A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess's ground breaking book

[ernestodekam]

There is a topic I started ages ago in general which recently poped up about this story.

I much prefer the book because of the inclusion of the 21st chapter that was omitted from the movie by Kubrick.

This book will never age, the themes were relevant 4000 years ago, 100 years ago, now, and forever in the past as long as government decides what is best for the people.

[Gonzo Journalism]

If Kubrick had inculded the last chapter it would have diminished the film's message. Why ruin his masterpiece with a crap ending?

[fernando]

The last chapter was the message of the story, but since the last chapter wasnt included the true morality of the movie got lost.

[Gonzo Journalism]

It worked far better without the last chapter. Kubrick's film is about free will, and the putting in the book's ending would have diminished that theme. Kubrick is attacking totalitarian control; if he chose to include the last chapter and make Alex choose the right decision, it would have blunted the message.

Anyone who knows the nature of Kubrick's works would understand that the book's ending simply does not belong here.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Too bad there's no such thing as free will.

[rioters bloc]

i preferred the book, but not by heaps or anything. they're both good works. i remember being shocked to find it in my high school library in yr 7 or 8 cos id thought it was really 'bad' and they wouldnt have it :P

[state's fiend]

Without the 21st chapter the book is a fable; with it the book is a novel---I'm paraphrasing Anthony Burgess in his introduction to the book.

[timbaly]

I always had a hard time picking out which version was better. I do like both the movie and the book a lot. I think chapter twenty-one adds so much to the book but i'm not sure that it makes it better. It's just different.

[anarchista feminista]

i'm doing my preliminary english assessment on it currently. we have to write about links and ways the text explores change and write an essay on textual features which contribute to the communication of change. SIMPLE! i guess... ha!
overall i think i preferred the book. i love the fact that it was actually quite simple language wise. it seemed really technical to my friends, until i explained the words and told them most of it requires basic etymology.
i love the ending of the movie so much more because it impacted on me enormously. but the book gave me a lot to think about. that's why i chose that as my text. the ending explores change alot more.
an incredible work of art, both book and film. :)

[Donnie]

Never read the book or seen the film, I've read the back of the dvd case and it just didn't seem that very nice. I think I'll stick with Monsters Inc. ;)

Also isn't the book about a future dystopia?

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Never read the book or seen the film, I've read the back of the dvd case and it just didn't seem that very nice. I think I'll stick with Monsters Inc.
Don't let that cover fool you, Clockwork Orange is a awesome movie.


Also isn't the book about a future dystopia?
The movie is based on the book. So yeah it's about a future dystopia. It's dated, this movie was made in the 60's but it's a damn good movie. Watch it as soon as you can.

[DocBenway]

One of my top ten favorite films- probably my top three. I have seen this film so many times it must be a record. At one point we almost watched it every day, as we played it for everyone that came over. We even had all the lines memorizes and used to enact the scenes inpublic and freak people out.

The book and film are both fantastic. I love them both and will not try and judge which is "better." They are two different mediums that are appropriate for two different kinds of consumption.

As a film it is poetry. What it's message is is open to debate. The title comes from B.F. Skinner, who popularized the theory of behaviorism (which Chomsky refutes). Anyway, it essentially means that even organic matter is just as mechanical as a clock.

If the film is about the crushing of free will be the state, why the title which seems to refute that free will exists at all?

A marxist analyis might say that the attempt to change the behavior of people without dealing with the infastructure, leads to massive contradictions which will be destructive to those trying to survive in that society. Putting it another way, the society in "Clockwork Orange" was decrepid and decadent, at the end of its productive/ historical cycle. The governement (reactionaries) wanted to maintain the exploitive status quo, eliminate the violent revolutionary reactions of lumpen proletarians without changing the "base", infastructure, means and relations of production.

By creating a man whom was unable to respond and react in ways appropriate to the historical stage of development, they created a man that was unable to survive. Therefore. the only way "true" way to eliminate the violent tendencies of the lumpen proles would be to have a revolution.

Note that it was organized leftists that used Alex's condition against the government. However, Alex was appealed to me the governement and given money and a posh job, thus elevating him to the status of Aristocratic Proletariat and eliminating his rebellious tendencies. The films other message may therefore be the unreliable nature of the lumpen proletariat in terms of revolutionary consciousness and praxis.

Or maybe the film isn't about any of this...
See it yourself and come to your own conclusions. After all, films should be about more than just passively watching, but about wrangling with and coming up with your own interpretations.

[Body Count]

Never read the book, just haven't gotten around to it.

I see the movie as a nice look at classical conditioning and behavior modification.

I tend to think that people are malleable, and therefore I like the idea behind conditioning.

The ending of the movie leaves me with a funny feeling.............I felt that the experiment was a success.