> Alien Bastard wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:15:19 -0700, Cathryn Mataga
> > <cat...@junglevision.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
> > >> Agreed, I don't agree with her views on other Kubrick films but I do
> > >> agree with her about Clockwork. It's Kubrick worst, most sexist, racist,
> > >> pornographic, ugly, not sexy, not exciting just dull boring nauseating
> > >> dull predictable would-be political satire and medicore 1984 up-date.
> > >> I despise Kubrick's lessons in Clockwork that we should love all
> > >> murders/rapists and Clockwork is one of the few films I've walked out of
> > >> and I'm glad that I did.
> > >
> > >Yeah, that's what Clockwork Orange is about. "We should love all
> > >murders/rapists." .... okay.
> >
> > Sweet Jesus, Kubrick, my favorite director, has more to say in
> > Clockwork Orange, than we should all love murderer rapist,
>
> Like what ? What does Kubrick have to say ? Except that we should love
> criminals because they people they hurt are just as bad if not worser
> than the criminals. Kubrick tells us in the film that those who want to
> stop violence are destroying humanity's will.
Where does he say that?
> I would be able to
> understand that message better if there was somebody here to feel sad
> for, somebody who earns sympathy for being a good person but there isn't
> a single nice person in the movie.
Cops and robbers, eh? Good guys and bad?
> Kubrick makes all of the victims, the
> people who get hurt in the film just as nasty and mean as Alex. The film
> wants us almost and most sickeningly disgusting to laugh at people
> getting killed, rappedand murdered.
Your right; we don't crave those kinds of things. I don't know why they
keep forcing us to watch slasher movies, exploitation tv shows like
"Cops," talk shows, and what passes for the news, not to mention things
like wrestling, overall violence in movies, boxing, hockey, and our
greatest triumph yet: modern warfare. It's a brutal satire giving the
insatiable public what it inwardly craves the most but is too hypocritical
to admit, even to themselves: bloodlust.
> It's done in the ugliest style ever.
> Kubrick's world of Clockwork Orange is a world where everybody's evil,
> a world that does not exist.
Take a look at the world you live in. (More than likely you probably live
in the suburbs. Fat women in spandex walking their spotlessly clean
poodles, the family stationwagon, the picket fences, the lawn sprinkler -
it's a platic, superficial and contemptible way to live - unfortunately,
there aren't very many alternatives anymore.)
> Kubrick's film is not a reflection on
> society or real life violence but a make-believe movie in which Kubrick
> tells us we should love criminals because by committing crime they are
> free to do as they please because committing violence is good and the
> people who do commit violence are better than those people that they
> hurt, abuse, and injure and according to Kubrick, you shouldn't feel
> sympathy for the people who get hurt because they're just as bad as the
> criminals and that the victims got what was coming to them. That's as
> amoral as any message in any film I've seen.
A harsh indictment of the herd, I agree. Unlike most films, which say that
criminals are unthinking brutes and the middleclass victims are honorable
and awake/alive people, this film says that the middleclass is as blind
and unthinking as the criminals it fears so much. (Which, in this sense,
this film is a kind of satire/nightmare - the worst fears of the
middleclass come true.)
> The criminal acts in the
> film are disgusting, sick, ugly, depressing, gross, mean and evil but
> Kubrick says we should love people who commit such acts because those
> people are humanity at it's most free and we should love and cheer them
> on as they hurt people. That's a pretty dumb message coming from Kubrick
> and while I agree that dehumanization is bad how can Kubrick tell us all
> that we should be free so as not to hurt the good people in society when
> there are no good people in society.
Ralph Waldo Emerson: "The state of society is one in which the members
have suffered amputation from the trunk, and strut about so many walking
monsters, - a good finger, a neck, a stomach, an elbow, but never a man."
It's a Rousseauean thing.
> The Alex character is mean, a liar,
> a cheat, a bad person and yet Kubrick says we should love him because
> he's capable of being bad because in Kubrick's world to be bad is to be
> better than not to be bad. Kubrick's film seems to be saying we need to
> have violence, murder, abuse, sexism, rape, and evil in our society
> because they are the good things about society.
I think what he's saying is that those things are as natural to our
inhuman society (inhumane workplaces, inhumane social classes, etc.) as
running water and electricity.
> These are not good
> things about society, instead they are the worst most terrible
> unbearable mean cruel things about society. To hear Kubrick preach
> against dehumanization (when in fact, Kubrick makes movies that take
> years to film and make
> and on how he demands that his actors to perform take after take after
> take after take until they become robots and mechanized in their roles
> thus ruining the movie) is hypocrisy from somebody who seems to love and
> even worship the idea of dehumanization and violence against other
> people and sees everybody as evil and asks us to embrace evil. The film
> wants to be a morality tale against dehumanization vs. free will but is
> instead a film about evil vs. evil, Kubrick's film is a stacked deck of
> cards.
Anybody with a vision - a novelist, a painter, a philosopher, a poet - is
"playing with a stacked deck of cards," trying to express his vision of
what the world looks like from his eyes.
> I saw the film one time on Cable and that was enough for me. I really
> admire Kubrick as a film director and I think 2001 is his most pretty
> fantastic mysterious ultimate science fiction story, I believe that
> The Killing is the finest film-noir crime story ever filmed, Lolita
> is a wonderful adaption of the novel, that Dr.Strangelove is one of
> cinema's finest accomplishments (the AFI list may be horse but at least
> they were smart to put that film on the list of all-time great movies)
> and the best comedy satire I have ever seen. Both Paths of Glory
> and Full Metal Jacket stand out as the best war movies ever made,
> The Shining is a great horror film that gets better and better on
> repeated viewings and while it's nothing like the novel it comes closer
> to capturing the novel's terror and fear, more than the mini-series
> ever did (I liked the mini-series for being a faithful adaption of
> the book which I loved and for Steven Weber's brilliant funny sad creepy
> peformance but the film just wasn't as scary as Kubrick's film)....but
> every director has a few bad films in the closet and Kubrick's worst
> film is A Clockwork Orange.
Kubrick's worst film is by far "The Shining."
> If there's a more pro-violence, sexist,
> boring film than A Clockwork Orange out there that I haven't seen, I
> don't want to see it. Kael was right-on in disliking and giving a bad
> film review
> to A Clockwork Orange. Kael is a person who has good taste in films and
> knows what's a bad movie and what's good movies. I agree with her on
> that ACO is bad, just plain ugly sick bad movie.
"Bad dog, BAD dog!!"
Michael
scott tobias
Cathryn Mataga wrote:
> On the 'Kubrik is mean to actors' issue, I believe that if Kubrik
> is paying the salary and not cheating actors out of money, he has
> every right to ask for as many takes as he likes. Nobody has ever
> forced anyone to be an actor in a film. If it's too boring
> that's just tough. Doing a lot of takes never hurt anyone. Really,
> in any visual media, the actual creation of it usually
> involves extremely anal painstaking attention to detail -- that is
> if you want something good.
So you don't see the irony of a director who goes about making a film
that decries the dehumanization of man by turning his actors into
"clockwork oranges"? Do you really believe it's okay for Kubrick to
mistreat other people as long as his paychecks don't bounce? Putting
aside the merits of "A Clockwork Orange," which may or may not make his
abuse worthwhile for art's sake, how is it possible to ignore Kubrick's
moral hypocrisy on this point?
Scott
Cathryn Mataga
scott tobias wrote:
> Cathryn Mataga wrote:
> > On the 'Kubrik is mean to actors' issue, I believe that if Kubrik
> > is paying the salary and not cheating actors out of money, he has
> > every right to ask for as many takes as he likes. Nobody has ever
> > forced anyone to be an actor in a film. If it's too boring
> > that's just tough. Doing a lot of takes never hurt anyone. Really,
> > in any visual media, the actual creation of it usually
> > involves extremely anal painstaking attention to detail -- that is
> > if you want something good.
>
> that decries the dehumanization of man by turning his actors into
> "clockwork oranges"? Do you really believe it's okay for Kubrick to
> mistreat other people as long as his paychecks don't bounce? Putting
> aside the merits of "A Clockwork Orange," which may or may not make his
> abuse worthwhile for art's sake, how is it possible to ignore Kubrick's
> moral hypocrisy on this point?
Doing a lot of takes doesn't dehumanize anyone; doing a lot of takes
isn't mistreating anyone. If he asked his actors to clean his bathroom
or mow the lawn, that'd be a different story. But, they're there to
act, and that's what he's askin' 'em to do. When you're a professional,
you're supposed to do what is necessary to get the job done. It's that
simple.
Besides doing good work is 'humanizing' -- not 'de-humanizing', methinks.
13th Floor
Ronald J. Whalen <rjwh...@cti-md.com> wrote in article
<358874...@cti-md.com>...
> > > >> Agreed, I don't agree with Pauline Kael's views on other Kubrick
films but I do
> > > >> agree with her about Clockwork. It's Kubrick worst, most sexist,
racist,
> > > >> pornographic, ugly, not sexy, not exciting just dull boring
nauseating
> > > >> dull predictable would-be political satire and medicore 1984
up-date.
