Kubrick Reflection: A Clockwork Orange
The first time I saw this movie I was confused to say the least. This is one of
those movies that made me think and I actually found I enjoyed it more watching
it the second time, really taking the opportunity to see what Kubrick was
saying. He actually seemed to be saying a lot.
This time, we had the opportunity to read a couple of comments from critics on
the movie. How did they feel about it then when it came out? How was it taken?
The comments were not very favorable and in my humble opinion, seemed to lack insight. It seemed to me as if the critics could not look past the shock to the message. They were bound and determined to see it is tripe and irredeemable.
those movies that made me think and I actually found I enjoyed it more watching
it the second time, really taking the opportunity to see what Kubrick was
saying. He actually seemed to be saying a lot.
This time, we had the opportunity to read a couple of comments from critics on
the movie. How did they feel about it then when it came out? How was it taken?
The comments were not very favorable and in my humble opinion, seemed to lack insight. It seemed to me as if the critics could not look past the shock to the message. They were bound and determined to see it is tripe and irredeemable.
Karl said that Kubrick “with an arctic spirit, is determined to be pornographic”. He also commented that Kubrick was “the least sensual and least
erotic of directors”. What I found interesting about these comments was that I actually did not get the impression that Kubrick was attempting to be
pornographic in the least. There are a couple of things he is looking at
here—the idea of youth obsession with human sexuality and the idea of
desensitization.
I think as far as youth obsession with human sexuality, with the idea of
sexuality so new, there is a drive to experience as much of it as possible. The
newness brings a desire to understand all facets, to experience andexperiment
as much as possible. There is very much the idea of the young and corruption in
this movie. As is there the idea that the previous generation does not
understand and is in a sense frightened with youth’s uncompromising need to
experience everything and break all the rules that they have been forced to
obey.
I think the idea of desensitization is also in there. Oversaturation, leads to
things that would seem shocking appearing at least more acceptable, if not
downright mundane.
At the least, we are seeing a young man who seems very much a sociopath. We see this when we get what he understands something to be versus what it is. He is shocked that his buddies turn on him, although he really should have seen it coming. He over valued his place in the story—which makes sense because it is very egocentric. I found very interesting when we saw what he saw in the stories in the Bible. Kubrick seems to be showing us here that one prone to
those kinds of thoughts will find them anywhere. Alex does not see things as
they are, but as his twisted mind comprehends them—we all see things from our own unique perspectives, but Alex’s perspective seems more unique than others.
It seems so egocentric and so obsessive—whether it be in sex, friends’ actions,
violence, or music…In that sense, we actually could question what it is we see
in the movie. This movie is told from Alex’s perspective—has he in fact
superimposed the vast cornucopia of phallic images we see all over the movie.
Is in fact the world not actually as disturbing as we are perceiving but only
seem sothrough Alex’s own twisted perspective?
But even if that is the case, we see a very problematic version of government,
obsessed with the idea of conditioning violence out of the population. Or at
least out of criminals…maybe out of youths?
I really loved how Webster’s book delves into how Kubrick arrives at a book. I
didn’t realize that most of Kubrick’s works were first books. He seems to have a totally different take than most directors making a film from a book have,
however. Many book fans want to see an accurate depiction—the book come alive
into a movie. Kubrick seems to say “O.K., you had an interesting idea, but if I
were writing it, this is what Iwould have done.” For the most part, this means
he makes changes to the book that often times the author is less than ecstatic
about. Kubrick also seemed to change up dialogue based on how it would work and what the actors saw in the scene. This seems very fitting since Kubrick was
first and foremost a photographer. He is more invested in the look—creating a
visual picture—let those more versed in prose write up the dialogue.
Understanding this about Kubrick helps to see why he would be so enthralled
with the space scenes and the ape scenes in 2001: Space Odyssey. If his content wasn’t so contemporary, I would almost feel that Kubrick was bornout of time—he would have had a field day in the silent age of films before talkies…at least with the medium being as such.
In the end of the chapter, Webster discusses how Kubrick had death threats after the movie came out and it was actually withdrawn from exhibition in 1974 in Great Britain. It is a scary statement on society if we are unable to accept an artist’s point of view that makes one think. Are we so afraid of ourselves that we do not believe we can withstand ridicule? In my opinion, this movie shows us many things we may not want to see, but that we in fact do need to see. As Socrates once said: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” <
erotic of directors”. What I found interesting about these comments was that I actually did not get the impression that Kubrick was attempting to be
pornographic in the least. There are a couple of things he is looking at
here—the idea of youth obsession with human sexuality and the idea of
desensitization.
I think as far as youth obsession with human sexuality, with the idea of
sexuality so new, there is a drive to experience as much of it as possible. The
newness brings a desire to understand all facets, to experience andexperiment
as much as possible. There is very much the idea of the young and corruption in
this movie. As is there the idea that the previous generation does not
understand and is in a sense frightened with youth’s uncompromising need to
experience everything and break all the rules that they have been forced to
obey.
I think the idea of desensitization is also in there. Oversaturation, leads to
things that would seem shocking appearing at least more acceptable, if not
downright mundane.
At the least, we are seeing a young man who seems very much a sociopath. We see this when we get what he understands something to be versus what it is. He is shocked that his buddies turn on him, although he really should have seen it coming. He over valued his place in the story—which makes sense because it is very egocentric. I found very interesting when we saw what he saw in the stories in the Bible. Kubrick seems to be showing us here that one prone to
those kinds of thoughts will find them anywhere. Alex does not see things as
they are, but as his twisted mind comprehends them—we all see things from our own unique perspectives, but Alex’s perspective seems more unique than others.
It seems so egocentric and so obsessive—whether it be in sex, friends’ actions,
violence, or music…In that sense, we actually could question what it is we see
in the movie. This movie is told from Alex’s perspective—has he in fact
superimposed the vast cornucopia of phallic images we see all over the movie.
Is in fact the world not actually as disturbing as we are perceiving but only
seem sothrough Alex’s own twisted perspective?
But even if that is the case, we see a very problematic version of government,
obsessed with the idea of conditioning violence out of the population. Or at
least out of criminals…maybe out of youths?
I really loved how Webster’s book delves into how Kubrick arrives at a book. I
didn’t realize that most of Kubrick’s works were first books. He seems to have a totally different take than most directors making a film from a book have,
however. Many book fans want to see an accurate depiction—the book come alive
into a movie. Kubrick seems to say “O.K., you had an interesting idea, but if I
were writing it, this is what Iwould have done.” For the most part, this means
he makes changes to the book that often times the author is less than ecstatic
about. Kubrick also seemed to change up dialogue based on how it would work and what the actors saw in the scene. This seems very fitting since Kubrick was
first and foremost a photographer. He is more invested in the look—creating a
visual picture—let those more versed in prose write up the dialogue.
Understanding this about Kubrick helps to see why he would be so enthralled
with the space scenes and the ape scenes in 2001: Space Odyssey. If his content wasn’t so contemporary, I would almost feel that Kubrick was bornout of time—he would have had a field day in the silent age of films before talkies…at least with the medium being as such.
In the end of the chapter, Webster discusses how Kubrick had death threats after the movie came out and it was actually withdrawn from exhibition in 1974 in Great Britain. It is a scary statement on society if we are unable to accept an artist’s point of view that makes one think. Are we so afraid of ourselves that we do not believe we can withstand ridicule? In my opinion, this movie shows us many things we may not want to see, but that we in fact do need to see. As Socrates once said: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” <
Comments
Post a Comment