list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around A Clockwork Orange on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/A_Clockwork_Orange/6454/default.aspx Title: A Clockwork Orange
Year: 1971
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Plot: Stanley Kubrick dissects the nature of violence in this darkly ironic, near-future satire, adapted from Anthony Burgess' novel, complete with "Nadsat" slang. Classical music-loving proto-punk Alex (Malcolm McDowell) and his "Droogs" spend their nights getting high at the Korova Milkbar before embarking on "a little of the old ultraviolence," such as terrorizing a writer, Mr. Alexander (Patrick Magee), and raping his wife while jauntily warbling "Singin' in the Rain." After Alex is jailed for bludgeoning the Cat Lady (Miriam Karlin) to death with one of her phallic sculptures, Alex submits to the Ludovico behavior modification technique to earn his freedom; he's conditioned to abhor violence through watching gory movies, and even his adored Beethoven is turned against him. Returned to the world defenseless, Alex becomes the victim of his prior victims, with Mr. Alexander using Beethoven's Ninth to inflict the greatest pain of all. When society sees what the state has done to Alex, however, the politically expedient move is made. Casting a coldly pessimistic view on the then-future of the late '70s-early '80s, Kubrick and production designer John Barry created a world of high-tech cultural decay, mixing old details like bowler hats with bizarrely alienating "new" environments like the Milkbar. Alex's violence is horrific, yet it is an aesthetically calculated fact of his existence; his charisma makes the icily clinical Ludovico treatment seem more negatively abusive than positively therapeutic. Alex may be a sadist, but the state's autocratic control is another violent act, rather than a solution. Released in late 1971 (within weeks of Sam Peckinpah's brutally violent Straw Dogs), the film sparked considerable controversy in the U.S. with its X-rated violence; after copycat crimes in England, Kubrick withdrew the film from British distribution until after his death. Opinion was divided on the meaning of Kubrick's detached view of this shocking future, but, whether the discord drew the curious or Kubrick's scathing diagnosis spoke to the chaotic cultural moment, A Clockwork Orange became a hit. On the heels of New York Film Critics Circle awards as Best Film, Best Director, and Best Screenplay, Kubrick received Oscar nominations in all three categories. ~ Lucia Bozzola, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 233
Number of Lists: 173
Number of blog posts: 19
Number of discussion threads: 37
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:51:41 GMTA Clockwork Orange1971Stanley Kubrick<a href="/players/P____98221/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Stanley Kubrick</a> dissects the nature of violence in this darkly ironic, near-future satire, adapted from Anthony Burgess' novel, complete with "Nadsat" slang. Classical music-loving proto-punk Alex (<a href="/players/P____47319/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Malcolm McDowell</a>) and his "Droogs" spend their nights getting high at the Korova Milkbar before embarking on "a little of the old ultraviolence," such as terrorizing a writer, Mr. Alexander (<a href="/players/P____44560/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Patrick Magee</a>), and raping his wife while jauntily warbling "Singin' in the Rain." After Alex is jailed for bludgeoning the Cat Lady (<a href="/players/P____36939/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Miriam Karlin</a>) to death with one of her phallic sculptures, Alex submits to the Ludovico behavior modification technique to earn his freedom; he's conditioned to abhor violence through watching gory movies, and even his adored Beethoven is turned against him. Returned to the world defenseless, Alex becomes the victim of his prior victims, with Mr. Alexander using Beethoven's Ninth to inflict the greatest pain of all. When society sees what the state has done to Alex, however, the politically expedient move is made. Casting a coldly pessimistic view on the then-future of the late '70s-early '80s, Kubrick and production designer <a href="/players/P____80828/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Barry</a> created a world of high-tech cultural decay, mixing old details like bowler hats with bizarrely alienating "new" environments like the Milkbar. Alex's violence is horrific, yet it is an aesthetically calculated fact of his existence; his charisma makes the icily clinical Ludovico treatment seem more negatively abusive than positively therapeutic. Alex may be a sadist, but the state's autocratic control is another violent act, rather than a solution. Released in late 1971 (within weeks of <a href="/players/P___105940/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sam Peckinpah</a>'s brutally violent <a href=/films/33211/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Straw Dogs</a>), the film sparked considerable controversy in the U.S. with its X-rated violence; after copycat crimes in England, Kubrick withdrew the film from British distribution until after his death. Opinion was divided on the meaning of Kubrick's detached view of this shocking future, but, whether the discord drew the curious or Kubrick's scathing diagnosis spoke to the chaotic cultural moment, A Clockwork Orange became a hit. On the heels of New York Film Critics Circle awards as Best Film, Best Director, and Best Screenplay, Kubrick received Oscar nominations in all three categories. ~ Lucia Bozzola, All Movie Guide233Tag Target (>10)17319374http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u48809r8l7y.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/A_Clockwork_Orange/6454/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_Which_of_these_movies_directed_by_Stanley_Kubri/657/43980/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 9/22/2009 7:47:44 PM
Body: Of these Kubrick films listed, I've seen: 2001: A Space OdysseyA Clockwork OrangeDr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the BombThe Shining (part)Spartacus (part) I don't really count the partial ones. And, after a few gos at viewing, as it's one of my favorite movies, I feel like I completely understand 2001, so that one's my favorite hands down. A Clockwork Orange was powerful but too disturbing for my sensitive palette, and Dr. Strangelove was darkly funny and funnily dark, but 2001 is just an amazing film to me on every level.
