O/T A Clockwork Orange

[rool]

It was shown on Irish television last night and thought I had to watxh it to see what it was all about. a couple of points.

1) It's a bit weird innit?

2) Why was it banned for so long? I can possibly understand it was a bit strong for the times (I couldn't tell as I was only 6 when it was made) but I am sure I have seen much worse violence, definately more nudity and more graphic rape scenes in films that hevn't been banned. Perhaps it was because you have to be under the influence of drugs to watch it.

I taped it but shan't be keeping it.

 

[Danny Seagull's Mate]

I have it on DVD....... my parents bought a copy of it before it was banned on VHS.

Yes, it is a weird film, but it's different and that's why I like it.

The director actually banned it himself I believe, because he didn't like the nature of it. When he died, it was bought out on general sale

 

[rool]

Yeah, I like the odd weird film like, the cook, the thingy and his slapper or whatever it was called, with helen mirren. It made impulsive viewing and was shocking in places. I didn't find this either but maybe I just didn't understand it.

 

[CAFC Matt]

I haven't seen but want to. Everyone I speak says it is good so I need to find out for myself.

And if the director banned it because he didn't like the content, then why the hell did he make it with it in

 

[rool]

errr DSM, I don't suppose you slo mo'd the romp in the bed bit did you. Is it worth doing?

 

[Gotsmanov]

I think Stanley Kubrick banned it himself as he'd made a film which was both violent and potentially politically explosive - one of the main themes is governments using extreme methods to rid society of ill, in this case, aversion therapy.

There's also the argument that Kubrick banned the film to give it an elusive, almost mythical edge which would guarantee it cult status.

I thought it was awesome when I saw it - the use of happy, jolly music at times of extreme violence was really interesting; I think Kubrick did this to try and make us aware of this 'aversion therapy' theme, make us aware that just because a director had chosen happy music for a scene, did not mean that he was condoning or justifying the violence contained. It was an attempt by him to make the viewer differentiate between happiness and violence, and to make us aware that we shouldn't allow the director to mislead us.

 

[Danny Seagull's Mate]

errr DSM, I don't suppose you slo mo'd the romp in the bed bit did you. Is it worth doing?

Haven't tried it myself, but you could try!!

 

[Danny Seagull's Mate]

I think Stanley Kubrick banned it himself as he'd made a film which was both violent and potentially politically explosive - one of the main themes is governments using extreme methods to rid society of ill, in this case, aversion therapy.

There's also the argument that Kubrick banned the film to give it an elusive, almost mythical edge which would guarantee it cult status.

I thought it was awesome when I saw it - the use of happy, jolly music at times of extreme violence was really interesting; I think Kubrick did this to try and make us aware of this 'aversion therapy' theme, make us aware that just because a director had chosen happy music for a scene, did not mean that he was condoning or justifying the violence contained. It was an attempt by him to make the viewer differentiate between happiness and violence, and to make us aware that we shouldn't allow the director to mislead us.

Yeah, that's what I meant

 

[Simster]

I liked it. Kubrick did indeed ban it himself. Specifically, wasn't he worried about the possibility of copy cat "droogs" ?

Good film though, unlike his last appalling effort - Eyes Wide Shut.

 

[rool]

I like that Gotsmanov thanks.

DSM, I don't think my fuzzy taping will reveal anything anyway. Just thought someone who has it on DVD might have a better view of 'things' but maybe it's just me who's a sad perve

 

[rool]

But it wasn't banned everywhere was it? Was it just the UK?

 

[Gotsmanov]

Specifically, wasn't he worried about the possibility of copy cat "droogs" ?

Indeed, and i'm pretty sure that there was a recent court case involving a gang of yobs who carried out such copy-cat crime.


I really enjoyed the film, mainly because it was so damn different to most films that I tend to watch, and made me think a bit. It's not one you watch over and over again mind, not like Back to the Future

 

[Simster]

Yep munster. Just the UK.

 

[Yorkie]

I may be completely wrong here but I think there was a copycat killing when the film was released so Stanley Kubrick banned it to prevent any more.

Something at the back of my memory seems to think this is so but may have been blurred by the mists of time.

 

[rool]

That's interesting though isn't it. Surely it wouldn't just be the UK that was in danger of 'Copycat droogs, as you put it. Is it because there was a rise in 'hooliganism' at that time (I think football was pretty violent then) and therefore there was more chance that those particular groups would copy such actions.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Kubrick is my favourite director and this is an awesome but hard film. He hadn't been in the UK that long when it was made, which makes its main theme - what rights can a government exercise to deal with violent kids? - all the more striking really, bearing in mind what a "live" issue it was at the time.

He'd used classical music in fairly unlikely settings before in "2001" but it really makes "Orange" even more sinister and hard-hitting. Check out the ugly bloke from "Dalziel and Pascoe" as one of the droogs. Stan da man banned it himself from being shown in UK after several copycat incidents, including one rapist who sang "Singing In The Rain" whilst raping, as in the film.

They filmed it in Thamesmead (what a shithole, even when it was newly built!), Brunel Uni and some library in Dulwich, bizarrely. And they half drowned Malcolm McDowell in that barrel at the end as well as scratching his cornea when filming the sequence with the eyelid clips. The acting from everyone involved is awesome.

And yes, it is fairly worth slowing down the threesome, although you can't it clearly, even on DVD. The bit when the naked woman walks onto the stage towards the end is a much better kilt-tilter, IMHO.

Yours, sipping a "moloko".

 

[bhaexpress]

I think Stanley Kubrick banned it himself as he'd made a film which was both violent and potentially politically explosive - one of the main themes is governments using extreme methods to rid society of ill, in this case, aversion therapy.

There's also the argument that Kubrick banned the film to give it an elusive, almost mythical edge which would guarantee it cult status.

I thought it was awesome when I saw it - the use of happy, jolly music at times of extreme violence was really interesting; I think Kubrick did this to try and make us aware of this 'aversion therapy' theme, make us aware that just because a director had chosen happy music for a scene, did not mean that he was condoning or justifying the violence contained. It was an attempt by him to make the viewer differentiate between happiness and violence, and to make us aware that we shouldn't allow the director to mislead us.

Kubrick himself did indeed have it banned. Mainly due to the fact that the film spurned 'Droog' gangs who used the same sort of violent behaviour shown in the film. (Remember, this film came out when skinheads were very much in vogue. Some skinheads mutated into Droogs'.

 

[rool]

Those eyeclips reminded me of when I had my eyes lasered last year. Is Mcdowell still around?

 

[Man of Harveys]

According to the Internet Movie Database, he is, and seemingly busier than ever. And it says he still suffers from a phobia of eye-drops...

 

[CHAPPERS]

I didn't enjoy it when i saw it. I am not a fan of weird films like A Clockwork Orange, Tommy or Memento (okay it's not weird but i still don't understand what the f*** is going on there).