> > > >> I despise Kubrick's lessons in Clockwork that we should love all
> > > >> murders/rapists and Clockwork is one of the few films I've walked
out of
> > > >> and I'm glad that I did.
I don't read the film that way at all. I don't think the message is that
we're supposed to love Alex... I think Kubrick thinks Alex is a sociopath
(which he is), BUT, thanks in part to Malcolm McDowell's excellent
performance he becomes charismatic and compelling if not actually
sympathetic. To me that makes it an especially challenging film --- here's
a character who does terrible, unforgivable things, but he's still
charming. Alex's "droogs" aren't any more innocent than he is, and Kubrick
certainly doesn't show them as being loveable. The ending is meant to be
disturbing... thanks to the intervention of ineffectual and cowardly
politicians, Alex may now have a chance at political influence.
> Like what ? What does Kubrick have more in say in Clockwork Orange other
> than we should love all murderers and rapists ? The only thing Kubrick
> says in Clockwork Orange is that we should love criminals because they
> people they hurt are just as bad if not worser than the criminals.
I don't think that's the message at all.
> Kubrick tells us in the film that those who want to stop violence are
> destroying humanity's will. I would be able to understand that message
> better if there was somebody here to feel sad for, somebody who earns
> sympathy for being a good person but there isn't a single nice person in
> the movie. Kubrick makes all of the victims, the people who get hurt in
> the film just as nasty and mean as Alex.
Yes he does. But that doesn't mean Alex is loveable or that the things he
does are okay. Again I perceive this differently than you.
>To hear Kubrick preach
> against dehumanization is hypocrisy. Furthermore, Kubrick makes movies
> that take years to film and make and how he demands his actors to
> perform take after take after take after take after take until they
> become not actors but emotionless robots and their performances in the
> movie become mechanized, dull, predictable, dumn and thus ruin the
> movie. ---- (much snippage) somebody who seems to love and
> even worship the idea of dehumanization as shown in his carrer as a
> filmmaker which I've mentioned up above.
I think you're reading personal philosophy into eccentricities and
ultra-perfectionism. I don't defend Kubrick's treatment of actors, but if
you nail directors for that, you're gonna take an awful lot of filmmakers
with you.
It's interesting to note that Kubrick, so I've heard, does not allow this
film to be shown in the U.K., on the grounds that it might incite gang
violence. I won't swear to this but I did read it in a major American
newspaper. Perhaps someone from GB can confirm this? In any case, that to
me seems to be an attempt on Kubrick's part to take responsibility for his
work --- hardly the action of someone who embraces violence and evil.
r...@adelphia.net
>as scary as Kubrick's film)....but every film director has a few bad
>films in the closet and Kubrick's worst film is A Clockwork Orange. If
>there's a more pro-violence, sexist, boring film than A Clockwork Orange
>out there that I haven't seen, I don't want to see it. Kael was right-on
>in disliking and giving a bad film review to A Clockwork Orange. Kael is
>a person who has good taste in films and knows what's a bad movie and
>what's good movies. I agree with her on that ACO is bad, just plain ugly
>sick
>bad movie.
is this a troll?
egads.
Marc42
I see a lot of fingerpointing at Kubrick about his "message" in
Clockwork Orange. Why isn't anyone pointing at Burgess?
Marc
------------------------------------
Visit www.azaccess.com/~marc42
Home of the Wallace & Ladmo tribute
Alex Crouvier
Cathryn Mataga wrote:
> Back in the decade that youth was seen as all good -- and, why, if only
> we'd listen to the children and smoke lots of pot, peace and love would
> prevail. But, right in the middle of all that comes this film -- where
> the kids are the killers, the parents are wusses, the government
> is brutal, art is pornography, god is dead, and the liberals, well they
> want to help, but all they give a damn about is power -- really.
> Gosh, why is this so familiar? Clockwork Orange called it, I think.
If I had the power to do it, I would make ACO a required viewing of all
potential members of ACLU
Alex Crouvier
merc...@earthlink.net
<<<<I see a lot of fingerpointing at Kubrick about his "message" in
<<<<Clockwork Orange. Why isn't anyone pointing at Burgess?
First, I'm sure many have spoken about this before on here, but I
haven't seen it, so I'm offering my two cents. Please don't flame if
I'm just repeating what's been said before...
Well, Kubrick chose to film the so-called 'American' version of the
novel despite knowing full well of its missing chapter (he lived in
England at the time, did he not?). I think this point alone makes him
more accountable for the film than Burgess (certainly there are
others).
Burgess has a conclusion (in the missing chapter, which has now been
available in America for several years) that has a satisfaction the film
doesn't. Despite the well-meaning intentions throughout the film
concerning itself over 'free-will', Kubrick misses much of the point of
the work by closing on the last American chapter. A chapter which is
rather heartless and lacking in the humanity Burgess is really trying to
offer. It makes it seem as if Alex has scored some sort of victory over
the system and is off to his life of crime again, without any real
emotional toll. It is artistic AND a crowd-pleaser, but it's also
mean-spirited considering the author wrote another twenty or so pages
that explain (in addition to the title) the 'full-circle' if you will.
Kubrick's resulting film is a 'flawed' masterpiece. Immensely
entertaining, but a populist work that misses much of the intent of the
source work.
David M. Green
The Laser Tribune On-Line
Michael Brooke
Ronald J. Whalen <rjwh...@cti-md.com> wrote:
<huge snip>
> If
> there's a more pro-violence, sexist, boring film than A Clockwork Orange
> out there that I haven't seen, I don't want to see it. Kael was right-on
> in disliking and giving a bad film review to A Clockwork Orange. Kael is
> a person who has good taste in films and knows what's a bad movie and
> what's good movies. I agree with her on that ACO is bad, just plain ugly
> sick
> bad movie.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find these epic paragraphs pretty
much unreadable when presented in one huge chunk? Still, at least Ralph
Benner has stopped posting his equally unreadable epics, so at least
that's something to be grateful for!
But seriously, what's the point of writing enormously long pieces and
then not bothering to spend maybe a minute or so formatting them to make
them a comfortable reading experience? It basically means you've been
wasting your time, because people are going to see this huge wodge of
text and think "too much work", and ignore it.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAN SVANKMAJER - ALCHEMIST OF THE SURREAL
http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank
a lavish tribute to the cinema's wildest imagination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brooke
Cathryn Mataga <cat...@junglevision.com> wrote:
>
> Doing a lot of takes doesn't dehumanize anyone; doing a lot of takes
> isn't mistreating anyone. If he asked his actors to clean his bathroom
> or mow the lawn, that'd be a different story. But, they're there to
> act, and that's what he's askin' 'em to do. When you're a professional,
> you're supposed to do what is necessary to get the job done. It's that
> simple.
It's nowhere near as simple as you glibly make out, because the converse
is that if you're a professional, you have the right to be treated like
a professional. Making professionals (and professionals at the top of
their profession) do hundreds of takes of the same material implies that
they're not doing their jobs properly. I think that's a pretty good
definition of "mistreatment", and the only reason Kubrick gets away with
it is because he's managed this spectacularly advantageous deal with
Warner Bros.
> Besides doing good work is 'humanizing' -- not 'de-humanizing', methinks.
Well, if that's the case, then why is it a pretty much indisputable fact
that the more footage Kubrick shoots on his films, the more zombie-like
his actors become? 'Barry Lyndon' and 'Full Metal Jacket' are
particularly strong pieces of evidence here!
Mark.J.Desocio
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Marc42 wrote:
> I see a lot of fingerpointing at Kubrick about his "message" in
> Clockwork Orange. Why isn't anyone pointing at Burgess?
> Marc
I may be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that Burgess himself wasn't
too crazy about the film
Micahel
r...@adelphia.net
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 05:28:16 -0400, merc...@earthlink.net wrote:
><<<<I see a lot of fingerpointing at Kubrick about his "message" in
><<<<Clockwork Orange. Why isn't anyone pointing at Burgess?
>
>First, I'm sure many have spoken about this before on here, but I
>haven't seen it, so I'm offering my two cents. Please don't flame if
>I'm just repeating what's been said before...
>
>Well, Kubrick chose to film the so-called 'American' version of the
>novel despite knowing full well of its missing chapter (he lived in
>England at the time, did he not?). I think this point alone makes him
>more accountable for the film than Burgess (certainly there are
>others).
>Burgess has a conclusion (in the missing chapter, which has now been
>available in America for several years) that has a satisfaction the film
>doesn't. Despite the well-meaning intentions throughout the film
>concerning itself over 'free-will', Kubrick misses much of the point of
>the work by closing on the last American chapter. A chapter which is
>rather heartless and lacking in the humanity Burgess is really trying to
>offer. It makes it seem as if Alex has scored some sort of victory over
>the system and is off to his life of crime again, without any real
>emotional toll. It is artistic AND a crowd-pleaser, but it's also
>mean-spirited considering the author wrote another twenty or so pages
>that explain (in addition to the title) the 'full-circle' if you will.
