8 ms·

Kubrick’s version was a failure because he missed the most important part and the last few pages of the book. In the book at the very end Alex decides out of h

• mc32 3y ago
  They made me watch it in Highschool. So, "they" were right, schools subversively expose pupils to porn. According to the votes, on the one hand it's not pornography, but on the other hand it is. It just isn't when you want to point it out as being soft porn, but if you want to critique the movie vs the book, it's okay to critique it as soft porn... hrrrm
• lkdfjlkdfjlg 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • dgfitz 3y ago
    Have you read it?
    • dr-detroit 3y ago
      [dead]
    • lkdfjlkdfjlg 3y ago
      I don't need to read the book to tell you that movie was not a failure.
  • dr-detroit 3y ago
    [dead]
  • amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    It's a personal opinion about art. They tend to be all over the place.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• Hasu 3y ago
  > Kubrick’s version was a failure because he missed the most important part and the last few pages of the book. The American version of the book doesn't have the final chapter, and was the basis for Kubrick's film. He was aware of the final chapter but never considered using it, as he didn't agree with Burgess and thought it didn't make sense (this was also the opinion of the American editor who had the final chapter removed). The movie does include the Ludovico technique and all the themes about free will and goodness vs the choice of goodness, it just leaves out the very unrealistic ending where Alex reforms. I think the film is a masterpiece and the book's original ending is unrealistic nonsense. I hardly think it's the "most important part".
  • rand846633 3y ago
    Super interesting detail and kind wild and questionable that an authors work would be substantially changed by an editor.
    • drewcoo 3y ago
      That's what editors are supposed to do. And authors gaining editorial control is why so many books later in a popular author's career are worse and worse - no one able to trim them. As examples I'll pick Neal Stephenson and J.K. Rowling. Even the fans have to notice how their work has gotten bigger and sloppier.
      • charles_f 3y ago
        Trimming the book is one thing, and I agree with you 100% on both examples. Removing the conclusion in a way that completely alters the message is another.
        • stonogo 3y ago
          This happened with the Heinlein book "Podkayne of Mars" -- the original ending had one character dying and another character changing course because of it. The editor thought it too heavy for a kids' book and directed a rewrite where everyone lived. Years later a new print included both endings and staged an essay contest to decide which is the "right" ending.
• JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  A book is not about some apology patchup line tacked onto the end. It's about everything between the covers. It was about disaffected youth acting out immorally because they were not given a functioning moral code? And that's what the movie showed.
  • dsr_ 3y ago
    Not "not given a functioning moral code". Not raised by capable parents, not educated, not offered a place in a society which abandoned them. And then society used them: authoritarians can't exist without an enemy to simultaneously fear and insult; if necessary, they will make their own enemy. Those who make progress impossible make revolt inevitable.
    • TacticalCoder 3y ago
      > Not raised by capable parents, not educated, not offered a place in a society which abandoned them. The usual complete and utter disregard of the actual victims (the woman raped, for example) and the victimization of the actual criminals (the rapist, for example). It's always been the signature of intellectuals and I believe it is the reason of many things that are wrong in society. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" (encourage by intellectuals, who intellectualize everything, including murder and rape)
      • dsr_ 3y ago
        It's interesting what you leap to accuse me of. Please read my words more carefully.
• zoky 3y ago
  I’m gonna hard disagree with you here. Having read the novel and seen the movie, Kubrick was 100% right to leave the last chapter out. With the last chapter intact, the story is no longer about Alex. It’s about some hypothetical futuristic society where ultraviolence is the norm and is just considered to be some coming of age rite of passage, that you eventually grow out of. It takes the violence in the story and makes it mundane and pedestrian, to the point where we have to come up with insane torturous methods like the Ludivico Technique, just as we prescribe kids Ritalin or Adderall, only we would do so just to attempt to keep things under control. It’s a story that is, frankly, ridiculous in its hyperbole, to the point that it bears little resemblance to anything but science fiction. Kubrick and Burgess’s American editor were absolutely right to leave off the last chapter, thereby transforming the novel into the portrait of an irredeemable sociopath. A sociopath who has been enabled to a far greater extent by a simultaneously far more lenient and vindictive society than our own, yes, but therein lies the warning. While we want to redeem those criminals who are victims of circumstance, what happens when we take it too far? By apologizing for Alex as a victim of society and circumstance, who only owes his psychopathic tendencies to said circumstances, Burgess’s novel falls flat as a criticism of society at Large (get it?) Don’t get me wrong—I greatly enjoyed the novel, and recommend it to anyone who liked the movie. But I honestly believe the last chapter would have been best left unwritten.
  • FranOntanaya 3y ago
    I disagree with the disagreements. We look naturally at the shock value of the violence but harshly reject the shock of a character turning around out of the blue. We never give "good" the privilege of irrationality.
    • zoky 3y ago
      Because it’s not that interesting. Bad guy decides being bad is boring, and starts being good? Like, okay, but… why?
      • HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
        How is that any more boring than the opposite?
• ryandamm 3y ago
  I strongly disagree, having read the book and seen the movie. The “point” of the book is irrelevant; chapter 21 is disconnected from the main text, set at some remove from the events in the previous chapters, and utterly banal. It’s an extended internal monologue of the most boring sort where the author states his moral. But the best works of literature, in my opinion, transcend simple morality tales and touch something a bit more universal and hard to define in language. If your point can be summarized in a short essay, all you’ve done is illustrate an essay at length. “This novel could’ve been an email.” What is captivating about _Clockwork_ is precisely its depiction of violence, its almost sympathetic glorification of the id. The protagonist’s unapologetic thirst for violence is what makes the novel (and movie) interesting. It’s reminding us that violence and aggression are part of the human condition, and part of the reader, too: you may recoil, but you also identify with Alex — it’s a first person account so that’s natural. The last chapter ruins it though with petty moralizing. The voice of Alex the psychopath is far better than that of Burgess the moralist, and the novel is better for having its terminal essay removed.
