Please support ScreenPrism on our new Patreon page: www.patreon.com/user?u=7792695 Every contribution helps us make more of the videos you want to see! Thanks so much for watching and be sure to subscribe.
I've seen the movie numerous times and I never "enjoyed" Alex picking on the weak. Your theory is partly true only. ASSHOLES and other psychopaths enjoy the movie that way, others don't.
10:53 I recognize the caretaker in the movie. That is David Prose. Who is famous for playing Darth Vader in Star Wars. (Prose wears the suit. James Earl Jones does the voice.)
@@melissacooper4282 Good spot. It was only when I had seen the credits after the film that I knew it was him. He used to be in a kids road safety video here in Britain in the 1970s.
Clockwork: Artificial, mechanical and man made Orange:Organic and found in Nature A Clockwork Orange:Forcing something natural to function artificially
According to Burgess it means this: Clockwork=one who works perfectly in sync with society. Orange=a homosexual--someone who is gay is also referred to as a fruit. Alexander DeLarge is transformed into a passive member of society who doesn't defend himself and is repulsed by sex, in other words, a clockwork orange.
Simply because he's the protagonist, does not make him an anti hero. Essentially, an anti-hero does bad things for good reasons, or in the pursuit of good outcomes. For example, The Punisher does evil things to evil people because they are evil, while Alex does evil things because he enjoys doing them.
People need to learn protagonist doesn't always mean hero or anti-hero. It just means main character. A character can be horrible, vile and, evil, but is still considered a protagonist because the story literally revolves around them.
I think it kind of evolved out of other tropes. More so out of 2. 1) The classical music = intelligence or higher taste 2) Villains beings by default outside the norm, a-social to make them interesting. So bring two and two together and if you want to display an articulate, intelligent anti-hero you kind of cooperate classical music into his taste I guess. Also I am sure there is a third trope of clashing music playing something very "intelligent" on the backdrop of violence or as Kubric did with Strangelove, play some romantic song on the backdrop of bombs falling.
Probably from Hitler and his love of Wagner?? Or the refined gentleman murderer of Jack the Ripper? Dracula was a classy fella.. It seems that those that rise to the top of society and achieve the kind of leisure that would afford such cultured tastes would also eventually experience the boredom which might lead one to explore more sadistic experiences.
I listen to Classical music and Opera...could I... could I be an evil murderer too?!?! I'm going to stop listening to it right away or I might get the urge to smash someones head in and rape a bunch of people.
Kubrick's depiction of violence through an absurd, surrealist lenses makes it way more disturbing to me. It dehumanizes the victims and throws in comedy in such a dissonant, nightmarish way. To this day, it's why I find it harder to watch than torturous horror movies or violent war films.
Melissa I completely agree. I’ve watched it once, and both times I found it disturbing and felt like I’d missed something and didn’t understand its cultural impact or purpose. But I think you’ve hit the nail on the head as to why I’ve found it so hard to stomach and as a result missed the point.
Yeah, but those violent war films actually desensitize you to the violence. Clockwork Orange shows you violence without making it look real. This probably prevents it from tampering with your response to actual violence. Whereas I'm not sure if repeatedly experiencing graphic violence that looks realistic on screen won't actually reduce your emotional response to real-life violence.
I never felt any kind of sympathy for Alex, he had no problems which caused him to be such a terrible person, he worked in a group and preyed on the weak, he caught people off guard. I didn't find him charismatic either, overall although the film covers some interesting theories, I can feel no connection to Alex.
Peter H Agree with Peter H: merely a character of interest to be studied from a bird's eye view, but not a charismatic one or one to feel empathy for. I hated the movie the first time I saw it, but I loved Kubrick as a kid. I justified and "learned to love" the movie by interpreting his behavior as partially stemming from this culturally debased dystopian future society, and took the film as more of a comment on what kind of monsters such a debased culture was going to produce. I would also point out that the one moment of violence I remember not portrayed cartoonish was when Alex is hit with the milk jug. We just watch him struggle screaming as his friends abandon him while his suffering intensifies and surely brings on further punishment--as if to reinforce that this cultural degradation would turn portions of society into monsters completely lacking in empathy to others' pain, and only able to even acknowledge its reality when inflicted upon one's self.
I see the end shot differently. Notice that his sexual partner is smiling and willing. She is also in a position of dominance being above him. Also the people look like guests at a wedding. It’s as if Kubrick condensed the last chapter into one perfect shot. As in the final chapter Alex matures and out grows his youth. He was cured alright but not the way we think.
I’ve always thought that. It looks like post wedding sex with everyone clapping in approval. But everyone always told me he was made a psycho again and that always confused me....
Actually, Kubrick stated he hated the 21st chapter and told Malcom McDowell not to read it, so he didn’t. Anthony Burgess supposedly just threw it in there to satisfy the publisher with a redeeming ending.
I personally prefer the end of the movie than the book. The book makes it seem like all Alex did was because it's a teenager being a teenager but the film embraced his psychopathic behavior.
the book version reminds me of cuddy from the wire. he basicaly said he was super agressive as a kid (killed someone and went to jail), once he was out he said he just outgrew it. sometimes it is true though, jsut not often
I liked the film ending because it still suggests that Alex is growing up and looking for a more sophisticated/respectable relationship - he is having consensual sex with a woman who is dominant position - showing that he did mature and his cultural side will win out in the end.
The US publishers cut the last chapter from the book, and Kubrick didn't find out about it until after he started filming. That chapter has been restored in subsequent editions, but I didn't find out about it either until quite a few years later, after I had read the book and seen the film (in the theater, of course) several times each and I thought I knew what the story was about. The final chapter came as a real revelation to me. It made me see the book in a whole different light.
metawyrm - In the 21st chapter of the book (the lost chapter), Alex is older with a new group causing havoc. However, one night he drinks on his own and contemplates growing up. He imagines what it's like to have a kid &a leave it all behind. Though how the movie ended it, it allows the audience to decide for ourselves what Alex does with his life.
The phrase "anti-hero" has taken on a looser and less specific definition in recent times as a person who, even if they're bad, is the main character who the audience is rooting for.
Alex is the villain protagonist from the start in the first act of the book or movie but the half of the part is that the society is already against him when you think about it. He's a victim who got what he deserved but you really wanted to feel sorry for him. The whole point of the story is that the system is like a puppeteer who controlled the society and humans are fruits who happened to be robots.
Alex is 100% the hero of the novel. Not only does Burgess create an extreme amount of sympathy for him, but he is the face against the totalitarian society, it's like youve never even watched/read the novel
The reason Kubrick omits the final chapter is not because he chose to, but because he just hadn’t read it. When it was first published in America the last chapter was missed out as it was thought it would improve the books reception. However, in Kubrick’s adaptation the final scene (Alex’s dream) shows he has reformed as the confetti being thrown by onlookers connotes a wedding and the sex appears not only consensual but controlled by the female party showing Alex’s attitude on relationships has changed.
That's what we had always been told, but this video shows a quote from Kubrick stating that this choice was deliberate. If that's accurate, what we had previously been told might have been the creation of a Warner Bros publicist.