]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:47:44 GMTpippin06Movie Polls9/22/2009 7:47:44 PMOf these Kubrick films listed, I've seen: 2001: A Space OdysseyA Clockwork OrangeDr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the BombThe Shining (part)Spartacus (part) I don't really count the partial ones. And, after a few gos at viewing, as it's one of my favorite movies, I feel like I completely understand 2001, so that one's my favorite hands down. A Clockwork Orange was powerful but too disturbing for my sensitive palette, and Dr. Strangelove was darkly funny and funnily dark, but 2001 is just an amazing film to me on every level. http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Which_of_these_movies_directed_by_Stanley_Kubrick/657/43976/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 9/22/2009 2:12:36 PM
Body: Please reference this thread for the rules of this group. Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:2001: A Space OdysseyBarry LyndonA Clockwork OrangeDr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the BombEyes Wid ShutFull Metal JacketKiller's KissThe KillingLolitaPaths of GloryThe ShiningSpartacus
]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:12:36 GMTRisseladaMovie Polls9/22/2009 2:12:36 PMPlease reference this thread for the rules of this group. Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:2001: A Space OdysseyBarry LyndonA Clockwork OrangeDr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the BombEyes Wid ShutFull Metal JacketKiller's KissThe KillingLolitaPaths of GloryThe ShiningSpartacus http://www.spout.com/groups/Worst_Movie_Ever/Re_The_Worst_movies_I_have_seen_this_past_year/104/43782/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Worst Movie Ever
Post Date: 9/3/2009 1:03:51 PM
Body: [quote user="whoo69"] You said it, esp. with Clockwork Orange. I could not STAND that piece of shit they call a "film." What's the appeal? It's idiotic. I couldn't even watch the whole thing. I watched like 20 minutes of it before I kept fast-fowarding, trying to find a really good part, and then I just got frustrated and sent it back to Netflix. It seems to me the people who act like Clockwork Orange or Requiem are "classics" are morons or sheep or both, just trying to fit in and sound smart. But I don't know why you said Dirty Harry. That was a pretty sweet movie. Vigilante justice kicks ass! I'd like to kill all the guilty inmates on death row and get it over with, instead of endless appeals and all that bullshit. Even if action isn't your thing, how can you say Dirty Harry is "one of the worst" you've seen? I had absolutely no desire to see The Condemned. None of the WWE films appeal to me. See No Evil looked stupid, too. It'd at least be a REAL horror film if they made it when Kane still wore his mask. Behind Enemy Lines: Colombia sounds absolutely fucking horrible. Who the fuck would watch such a shitty movie?? Why Colombia? I don't give a fuck about the goddamn FARC. Fuck em and fuck Colombia! I'm totally against the DEA's Plan Colombia nonsense. And what did Mr. Kennedy, one of the worst wrestlers of all time, do to deserve his own movie? I thought WWE Films only gives movies to big wrestling stars in the co. Or at least they should. 2001: A Space Oddysey just sounds ridiculous. I've no desire to see it anytime soon. Stanley Kubrick is kind of a hit-and-miss director. Some of his movies, like Dr. Strangelove and Fullmetal Jacket, are ok, but others like Clockwork Orange are a bunch of bullshit. Plus, Kubrick's films just don't take things seriously enough for me, oftentimes. He treats filmmaking as one big joke. I'm glad the fucker's dead. I mean, why is the year 2001 in the title of his movie, esp. since he made it like in the 80s, didn't he? Was he expecting 2001 to be a GREAT year for space exploration? [/quote] Wow, you've got a lot of anger in ya! I would be interested in discussing A Clockwork Orange with you, but it's not really fair to judge a movie that you have only seen 20 minutes of. ESPECIALLY A Clockwork Orange!!! There really is a reason for what you see at the beginning. I have seen plenty of movies that I didn't like for most of it until the very end. Sometimes you have to sit through a lot of crap to get to the great stuff at the end, and then you find out that the stuff wasn't crap. Because when you view it through the context of the whole film, it was essential. For instance, last night I just saw Bad Lieutenant. I liked the movie pretty well, but after a while felt like it was getting a little tedious. Then the movie took a direction that I totally didn't expect and I reevaluated what I just had seen in a totally new light. A good film is a complete work from beginning to end and cannot just be watched in parts, thus I would never stop a move in the middle or judge it until I had watched it in it's entirety.
