Kubrick’s version was a failure because he missed the most important part and the last few pages of the book.<p>In the book at the very end Alex decides out of his own free will to stop being violent. Which is the entire point of the book: free will vs being forced to do something. It’s so powerful, I don’t think any book affected as much as that did at the time.<p>Kubrick focused on the violence and the rapes and by leaving out the most important part, it was more soft core porn than anything else and an abject failure in my opinion.
I feel like the moment you put any idea out there you have the potential to influence people unexpectedly, and be at peace with that.<p>I saw a youtube interview of an addict who said he started taking painkillers regularly because he saw House doing it. Surely the writers didn’t know they were setting up some kid in suburban America up for addiction by giving him that mannerism
> The 2023 documentary Orange mécanique, les rouages de la violence (in English, A clockwork orange: the prophecy)<p>I don't speak French, and yet something leads me to believe that's not a direct translation.
I remember when, in our high-school english class, the teacher asked us to reflect on Chapter 21 of A Clockwork Orange and a girl in the back of the class interjected "but there's only 20 chapters in my book!". Turns out the school had both the English and American editions co-mingled.<p>The omission of that chapter in the American book and Kubrick's adaption undercuts the whole point of the story in my opinion. When the film ended, I felt like my time had been wasted and that I'd been dragged back to the beginning all over again.
I think the most important aspect of "A Clockwork Orange" is it's use of language as a literary tool. It's also key to its misunderstanding, as it tends to lead towards secondary interpretations (i.e. Kubrick's film) more than the text itself.<p>In addition to freewill being a key theme in the book, the nadsat language is used to disassociate the reader from the actions and events partaken in by the narrator. Alex describes in clear detail the fact that he's beating the crap out of old ladies in the book, but you, the reader, don't interpret it that way. Those acts are hidden behind a language that doesn't hold the same connotations to you, the reader, so you don'tt look at Alex the same way because of it.<p>Conversely when his punishment and "re-education" begins you view that as harsh and inhumane, because those things are expressed in more familiar terms simply because the reader is more comfortable with the language Alex uses. Worse, he had something that he loved taken away from him (his classical music), which you understand wholeheartedly as the reader.<p>The fact that Alex punishment was arguably justified (if not grotesque in it's own way), is something that's missed because language disassociates the crime and amplifies the impact of the punishment. It makes you question the humaneness of criminal punishment, because it's expressed from a perspective rarely portrayed.<p>All of these things are completely lost once the story is taken into any visual medium. The idea of making it a film was flawed before Kubrick even touched the project, and any other director would have struggled to have the same impact as the book. I genuinely think that the project attracted Kubrick for the wrong reasons and he was far more interested in making something provocative, which "A Clockwork Orange" had plenty of opportunities.<p>If you haven't read "A Clockwork Orange", I strongly recommend you do, and I strongly recommend reading it as quickly and in as short a timeline as possible. Understanding the language is key, and it makes it a slow read at the start. The quicker you can become familiar with it, the easier the rest of it goes.<p>Then after you're done reading it, reread it again. Being familiar with the language from the start makes some of the more graphic scenes at the start really stand out in a way that they don't the first read through.
Let me just praise the well reasoned and civil discussion here.<p>I don't have a lot to add but I'm impressed at the level of discourse.<p>I have read both versions of the book and seen the movie several times, there are lots of interesting ideas presented here at HN.
To me, really, the novel spent a great deal of time pointing out the fickleness of the UK Government, the idea that it was prone to fads, and that people simply went along with it. Only a handful swim against the tide. Even Alex's parents are reprogrammed more or less at will by the media. Burgess has touched this material before in <i>The Wanting Seed</i>, with what was acceptable lashes back and forth.<p>That came through sufficiently in the movie that I feel like this delivery was fine.<p>Similarly, the free will issue came through fine. Alex lacks the capacity to dwell on the subject. It falls to a prison chaplain to even ask. Nobody cares, of course, this is about <i>results</i>, not reformation. If Alex and other recipients of the Technique must stagger through society wearing invisible chains, <i>that's fine</i> as far as Government is concerned. Again, well-conveyed.<p>These two themes collide at the end, wherein the Government changes its mind and finds it politically expedient to restore (or just re-re-program) him to his original and savage state. ("I was cured alright.") Twenty-one, incidentally, is the terminal age in the novel for <i>Logan's Run</i>; youth violence and an age divide was certainly on the minds of some.<p>I felt like Alex himself was almost, well, not irrelevant, but simply a ball upon which multiple dogs had set their sights.
Here's a quote from one of the greats that comes to my mind whenever
an author says "I regret creating that" (and that includes you Sir Tim
Berners-Lee)<p><pre><code> "You know, Nietzsche didn’t, you know, from his drawing room give
birth to a century of cannonade, slaughter, concentration camps,
CIA subterfuge, the raping and the murdering of nuns, the bombing
of continents, the despoiling of beaches and the ruin of a planet!
Four or five pedants do not have that much power, and never have."
- R. Roderick
</code></pre>
Clockwork Orange (and the lesser Kubrick film) was what it was. It's
still powerful and relevant today.<p>In fact I watched it recently to steal a sample for a track I'm
working on... "When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man"<p>Still potent stuff.
my dad bought ACO when it first came out (we sold that first ed. for a reasonable amount of money after his death) and i read it at the time, i was about 10, and thought it was brilliant.
I can understand how he feels. But haters gonna hate, criminals gonna crime. He threw some new thoughts into the world, he made people think. surely he did not demagnetize people's moral compasses.<p>It reeks of illusions of grandeur. Sure it is a nice piece, but he overestimates the influence imho. Similar to William Gibson thinking he is the father of things Steam Punk ever.<p>Edit: Indeed I meant cyber punk.
Tangential: I remember reading a criticism about the South Park ginger episode leading to redheads getting bullied. I was curious (and still haven't wrapped my head around) what blame can be placed, if any.<p>1. Shitty people had latent bullying and cruelty instincts and South Park gave them the idea of diverting that to redheads<p>2. People were just chilling until South Park taught them to be cruel and bully gingers