I read the novel in 1974 when I was around 14. I found it in the local library. I didn't see the film until many, many years later. At the time of reading it, I was also reading Orwell & other scifi authors who mainly wrote social commentary via dystopian future fiction. I remember the book being pretty brutal but seeing something on screen visually is always somehow different than reading about it. And sometimes artistic choices directors make to get a visual idea across can fall flat, especially when dealing with extreme violence or sexual themes. Anyways, I remember that book making me think, really think, about issues like social responsibility & ethical treatment of criminals, & just question the foundation of morality & free will itself. My recommendation would be to read the novel before seeing the film. Malcolm MacDowell is absolutely chilling as Alex.
yensid interesting, but its for that very reason I almost always see the movie first before I read the book. If I do the reverse I'm usually disapointed by an okay movie compared to its better book but if I watch the movie, then read the book I'll usually look at the movie more favorably and then the book provides more details and a much deeper dive into the story. Not to mention I can visualize faces for the characters better if I go that rout.
MadameTamma, I agree with you. Every time I've seen a movie based on a book, especially anything by Stephen King, I was very disappointed. I try not to be one "those people " but I think I am sometimes. The kind who tells people the film or TV show isn't as good as the book. Ugh. In this case, there was probably 20 years between the reading of the novel & seeing the film. I'm glad for that. I was an adult for one ( I think this film may have originally had an x rating in 1971) & I only remembered the highlights of the novel so I couldn't quibble over details. Mainly I recommend reading the book first so the viewer has a fuller understanding of the material & the artistic choices the director made. People were offended by the tone of the violence not understanding that it was deliberately made to seem surreal or unreal because to a psychopath like Alex, it wasnt. He had no connection or capacity for empathy. So, I think it's possible for people to write the film off in disgust or as stupid & nonsensical if not familiar with the source material. Just an aside, I've just started reading GOTs (the first book) for the very reason you mentioned. I was trying to hold out until the series was over or GRRM finished the novels. But I think it's past the point of comparison now, so I'm safe :) And I have something to enjoy during the series off time
I love that scene in the book, where they slap an old man round the back of the head, his false teeth fall out and they stamp on them. Obviously, it isn't funny, but reading it in that Nadsat language was hilarious.
Nice video, but Alex the character does not make up the language he uses per se. He utilizes the slang created and used by his generation, or whatever, but he doesn't "invent" his language. Not to take away from his brilliance or intelligence in the way he uses his language, which is poetic and creative too, but it seems this is a fairly important distinction to make. Keep up the great work!
Thank you! So we're actually quoting the author, Anthony Burgess: "He rejoices in articulate language and even invents a new form of it." Here's the article where he writes this: www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/06/04/the-clockwork-condition It seems likely that the other characters speak as Alex does because we're experiencing them through Alex's telling of events. Certainly an interesting discussion to have, though!
Yes, Anthony Burgess invented the slang . As Author Danny Peary noted in his Cult Movies II book , Burgess' language works a s distancing tool making us feel as if we are struggling with a foreign language , but Kubrick's film makes the lingo titillating !
@thetake, it’s not true that it’s “Alex’s experience” of other people, at one point in the book, Alex starts speaking aggressive nadsat when he’s being made to watch those films, the doctor asks what it is that he’s said and another doctor tells him about nadsat and that the youth of today speak it.
In point of fact, in the book, when Alex is talking to the two girls in the record shop, they respond to him in a "next generation" form of speech rather than in Nadsat, which he attributes to them being "a younger generation".
The thing I really liked about the movie was how jolly it made those absolutely awful scenes. Those scenes are made to be comical and to me it made it harder to watch because you know it's wrong and, at least I , felt terrible watching these scenes but mixed with the music and humourous movements it made it seem almost wrong. And it was so interesting. I really love Kubrick for that.
Kubrick himself said he would have prefered if Malcolm was 17 but he just didn't want to cast someone else because he thought MM was perfect for the role (apart from the age).
metawyrm Liking good complex music or literature takes an active mind and thinking process. Mental pathologies of all types do not equate with ignorance. It would seem that the opposite would be true. Not only intelligence but an active imagination. Such a person would be far from boring but actually quite intriguing.
Honestly, I was never truly scared by A Clockwork Orange when it comes to the acts of violence, but from how the movie manages to make me feel for Alex for some reason, even though he is truly a terrible person. For the first third of the movie, where Alex was being himself, I somehow felt like I was a part of the ride for Alex, I saw the fun he was having, and his genuine joy made me feel joy as well. It's mostly the charming aspect of him though. I then found myself more freaked out by the psychological experiments, and I even felt sad when Alex was getting his karmic justice later in the film. After it ended, I thought to myself "Well I should be happy that he got what he deserved for what he did. Why do I feel bad for him???" I think it has something to do with how he was 'rehabilitated', and how I strongly disagree with the methods, and the results.
Alex reminds me of Evan Peters... And that makes sense considering the fact the many of Peters' characters are terrible and violent (Tate and Patrick come to mind) and people (including myself) are still oddly in love with them.
This movie made me feel angry but weirdly fascinated when I was really small, I was not able to watch the second half of the film until I start to become a teenager and I begun to understand the deep nature of what was for me just a violent and weird film.
If a fake good man is one who is good but lies then, likely, a fake good man. If he is faking being a good man, then perhaps the honest villain. It also depends on the degrees of depravity.
I remember seeing this movie when I was 10 lol early 80s. Then again at 15 and really began to understand this masterpiece. Now as a 46yr old adult I know this movie by heart/memory and love it still
I was thrilled this morning to find that the late author Anthony Burgess has written an unfinished sequel of sorts to “A Clockwork Orange” entitled “The Clockwork Condition”. I would be thrilled if his estate deems to publish it in the future. There is a great posting on the internet about it today.
It’s not a sequel, it’s more like Dante’s Inferno: an exploration of the angry mind’s darkest corners and all sorts of meta commentary on violent obsessions.
The idea of a vicarious escape is an understatement. That's what this film and other films like it are for me. I was raised under The cult of Christianity and anything of this world was seen as the work of the devil and therefore my mother was very strict about what movies we could watch and what movies we could not watch all the way up until the age of 17 when I finally left. So I'm really glad I started to see quite a few movies when I finally got my first job and moved into my first apartment. I would say I was an avid consumer of many movies that I didn't get to enjoy during my teenage years or growing up. I remembered hearing about Clockwork Orange in one of my high school discussions during film and production class, luckily I could easily find it on the internet for free at the time I couldn't get enough of it. I can't recall how many times I have watched this movie but it's definitely about 20 times or so.
Its amazing how A Clockwork Orange aged well! It has been almost 50 years and this movie is still both great and disturbing, much like the other Kubrick movies!!!!!
Vlad Kovtun Old English refers to what was spoken in the Medieval period in England, such as the language spoken by the Anglo-Saxons, while Early Modern English refers to what we usually think of when we think of "Old English," like Shakespeare.
Burgess has always stressed his dislike for Kubrick leaving out the last chapter, but I disagree. As far as the book goes, I understand Burgess’s desire to keep the last chapter: it offers a necessary moralistic ending to an otherwise brutal and unredemptive book. But Burgess doesn’t seem to understand that film is an entirely different medium of storytelling that has its own flexibilities and restrictions, so in the case of Kubrick’s vision, the original ending (like you said) would lessen the impact and themes that were presented to us.
Presenting a story in another medium allows the creator to play with the story a little, though the creator should still remain authentic to what the story was. That's just what Kubric did when he changed the ending. He gave Alaex an ending that was arguably even more authentic to the the character than the ending he got in the book.
They have the same ending. You just missed it. That last chapter is in that final shot and final line. It’s impressionistic in Alex’s vison of his future wedding day. And it is his wedding day. Not a rape. That your clue. He is moral now. He was cured all right.