>Kubrick's resulting film is a 'flawed' masterpiece. Immensely
>entertaining, but a populist work that misses much of the intent of the
>source work.
exactly what i meant above :)
just like in the shining he misses the point totally..... tho the film
works better in both cases because of it in a weird sort of way...
well at least ACO does.......
i have never faulted a film for not being faithful to a book or a play
or especially the truth.......... i don't think that is any sort of
argument at all.......
r...@adelphia.net
>Cathryn Mataga <cat...@junglevision.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Doing a lot of takes doesn't dehumanize anyone; doing a lot of takes
>> isn't mistreating anyone. If he asked his actors to clean his bathroom
>> or mow the lawn, that'd be a different story. But, they're there to
>> act, and that's what he's askin' 'em to do. When you're a professional,
>> you're supposed to do what is necessary to get the job done. It's that
>> simple.
>
>
>It's nowhere near as simple as you glibly make out, because the converse
>is that if you're a professional, you have the right to be treated like
>a professional. Making professionals (and professionals at the top of
>their profession) do hundreds of takes of the same material implies that
>they're not doing their jobs properly. I think that's a pretty good
>definition of "mistreatment", and the only reason Kubrick gets away with
>it is because he's managed this spectacularly advantageous deal with
>Warner Bros.
no the only reason he gets away with it is the actors trust him...
(keitel excepted........ but then he did the same thing on
Apocalypse.)
i think this whole take think is way out of whack with the probable
reality of it....... i'll bet the unknown Chaplain guy is closer to
the truth than any of the rest of us........
>> Besides doing good work is 'humanizing' -- not 'de-humanizing', methinks.
>
>Well, if that's the case, then why is it a pretty much indisputable fact
>that the more footage Kubrick shoots on his films, the more zombie-like
>his actors become? 'Barry Lyndon' and 'Full Metal Jacket' are
>particularly strong pieces of evidence here!
i don't think the reshoots led to those films problems...... in fact
they probably led to the good things in them more than the bad....
this whole discussion is goofy to me......
to me the dictators are well within their rights.... and more often
make better films than the woody allens of this world.......
give me Lang, polanski, Hathaway, Tati any day.......
then again i'm a guy who loves Cassavettes, Leigh, les blair, and
early allan moyle........ so both ways are just as valid....... some
people are francis bacon some people are marlon brando....... :)
Michael Brooke
Mark.J.Desocio <deso...@bama.ua.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Marc42 wrote:
>
> > I see a lot of fingerpointing at Kubrick about his "message" in
> > Clockwork Orange. Why isn't anyone pointing at Burgess?
> > Marc
>
> I may be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that Burgess himself wasn't
> too crazy about the film
Well, Burgess's autobiography is as good a place as any! Here are some
extracts:
[p.210]
"Before starting our journey I learned that the American director
Stanley Kubrick was to make a film of my 'A Clockwork Orange'. I did
not altogether believe this, and I did not much care: there would be no
money in it for me, since the production company that had originally
bought the rights for a few hundred dollars did not consider that I had
a claim to part of their own profit when they sold those rights to
Warner Brothers. That profit was, of course, considerable."
[p.217]
"I knew now that 'A Clockwork Orange' was definitely being filmed -
Stanley Kubrick was sending urgent cables about the need to see me in
London on some matter of the script - and I feared, justly as it turned
out, that there would be frontal nudity and overt rape. In Chapel Hill
Liana [his wife] and I had seen Scandinavian pornography freely on show,
and some of the films of the new American wave considered themselves
antiquated and reactionary if they did not use 'fuck' and show fucking.
I foresaw a dangerous situation for myself and was right to do so."
[p.244]
"I knew Kubrick's work well and admired it. [...] 'Lolita' could not
work well, not solely because James Mason and Sellers were miscast, but
because Kubrick had found no cinematic equivalent to Nabokov's literary
extravagance. Nabokov's script, I knew, had been rejected: all the
scripts for 'A Clockwork Orange', above all my own, had been rejected
too, and I feared that the cutting to the narrative bone which harmed
the filmed 'Lolita' would turn the filmed 'A Clockwork Orange' into a
complementary pornograph - the seduction of a minor for the one, for the
other brutal mayhem. The writer's aim in both books had been to put
language, not sex or violence, into the foreground; a film, on the other
hand, was not made out of words. What I hoped for, having seen '2001: A
Space Odyssey', was an expert attempt at visual futurism. 'A Clockwork
Orange', the book, had been set in a vague future which was already
probably past; Kubrick had the opportunity to create a fantastic new
future which, being realised in décor, could affect the present."
[Burgess then sees the film, and...]
"We watched the film to the end, but it was not the end of the book I
had published in London in 1962; Kubrick had followed the American
truncation and finished with a brilliantly realised fantasy drawn from
the ultimate chapter of the one, penultimate chapter of the other.
Alex, the thug-hero, having been conditioned to hate violence, is now
deconditioned and sees himself wrestling with a naked girl while a crowd
dressed for Ascot discreetly applauds. Alex's voice-over gloats: "I was
cured all right". A vindication of free will had become an exaltation
of the urge to sin. I was worried. The British version of the book
shows Alex growing up and putting violence by as a childish toy; Kubrick
confessed that he did not know this version: an American, though settled
in England, he had followed the only version that Americans were
permitted to know. I cursed Eric Swenson of W.W.Norton."
[The film is then released in Britain, and...]
"As for the terrible theme - the violence of the individual preferable
to the violence of the state - questions were asked in parliament and
the banning of the film urged. It was left to me, while the fulfilled
artist Kubrick pared his nails in his house at Borehamwood, to explain
to the press what the film, and for that matter the almost forgotten
book, was really about, to preach a little sermon about 'liberum
arbitrarium', and to affirm the Catholic content. The Catholic press
was not pleased. [...] I was not quite sure what I was defending - the
book that had been called 'a nasty little shocker' or the film about
which Kubrick had remained silent. I realised, not for the first time,
how little impact a shocking book can make in comparison with a film.
Kubrick's achievement swallowed mine whole, and yet I was responsible
for what some called its malign influence on the young."
[p.253]
"[Malcolm McDowell] and I, in a kind of father-son mockery, were to
appear on radio and television [in the US] and publicise the film. The
relationship was apt, for in the film the hero is named Alex Burgess,
though only after he has been named Alex Delarge (a reference to his
calling himself, though only in the book, Alex the Large, or Alexander
the Great). The cinema gets away with inconsistencies which no
copy-editor would stomach in a novel, also with factual errors and sheer
solecisms that the extravagant finance should obviate. [...] Kubrick
went on paring his nails, even when it was announced that he was to be
given two New York Critics' awards. I had to collect those at Sardi's
restaurant and deliver a speech of thanks. Kubrick telephoned to say
what I was to say. I said something rather different."
[p.261]
"'Orange Mécanique', shown in Paris to highly intellectual plaudits, got
in the way of my Bible studies. 'Le Nouvel Observateur' was stupefied
by the originality of Kubrick's dialogue, which was all mine, and I had
to complain to its editor, Olivier Todd, about the assumption that the
entire concept was Kubrick's own. Despite their disdain for English,
the French intelligentsia ought at least to know that my book existed.
After all, Christine Brooke-Rose, who had beaten the anti-romanciers at
their own game, had written on it at length in one of the French
literary reviews."
-------------------------
Burgess's point of view is backed up by interviews that he gave over the
years: he was impressed by much of the film, annoyed by the changes
(particularly to the ending), unconvinced that Kubrick had come up with
a workable visual equivalent of his ultra-stylised prose, and hugely
irritated by the fact that he was expected to defend both book and film,
when the film misrepresented the book, and by the fact that Kubrick was
given far too much credit for ideas that Burgess had come up with a
decade earlier (last chapter apart, the film does follow the book
exceptionally closely: most literary adaptations make far more sweeping
changes).
None of which, under the circumstances, should come as much of a
surprise, though it's well worth reading the third novel in Burgess's
'Enderby' cycle, 'The Clockwork Testament', which includes a very funny
section where the poet Enderby gets blamed for an ultra-sensationalised
film that completely distorts the meaning of his original work. I'm
sure this *could* be a coincidence, but given the fact that Burgess
wrote the book in 1972, not to mention the title, this seems unlikely.
Patrick J. Larkin
Mark.J.Desocio wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Marc42 wrote:
>
> > I see a lot of fingerpointing at Kubrick about his "message" in
> > Clockwork Orange. Why isn't anyone pointing at Burgess?
> > Marc
>
> I may be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that Burgess himself wasn't
> too crazy about the film
>
>
I recall Burgess being very apprehensive about the making of the film.
Burgess despised the novel which he had written and was afraid of what
might transpire when it was on screen.
--
Patrick J. Larkin
http://www.lehigh.edu/~pjl2/kubrick
________________________________________________________________
Chris Heller
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Patrick J. Larkin wrote:
> Mark.J.Desocio wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Marc42 wrote:
> >
> > > I see a lot of fingerpointing at Kubrick about his "message" in
> > > Clockwork Orange. Why isn't anyone pointing at Burgess?
