@Erimitus Said Lobotomies are a tool used to stamp out cultural undesirables and make good citizens out of society's radicals.
And it used to require a surgeon to perform the ritual ablutions. Now it only requires someone educated in the ways of Social Justice. And where in the past a lobotomy was performed to modify wrong behaviour that a person was habitually guilty of, it is now used to modify "wrong think" before it happens.
The is the whole point of newspeak (e.g., LOL) Newspeak limits not only the ability to communicant it also hampers the ability to think.
Great stuff lobotomies. And with modern science lobotomies can be done chemically. And ...and a lot of people self medicate. And of course computer games work too....
jack nicholson character in " one flew over the cuckoo's nest " decided give him, a lobotomy, instead preprogram him back into society.
rather get rid a problem, than dealing with it.
" alex " from " clockwork orange " - the society was try to preprogram alex from evil into good. the experiment fail because the society realize that alex is who he is.
as much the society need to have goodness and justice. the society needs alex represent the evil and corrupt of the society.
like all things in nature, everything need a balance.
even if society want to change alex, nature will not let alex to change. because nature will not let society change.
jack nicholson character in " one flew over the cuckoo's nest " decided give him, a lobotomy, instead preprogram him back into society.
rather get rid a problem, than dealing with it.
" alex " from " clockwork orange " - the society was try to preprogram alex from evil into good. the experiment fail because the society realize that alex is who he is.
as much the society need to have goodness and justice. the society needs alex represent the evil and corrupt of the society.
like all things in nature, everything need a balance.
even if society want to change alex, nature will not let alex to change. because nature will not let society change.
Now, listen well, oh my brothers to this humble narrator.......
A Clockwork Orange was a far deeper work than it's ever been given credit for in my opinion.
Although on the face of it, it represents the State's attempts to control human behaviour, it also - unintentionally I'm sure - falls into the trap of the aestheticisation of violence.
Aestheticisation occurs when the depiction of violence is "stylistically excessive" in a significant and sustained way, and leads the audience to connect it to artistic or cultural concepts.
In A Clockwork Orange, it is a teenage cult which includes fashion, language and music. Somebody once told me they can't hear Rossini's "The Thieving Magpie" without seeing an image of Alex carving Dim's hand open with a knife.
The violence in the book and film becomes its defining feature rather than being the vehicle that makes the intended point of predicting the breakdown of society. I'm quite sure that there are people who only watched the film for the sheer visceral excitement of it all.
Perhaps the most telling feature of this is the way the book itself ended, and how this was treated in the US.
The British (original) version of the book is in three parts. The final part deals with Alex's post-restorative life (ie: after the Ludovico Treatment is reversed). Alex has a new gang but is now bored with crime. He meets Pete, who is now engaged to a girl and has given up violence. Alex realises his life is going nowhere and reflects that perhaps it would be better if he married and settled down too.
When the book was originally published in the US, these final chapters were omitted at the insistence of the American publisher who told him that US audiences would never go for it.*
Burgess reluctantly allowed them to cut Alex's path to redemption from the US version, so that the tale would end on a violent note with Alex succumbing to his nature.... an ending which the publisher insisted would be more realistic and appealing to an American readership.
How does this reflect on the culture of the readership? Where the desire to read something as violent from beginning to end, with no element of redemption for the principle character surely aestheticised violence and as a consequence of this, glorified it.
Eggiwegs...? I'd like to.... SMASH 'EM...!!
*editions printed since 1986 now contain the final part.
Now, listen well, oh my brothers to this humble narrator.......
A Clockwork Orange was a far deeper work than it's ever been given credit for in my opinion.
Although on the face of it, it represents the State's attempts to control human behaviour, it also - unintentionally I'm sure - falls into the trap of the aestheticisation of violence.
Aestheticisation occurs when the depiction of violence is "stylistically excessive" in a significant and sustained way, and leads the audience to connect it to artistic or cultural concepts.
In A Clockwork Orange, it is a teenage cult which includes fashion, language and music. Somebody once told me they can't hear Rossini's "The Thieving Magpie" without seeing an image of Alex carving Dim's hand open with a knife.
The violence in the book and film becomes its defining feature rather than being the vehicle that makes the intended point of predicting the breakdown of society. I'm quite sure that there are people who only watched the film for the sheer visceral excitement of it all.
Perhaps the most telling feature of this is the way the book itself ended, and how this was treated in the US.
The British (original) version of the book is in three parts. The final part deals with Alex's post-restorative life (ie: after the Ludovico Treatment is reversed). Alex has a new gang but is now bored with crime. He meets Pete, who is now engaged to a girl and has given up violence. Alex realises his life is going nowhere and reflects that perhaps it would be better if he married and settled down too.
When the book was originally published in the US, these final chapters were omitted at the insistence of the American publisher who told him that US audiences would never go for it.*
Burgess reluctantly allowed them to cut Alex's path to redemption from the US version, so that the tale would end on a violent note with Alex succumbing to his nature.... an ending which the publisher insisted would be more realistic and appealing to an American readership.
How does this reflect on the culture of the readership? Where the desire to read something as violent from beginning to end, with no element of redemption for the principle character surely aestheticised violence and as a consequence of this, glorified it.
Eggiwegs...? I'd like to.... SMASH 'EM...!!