It's the work of articulate art. Of course its gonna be controversial. It's brutally honest about the real world. And that's what makes it indigenously great
“The Take” more like “The Bad Take”. You’re not supposed to feel “relieved” by Alex’s return to violence, or as though you’re “living vicariously through him”. What? No.
What “return to violence” Look closely at his vision at the end. Everyone is happy including the the woman and the witnesses. Alex has gained morality. He’s fantasising about consensual sex through marriage. His ludovico treatment has taught him the experience of victims. Empathy. The foundation of morality. That’s the point that this video missed. And that the final chapter of the books point out when Alex’s return to criminal activity leaves him unfulfilled so he gets a normal life and gets married. Kubrick summed that up in one perfect shot, and one perfect line. “I was cured, All right”
Actually, theyre spot on. Personally, I found myself rooting for Alex in the second half and felt a sense of perverse retributive justice in his return to evil. It WAS sort of a happy ending for me. He is the protagonist after all so the audience is bound to sympathize with him to some extent because the story is presented to us through HIS lens.
I really think this might be my favorite film of all time. The way it's shot, the way Kubrick used Burgess' story and words. It's just glorious, but this video made me appreciate the film that much more. I first saw it was I was 13 or 14, so I've always kept that mindset about it. Now, at 37, I can look at the film in a new light.
@@stephsands6211 You're absolutely correct, I fully agree. There will most likely never be another adaptation that's as fantastic as this one. I just think that with all the movies everyone is rebooting, if they ever picked A Clockwork Orange, there's a few people perfect for certain roles.
This channel continues to exceed my expectations. Love your narration, it's insightful, soothing, and crystal clear. And I love your structure and breakdown, I feel that with every video I walk away with new knowledge.
For me as a dancer, the choreography was stunning to watch. McDowell is a real showman, so well cast. I can't imagine revisiting it though, it's so much to handle.
I loved both the book and the movie, but the ending of the book always upset me. The entire scope of the story is to ask the question "What do you do with a person who is bad by their own nature?" When Alex mellows out and decides to no longer be an ultra-violent psychopath in the end of the book, it makes it so that question doesn't matter anymore.
I think what makes this movie so great is that it showed me how desensitized to violence I had become. Growing up, my childhood was spent watching films like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, and imagining myself as one of those great heroes, fighting evil and feeling triumphant with every enemy slain. When I got older I would watch slashers and Tarantino films, and would often find myself laughing at how over the top the violence was. And then on top of that I would play video games where I was in control of the bloody violence. Then, earlier this year, I saw Clockwork Orange for the first time. At the age of 21 for the very first time I felt disturbed when I saw the onscreen violence. In the months since then, I have seen the film dozens of times, and the feeling persists. The violence feels real, and it feels disturbing, like violence should.
Alex was originally fifteen years old. I just realized after watching this, that with the exception of the nurse at the end, this movie was devoid of any likable characters.
@@AvrilFanCarson A Psycopath can be charming, some of the most famous Psycopaths are superficially charming(they easily attract people), but that doesnt change the fact that they are bad people and deserve punishment for what they do
Thank you for that summary. I will never have the stomach to watch that film. I see the points you made, but contend there are other ways to break from the norm the author was talking about without being a psychopath.
@@birthdaygnat8314 Well then I guess there is something wrong with me because I did not enjoy watching him one little bit. And I often enjoy watching villains.
@JOHN JOHN Exactly. There are villains that I can sympathize with. Thanos, for example, was one that I felt empathy towards. There are villains who have good ideas/intentions but have horrible and evil executions. Or they have some sort of tragic backstory that at least explains why they are the way they are, although I never seen that as a valid excuses to mistreat someone. However, this Alex character has none of that. He is aimlessly inhumane for no point or reason, only because it's fun. And if the point is that we need to empathize with his character because we have of the rules and morals placed on society that burdens his freedom, then I pose the question is what about the innocent people who he imposes his inhumane and barbaric behavior onto? Isn't he also violating THEIR freedom? Why is violating, harming, injuring, and traumatizing others seen as a symbol of "freedom" for the person who is committing these atrocious acts?
@@MissNayNay I think the message is that alex should be in prision, he should't been brianwashed. He should be allowed to change by himself, if he doesnt, he should be punished, just that.
I love the character Alex, I watch it everytime it comes on, Love Kubricks works. Saw this at the theatre in the early 70's here in US. Really love the language as well.
Anthony burgess , the writer was from Manchester , Lancashire , in the north west of England. He was not from a rich family. I would say he is not really imagining a psychopath , but describing an educated hooligan in what could be a brutal environment, especially for the poor. And yes , maybe a screw loose !!
A szene that I think is highly unappreciated is when Alex is in prison and that one guy tells him he is now not just a criminal but also a murder. I can’t recall the szene 100% but I think he says something like „this must be a cruel joke“, meaning that he didn’t even mean to kill that woman. He obviously has no problem with violence but death seems to be something very different to him
I mean he thinks he’s cured , but his physical inability would not let him be , may be that’s why Kubrick ended the movie like that , instead of adapting the book version , where Alex is portrayed to be someone who feels remorse for his actions
@@annemoni1 his physical defect was cured, which is why they played the ninth symphony at the end (to prove that he could listen to it without the pain)
One of my favourite books of all time! I was very sad seeing Kubrick removing the last chapter of the books, which to me, shows character growth and some finalization to the story, instead of continuing on this mindless loop.
Wendy Carlos took this soundtrack to the next level. The early use of synthesizers is extremely well done and is one of the reasons the movie is so good
Although this video highlights some of the major themes Burgess wanted to demonstrate regarding conformity and freewill, I don't Alex is supposed to be a psychopath or antihero, but instead he represents adolescence. One of the most prevailing themes is the idea of youth and the contrast between it and adulthood. Burgess wanted to show how "adults" try to conform the young so that they can behave properly once they grow up. Burgess tries to show how Alex, a young lad of 15 in the beginning is wild, violent and treacherous, with the whole torture scene supposed to signify how adults attempt to change his ways so as to make him "normal" in the eyes of society. In the book the last chapter is supposed to signify how Alex, now having reached the age of adulthood 18 (or 21 can't remember) has conformed to the adults, and understands what it means to be proper. He even contemplates how the cycle continues as his children will likely behave similarly and he will have to conform their ways as well and so on. It's also a reason Burgess never really liked the movie, because Kubrick deliberately cut the scene out and changed it, making one of the most important themes of the book completely obsolete.
Wow, what a great analysis! So many people get this movie wrong. I always thought Alex's mother's wardrobe in the film had another purpose. I think it was, like the interior of the Korova, the cars and other details, meant to emphasize that the film takes place in the future, and is surprisingly accurate, since those shiny jackets and brightly colored hair in unnatural shades have both become fact.
scared to watch the film in case my brain romanticises his character because of how attractive he is to me... he looks like evan Peters and young mark Hamill mixed.
While many of these videos from The Take are superb (the one on the ending of "The Sopranos" is brilliant), this one is a very inadequate discussion of "A Clockwork Orange." The reason the film is highly stylized and uses many aspects of cinematic content to make the audience identify with Alex is that that character is, in the end, our hero-spokesman for the conventional idea of free will, and against having our thoughts controlled, even if to reduce crime. That is Kubrick's main point in the film. There are several mistakes in this video, but one of the worst is that the ending does not show Alex having a fantasy of violence, it obviously shows him having a happy, celebratory sexual escapade, in soap foam no less, in front of applauding aristocrats. Three things were robbed from his own unique personality by the State's act of behavioral conditioning: 1) his love of sex; 2) his love of Beethoven, and 3) his love of violence. That clean, fun, sex, in front of "all the best people" (an idea that resonates with stunning irony through almost all Kubrick films) is what we see in the final shots --as he has an orgasm listening to the 9th Symphony's "Ode to Joy"-- is an indirect suggestion that the violence is less important than sex, and maybe even no longer a part of his desires. The entire point about Alex being our (the audience, and all humanity) champion of free will is more powerfully made if initially Alex does terrible things, and yet we are forced to recognize taking even a violent person's free will is government gone too far. You cannot make that point about a nonviolent person, because it does not offer the most challenging example to make us realize the message.