> > > Marc
> >
> > I may be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that Burgess himself wasn't
> > too crazy about the film
> >
> > Micahel
> >
>
> I recall Burgess being very apprehensive about the making of the film.
> Burgess despised the novel which he had written and was afraid of what
> might transpire when it was on screen.
>
Also, he was unhappy that Kubrick decided to use the American version of
the novel rather than the original version as the basis for the movie. In
the original version (which has now been released in the U.S.), there is a
final chapter in which Alex gets a new set of droogs and starts back with
his old ways but eventually decides that he's too old for that life
anymore and makes a choice (as opposed to having the choice made for him)
to give it up. Whether or not you find that realistic or satisfying,
that's your call, but there's certainly a difference in message between
the two versions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Heller
cb...@ra.msstate.edu
http://www2.msstate.edu/~cbh8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Martin
Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
>
> Like what ? What does Kubrick have more in say in Clockwork Orange other
> than we should love all murderers and rapists ? The only thing Kubrick
> says in Clockwork Orange is that we should love criminals because they
> people they hurt are just as bad if not worser than the criminals.
I don't think you've seen the film. Either that, or you haven't a shred
of intelligence in your brain.
> Kubrick tells us in the film that those who want to stop violence are
> destroying humanity's will.
Doesn't this answer your own question? Besides, that's completely wrong
anyway. Kubrick tells us in the film that people who want to stop
violence BY destroying humanity's will are hypocrites, liars, and worse
than the people who they're trying to correct in the first place. ACO
explores one of the most intriguing paradoxes of man: that man is the
only animal that has free will, and it's also the only animal that
wishes to ignore free will. I'm not quite sure who said this, but
they're right on the button in describing the basic message of ACO:
"Without our ability to behave as beasts, we would not be truly human."
This isn't that difficult, Ronie. Hell, the prison chaplain practically
spells out the film's message in big, bold, neon letters when he says
"When a man can no longer choose, he ceases to be a man."
Tell me: how is Kubrick putting his actors through multiple takes any
worse than Steven Spielberg sending Tom Hanks, Matt Damon, et al. out
into the forests of England to live off the land for a couple of weeks?
Answer: It's not. Actors are, in essence, paid to do what the director
says; that's why he's called the "director"! Alfred Hitchcock himself
said "all actors are cattle" or something along those lines; that
sentiment has been repeated many times over the years by famous
directors, from Griffith all the way up to Kubrick (who, to be fair, has
never actually SAID anything like that, but makes it clear he believes
it).
Kael also gave a negative review to "2001," and her favorite Kubrick
film is "Lolita." Call me crazy, but that sort of opinion doesn't
exactly seem like good taste to me. In conclusion, I'm just going to
express the sentiment shared by probably 90% of the people on the a.m.k.
newsgroup by telling you to unfuck yourself or be run out of here on a
rail.
Josh
Patrick J. Larkin
Chris Heller wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Patrick J. Larkin wrote:
>
> > Mark.J.Desocio wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Marc42 wrote:
> > >
> > > > I see a lot of fingerpointing at Kubrick about his "message" in
> > > > Clockwork Orange. Why isn't anyone pointing at Burgess?
> > > > Marc
> > >
> > > I may be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that Burgess himself wasn't
> > > too crazy about the film
> > >
> > > Micahel
> > >
> >
> > I recall Burgess being very apprehensive about the making of the film.
> > Burgess despised the novel which he had written and was afraid of what
> > might transpire when it was on screen.
> >
> Also, he was unhappy that Kubrick decided to use the American version of
> the novel rather than the original version as the basis for the movie. In
> the original version (which has now been released in the U.S.), there is a
> final chapter in which Alex gets a new set of droogs and starts back with
> his old ways but eventually decides that he's too old for that life
> anymore and makes a choice (as opposed to having the choice made for him)
> to give it up. Whether or not you find that realistic or satisfying,
> that's your call, but there's certainly a difference in message between
> the two versions.
Burgess copped out with a goofy feel-good ending. I hope Kubrick WAS
aware of the ending and lopped it, just like he did with King's silly
ending of the Shining.
So Alex "grew up" and out of the violence. Let the viewer render this
continuation...no reason to make it happen on screen or in print.
Seeing Alex as a settled down father would completely ruin it for me.
when I first read the final chapter, I couldn't believe that it came
from the same author... Burgess is bogged down by his own morality
which he tried to dictate to the reader. Yawn.
Andy Dimond
>So Alex "grew up" and out of the violence. Let the viewer render this
>continuation...no reason to make it happen on screen or in print.
>Seeing Alex as a settled down father would completely ruin it for me.
>when I first read the final chapter, I couldn't believe that it came
>from the same author... Burgess is bogged down by his own morality
>which he tried to dictate to the reader. Yawn.
>
hypocritical in some way as making the choice for someone? The message of
the book, and I hope, the movie, is the supreme importance of choice. The
entire point of free will is not being forced to good OR evil. Is it
impossible to choose good in this situation? If you think so, then you've
only received the message in part. But I agree that the movie ended well.
there is still >some< hope in the end, that he will choose to be moral. And
the only way to be good is to choose to be, and not just to avoid
punishment.
Patrick J. Larkin
> > The film wants us almost and
> > most sickeningly disgusting to laugh at people getting killed, rapped
> > and murdered. It's done in the ugliest style ever. Kubrick's world of
> > Clockwork Orange is a world where everybody's evil, a world that does
> > not exist.
thats why many coin ACO "science fiction." BTW, ever see _Natural Born
Killers_??
> > Kubrick's film is not a reflection on society or real life
> > violence but a make-believe movie in which Kubrick tells us we should
> > love criminals because by committing crime they are free to do as they
> > please because committing violence is good and the people who do commit
> > violence are better than those people that they hurt, abuse, and injure
> > and according to Kubrick, you shouldn't feel sympathy for the people who
> > get hurt because they're just as bad as the criminals and that the
> > victims got what was coming to them.
WOW! That was one complete sentence. Better watch the flick again,
read the book, watch the movie and THINK about it.
> > That's as amoral as any message in
> > any film I've seen. The criminal acts in the film are disgusting, sick,
> > ugly, depressing, gross, mean and evil but Kubrick says we should love
> > people who commit such acts because those people are humanity at it's
> > most free and we should love and cheer them on as they hurt people.
He does?
Ronie, you live in Maryland right? Walk around DC sometime...the really
seedy parts. Better yet, read the Washington Post. Read about friggin'
arms found in dumpsters...of mothers dropping live fetuses in
dumpsters...read about the guy in Philadelphia that went rampaging
through the streets looking for cops to run over a la _Deathrace
2000_....its a sick fucking world. Always has been...always will.
Oh boy. I can't take anymore. Out! Out! Get the FUCK out.
Oh boy. You need to develop your thought a bit more. Go to college.
(Not Lehigh). Get out of the 'burbs.
I give up. I will personally buy you your own copy of Forest Gump, Back
to the Future, Mousehunt, and My Best Friends Wedding if you leave
quietly.
P Matwychuk
In alt.cult-movies Patrick J. Larkin <pj...@lehigh.edu> wrote:
: Burgess copped out with a goofy feel-good ending. I hope Kubrick WAS
: aware of the ending and lopped it, just like he did with King's silly
: ending of the Shining.
: So Alex "grew up" and out of the violence. Let the viewer render this
: continuation...no reason to make it happen on screen or in print.
: Seeing Alex as a settled down father would completely ruin it for me.
: when I first read the final chapter, I couldn't believe that it came
: from the same author... Burgess is bogged down by his own morality
: which he tried to dictate to the reader. Yawn.
But isn't the point of Burgess' novel that Alex is as much of an automaton
in his gang-violence days as he is after he's been conditioned by the
government? I.e., that his violent tendencies are as automatic and
lacking in conscious freedom of choice as the peaceful tendencies he's
brainwashed into upholding?
Kubrick completely twists the meaning of Burgess' novel around--by casting
the charismatic Malcolm McDowell, making him much handsomer and "human"
than the caricatured victims of his violence, presenting the violence Alex
commits in stylized scenes but making the violence perpetrated against
Alex brutal and more realistic, Kubrick gets us to sympathize and even
root for the violent Alex's personality to win out.
I'm actually kind of perplexed by the fans of this movie who see the
ending as some kind of victory--I mean, mindless thuggishness is still
mindless. Now, maybe you'll yawn at me and find my preference for
Burgess' take on the story as hopelessly moralistic, but I think Burgess
has the more sophisticated message.
--
==========================================================================
"The art of pressing flowers is as relevant today as it was one hundred
years ago." -- Martha Stewart
==========================================================================
tomlinson
ta.ca>
P Matwychuk (pj...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: I'm actually kind of perplexed by the fans of this movie who see the
: ending as some kind of victory--I mean, mindless thuggishness is still
: mindless.
I'm actually rather perplexed by the detractors of the movie (and some
fans, as well) who read into the ending a reassertion of Alex's
"mindless thuggery". What's the final scene? Alex is frolicking
(yes, _frolicking_, nothing less innocent than that) with a girl
in what looks to be snow--this is far removed from Alex's previous
rapes and murderous assaults, isn't it? And even further removed
from Alex's earlier fantasies, of explosions and violent deaths
and fangs dripping blood.