*editions printed since 1986 now contain the final part.
jennifer- burgress was right that america version would refer the violent style to redemption side of the story.
burgress noticed came out in 1972 ( i was 13 years old at the time. )i never think " orange " was a teenager movie at the time. i thought it had a " adult theme " to it.
once, you are evil, always you always evil. and, society needs evil balance good. both elements justified each others exist.
i have seen this movie twice, some reason, american tv will not play to often on public or cable channels.
the american publisher was right, about american audience need to escape the violent times of 60's and 70's in america. american audience was being to a new breed of " anti-hero - the vignette. the birth of " harry " dirty harry " callahan and the "clockwork orange " was the perfect time for escapism.
during this time, american audience could escape far with " paul kersey of deathwish ", and the classic brilliant sci-fictions of " the andromeda strain ", " planet of the apes " and " westworld ".
america need to escape from the prejudice of races and vietnam. the american movies were the answers.
jennifer- burgress was right that america version would refer the violent style to redemption side of the story.
burgress noticed came out in 1972 ( i was 13 years old at the time. )i never think " orange " was a teenager movie at the time. i thought it had a " adult theme " to it.
once, you are evil, always you always evil. and, society needs evil balance good. both elements justified each others exist.
i have seen this movie twice, some reason, american tv will not play to often on public or cable channels.
the american publisher was right, about american audience need to escape the violent times of 60's and 70's in america. american audience was being to a new breed of " anti-hero - the vignette. the birth of " harry " dirty harry " callahan and the "clockwork orange " was the perfect time for escapism.
during this time, american audience could escape far with " paul kersey of deathwish ", and the classic brilliant sci-fictions of " the andromeda strain ", " planet of the apes " and " westworld ".
america need to escape from the prejudice of races and vietnam. the american movies were the answers.
Thanks for that, Twilight. That's a very interesting insight to the mindset of the time.
From my own personal perspective, I don't think Burgess intended the book to be escapist, rather a foretelling of society-to-come. If you like, you could say he was forecasting Britain on some sort of "Highway To Hell". We have to remember that the book was written in the early 1960's, when violent youth cults were starting to emerge (such as the so-called "Teddy Boys), particularly in the wake of Rock and Roll. There had been riots between rival gangs in the seaside town of Brighton and these were seen as the beginning of a breakdown of law and order. Burgess wrote his book as a prediction of where this was all headed and into that he built his dystopian vision of what the State would do about it.... and onwards into how that infringed on human nature, freedom of choice, free will, etc and so on.
I think though, your point does re-inforce the notion of aestheticisation of violence albeit from a slightly different angle. The Dirty Harry character being a social avenger and therefore justified in his actions. When does evil become acceptable? When it is carried out for the right reasons, eg: as a counterbalance for the evil of crime. The end justifies the means.
I too have seen the movie twice. I kinda "got it" the first time but watched it again to see if there was anything I'd missed the first time. I was disappointed that the "redemption" element was missing from the film. Indeed, in the final scene, Alex is seen having rough sex with a woman and he leers into the camera and says "I was cured, alright" as if to say that his return to a violent capability was the desired outcome, rather than an opportunity to choose good over evil.
Incidentally, if you were 13 when the film came out, you must be around the same age as my father, who was a teenager when he and a group of his friends who were out that evening (not doing the ultra violence, I hasten to add..!!) stumbled across a part of the movie being made. The movie's outdoor scenes were filmed in South London and they saw lights and rigging etc down near the river (Thames). They decided to check it out and realised it was a movie set. They stood nearby and watched the scene where the wino is beaten up in the underpass being filmed. When he asked somebody what the film would be called, and was told, he said "What a stupid title for a film."
I can't watch that scene now without being amused to think that my dad, as a teenager, is standing nearby watching it being filmed.
@Erimitus Said Lobotomies are a tool used to stamp out cultural undesirables and make good citizens out of society's radicals.
jennifer - most american movies that violent in 70's, were not that violent, it they literally took out of most violent out of the good scenes in the movies. if you notices in the " dirty harry " movies that most violent scenes are you facing toward harry. not behind or side of harry.
because american movie productions were heavy censorship by pta and other parent organizations to control how much violent scenes in american movies can have.
the reason, why " the godfather " is brilliant, not only won " the best picture in 1972. one of american great classic.
because of the brilliant violent scenes that has music in them, like the brilliant last 15 minutes half hour of the movie. when literally , it was 12 to 15 men was were killed by gangsters with music.
actually, the time of the release of " a clockwork orange " was a very violent film to american audiences in 70's.
it never dawn, jennifer, until you were brought up alex and his writer of " orange ", that many ways, that " the joker " of " batman " is american version of alex.
batman and the society was reform " the joker " to make bring him back into society. but society that need the batman, also , need a joker, too.
In A Clockwork Orange, it is a teenage cult which includes fashion, language and music. Somebody once told me they can't hear Rossini's "The Thieving Magpie" without seeing an image of Alex carving Dim's hand open with a knife.
Whenever I hear "Singing in the Rain" I kick my dog.
I do like the music - Wendy Carlos was Walter at the time.
this video show that british movies were more violent in the 70's, american movies in early 70's, wouldn't show front nudity in their movies, because of censorship.
american movies would show only woman's tits only, not that i was complaining as a teenager.
european movies back then, didn't have censorship in their movies. because they didn't care ask much , americans did.
TZ: American movies would show only woman's tits only, not that i was complaining as a teenager.
E: I have always had an inexplicable fascination with bosoms. I believe It may be that I was weaned to soon. alas...
I somehow got the idea that Clockwork Orange referred to a mechanical clock and a natural orange. The hero was brainwashed from being natural (ID) into being an automaton (mechanical).
The point (or one point) was (as the priest pointed out) was that the hero no longer had free will. And ...if I remember correctly, without free will (the ability to choose) there is no morality. The cop pointed out that brainwashing made for good citizens. Hence the lobotomy reference.
Lobotomies
March 25, 2017 @ 11:24:13 pm
)