His appreciation for one of the most well-known classical pieces of all time doesn't really require much sophistication. Most of the popular pieces now were considered as what we would call pop music anyway. Reading the book, it seems like it's more obvious that Alex's intelligence is mostly put-on. He just happens to be more confident than his friends.
I always loved the clockwork Orange but I've never viewd Alex as appealing or seductive, or his actions justified by his charm or honesty. I always saw him as a funny, and a little sad, phsyco.
There's no evidence suggesting that Alex reverts to his old ways by the end of the film, as the final shot is not only highly interpretive, but on closer inspection, doesn't lean any credence towards this theory. An alternative interpretation suggests that Kubrick ultimately did go with Burgess' original concept for how the story should end, but depicted it in such a way that left the audience's own understanding of the material open to interpretation. Simply put, by the end of the film, based on how it is presented, the audience sees what they want to see, not what is actually presented, leading many to believe that Alex had not significantly changed, despite presented evidence suggesting that he had.
Thanks, it was pissing me off the whole time when she said that he went back to his old ways. The analysis did not elaborate on fate, free will, good, evil, and government control. But I wrote a paper on these points. Perhaps they had to do less than the movie than I see. Though, I think not.
After reading the book I always imagined the final scene to be Alex having a premonition of his eventual wedding day as viewed through his presently warped mind.
Except Anthony Burgess literally wrote why he disliked the film because Stanley Kubrick did make him revert back to his old ways. The audience doesn’t “see what they want to see”, they see what’s presented to them and that was exactly what was presented to them.
The message is that you should let someone choose. You can’t force them to be someone they’re not. Alex may be a psycho but the government turned out to be worse than he is. It’s a brilliant move on Kubrick’s part for us to feel sorry for someone like Alex while being disgusted at the author’s actions at the end, despite what Alex did to him. It’s one of the best examples of character development. I love this film. It’s a prime example of cinema and the one film I can connect it to is The Master, another film about stripping choice from a person. Could you please do a video on that masterpiece as well?
I’ve always had the exact same thoughts! Alex was evil, but the government was hypocritical in telling him to “be good” when they themselves were being just as evil!
Please support ScreenPrism on our new Patreon page: www.patreon.com/user?u=7792695
Every contribution helps us make more of the videos you want to see! Thanks so much for watching and be sure to subscribe.
ScreenPrism why not
I've seen the movie numerous times and I never "enjoyed" Alex picking on the weak. Your theory is partly true only. ASSHOLES and other psychopaths enjoy the movie that way, others don't.
10:53 I recognize the caretaker in the movie. That is David Prose. Who is famous for playing Darth Vader in Star Wars. (Prose wears the suit. James Earl Jones does the voice.)
Where's my snake
@@melissacooper4282 Good spot. It was only when I had seen the credits after the film that I knew it was him. He used to be in a kids road safety video here in Britain in the 1970s.
Clockwork: Artificial, mechanical and man made
Orange:Organic and found in Nature
A Clockwork Orange:Forcing something natural to function artificially
Originally it was a really obscure cockney expression: "Queer as a clockwork orange". Burgess must have wondered the nuances of that expression a lot.
Yes...but the oranges was made by men something years ago,so...think about that. In the nature, never existed oranges.
stefanManiak262011 what
@@closefomo Yes...oranges is combo between pomelo and tangerine!! was made in antiquity! search on google!!
According to Burgess it means this: Clockwork=one who works perfectly in sync with society. Orange=a homosexual--someone who is gay is also referred to as a fruit. Alexander DeLarge is transformed into a passive member of society who doesn't defend himself and is repulsed by sex, in other words, a clockwork orange.
Simply because he's the protagonist, does not make him an anti hero. Essentially, an anti-hero does bad things for good reasons, or in the pursuit of good outcomes. For example, The Punisher does evil things to evil people because they are evil, while Alex does evil things because he enjoys doing them.
ReillyDude Alex is a villain protagonist
@@JFairy189 The point of the movie is that there are no heroes and villains, my droogs.
Thank you. I’m not sure why the word antihero is being used if they don’t know what it means but it’s driving me nuts
People need to learn protagonist doesn't always mean hero or anti-hero. It just means main character. A character can be horrible, vile and, evil, but is still considered a protagonist because the story literally revolves around them.
He is doing bad things for our entertainment and for the good of being human (fighting the oppression of free will) therefore = antihero
Can we talk about why psychopaths always like classical music?
Where did this trope come from?
I think it kind of evolved out of other tropes. More so out of 2. 1) The classical music = intelligence or higher taste 2) Villains beings by default outside the norm, a-social to make them interesting.
So bring two and two together and if you want to display an articulate, intelligent anti-hero you kind of cooperate classical music into his taste I guess.
Also I am sure there is a third trope of clashing music playing something very "intelligent" on the backdrop of violence or as Kubric did with Strangelove, play some romantic song on the backdrop of bombs falling.
Sociopaths such as Alex and Hannibal like Classical. Psychopaths such as Patrick Bateman like Genesis.
And then you've got Moriarty, who likes the Beegees lol
Probably from Hitler and his love of Wagner?? Or the refined gentleman murderer of Jack the Ripper? Dracula was a classy fella.. It seems that those that rise to the top of society and achieve the kind of leisure that would afford such cultured tastes would also eventually experience the boredom which might lead one to explore more sadistic experiences.
I listen to Classical music and Opera...could I... could I be an evil murderer too?!?! I'm going to stop listening to it right away or I might get the urge to smash someones head in and rape a bunch of people.
This is a film that should never be re-made. Absolute perfection in film.
Stanley Kubrick was a genius. He always created an atmosphere in his films.
Andrew Williams the best to ever do it.
What’s the most unique atmosphere Kubrick has created? Has to be clockwork orange right?
Kubrick's depiction of violence through an absurd, surrealist lenses makes it way more disturbing to me. It dehumanizes the victims and throws in comedy in such a dissonant, nightmarish way. To this day, it's why I find it harder to watch than torturous horror movies or violent war films.
Melissa I completely agree. I’ve watched it once, and both times I found it disturbing and felt like I’d missed something and didn’t understand its cultural impact or purpose. But I think you’ve hit the nail on the head as to why I’ve found it so hard to stomach and as a result missed the point.
Totally agree.
Yeah, but those violent war films actually desensitize you to the violence. Clockwork Orange shows you violence without making it look real. This probably prevents it from tampering with your response to actual violence.
Whereas I'm not sure if repeatedly experiencing graphic violence that looks realistic on screen won't actually reduce your emotional response to real-life violence.
I never felt any kind of sympathy for Alex, he had no problems which caused him to be such a terrible person, he worked in a group and preyed on the weak, he caught people off guard. I didn't find him charismatic either, overall although the film covers some interesting theories, I can feel no connection to Alex.