]]>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:03:51 GMTRisseladaWorst Movie Ever9/3/2009 1:03:51 PM[quote user="whoo69"] You said it, esp. with Clockwork Orange. I could not STAND that piece of shit they call a "film." What's the appeal? It's idiotic. I couldn't even watch the whole thing. I watched like 20 minutes of it before I kept fast-fowarding, trying to find a really good part, and then I just got frustrated and sent it back to Netflix. It seems to me the people who act like Clockwork Orange or Requiem are "classics" are morons or sheep or both, just trying to fit in and sound smart. But I don't know why you said Dirty Harry. That was a pretty sweet movie. Vigilante justice kicks ass! I'd like to kill all the guilty inmates on death row and get it over with, instead of endless appeals and all that bullshit. Even if action isn't your thing, how can you say Dirty Harry is "one of the worst" you've seen? I had absolutely no desire to see The Condemned. None of the WWE films appeal to me. See No Evil looked stupid, too. It'd at least be a REAL horror film if they made it when Kane still wore his mask. Behind Enemy Lines: Colombia sounds absolutely fucking horrible. Who the fuck would watch such a shitty movie?? Why Colombia? I don't give a fuck about the goddamn FARC. Fuck em and fuck Colombia! I'm totally against the DEA's Plan Colombia nonsense. And what did Mr. Kennedy, one of the worst wrestlers of all time, do to deserve his own movie? I thought WWE Films only gives movies to big wrestling stars in the co. Or at least they should. 2001: A Space Oddysey just sounds ridiculous. I've no desire to see it anytime soon. Stanley Kubrick is kind of a hit-and-miss director. Some of his movies, like Dr. Strangelove and Fullmetal Jacket, are ok, but others like Clockwork Orange are a bunch of bullshit. Plus, Kubrick's films just don't take things seriously enough for me, oftentimes. He treats filmmaking as one big joke. I'm glad the fucker's dead. I mean, why is the year 2001 in the title of his movie, esp. since he made it like in the 80s, didn't he? Was he expecting 2001 to be a GREAT year for space exploration? [/quote] Wow, you've got a lot of anger in ya! I would be interested in discussing A Clockwork Orange with you, but it's not really fair to judge a movie that you have only seen 20 minutes of. ESPECIALLY A Clockwork Orange!!! There really is a reason for what you see at the beginning. I have seen plenty of movies that I didn't like for most of it until the very end. Sometimes you have to sit through a lot of crap to get to the great stuff at the end, and then you find out that the stuff wasn't crap. Because when you view it through the context of the whole film, it was essential. For instance, last night I just saw Bad Lieutenant. I liked the movie pretty well, but after a while felt like it was getting a little tedious. Then the movie took a direction that I totally didn't expect and I reevaluated what I just had seen in a totally new light. A good film is a complete work from beginning to end and cannot just be watched in parts, thus I would never stop a move in the middle or judge it until I had watched it in it's entirety. http://www.spout.com/blogs/movies_i_do_not_want_to_see-70/archive/2006/3/22/563.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movies I do not want to see
Post Date: 8/18/2009 1:51:41 PM
Body: It seems like a lot of these movies some of you just don't want to see due to violence or other dark or deprived behavior. If that is the case, I won't argue. But if you think that it's possible for depravity in a movie to lead to transcendence, there is some great stuff here. Twelve Monkeys is just amazing. I really don't remember that much violence in it. Maybe in the WWII scene?? But the MPAA rated it R for violence and laguage, so I guess there's something there. I don't think it would turn you off though. If you are interested at all in time travel movies, this is one of the best!!! A Clockwork Orange is also amazing!! But if you are that worried about disturbing or violent imagery, then I can't really recommend this. The film was originally rated X when it first came out and that rating existed. The whole premise of the film is about trying to reform a man who is obsessed with commiting what he calls "ultraviolence". That includes all kinds of violence, murder, rape, and other devient sex acts all without remorse. The methods used to attempt to reform him however lead to many very interesting and relevent questions about society and the human condition. I even consider it a very Christian film in respects to what it says about free will. But again, you will see weirdos with creepy masks muder a woman with a gigantic penis statue. It even makes Beethoven music seem completely alien and menacing! I'm kind of shocked that people are recommending Kill Bill to someone who is adverse to too much violence in movies! While some of the violence here is quite stylized, it is most definitely extreme violence and depravity. And I find any "lessons" in the film to be rather banal. It's quite a ride and a movie I like to watch, but it's my least favorite Tarantino film.