Mind you, I think that 2001 and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE constitute
some of Kubrick's weaker work. This may seem a shocking thing
to say, but each film has a serious flaw: 2001 is marred by
the ludicrous, fuzzy-minded eschatology which, I think, was
mostly Clarke's contribution (Clarke had indulged in similarly
ludicrous, fuzzy-minded eschatology in CHILDHOOD'S END.)
As for A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, Kubrick would go on to create more
ambiguous "unsympathetic heroes" in his next three films; Alex
really _is_ too likeable, and his antagonists too repellent,
for my taste.
-tomlinson
--
Ernest S. Tomlinson
Vis apud te erit...aeterne.
scott tobias
Padraig L Henry wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:30:42 +0100, mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk
> (Michael Brooke) wrote:
>
> >Well, Burgess's autobiography is as good a place as any! Here are some
> >extracts:
>
> a lecture he gave in Dublin shortly before he died it struck me how
> unforgivingly bitter he still was about the whole Clockwork Orange
> saga. An erudite, supremely impressive intellectual, he was still
> woefully at a loss to understand Kubrick`s film. But as your
> quotations demonstrate, Burgess was a contemptably puritannical,
> ultra-montane, and pompously condescending Catholic (one of those
> "best people" in Kubrick`s films) who could not concede that the
> institutions of society might be as equally culpable in perpetuating
> violent instincts as it`s brutalised victims, but who preferred to
> have faith in idealised, romantic delusions about humanity`s ultimate
> "goodness".
>
> (Burgess, in practice, did not believe in "free will". Hence his bogus
> claim that it was he who >had< to do Kubrick`s dirty work, defend the
> film, collect awards, etc.). A pity, given his comprehensive
> contribution to the Joycean universe ...
>
> Padraig
This is outrageous. How could Burgess be at a loss to understand an
adaptation of his own material? How does Burgess' irritation over
coping with the responses to the Kubrick film amount to a rejection of
free will? Also, how do "brutalized victims" perpetuate violence?
While it's true that Burgess' work reflects a moral, humanist worldview,
I don't think it's fair to characterize this idealism as naive or
puritanical. If you don't believe in "humanity's ultimate 'goodness',"
are you so cynical as to believe in the reverse? Your post unwittingly
demonstrates why Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" (and many of its
supporters) is such an abhorrent, inhumane picture.
Scott
Scott
Josh Martin
Chris Heller wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Patrick J. Larkin wrote:
>
> > Mark.J.Desocio wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Marc42 wrote:
> > >
> > > > I see a lot of fingerpointing at Kubrick about his "message" in
> > > > Clockwork Orange. Why isn't anyone pointing at Burgess?
> > > > Marc
> > >
> > > I may be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that Burgess himself wasn't
> > > too crazy about the film
> > >
> > > Micahel
> > >
> >
> > I recall Burgess being very apprehensive about the making of the film.
> > Burgess despised the novel which he had written and was afraid of what
> > might transpire when it was on screen.
> >
> Also, he was unhappy that Kubrick decided to use the American version of
> the novel rather than the original version as the basis for the movie. In
> the original version (which has now been released in the U.S.), there is a
> final chapter in which Alex gets a new set of droogs and starts back with
> his old ways but eventually decides that he's too old for that life
> anymore and makes a choice (as opposed to having the choice made for him)
> to give it up. Whether or not you find that realistic or satisfying,
> that's your call, but there's certainly a difference in message between
> the two versions.
I don't think there is. Both the book and the film, to me, have the
message that freedom of choice is of utmost importance to our human
nature. The way that the message is expressed is the main difference. In
the film, we are to assume that Alex will resume his evil ways, but
what's more important is that he has regained his humanity and his free
will. In the book, Alex uses this free will to end his evil ways. Some
might say that the book's message is that man eventually outgrows
violence and antisocial behaviour, but I don't really think so, simply
because that message is not entirely true. I mean, Burgess' own wife was
raped by a couple of adults, so Burgess wouldn't be so naive as to
believe that message to be true. Both the book and the film leave us
with a message of hope-the film with the hope that, his free will
regained, Alex will at some point decide to end his antisocial
behaviour, and the book with the hope that, now Alex has ended his
antisocial behaviour, he will be able to raise a family and become an
upstanding member of society. As McDowell said in an interview about the
film: "If somebody like 'Ludwig Van' can get through to him, maybe
someone else can, too."
Josh
r...@adelphia.net
>Kael also gave a negative review to "2001," and her favorite Kubrick
>film is "Lolita." Call me crazy, but that sort of opinion doesn't
>exactly seem like good taste to me. In conclusion, I'm just going to
well Pauline is a complete moron and total hypocrite......
the whole Warren Beatty slut thing had to prove that........
finally her stephen bach like book of lies- "Raising Caine" has been
proven wrong in almost every respect over the last few years....
i realize she is dying....... it's only a pity she didn't retire
sooner...... or at least save the world from that freakin sideshow of
a book.......
Padraig L Henry
>Well, Burgess's autobiography is as good a place as any! Here are some
>extracts:
Well thanks for all those excerpts, Michael. Having met Mr Burgess at
13th Floor
>
> So Alex "grew up" and out of the violence. Let the viewer render this
> continuation...no reason to make it happen on screen or in print.
> Seeing Alex as a settled down father would completely ruin it for me.
> when I first read the final chapter, I couldn't believe that it came
> from the same author... Burgess is bogged down by his own morality
> which he tried to dictate to the reader. Yawn.
I'm in complete and total agreement with you on that. Burgess is
frightened by his own imagination. I don't think the idea of having a
positive ending is in and of itself BAD... it just didn't ring true, not at
all. It's as if at the end of "Lord of the Flies," the Navy showed up with
a rescued Piggy in their sub... "oh it was just a flesh wound."
13th Floor
P Matwychuk <pj...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote in article
<6mbtoj$kte$1...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>...
>
> Kubrick completely twists the meaning of Burgess' novel around--by
casting
> the charismatic Malcolm McDowell, making him much handsomer and "human"
> than the caricatured victims of his violence, presenting the violence
Alex
> commits in stylized scenes but making the violence perpetrated against
> Alex brutal and more realistic, Kubrick gets us to sympathize and even
> root for the violent Alex's personality to win out.
I think that is the film's challenge and it's most interesting quality ...
that we like Alex even though he has no redeeming qualities (other than
being charming and good-looking). I don't think we really "root" for Alex
to suddenly become violent again... it's just hard not to feel sorry for
him when he's being brutalized later on (regardless of whether he deserves
it or not)
>
> I'm actually kind of perplexed by the fans of this movie who see the
> ending as some kind of victory--I mean, mindless thuggishness is still
> mindless. Now, maybe you'll yawn at me and find my preference for
> Burgess' take on the story as hopelessly moralistic, but I think Burgess
> has the more sophisticated message.
>
I don't think the ending is meant to be "triumphant," it's meant to be
disturbing... now Alex is suddenly the darling of the political party in
power... and he's smart enough to potentially use that entirely to his
advantage. It's not hard to imagine Alex as a corrupt politician and
sadist of the worst sort. I think that ending is supposed to make us
nervous.
Ronald J. Whalen
Josh Martin wrote:
>
> Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
> >
> > Like what ? What does Kubrick have more in say in Clockwork Orange other
> > than we should love all murderers and rapists ? The only thing Kubrick
> > says in Clockwork Orange is that we should love criminals because they
> > people they hurt are just as bad if not worser than the criminals.
>
> I don't think you've seen the film. Either that, or you haven't a shred
> of intelligence in your brain.
>
Oh, I saw the film all right. At first, I walked out of the movie on the
first time I saw the movie. I was disgusted by it. After some thought, I
saw the rest of the movie and wished I had never seen it. Who are you to
say who and who isn't intelligence ? I'm just posting my opinion.
Ronald J. Whalen
> > > The film wants us almost and
> > > most sickeningly disgusting to laugh at people getting killed, rapped
> > > and murdered. It's done in the ugliest style ever. Kubrick's world of
> > > Clockwork Orange is a world where everybody's evil, a world that does
> > > not exist.
>
> thats why many coin ACO "science fiction." BTW, ever see _Natural Born
> Killers_??
Yeah, I know ACO is science fiction. But even science fiction should be
interesting and intriguing to watch. ACO is neither of those things.
Yes, I saw Natural Born Killers. It neither shocked me nor made me think
but just bored me to death and made me wonder why people were making
such a fuss over such a bad poorly written movie that isn't shocking or
funny or scarry or satiric or thought-provoking but just plain smelly.
r...@adelphia.net
>
>Yeah, I know ACO is science fiction. But even science fiction should be
>interesting and intriguing to watch. ACO is neither of those things.