Peter H Agree with Peter H: merely a character of interest to be studied from a bird's eye view, but not a charismatic one or one to feel empathy for. I hated the movie the first time I saw it, but I loved Kubrick as a kid. I justified and "learned to love" the movie by interpreting his behavior as partially stemming from this culturally debased dystopian future society, and took the film as more of a comment on what kind of monsters such a debased culture was going to produce. I would also point out that the one moment of violence I remember not portrayed cartoonish was when Alex is hit with the milk jug. We just watch him struggle screaming as his friends abandon him while his suffering intensifies and surely brings on further punishment--as if to reinforce that this cultural degradation would turn portions of society into monsters completely lacking in empathy to others' pain, and only able to even acknowledge its reality when inflicted upon one's self.
I see the end shot differently.
Notice that his sexual partner is smiling and willing. She is also in a position of dominance being above him. Also the people look like guests at a wedding. It’s as if Kubrick condensed the last chapter into one perfect shot. As in the final chapter Alex matures and out grows his youth. He was cured alright but not the way we think.
Yes, I love this interpretation! It really doesn't feel like there's an ending without the 21st chapter.
Now that I think of it... Indeed!
I’ve always thought that.
It looks like post wedding sex with everyone clapping in approval. But everyone always told me he was made a psycho again and that always confused me....
Wow, ive never thought about it that way, but that makes a lot of sense!
Actually, Kubrick stated he hated the 21st chapter and told Malcom McDowell not to read it, so he didn’t. Anthony Burgess supposedly just threw it in there to satisfy the publisher with a redeeming ending.
I personally prefer the end of the movie than the book. The book makes it seem like all Alex did was because it's a teenager being a teenager but the film embraced his psychopathic behavior.
the book version reminds me of cuddy from the wire. he basicaly said he was super agressive as a kid (killed someone and went to jail), once he was out he said he just outgrew it. sometimes it is true though, jsut not often
Bar San
Huh, Wonder how common/uncommon that is...
I liked the film ending because it still suggests that Alex is growing up and looking for a more sophisticated/respectable relationship - he is having consensual sex with a woman who is dominant position - showing that he did mature and his cultural side will win out in the end.
The US publishers cut the last chapter from the book, and Kubrick didn't find out about it until after he started filming. That chapter has been restored in subsequent editions, but I didn't find out about it either until quite a few years later, after I had read the book and seen the film (in the theater, of course) several times each and I thought I knew what the story was about. The final chapter came as a real revelation to me. It made me see the book in a whole different light.
metawyrm - In the 21st chapter of the book (the lost chapter), Alex is older with a new group causing havoc. However, one night he drinks on his own and contemplates growing up. He imagines what it's like to have a kid &a leave it all behind. Though how the movie ended it, it allows the audience to decide for ourselves what Alex does with his life.
This character was the prime inspiration for Heath Ledger for his Joker!
Pioneer 37 no wonder he ended dead. Rip
I could TOTALLY see that being true.
Malcom McDowell's blue eyes are mesmerising.
ikr! I always thought that too!
Yes! And they're the first thing we saw in the movie, I can't stop watching at them the first time even if I wanted to
I usually agree with this channel but Alex was not an anti hero. He was a villain by definition.
The phrase "anti-hero" has taken on a looser and less specific definition in recent times as a person who, even if they're bad, is the main character who the audience is rooting for.
Alex is the villain protagonist from the start in the first act of the book or movie but the half of the part is that the society is already against him when you think about it. He's a victim who got what he deserved but you really wanted to feel sorry for him.
The whole point of the story is that the system is like a puppeteer who controlled the society and humans are fruits who happened to be robots.
i used to be alex during childhood used to do very dangerous, horrible and disturbing things with my friends without our parents knowing
Dеаth well that’s reassuring
Alex is 100% the hero of the novel. Not only does Burgess create an extreme amount of sympathy for him, but he is the face against the totalitarian society, it's like youve never even watched/read the novel
The reason Kubrick omits the final chapter is not because he chose to, but because he just hadn’t read it. When it was first published in America the last chapter was missed out as it was thought it would improve the books reception. However, in Kubrick’s adaptation the final scene (Alex’s dream) shows he has reformed as the confetti being thrown by onlookers connotes a wedding and the sex appears not only consensual but controlled by the female party showing Alex’s attitude on relationships has changed.
That's what we had always been told, but this video shows a quote from Kubrick stating that this choice was deliberate. If that's accurate, what we had previously been told might have been the creation of a Warner Bros publicist.
Complete nonsense if you believe that Kubrick didn't have access to the final chapter. The film was shot in the UK
I watched clockwork orange he kinda look like evans peter.don't u think.
md mac Yesss
Loved the one eyelash for some reason!
Evan could totally pull this character off in a AHS season of this
Yes
lmaoo oh yea
I read the novel in 1974 when I was around 14. I found it in the local library. I didn't see the film until many, many years later. At the time of reading it, I was also reading Orwell & other scifi authors who mainly wrote social commentary via dystopian future fiction. I remember the book being pretty brutal but seeing something on screen visually is always somehow different than reading about it. And sometimes artistic choices directors make to get a visual idea across can fall flat, especially when dealing with extreme violence or sexual themes.
Anyways, I remember that book making me think, really think, about issues like social responsibility & ethical treatment of criminals, & just question the foundation of morality & free will itself. My recommendation would be to read the novel before seeing the film. Malcolm MacDowell is absolutely chilling as Alex.
yensid interesting, but its for that very reason I almost always see the movie first before I read the book. If I do the reverse I'm usually disapointed by an okay movie compared to its better book but if I watch the movie, then read the book I'll usually look at the movie more favorably and then the book provides more details and a much deeper dive into the story. Not to mention I can visualize faces for the characters better if I go that rout.
MadameTamma, I agree with you. Every time I've seen a movie based on a book, especially anything by Stephen King, I was very disappointed. I try not to be one "those people " but I think I am sometimes. The kind who tells people the film or TV show isn't as good as the book. Ugh. In this case, there was probably 20 years between the reading of the novel & seeing the film. I'm glad for that. I was an adult for one ( I think this film may have originally had an x rating in 1971) & I only remembered the highlights of the novel so I couldn't quibble over details. Mainly I recommend reading the book first so the viewer has a fuller understanding of the material & the artistic choices the director made. People were offended by the tone of the violence not understanding that it was deliberately made to seem surreal or unreal because to a psychopath like Alex, it wasnt. He had no connection or capacity for empathy. So, I think it's possible for people to write the film off in disgust or as stupid & nonsensical if not familiar with the source material.
Just an aside, I've just started reading GOTs (the first book) for the very reason you mentioned. I was trying to hold out until the series was over or GRRM finished the novels. But I think it's past the point of comparison now, so I'm safe :) And I have something to enjoy during the series off time
the book was so much more disturbing for me!
I love that scene in the book, where they slap an old man round the back of the head, his false teeth fall out and they stamp on them. Obviously, it isn't funny, but reading it in that Nadsat language was hilarious.
Bless you for the time you might have enjoyed 😀
Nice video, but Alex the character does not make up the language he uses per se. He utilizes the slang created and used by his generation, or whatever, but he doesn't "invent" his language. Not to take away from his brilliance or intelligence in the way he uses his language, which is poetic and creative too, but it seems this is a fairly important distinction to make. Keep up the great work!
Thank you! So we're actually quoting the author, Anthony Burgess: "He rejoices in articulate language and even invents a new form of it." Here's the article where he writes this: www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/06/04/the-clockwork-condition It seems likely that the other characters speak as Alex does because we're experiencing them through Alex's telling of events. Certainly an interesting discussion to have, though!
