About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, June 21, 2004 - 7:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry, I can't get rid of the non-image. I left the picture URL area blank and still got this! Anyone have suggestions or can help get rid of the blank box? Thanks!

Post 1

Monday, June 21, 2004 - 7:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Liz,

You can edit the item by clicking the magnifying glass icon between the "sanction" tick icon and the "favourite item" blue thingy icon. The URL for the picture is http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005ATQB.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg 

MH

PS I've only seen it once but it is an enjoyable movie :-)

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 6/21, 8:29am)


Post 2

Monday, June 21, 2004 - 10:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Elizabeth.  I havent seen the film in a while but I always enjoyed it.  I never thought of it this way though so Im glad you brought it back to my attention.  Very interesting.

Marn


Post 3

Monday, June 21, 2004 - 12:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wonder if the phrase "clockwork orange" does not have something to do with the belief that the manipulation of "inner machinery" dictates what "bears fruit" on the outside... a justifiable interpretation of B.F. Skinner's cynical philosophy on man, known as "behaviorism".


Post 4

Monday, June 21, 2004 - 1:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Found some things online regarding the title.

(For the whole script & such, go here.)

First one from here:


Concerning the title
from Anthony Burgess' preface in the modern american prints:

"...I do not think so because, by definition, a human being is endowed with free will. He can use this to choose between good and evil. If he can only perform good or only perform evil, then he is a clockwork orange--meaning that he has the appearance of an organism lovely with colour and juice but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound by God or the Devil or (since this is increasingly replacing both) the Almighty State. It is as inhuman to be totally good as it is to be totally evil.

...I don't think I have to remind readers what the title means. Clockwork oranges don't exist, except in the speech of old Londoners. The image was a bizarre one always used for a bizarre thing. "He is as queer as a clockwork orange" meant he was queer to the limit of queerness. It did not primarily denote homosexuality, though a queer, before restricitve legislature came in, was the term used for a member of the inverted fraternity. Europeans who translated the title as Arancia a Orologeria or Orange Mécanique could not understand it Cockney resonance and they assumed that it meant a hand grenade, a cheaper kind of explosive pineapple. I mean it to stand for the application of a mechanistic morality to a living organism oozing with juice and sweetness."
Here is another site that does a lot of explaining, including about the title, and pretty much paraphrases the whole movie!

Another one:

Burgess wrote that the title came from an old Cockney expression, "As queer [meaning strange] as a clockwork orange", but that he had found that other people read new meanings into it1. For instance, some believed that the title
referred to a mechanically-responsive (clockwork) non-human (orang, Malay
for person). Rumour had it that Burgess had intended to name the work "A
Clockwork Orang" and was thus hypercorrected to the form we know. In his essay "Clockwork oranges"2 he says that "this title would be appropriate for a
story about the application of Pavlovian, or mechanical, laws to an organism
which, like a fruit, was capable of colour and sweetness". This title alludes to the
protagonist's conditional negativistic responses to feelings of evil which prevent
the exercise of his free will.

The book was inspired by an event in 1944, when Burgess' pregnant wife Lynn
was robbed and beaten by four US soldiers in a London street, which aborted the pregnancy3.


 


Post 5

Monday, June 21, 2004 - 9:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Elizabeth...

It's always been an interesting movie to me... But for different reasons than it was interesting to the friend of mine from high school who showed it to me.

I saw it as a movie making a comment about some dimension of the human soul; he just was fascinated by the soulless viciousness of the characters...  Needless to say, I haven't been friends with him for many years.


Post 6

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 9:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I walked out on this movie. I've only done that twice in my life.

Post 7

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 12:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LOL!! What was the other time, Rodney? :-D

Post 8

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 12:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I figured a lot of people dislike this movie and expected much more posts saying so. I forgot that "no sanction" isn't an option for movies, so that might explain why it didn't get any!

I also wonder how different it would have been to see it over 30 years ago when it first came out. Or I suspect it would have seemed a totally different movie had I watched it back in high school rather than just now.