>Yes, I saw Natural Born Killers. It neither shocked me nor made me think
>but just bored me to death and made me wonder why people were making
>such a fuss over such a bad poorly written movie that isn't shocking or
>funny or scarry or satiric or thought-provoking but just plain smelly.
how can anyone take you seriously? :)
egads.
r...@adelphia.net
>Oh, I saw the film all right. At first, I walked out of the movie on the
>first time I saw the movie. I was disgusted by it. After some thought, I
personally..... anyone who walks out of a movie doesn't deserve to see
another one......
tho i will admit to walking out of Stroker Ace.......
i wasn't actually watching the film... just using the airconditioning.
>saw the rest of the movie and wished I had never seen it. Who are you to
>say who and who isn't intelligence ? I'm just posting my opinion.
and what an opinion it is :)
Michael Brooke
Padraig L Henry <path...@iol.ie> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:30:42 +0100, mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk
> (Michael Brooke) wrote:
>
>
> >Well, Burgess's autobiography is as good a place as any! Here are some
> >extracts:
>
> Well thanks for all those excerpts, Michael. Having met Mr Burgess at
> a lecture he gave in Dublin shortly before he died it struck me how
> unforgivingly bitter he still was about the whole Clockwork Orange
> saga.
From his point of view, this is hardly surprising. Say you wrote a
novel and it got adapted into a hugely successful film (for which you
received very little in the way of financial reward). Not only does the
film distort what you see as the meaning of your original novel, but all
the elements of the novel that *are* retained are all too frequently
credited to the film-maker!
It's well worth noting that of all Kubrick's films, 'A Clockwork Orange'
is by far the closest to its original source material - of the other
films adapted from major literary works, 'Lolita', 'Barry Lyndon' and
'The Shining' saw far more drastic changes from page to screen. And
because 'A Clockwork Orange' is so close to Burgess's original novel,
what changes there are get correspondingly magnified.
Michael Brooke
<r...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 02:32:27 -0700, "Ronald J. Whalen"
> <rjwh...@cti-md.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Oh, I saw the film all right. At first, I walked out of the movie on the
> >first time I saw the movie. I was disgusted by it. After some thought, I
>
> personally..... anyone who walks out of a movie doesn't deserve to see
> another one....
Personally, I think anyone who can get through the Cannes Film Festival
market (not the competition) without walking out of a movie probably
won't be *able* to see another one, unless they project it onto the
padded walls of his or her cell!
I very very rarely walk out of films, but if you had to sit through some
of the stuff I've had to see under those conditions, you'd change your
mind very quickly!
Michael Brooke
Ronald J. Whalen <rjwh...@cti-md.com> wrote:
> > > > The film wants us almost and
> > > > most sickeningly disgusting to laugh at people getting killed, rapped
> > > > and murdered. It's done in the ugliest style ever. Kubrick's world of
> > > > Clockwork Orange is a world where everybody's evil, a world that does
> > > > not exist.
> >
> > thats why many coin ACO "science fiction."
>
> Yeah, I know ACO is science fiction. But even science fiction should be
> interesting and intriguing to watch. ACO is neither of those things.
It's very very difficult to take a comment like that seriously. I know
you utterly loathed 'A Clockwork Orange', but claiming that it is
neither interesting nor intriguing manages to dismiss not only Kubrick's
contribution but also Malcolm McDowell's performance and Anthony
Burgess's original novel, along with a whole raft of other elements.
If nothing else, Burgess's language alone adds interest and intrigue by
the bucketload - I don't think it works as well in the film as it does
on the page, but the verbal invention alone is largely unmatched
anywhere else in cinema.
Patrick J. Larkin
Padraig L Henry wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:30:42 +0100, mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk
> (Michael Brooke) wrote:
>
> >extracts:
>
> a lecture he gave in Dublin shortly before he died it struck me how
> unforgivingly bitter he still was about the whole Clockwork Orange
> woefully at a loss to understand Kubrick`s film. But as your
> quotations demonstrate, Burgess was a contemptably puritannical,
> ultra-montane, and pompously condescending Catholic (one of those
> "best people" in Kubrick`s films) who could not concede that the
> institutions of society might be as equally culpable in perpetuating
> violent instincts as it`s brutalised victims, but who preferred to
> have faith in idealised, romantic delusions about humanity`s ultimate
> "goodness".
>
> (Burgess, in practice, did not believe in "free will". Hence his bogus
> claim that it was he who >had< to do Kubrick`s dirty work, defend the
> film, collect awards, etc.). A pity, given his comprehensive
> contribution to the Joycean universe ...
>
> Padraig
This post is dead on with what Burgess was all about. It is very
disheartening...
And I like the bit about Burgess whining about having to collect awards
and defend the film. Burgess didn't *have* to do shit. He chose to put
his person in the limelight, Kubrick chose to have the film speak for
itself. As always. And I thank him for that.
J.D. Baldwin
In article <358815C7...@junglevision.com>, Cathryn Mataga
<cat...@junglevision.com> wrote:
> > Agreed, I don't agree with her views on other Kubrick films but I do
> > agree with her about Clockwork. It's Kubrick worst, most sexist, racist,
> > pornographic, ugly, not sexy, not exciting just dull boring nauseating
> > dull predictable would-be political satire and medicore 1984 up-date.
> > I despise Kubrick's lessons in Clockwork that we should love all
> > murders/rapists and Clockwork is one of the few films I've walked out of
> > and I'm glad that I did.
>
> Yeah, that's what Clockwork Orange is about. "We should love all
> murders/rapists." .... okay.
Perhaps you're new here. There is a certain mindset that believes
"depiction of X" == "endorsement of X." Nothing you can say or do can
possibly shake this bedrock belief in the slightest -- absolutely
nothing. You might as well talk to a brick wall. Trust me on this,
I've seen it a few thousand times.
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
J.D. Baldwin
In article <1datrdf.1g3...@everyman.demon.co.uk>, Michael
Brooke <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[Quoting Anthony Burgess, on "Clockwork Orange" and "Lolita"]
> The writer's aim in both books had been to put language, not sex or
> violence, into the foreground; a film, on the other hand, was not made
> out of words.
I admire a lot of things about "Clockwork Orange" but I'd say Burgess
has Kubrick's number on this one. It's really ironic just how
ineffectually Kubrick used Nadsat in that film, considering how
brilliantly he used language to illustrate the dehumanization of the
principals in "Full Metal Jacket."
Michael Brooke
Patrick J. Larkin <pj...@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>
> And I like the bit about Burgess whining about having to collect awards
> and defend the film. Burgess didn't *have* to do shit. He chose to put
> his person in the limelight, Kubrick chose to have the film speak for
> itself. As always. And I thank him for that.
>
You're rather ignoring the fact that Kubrick was a multi-millionaire who
could afford to be silent, while Burgess was a critically-acclaimed but
financially struggling writer with a wife and child to support.
Burgess had a double problem. First of all, the much more famous
Kubrick was getting far too much credit for ideas that Burgess
originated - a common problem in the film business when it comes to
disputes between screenwriters, but at least here there was cast-iron
evidence in the form of the original novel. Secondly, in those
situations where Burgess did get an acknowledgement, assumptions were
made that the views put forward in the film and the book were identical,
which Burgess disputed.
So what would you have done? It's all very well going on about Burgess
"whining", but I doubt very much that you'd have kept silent in a
situation like this. I know I wouldn't have done!
And before the Burgess-bashing reaches a crescendo, a quick reminder.
If Kubrick had never existed, we would still have the novel. If Burgess
had never existed, we would not have the film.
Phil Noir
Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
> Who are you to say who and who isn't intelligence ? I'm just posting my opinion.
Your honor, I rest my case.
"Everyone is entitled to an INFORMED opinion." -- Harlan Ellsion.
Phil Noir
Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
> Yes, I saw Natural Born Killers. It neither shocked me nor made me think
> but just bored me to death and made me wonder why people were making
> such a fuss over such a bad poorly written movie that isn't shocking or
> funny or scarry or satiric or thought-provoking but just plain smelly.
Good thing Kubrick never got around to filming "Perfume," it would've
*really* offended your delicate sensibilities.
Andy Dimond
What's the final scene? Alex is frolicking
>(yes, _frolicking_, nothing less innocent than that) with a girl
>in what looks to be snow--this is far removed from Alex's previous
>rapes and murderous assaults, isn't it? And even further removed
>from Alex's earlier fantasies, of explosions and violent deaths
>and fangs dripping blood.
>
all, just then he says, in quite a malevolent tone, "I was cured all
right...".
Andy Dimond
>But isn't the point of Burgess' novel that Alex is as much of an automaton
>in his gang-violence days as he is after he's been conditioned by the
>government? I.e., that his violent tendencies are as automatic and
>lacking in conscious freedom of choice as the peaceful tendencies he's
>brainwashed into upholding?
>
conditioned not to be by society. This I think is the major flaw of the
movie, a movie which I love. It fails to acknowledge that Alex's existence
as a thug is not noble savagery or innocence, but that he was a product of
his environment. Most people see this story as a defense of choice, but it
works equally well as a denial of the existence of >pure< free will.