Anthony Burgess invented the slang, which I consider Ultra-Brilliant.
Yes, Anthony Burgess invented the slang . As Author Danny Peary noted in his Cult Movies II book , Burgess' language works a s distancing tool making us feel as if we are struggling with a foreign language , but Kubrick's film makes the lingo titillating !
@thetake, it’s not true that it’s “Alex’s experience” of other people, at one point in the book, Alex starts speaking aggressive nadsat when he’s being made to watch those films, the doctor asks what it is that he’s said and another doctor tells him about nadsat and that the youth of today speak it.
In point of fact, in the book, when Alex is talking to the two girls in the record shop, they respond to him in a "next generation" form of speech rather than in Nadsat, which he attributes to them being "a younger generation".
The thing I really liked about the movie was how jolly it made those absolutely awful scenes. Those scenes are made to be comical and to me it made it harder to watch because you know it's wrong and, at least I , felt terrible watching these scenes but mixed with the music and humourous movements it made it seem almost wrong. And it was so interesting. I really love Kubrick for that.
Mac Davis it made it seem almost wrong? It was brutal rape that’s just straight up wrong.
Thats exactly WHY they were shot that way. You were supposed to feel that juxtaposition and the accompanying discomfort.
Alex was 15 in the book, not 17.
@N / A actually he was 15 before prison and 17 afterwards lmao
Kubrick himself said he would have prefered if Malcolm was 17 but he just didn't want to cast someone else because he thought MM was perfect for the role (apart from the age).
metawyrm Liking good complex music or literature takes an active mind and thinking process. Mental pathologies of all types do not equate with ignorance. It would seem that the opposite would be true. Not only intelligence but an active imagination. Such a person would be far from boring but actually quite intriguing.
Well I was told hes 16...🤔
@Genexolev Ashtiani They still have actors older play teens still today.
I have a half hour break but screenprism definitely deserves half of that.
Alvin Njenga I'm watching this on my break too XD
Thank you for giving us that precious time :-)
SAME
Honestly, I was never truly scared by A Clockwork Orange when it comes to the acts of violence, but from how the movie manages to make me feel for Alex for some reason, even though he is truly a terrible person.
For the first third of the movie, where Alex was being himself, I somehow felt like I was a part of the ride for Alex, I saw the fun he was having, and his genuine joy made me feel joy as well. It's mostly the charming aspect of him though.
I then found myself more freaked out by the psychological experiments, and I even felt sad when Alex was getting his karmic justice later in the film. After it ended, I thought to myself "Well I should be happy that he got what he deserved for what he did. Why do I feel bad for him???" I think it has something to do with how he was 'rehabilitated', and how I strongly disagree with the methods, and the results.
Malcolm Mcdowell ❤
You can't just call a person who's evil and the main character an anti hero
there is no point in calling someone an anti hero in a film with no heroic characters anyway
Alex wasn't an anti-hero. He was a pure villain, through and through.
Oh yeah, fucking sociopath. Charming as hell though.
I even felt bad being relieved that he’s back to normal in the end.
This is some visionary shit
Bar San "tryna feel pleasure with my eyes wide shut"
Sal Ami yaaas you got it and I love ya
damn, sal ami beat me to it!
Best director of all time.
Bar San no this is pure disturbing and disgusting.
Alex reminds me of Evan Peters... And that makes sense considering the fact the many of Peters' characters are terrible and violent (Tate and Patrick come to mind) and people (including myself) are still oddly in love with them.
YES EVAN COULD BE HIS SON LOL
Screen Prism, you are so good at what you do. Thank you.
This movie made me feel angry but weirdly fascinated when I was really small, I was not able to watch the second half of the film until I start to become a teenager and I begun to understand the deep nature of what was for me just a violent and weird film.
Vicente Ortega Rubilar bro why were you watching this when you were small
It was an accident. I was always watching movies, and when I got cable I could watch a lot of films.
what is worst
an honest villain
or a fake good man
A dilemma that one must realise on their own.
If a fake good man is one who is good but lies then, likely, a fake good man. If he is faking being a good man, then perhaps the honest villain. It also depends on the degrees of depravity.
In some way, they're both the same.
A fake good man is worse I think 🤷
I think I've read somewhere that in psychological surveys or tests, there is a general preference to the "honest criminal" type.
I remember seeing this movie when I was 10 lol early 80s. Then again at 15 and really began to understand this masterpiece. Now as a 46yr old adult I know this movie by heart/memory and love it still
I was thrilled this morning to find that the late author Anthony Burgess has written an unfinished sequel of sorts to “A Clockwork Orange” entitled “The Clockwork Condition”. I would be thrilled if his estate deems to publish it in the future. There is a great posting on the internet about it today.
It’s not a sequel, it’s more like Dante’s Inferno: an exploration of the angry mind’s darkest corners and all sorts of meta commentary on violent obsessions.
The idea of a vicarious escape is an understatement. That's what this film and other films like it are for me. I was raised under The cult of Christianity and anything of this world was seen as the work of the devil and therefore my mother was very strict about what movies we could watch and what movies we could not watch all the way up until the age of 17 when I finally left. So I'm really glad I started to see quite a few movies when I finally got my first job and moved into my first apartment. I would say I was an avid consumer of many movies that I didn't get to enjoy during my teenage years or growing up. I remembered hearing about Clockwork Orange in one of my high school discussions during film and production class, luckily I could easily find it on the internet for free at the time I couldn't get enough of it. I can't recall how many times I have watched this movie but it's definitely about 20 times or so.
Its amazing how A Clockwork Orange aged well! It has been almost 50 years and this movie is still both great and disturbing, much like the other Kubrick movies!!!!!
I think the most charming thing that draws us to Alex really is his love for life.
EARLY MODERN ENGLISH NOT OLD ENGLISH
Good on you for catching that!
Vlad Kovtun Old English refers to what was spoken in the Medieval period in England, such as the language spoken by the Anglo-Saxons, while Early Modern English refers to what we usually think of when we think of "Old English," like Shakespeare.
Alex DeLarge will always be my favorite character from a movie. He was iconic.
Burgess has always stressed his dislike for Kubrick leaving out the last chapter, but I disagree. As far as the book goes, I understand Burgess’s desire to keep the last chapter: it offers a necessary moralistic ending to an otherwise brutal and unredemptive book. But Burgess doesn’t seem to understand that film is an entirely different medium of storytelling that has its own flexibilities and restrictions, so in the case of Kubrick’s vision, the original ending (like you said) would lessen the impact and themes that were presented to us.
Presenting a story in another medium allows the creator to play with the story a little, though the creator should still remain authentic to what the story was. That's just what Kubric did when he changed the ending. He gave Alaex an ending that was arguably even more authentic to the the character than the ending he got in the book.
@@AvrilFanCarson All the more reason to provide an opportunity for redemption. Everyone wins.
They have the same ending.
You just missed it.
That last chapter is in that final shot and final line.
It’s impressionistic in Alex’s vison of his future wedding day.
And it is his wedding day.
Not a rape.
That your clue.
He is moral now.
He was cured all right.
I felt the ending was celebrating evil and making Alex right.
@@Himaryous No the ending was reality. Psychopaths do not change, they do not stop being evil.
It's the work of articulate art. Of course its gonna be controversial. It's brutally honest about the real world. And that's what makes it indigenously great
"glamorous psychpath" is it so?
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "indigenously" here.