As an aside, I also thought the "ultra violence" wasn't like what you see now. I didn't really watch some of the initial violent parts, thinking I wouldn't want to, but the later ones left much up to the imagination I thought. Even though a movie like Rob Roy (as an example) isn't known for it's violence, the rape scene in that movie left me a lot more upset than anything I saw in this movie.

-Elizabeth


Post 9

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 12:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
An embarrassingly, relentlessly shallow and unfunny comedy called Pink Motel.

Post 10

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 12:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rodney,

I've never heard of that movie! What was your problem with A Clockwork Orange? Or should I not ask? :-\

Liz,

I know what you mean about the Rob Roy rape sequence! :-(

MH

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 6/22, 12:59pm)


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 8:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I saw this movie when it first came out (before I was introduced to Objectivism) and even then was sickened by it. I have always pushed this to the bottom of the worst movies I have seen, together with Last Year at Marienbad.

Sam


Post 12

Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 6:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Did anyone see this film in '72 and then again recently with a different feeling? Was this film particularly violent for it's time but is quite tame compared to today's movies?? (Or was it something else that sickened those who hated it?)

I like this movie for the same reason I like One Few Over the Cuckoo's Nest for example. It made me think, which few movies do. The actions of what is right or wrong aren't always obvious and handed to you. The symbolism and the actions of the characters are all quite intentional. The colors and scenery all give you more to think about, as opposed to just looking good as background.

Thanks!
Elizabeth


Post 13

Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 7:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Elizabeth: I haven't seen the movie again, but what sickened me was the mere idea that men's minds were mere mechanical or electronic devices, devoid of free will,  that could be programmed by anyone with the physical power to do so.

Sam


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 9:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Sam!

Thanks for the insight! As I said previously there were lots of reasons I thought people might not like the movie, but wasn't sure which it was for the most part.

Maybe we understood the movie differently, so I'll explain why I didn't think they implied man's mind is mechanical, but actually the opposite. They didn't 'reprogram' Alex's mind. They initiated a Pavlov's dog type response in him instead. When he watched movies of violence and such, they gave him drugs that would make him violently ill. That's why the unintentional side-effect of him not being able to listen to Beethoven's 9th came about (which wasn't intentionally 'reprogrammed'). They didn't program him not to want to rape and fight, in fact he still very much wanted to do so, they made it so when he went to act on his urges he became violently sick and so had to choose between going through with it in such pain or ending the sickness and not raping or fighting, even fighting to defend himself against attack.

The doctors saw it as "fixing" him, and the priest fought against it saying that in taking away his power to choose bad (over good), they are robbing him of the chance to choose his own actions, hence he is no longer really a man because he now lacks the power to act on free will.

The author made it so that the villain had no redeeming qualities. So if they had sentenced him to death, chances are you wouldn't care much. But instead they did something that to society might have seemed more "humane", after all he was still able to function in society, but to others it was worse than killing him. It was keeping him alive but taking away that one thing that made him a man, versus something mechanical. And I think that's why the title is Clockwork Orange and it's what I got out of the author's description for the choice. Not that man is mechanical, but that if you take away this power to make choices, and "automate" man's reactions, than he is then no longer a man but rather a mechanical toy.

I don't know how realistic that is, but there are certain things that I look at now that make me slightly ill due to memories of having been really sick from them in the past. Or cancer patients sometimes vomit at a certain smell or running into their old oncologist from the memories of when they were sick. This was taking that idea to the extreme of using these memory reflexes to program actions.

Didn't mean to drag this out, this isn't the best movie ever and maybe others are more worthy to talk about, but because there are many questions, implications and interpretations in the movie, I was very much curious what others got out of it! So thanks again for letting me know why you didn't like it!

-Elizabeth

(Edited by Elizabeth on 6/24, 9:05am)


Post 15

Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 9:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Elizabeth,

I actually own this movie, and have the same take on it that you do. The importance of free-will and choice in our lives as men and women!


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.