Josh Martin
Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
>
> Josh Martin wrote:
> >
> > Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
> > >
> > > Like what ? What does Kubrick have more in say in Clockwork Orange other
> > > than we should love all murderers and rapists ? The only thing Kubrick
> > > says in Clockwork Orange is that we should love criminals because they
> > > people they hurt are just as bad if not worser than the criminals.
> >
> > I don't think you've seen the film. Either that, or you haven't a shred
> > of intelligence in your brain.
> >
>
> first time I saw the movie. I was disgusted by it. After some thought, I
> say who and who isn't intelligence ? I'm just posting my opinion.
Nice the way you respond only to that tiny piece of my response, while
ignoring my actual argument, which, all egoism aside, is something
better than anything your pathetic intelligence....er, "opinion" could
hatch up.
Josh
Patrick J. Larkin
Michael Brooke wrote:
> And before the Burgess-bashing reaches a crescendo, a quick reminder.
> If Kubrick had never existed, we would still have the novel. If Burgess
> had never existed, we would not have the film.
>
We'd probably have a great film about Napoleon... AND IMFO, the greatest
film of all time, 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Patrick J. Larkin
And it still works. Alex programming and his stolen free-will leads to
Alex getting sick at not only violence but sex. If the film ended with
Alex tolchocking someone, it may be different. since Alex is only
engaging in a perectly natural act with what seems to be a willing
participant, it only follows that Alex's returned free will is being
used in a positive manner. But as I stated earlier, this is for the
viewer to sort out and thankfully isn't spoon fed like burgess' ending.
Gordon Dahlquist
On 18 Jun 1998, P Matwychuk wrote:
> In alt.cult-movies Patrick J. Larkin <pj...@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> : Burgess copped out with a goofy feel-good ending. I hope Kubrick WAS
> : aware of the ending and lopped it, just like he did with King's silly
> : ending of the Shining.
>
> : So Alex "grew up" and out of the violence. Let the viewer render this
> : continuation...no reason to make it happen on screen or in print.
> : Seeing Alex as a settled down father would completely ruin it for me.
> : when I first read the final chapter, I couldn't believe that it came
> : from the same author... Burgess is bogged down by his own morality
> : which he tried to dictate to the reader. Yawn.
>
> But isn't the point of Burgess' novel that Alex is as much of an automaton
> in his gang-violence days as he is after he's been conditioned by the
> government? I.e., that his violent tendencies are as automatic and
> lacking in conscious freedom of choice as the peaceful tendencies he's
> brainwashed into upholding?
>
> Kubrick completely twists the meaning of Burgess' novel around--by casting
> the charismatic Malcolm McDowell, making him much handsomer and "human"
> than the caricatured victims of his violence, presenting the violence Alex
> commits in stylized scenes but making the violence perpetrated against
> Alex brutal and more realistic, Kubrick gets us to sympathize and even
> root for the violent Alex's personality to win out.
Give me a break. While the casting of MM is superb, the atractiveness of
Alex is exactly the same in the book - it is in fact the engine that
drives the novel. He may actually be even more sympathetic in the novel
because more of our experience is passed through his point of view. If
anything, the film's use of distance and brechtian theatricality establish
more of a critical distance around alex that - at a number of significant
points - drive home the distasteful side of what out narrator's doing.
Paul J. Adams
13th Floor <flo...@bayarea.net> wrote in article
<01bd9b33$7c500be0$3f42dbcd@default>...
> P Matwychuk <pj...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote in article
> <6mbtoj$kte$1...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>...
> >
> casting
> > the charismatic Malcolm McDowell, making him much handsomer and "human"
> > than the caricatured victims of his violence, presenting the violence
> Alex
> > commits in stylized scenes but making the violence perpetrated against
> > Alex brutal and more realistic, Kubrick gets us to sympathize and even
> > root for the violent Alex's personality to win out.
>
..
> being charming and good-looking). I don't think we really "root" for
Alex
> to suddenly become violent again... it's just hard not to feel sorry for
> him when he's being brutalized later on (regardless of whether he
deserves
> it or not)
The point of the film seems clear, and the more stark the contrast the more
effective it appears. The point is that it's disturbing to see the
suppression of evil (and therefore the suppression of moral responsibility)
through the elimination of free will. The more evil the main character is
the harder he is to sympathize with, yet we ultimately can not accept a
punishment which deprives it's subject of the ability to choose between
right and wrong. The film deliberately presents us with a very difficult
choice. We don't want a world in which people are as evil as Alex is, but
we don't want a world without freedom either. If humans are free, then
evil will always be present in some form. Can we embrace freedom when the
consequence is both good and evil?
The end is disturbing and frighting, but so are the beginning and middle of
this film. There is a seed of hope, but the film's central dilemma is
ultimately left unresolved. It remains with the viewer to ponder which is
better: moral slavery or the freedom to commit evil?
I think A Clockwork Orange is a brilliant film, and I wouldn't want to see
it end any other way. I also wouldn't want it to lose its sharp edge,
which is created by the fact that Alex is so cruel and so charismatic at
the same time.
Paul J. Adams
Patrick J. Larkin <pj...@lehigh.edu> wrote in article
<358AA2A2...@lehigh.edu>...
> Andy Dimond wrote:
> >
> > What's the final scene? Alex is frolicking
> > >(yes, _frolicking_, nothing less innocent than that) with a girl
> > >in what looks to be snow--this is far removed from Alex's previous
> > >rapes and murderous assaults, isn't it? And even further removed
> > >from Alex's earlier fantasies, of explosions and violent deaths
> > >and fangs dripping blood.
> > >
> > I don't think it was meant to be a very "innocent" fantasy at all.
After
> > all, just then he says, in quite a malevolent tone, "I was cured all
> > right...".
>
> And it still works. Alex programming and his stolen free-will leads to
> Alex getting sick at not only violence but sex. If the film ended with
> Alex tolchocking someone, it may be different. since Alex is only
> engaging in a perectly natural act with what seems to be a willing
> participant, it only follows that Alex's returned free will is being
> used in a positive manner. But as I stated earlier, this is for the
> viewer to sort out and thankfully isn't spoon fed like burgess' ending.
I'm not sure, but I don't think the film ended with Alex engaging in a sex
act with a willing participant. Did it? I thought it ended with a sexual
fantasy of watching two lesbians while listening to Beethoven. Perhaps I
misremember it.
In any event, it's clear that he is now capable of sexual fantasies and
hearing Beethoven without feeling sick. His programming is broken. The
sinister implication is that he is now also capable of violence, but it is
left open ended as to whether he will or will not act on his violent urges.
I had the feeling that he would return to a life of violence, but it was
unconfirmed. That's the essence of free will: anything is possible but
nothing is determined about the future. It was the perfect way to end the
film.
Geoffrey Alexander
Mark.J.Desocio <deso...@bama.ua.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.3.96.98061...@bama.ua.edu>...
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Marc42 wrote:
>
> > I see a lot of fingerpointing at Kubrick about his "message" in
> > Clockwork Orange. Why isn't anyone pointing at Burgess?
> > Marc
>
> I may be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that Burgess himself
wasn't
> too crazy about the film
>
> Micahel
Neither was Kael, whose b'day it is today. And what does ANY of this have
to do with Kubrick's film?
g.
Burgess is a pretty good writer. Ok, a VERY good one. He isn't Kubrick, in
terms of art. Few living writers are. [or filmmakers...]
>Kubrick's< "A Clockwork Orange". IMO Burgess got properly upped. Ala King,
and Clarke, and all else :)....
Kubrick (among a few) has substantiated Film as the next epoch of
literature. Now, it's time for you guys to write the Great American
Film....
g. (a partisan of the winning side.....)
Geoffrey Alexander
Alex Crouvier <troj...@geocities.com> wrote in article
<3588DA...@geocities.com>...
> Cathryn Mataga wrote:
>
> > Back in the decade that youth was seen as all good -- and, why, if only
> > we'd listen to the children and smoke lots of pot, peace and love would
> > prevail. But, right in the middle of all that comes this film -- where
> > the kids are the killers, the parents are wusses, the government
> > is brutal, art is pornography, god is dead, and the liberals, well they
> > want to help, but all they give a damn about is power -- really.
> > Gosh, why is this so familiar? Clockwork Orange called it, I think.
>
> If I had the power to do it, I would make ACO a required viewing of all
> potential members of ACLU
As a card-carrying (literally, and proud of it) Member of ACLU, I can
assure you, we have such a preparatory education :) -- and I can assure you
most of your other lamentably misguided assumptions (regarding the A, the
C, the L, the U, or SK, or AB, or even GA, will be in need of, um,
redaction, wit' a >sharp< knife, when we's done wit' ya....hehehe uh >cough
cough<
:)
[btw I might suggest you not listen to anything you've already heard
Anywhere in Your Ear {bein' as you exhibit such a confusion of Reason, as a
result}but I doubt you 've the capacity to re-invent your Awareness, on the
fly, like that..... as \is/would be\ needed, were you to Grow Up,
intellectually.....;) ]
1983740981749herfashdfliuahfoi8ayefp98a.
#@$^%@&%*
(catch my drift? :) and don't diss your Protectors again.)
g.