It just occurred to me that perhaps you meant "ingeniously," although if so, the sentence still sounds awkward and inelegant.
“The Take” more like “The Bad Take”. You’re not supposed to feel “relieved” by Alex’s return to violence, or as though you’re “living vicariously through him”. What? No.
What “return to violence”
Look closely at his vision at the end.
Everyone is happy including the the woman and the witnesses.
Alex has gained morality.
He’s fantasising about consensual sex through marriage.
His ludovico treatment has taught him the experience of victims. Empathy. The foundation of morality.
That’s the point that this video missed. And that the final chapter of the books point out when Alex’s return to criminal activity leaves him unfulfilled so he gets a normal life and gets married.
Kubrick summed that up in one perfect shot, and one perfect line.
“I was cured, All right”
Actually, theyre spot on. Personally, I found myself rooting for Alex in the second half and felt a sense of perverse retributive justice in his return to evil. It WAS sort of a happy ending for me.
He is the protagonist after all so the audience is bound to sympathize with him to some extent because the story is presented to us through HIS lens.
It's not about his return to violence, it's about the return of his ability to choose between good and evil.
Now that you mention it you have to do a video about Hannibal!
Cece Lmfao yusss
Yes, please! Pretty please.
OH GOD PLEASE
Yaaaaaaas. Hannibal. A very long video too
One of my favourite films and really like the book too. This is a very interesting interpretation.
I really think this might be my favorite film of all time. The way it's shot, the way Kubrick used Burgess' story and words. It's just glorious, but this video made me appreciate the film that much more. I first saw it was I was 13 or 14, so I've always kept that mindset about it. Now, at 37, I can look at the film in a new light.
Perfect timing. Saw it for the first time 2 days ago
I always thought Evan Peters would make a decent Alex if they ever did a reboot of A Clockwork Orange.
now shush your mouth. we need no remakes. :)
No
You’re just saying that because he looks similar to young Malcolm which is such pointless reason for casting someone for a movie
Some films can never be improved upon by a remake, this is one of them.
@@stephsands6211 You're absolutely correct, I fully agree. There will most likely never be another adaptation that's as fantastic as this one. I just think that with all the movies everyone is rebooting, if they ever picked A Clockwork Orange, there's a few people perfect for certain roles.
I was cured, all right.
What a great way to end a movie
@@ChrisR395 It's a shit way to end the movie- he doesn't redeem himself
Congratulations to A Clockwork Orange for 50 years of greatness
PLEASE, do more videos on psychopaths in film. There are so many different types.
Watching this as I realize the dialogue is pretty much dr. Seues for adults and I mean that in the best way possible
don’t forget the ultimate glamorous psychopath: Jim Moriarty
I love you guys. Is this channel run by film study majors??
in this particular case probably 2 year old babies, according to the video
@@afpalladino ah yes, like you would know.
But Alex didn't develop the language, it's supposed to be the language of teenagers?!
This channel continues to exceed my expectations. Love your narration, it's insightful, soothing, and crystal clear. And I love your structure and breakdown, I feel that with every video I walk away with new knowledge.
For me as a dancer, the choreography was stunning to watch. McDowell is a real showman, so well cast. I can't imagine revisiting it though, it's so much to handle.
The clips of him driving the car inbetween everything, slowly zooming in, is the best editing I've ever seen.
Excellent video love I love it how informative and entertaining it is at the same time
I loved both the book and the movie, but the ending of the book always upset me. The entire scope of the story is to ask the question "What do you do with a person who is bad by their own nature?" When Alex mellows out and decides to no longer be an ultra-violent psychopath in the end of the book, it makes it so that question doesn't matter anymore.
This movie is SO disturbing.
and intriguing.
And beautiful.
Yes I cant even watch it
This movie is my childhood, I watched it at 8.
@@peachycardinal ????????
I think what makes this movie so great is that it showed me how desensitized to violence I had become. Growing up, my childhood was spent watching films like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, and imagining myself as one of those great heroes, fighting evil and feeling triumphant with every enemy slain. When I got older I would watch slashers and Tarantino films, and would often find myself laughing at how over the top the violence was. And then on top of that I would play video games where I was in control of the bloody violence.
Then, earlier this year, I saw Clockwork Orange for the first time. At the age of 21 for the very first time I felt disturbed when I saw the onscreen violence. In the months since then, I have seen the film dozens of times, and the feeling persists. The violence feels real, and it feels disturbing, like violence should.
Looks a lot like Theon as well, but acts like Ramsay.
Or a younger Mick Jagger. I DO note that I've never seen all three of them in the same room.
This film shows you into a characters life like no other film, that’s why it’s my favorite it’s a mix of beauty and art
I'M SINGING IN THE RAIN!!!!!
as always, fantastic ScreenPrism
Alex was originally fifteen years old.
I just realized after watching this, that with the exception of the nurse at the end, this movie was devoid of any likable characters.
This essay packs a "punch"! Amazing work ScreenPrism! Thanks again!
Alex`s charm as an antihero comes from his charisma and that he knows exactly who he is, and how to get what he wants.
John Doebody imagine being a man and believing a rapist can be charming... y’all just keep proving you see women as disposable and men as geniuses.
completely the opposite, someone so shitty have no clue about self-knowledge
He is NOT an antihero. The fucking video is garbage.
@@AvrilFanCarson A Psycopath can be charming, some of the most famous Psycopaths are superficially charming(they easily attract people), but that doesnt change the fact that they are bad people and deserve punishment for what they do
Thank you for that summary. I will never have the stomach to watch that film. I see the points you made, but contend there are other ways to break from the norm the author was talking about without being a psychopath.
Extreme violence is literally one of the central points of the story. Read the book if you don't want to watch the film.
. I detect sarcasm. 🙄 I wish you well on your quest to troll people who weren’t asking for it.
A amazing piece of art displayed as a movie, Haven't seen many movies lately that even come close to this.
If you enjoyed seeing things Alex’s way there is something wrong......
@@birthdaygnat8314 Well then I guess there is something wrong with me because I did not enjoy watching him one little bit. And I often enjoy watching villains.
@JOHN JOHN Exactly. There are villains that I can sympathize with. Thanos, for example, was one that I felt empathy towards. There are villains who have good ideas/intentions but have horrible and evil executions. Or they have some sort of tragic backstory that at least explains why they are the way they are, although I never seen that as a valid excuses to mistreat someone. However, this Alex character has none of that. He is aimlessly inhumane for no point or reason, only because it's fun. And if the point is that we need to empathize with his character because we have of the rules and morals placed on society that burdens his freedom, then I pose the question is what about the innocent people who he imposes his inhumane and barbaric behavior onto? Isn't he also violating THEIR freedom? Why is violating, harming, injuring, and traumatizing others seen as a symbol of "freedom" for the person who is committing these atrocious acts?
@@MissNayNay I think the message is that alex should be in prision, he should't been brianwashed. He should be allowed to change by himself, if he doesnt, he should be punished, just that.
I love the character Alex, I watch it everytime it comes on, Love Kubricks works. Saw this at the theatre in the early 70's here in US. Really love the language as well.
That moment when you're a Russian/English bilingual and you read the book with absolute awe because I understand this but also wHaT it's in English--
Fight Club seems highly influenced by this film. McDowell looks so much like his idol, James Cagney .when he stares down the camera.
Anthony burgess , the writer was from Manchester , Lancashire , in the north west of England. He was not from a rich family.
I would say he is not really imagining a psychopath , but describing an educated hooligan in what could be a brutal environment, especially for the poor. And yes , maybe a screw loose !!