  • javier123454321 3y ago
    Yeah, 100% agreed. It felt like art for all the chapters until the end, then it turns to propaganda for the final pages.
  • mordymoop 3y ago
    To hear Burgess talk about his book, one would never realize that it is a comedy. The book is extremely funny, darkly funny obviously, but still uproariously absurd and filled with set pieces that possess the structure of comedy. The subject of humor is usually Alex’s misfortunes and the consequences he reaps from his terrible choices. He is a sort of George Costanza figure painted in shades of ultraviolence. Burgess behaves as though he thinks he has written a very serious book. Of course it is possible to create a humorous satire that also has a message, e.g. Veerhoven’s Starship Troopers, but whenever I read Burgess’ commentary on Clockwork I am left with the sense that this isn’t what he was trying to do. Which leaves me thinking that he, like many creators, doesn’t actually understand why his creation was good.
• AlexandrB 3y ago
  This take reminds me of how Stephen King considers Kubrick's The Shining a terrible film[1]. I had the misfortune of accidentally renting the Stephen King approved The Shining miniseries[2], and I have to say - it's worse in every way: slow, plodding, and forgettable. I can't comment how either compares to the book - I've never read it - but the Kubrick version is the superior film. This is all a long way of saying that faithfulness to the source material is overrated in film. Some written works just don't work well when closely adapted to the screen. A few notable movies even manage to twist the original to express a completely different idea or theme (e.g. Starship Troopers). The original author is not some ultimate authority regarding the meaning of a work. [1] https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/why-stephen-king-hated-stanley-kubrick-the-shining/ https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/why-stephen-king-hated-stanley-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shining_(miniseries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shining_(miniseries)
  • hnbad 3y ago
    Stephen King is not a filmmaker. There used to be a running joke that you can judge the quality of a Stephen King adoptation by whether he liked it: if he liked it, it was likely trash; if he didn't, it was likely good. The problem is that films are not books (shocking, I know) and what works in one medium of storytelling doesn't necessarily work in the other. As in actual translation, there has to be some liberty in how something is adapted from one form into another or else it will be very accurate but not very good.
    • Arisaka1 3y ago
      I see this with anime and manga adaptations all the time, where the studio is trying to capture the inner monologue and action scene that works fine in the manga because it's about how many panels can you use to depict a simple sword dodge. Then the anime adaptation tries to stay so faithful that you end up seeing panels with slight movement, which results in running gags such as "talking is a free action", and Namek's 5 minutes.
      • jncfhnb 3y ago
• mzs 3y ago
  Whoa I read it in the US and it omitted that chapter!
• javier123454321 3y ago
  I actually believe that it was the right decision from an artistic perspective. The last chapter of the book removes all moral ambiguity or provocation, and is instead leaving you with the moral of the story as explicit. Without it, you are left to ponder the question of morality.
• robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Which is the entire point of the book: free will vs being forced to do something And the film. He's conditioned one way, but reverts to himself.
• hnbad 3y ago
  For all of Kubrick's talent he was always more interested in the villains than their victims and this manifests in a lens that gives sympathy to the villains while portraying the victims as mere two-dimensional canvases. The Shining is another perfect example for this and from what we know about his treatment of the actors/actresses this sentiment seems to have also influenced his direction on set: he felt the lead actress would need to feel abused and exhausted and terrified to play the part but the actor just got to be a natural menace. Morally, I'd say it's fair to call many of his great works failures: even Full Metal Jacket failed at being an anti-war movie even though it is still referenced as such. But artistically they're interesting and, if you ignore the supposed intentions and the moral implications of his failure, indeed very good.
• charles_f 3y ago
  I don't think it's fair to judge how good a movie is based on how faithful it is to a book. They're different media entirely and you don't have time in a movie to get into the substance of a book. Movies usually leave fans of the original work disappointed, series are much better at that cause they can take the time to develop characters and go into multiple arcs. On a less philosophical example, Reacher is a good example to me of a movie that has nothing in common with the book apart from some names, and a series that is spot on. On top of that, it's another piece of art. Directors should be allowed to provide an opinion. Take Verhoeven's adaptation of Starship troopers as an example, which is widely a critic of the source material. They're both different stories in their own right. I enjoy both of them differently, and I'm glad Verhoeven didn't go out of his way to relay the message that militaristic dictature is the way to go.
• throw310822 3y ago
  I've always interpreted the movie differently, and in relation to the other Kubrick movies (for example Barry Lyndon). I think Kubrick was fascinated by the relationship between violence and success- a nihilistic view of humans as eternally engaged in a violent struggle to subdue each other. A Clockwork Orange is not about a happy ending in which a young, violent and brilliant teenager finally decides to get an apartment and a job; it's about that teenager realising that he can channel his violence in a much more productive way. Or to put it more clearly: the minister that spoon-feeds him at the end is a psychopath possibly worse than Alex- but one in a suit, with vast resources and power, because he uses violence in a more covert and clever way. So the growth of the main character that we expect at the end of a good story is there, it's just not a happy ending (for us).