Geoffrey Alexander
Cathryn Mataga <cat...@junglevision.com> wrote,
>
> Doing a lot of takes doesn't dehumanize anyone; doing a lot of takes
> isn't mistreating anyone. If he asked his actors to clean his bathroom
> or mow the lawn, that'd be a different story. But, they're there to
> act, and that's what he's askin' 'em to do. When you're a professional,
> you're supposed to do what is necessary to get the job done. It's that
> simple.
>
> Besides doing good work is 'humanizing' -- not 'de-humanizing', methinks.
>
Beautifully put, Cathryn -- with NICE implications..... Thanks.
g.
Steve Kraus
Paul J. Adams wrote:
> I'm not sure, but I don't think the film ended with Alex engaging in a sex
> act with a willing participant. Did it? I thought it ended with a sexual
> fantasy of watching two lesbians while listening to Beethoven. Perhaps I
> misremember it.
It ends with Alex fantasizing about sex with a young woman
who may not be a willing participant while a bunch of people
in Ascot trappings look on applauding. We presume that
this means he is returning to his old ways of raping and
pillaging but this time he will do so with the blessings
of the government (represented by the folks in formalwear).
"I was cured alright."
Alex Crouvier
Geoffrey Alexander wrote:
>
> Alex Crouvier <troj...@geocities.com> wrote in article
> <3588DA...@geocities.com>...
> > Cathryn Mataga wrote:
> >
> > > Back in the decade that youth was seen as all good -- and, why, if only
> > > we'd listen to the children and smoke lots of pot, peace and love would
> > > prevail. But, right in the middle of all that comes this film -- where
> > > the kids are the killers, the parents are wusses, the government
> > > is brutal, art is pornography, god is dead, and the liberals, well they
> > > want to help, but all they give a damn about is power -- really.
> > > Gosh, why is this so familiar? Clockwork Orange called it, I think.
> >
> > If I had the power to do it, I would make ACO a required viewing of all
> > potential members of ACLU
>
> As a card-carrying (literally, and proud of it) Member of ACLU, I can
> assure you, we have such a preparatory education :)
[random ranting snipped]
Well good for you. But you should've read the post again, I said
"potential members".
Your incoherent ranting sounds like a voice of the irrational, the
wounded pride, of a person in self-pity, lashing out with the fury of a
ten-year old with his favorite train set yanked out of him. ACLU? I'm
not even sure if your tribute to Ebonics is a fondness or a
condescension.
Michael Brooke
Geoffrey Alexander <geof...@iavalley.cc.ia.us> wrote:
>
> Burgess is a pretty good writer. Ok, a VERY good one. He isn't Kubrick, in
> terms of art. Few living writers are.
What an utterly meaningless comment. How many of Burgess's novels (and
copious other writings) have you actually read? And how can you
rationally compare the two?
My fundamental objection to your elevation of Kubrick above Burgess
stems from the fact that Burgess tended to write original work. That's
"original" in the sense of "coming up with the ideas himself".
Kubrick's work, like it or not, is almost invariably drawn from other
people's work. This isn't necessarily a criticism, as exactly the same
points could be made about Orson Welles and indeed William Shakespeare -
but it does mean that Burgess's abilities as a *creator* (as opposed to
an adapter) seem to be rather more pronounced. This is quite apart from
the fact that a writer creates his work on his own, while a film-maker
has an army of actors and technicians to help him.
Despite over a hundred years of cinema, the novel as an art form is very
far from over - largely because it's a much more versatile medium: you
can do things with it that are simply not practical with films, either
because they'd cost too much, or because they'd take far longer than the
statutory two hours or so, or because they deal with complex
philosophical themes that defy presentation in visual terms.
A film certainly offers a more sensory experience - but a really good
novel stimulates the imagination in the way that a film, being by its
very nature a far more literal medium, cannot possibly come near. Now
we can argue about this till the cows come home, but I'm not convinced
that Kubrick's 'Lolita' and 'A Clockwork Orange' really match up to the
original novels - they simplify too much, they reduce lengthy passages
of complex, richly poetic prose to a few brief quotations (and I've said
elsewhere that I think Nadsat works much better on the page than it does
in spoken dialogue), and they fail to come up with satisfactory visual
equivalents.
Just compare the treatment of Mr.Alexander in the novel with that in the
film - in the novel, he has an important dramatic and philosophical
function, as he is the author of the tract 'A Clockwork Orange' that not
only gives the film its title, but which articulates its basic
philosophy (and we discover this at a very early stage). Kubrick drops
much of this in favour of Patrick Magee chewing the scenery in his usual
inimitable fashion - Mr.Alexander's role in the *plot* is preserved, but
his rather more pivotal thematic role is diluted enormously.
Michael Brooke
Patrick J. Larkin <pj...@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> Michael Brooke wrote:
>
> > And before the Burgess-bashing reaches a crescendo, a quick reminder.
> > If Kubrick had never existed, we would still have the novel. If Burgess
> > had never existed, we would not have the film.
> >
>
> We'd probably have a great film about Napoleon...
Unlikely - the rather spectacular flop that was Sergei Bondarchuk's
'Waterloo' killed that off, as no-one was prepared to put up the money.
Kubrick made the relatively low-budget 'A Clockwork Orange' on the
rebound from that!
Michael Brooke
Phil Noir <phil...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Then again, if we're talking totally unfilmable novels, 'Perfume' must
be a pretty strong contender! The basic narrative is certainly
stageable, but I can't see how one could capture the novel's basic point
of view - the narrator's nose - without either using technology that has
yet to be invented or at the very least wall-to-wall voiceover.
Then again, I'd have said that Patrick McCabe's 'The Butcher Boy' was
unfilmable for much the same reason, and Neil Jordan rather impressively
proved me wrong earlier this year - and even got away with what I
remember as being near-continuous voice-over narration!
Michael Brooke
Gordon Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> Give me a break. While the casting of MM is superb, the atractiveness of
> Alex is exactly the same in the book - it is in fact the engine that
> drives the novel. He may actually be even more sympathetic in the novel
> because more of our experience is passed through his point of view. If
> anything, the film's use of distance and brechtian theatricality establish
> more of a critical distance around alex that - at a number of significant
> points - drive home the distasteful side of what out narrator's doing.
>
Actually, I'd argue that the novel is considerably more effective when
it comes to Brechtian alienation effects. Remember, Burgess invented
Nadsat in the first place in order to avoid falling into the trap of
titillating his readers by wallowing in lurid scenes of sex and violence
- by making them struggle with the language, the impact of these scenes
would be defused. This is one of the reasons why he objected to an
explanatory glossary of the Nadsat terms in the US edition of the novel
- and he was right to do so.
The problem with the film is that although Kubrick tries to find a
visual equivalent of what Burgess was doing - by presenting Alex's
crimes in a highly stylised, artificial manner - he's faced with the
problem that film is a far more literal medium than the novel: where
Burgess can suggest and tease, Kubrick has to show. And by showing, he
runs the risk of doing exactly what Burgess was trying to avoid - he
makes the violence exciting, the sex titillating. Now this may well
have been intentional on Kubrick's part - but it does tend to contradict
your impression that he's creating a "critical distance".
Ronald J. Whalen
Michael Brooke wrote:
>
> Phil Noir <phil...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, I saw Natural Born Killers. It neither shocked me nor made me think
> > > but just bored me to death and made me wonder why people were making
> > > such a fuss over such a bad poorly written movie that isn't shocking or
> > > funny or scarry or satiric or thought-provoking but just plain smelly.
> >
> > Good thing Kubrick never got around to filming "Perfume," it would've
> > *really* offended your delicate sensibilities.
>
> Then again, if we're talking totally unfilmable novels, 'Perfume' must
> be a pretty strong contender! The basic narrative is certainly
> stageable, but I can't see how one could capture the novel's basic point
> of view - the narrator's nose - without either using technology that has
> yet to be invented or at the very least wall-to-wall voiceover.
>
Or Kubrick could have handed people in the movie theaters scratch and
sniff cards like the ones Jon Waters used to hand out at his movies
where people would scratch the card when the movie said so and smell
what the people in the movie were smelling.
Ronald J. Whalen
> > And before the Burgess-bashing reaches a crescendo, a quick reminder.
> > If Kubrick had never existed, we would still have the novel. If Burgess
> > had never existed, we would not have the film.
> >
>
> film of all time, 2001: A Space Odyssey.
No we wouldn't have if Burgess hadn't existed, Kubrick still couldn't
have made Napoleon because of the budget problems he had. Remember 2001
was not a very profitable film in the 60's and only later made money
in it's re-releases over the years. Kubrick did make Barry Lyndon kind
of an alternative to Napoleon but Lyndon's budget was probaly smaller
than the one Kubrick's Napoleon would have cost. Though, I agree it
is a pity we'll never see Kubrick's grand epic based on his idol
Napoleon
and it would have been wonderful to see Nicholson in the role.
I would have preferred Kubrick making Napoleon over Barry Lyndon
(which is a film I do like but doesn't quite reach the status
of Kubrick's earlier better films).
David Culpepper
Best idea I've seen you post Ronie.
Tobasco