A szene that I think is highly unappreciated is when Alex is in prison and that one guy tells him he is now not just a criminal but also a murder. I can’t recall the szene 100% but I think he says something like „this must be a cruel joke“, meaning that he didn’t even mean to kill that woman. He obviously has no problem with violence but death seems to be something very different to him
people really felt relieved when he was brainwashed back to being evil?
ultron stank I was.
ultron stank i was cured alright
I mean he thinks he’s cured , but his physical inability would not let him be , may be that’s why Kubrick ended the movie like that , instead of adapting the book version , where Alex is portrayed to be someone who feels remorse for his actions
@@annemoni1 his physical defect was cured, which is why they played the ninth symphony at the end (to prove that he could listen to it without the pain)
@@ChawkletStudios same
These are nothing short of brilliant! Great work, ladies!! I'm a fan! ❤️🖤
Thank You and keep up the excellent work!!!
A true masterpiece both as a book and movie
I'm so glad the movie found the glory it deserved. Audience back then just wasn't ready.
He's not a hero, or anti-hero. He's a villain.
Oh my god, someone finally put the charming feeling of this movie and the likes into words.
One of my favourite books of all time! I was very sad seeing Kubrick removing the last chapter of the books, which to me, shows character growth and some finalization to the story, instead of continuing on this mindless loop.
Wendy Carlos took this soundtrack to the next level. The early use of synthesizers is extremely well done and is one of the reasons the movie is so good
Really great analysis! Real horrorshow ;)
Kubrick's brilliance in cinema knows no bounds
Although this video highlights some of the major themes Burgess wanted to demonstrate regarding conformity and freewill, I don't Alex is supposed to be a psychopath or antihero, but instead he represents adolescence. One of the most prevailing themes is the idea of youth and the contrast between it and adulthood. Burgess wanted to show how "adults" try to conform the young so that they can behave properly once they grow up. Burgess tries to show how Alex, a young lad of 15 in the beginning is wild, violent and treacherous, with the whole torture scene supposed to signify how adults attempt to change his ways so as to make him "normal" in the eyes of society. In the book the last chapter is supposed to signify how Alex, now having reached the age of adulthood 18 (or 21 can't remember) has conformed to the adults, and understands what it means to be proper. He even contemplates how the cycle continues as his children will likely behave similarly and he will have to conform their ways as well and so on. It's also a reason Burgess never really liked the movie, because Kubrick deliberately cut the scene out and changed it, making one of the most important themes of the book completely obsolete.
Wow, what a great analysis! So many people get this movie wrong. I always thought Alex's mother's wardrobe in the film had another purpose. I think it was, like the interior of the Korova, the cars and other details, meant to emphasize that the film takes place in the future, and is surprisingly accurate, since those shiny jackets and brightly colored hair in unnatural shades have both become fact.
Ain't anybody going to talk about how attractive Alex is, young Malcom could get it, I'm just sayin like that accent
scared to watch the film in case my brain romanticises his character because of how attractive he is to me... he looks like evan Peters and young mark Hamill mixed.
Bruh
Wtf
sanam 🥰 that’s why I said bruh. The same happened to me when I watched this
fr watching this movie was so hard for me because he’s such a disgusting person but my stupid brain was like “sexy!!!!!!” like NO STOP IT
The ones that understand the movie the most, have lived the life to some degree.
While many of these videos from The Take are superb (the one on the ending of "The Sopranos" is brilliant), this one is a very inadequate discussion of "A Clockwork Orange." The reason the film is highly stylized and uses many aspects of cinematic content to make the audience identify with Alex is that that character is, in the end, our hero-spokesman for the conventional idea of free will, and against having our thoughts controlled, even if to reduce crime. That is Kubrick's main point in the film.
There are several mistakes in this video, but one of the worst is that the ending does not show Alex having a fantasy of violence, it obviously shows him having a happy, celebratory sexual escapade, in soap foam no less, in front of applauding aristocrats. Three things were robbed from his own unique personality by the State's act of behavioral conditioning: 1) his love of sex; 2) his love of Beethoven, and 3) his love of violence. That clean, fun, sex, in front of "all the best people" (an idea that resonates with stunning irony through almost all Kubrick films) is what we see in the final shots --as he has an orgasm listening to the 9th Symphony's "Ode to Joy"-- is an indirect suggestion that the violence is less important than sex, and maybe even no longer a part of his desires.
The entire point about Alex being our (the audience, and all humanity) champion of free will is more powerfully made if initially Alex does terrible things, and yet we are forced to recognize taking even a violent person's free will is government gone too far. You cannot make that point about a nonviolent person, because it does not offer the most challenging example to make us realize the message.
This video was so well done!! Kudos to you ScreenPrism you totally received a sub from me.
His appreciation for one of the most well-known classical pieces of all time doesn't really require much sophistication. Most of the popular pieces now were considered as what we would call pop music anyway.
Reading the book, it seems like it's more obvious that Alex's intelligence is mostly put-on. He just happens to be more confident than his friends.
Oh my God!! Why haven't I seen this channel before.!! You are one of my favorite channels
I always loved the clockwork Orange but I've never viewd Alex as appealing or seductive, or his actions justified by his charm or honesty. I always saw him as a funny, and a little sad, phsyco.
Alex wasn't a psychopath. Just young, and, ya know, having a good ol' time about it.
There's no evidence suggesting that Alex reverts to his old ways by the end of the film, as the final shot is not only highly interpretive, but on closer inspection, doesn't lean any credence towards this theory. An alternative interpretation suggests that Kubrick ultimately did go with Burgess' original concept for how the story should end, but depicted it in such a way that left the audience's own understanding of the material open to interpretation. Simply put, by the end of the film, based on how it is presented, the audience sees what they want to see, not what is actually presented, leading many to believe that Alex had not significantly changed, despite presented evidence suggesting that he had.
Thanks, it was pissing me off the whole time when she said that he went back to his old ways. The analysis did not elaborate on fate, free will, good, evil, and government control. But I wrote a paper on these points. Perhaps they had to do less than the movie than I see. Though, I think not.
After reading the book I always imagined the final scene to be Alex having a premonition of his eventual wedding day as viewed through his presently warped mind.
Other than that, though, it's still an excellent analysis of the material.
Except Anthony Burgess literally wrote why he disliked the film because Stanley Kubrick did make him revert back to his old ways. The audience doesn’t “see what they want to see”, they see what’s presented to them and that was exactly what was presented to them.
Maybe the best ever depiction of the sociopathic personality from within.
The message is that you should let someone choose. You can’t force them to be someone they’re not. Alex may be a psycho but the government turned out to be worse than he is. It’s a brilliant move on Kubrick’s part for us to feel sorry for someone like Alex while being disgusted at the author’s actions at the end, despite what Alex did to him. It’s one of the best examples of character development.
I love this film. It’s a prime example of cinema and the one film I can connect it to is The Master, another film about stripping choice from a person. Could you please do a video on that masterpiece as well?
I’ve always had the exact same thoughts! Alex was evil, but the government was hypocritical in telling him to “be good” when they themselves were being just as evil!
Excellent, absolutely brilliant. Eyes wide shut is a great film to analyse too. My personal Kubrick favourite !
Anti-hero and villain protagonist are different things.
I love the video and the channel. Excellent analysis that kept me interested from beginning to end.
Alex Delarge : Ready for the old ultraviolance ?
I was just relieved that the movie was over. It was an interesting watch but I found it truly unsettling.