]]>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:51:41 GMTRisseladaMovies I do not want to see8/18/2009 1:51:41 PMIt seems like a lot of these movies some of you just don't want to see due to violence or other dark or deprived behavior. If that is the case, I won't argue. But if you think that it's possible for depravity in a movie to lead to transcendence, there is some great stuff here. Twelve Monkeys is just amazing. I really don't remember that much violence in it. Maybe in the WWII scene?? But the MPAA rated it R for violence and laguage, so I guess there's something there. I don't think it would turn you off though. If you are interested at all in time travel movies, this is one of the best!!! A Clockwork Orange is also amazing!! But if you are that worried about disturbing or violent imagery, then I can't really recommend this. The film was originally rated X when it first came out and that rating existed. The whole premise of the film is about trying to reform a man who is obsessed with commiting what he calls "ultraviolence". That includes all kinds of violence, murder, rape, and other devient sex acts all without remorse. The methods used to attempt to reform him however lead to many very interesting and relevent questions about society and the human condition. I even consider it a very Christian film in respects to what it says about free will. But again, you will see weirdos with creepy masks muder a woman with a gigantic penis statue. It even makes Beethoven music seem completely alien and menacing! I'm kind of shocked that people are recommending Kill Bill to someone who is adverse to too much violence in movies! While some of the violence here is quite stylized, it is most definitely extreme violence and depravity. And I find any "lessons" in the film to be rather banal. It's quite a ride and a movie I like to watch, but it's my least favorite Tarantino film. http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_Which_of_these_films_from_Kevin_Jackson_s_list/657/42597/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 6/10/2009 11:45:30 AM
Body: Here are some more if anyone cares: 8. Stanley Kubricks's 'Napoleon' Riding high on the critical success of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Kubrick believed that he had MGM in the palm of his hand, and was finally in a position to make 'the one film I've always wanted to make, the life of Napoleon'. He was almost right: Napoleon came so close to being shot that some filmographies - such as that in Joseph Gelmis's The Film Director as Superstar (1970) - actually list it as a completed work. Cynics were not slow to point out the reasons why Kubrick might have found the Corsican such an appealing subject, but their quips were blunted by the director's own willingness to confess how much he identified with Bonaparte, even down to copying the undiscriminating manner in which Napoleon wolfed his food. Kubrick planned to start shooting in the winter of 1969 - three months on location, four in studio - using as many as 40,000 infantrymen and 10,000 cavalry. Jack Nicholson, still a hungry young actor, was the unconventional choice for the title role. By August 1969, however, corporate changes at MGM meant that Kubrick no longer had approval for his grandiose scheme, and he went on to develop the much more modestly budgeted A Clockwork Orange, from the novella by Anthony Burgess. One of the few concrete survivals from this busy period is Burgess's novel Napoleon Symphony, dedicated to Kubrick. 7. Bernardo Bertolucci's 'Red Harvest' Ever since the late 1960s Bernardo Bertolucci had been telling people that one of his dream projects would be a film based on Dashiell Hammett's 1929 novel. He came closest to achieving the dream in the early 1980s, when Jack Nicholson and Debra Winger were both attached to the project. It soon fell through, partly because of a complication concerning rights to the book. But perhaps it would have been a rather redundant project anyway, since the essential plot of Red Harvest has turned up, only lightly disguised, in everything from Kurosawa's Yojimbo (a samurai version) to A Fistful of Dollars to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome to Miller's Crossing to Last Man Standing...
]]>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:45:30 GMTRisseladaMovie Polls6/10/2009 11:45:30 AMHere are some more if anyone cares: 8. Stanley Kubricks's 'Napoleon' Riding high on the critical success of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Kubrick believed that he had MGM in the palm of his hand, and was finally in a position to make 'the one film I've always wanted to make, the life of Napoleon'. He was almost right: Napoleon came so close to being shot that some filmographies - such as that in Joseph Gelmis's The Film Director as Superstar (1970) - actually list it as a completed work. Cynics were not slow to point out the reasons why Kubrick might have found the Corsican such an appealing subject, but their quips were blunted by the director's own willingness to confess how much he identified with Bonaparte, even down to copying the undiscriminating manner in which Napoleon wolfed his food. Kubrick planned to start shooting in the winter of 1969 - three months on location, four in studio - using as many as 40,000 infantrymen and 10,000 cavalry. Jack Nicholson, still a hungry young actor, was the unconventional choice for the title role. By August 1969, however, corporate changes at MGM meant that Kubrick no longer had approval for his grandiose scheme, and he went on to develop the much more modestly budgeted A Clockwork Orange, from the novella by Anthony Burgess. One of the few concrete survivals from this busy period is Burgess's novel Napoleon Symphony, dedicated to Kubrick. 7. Bernardo Bertolucci's 'Red Harvest' Ever since the late 1960s Bernardo Bertolucci had been telling people that one of his dream projects would be a film based on Dashiell Hammett's 1929 novel. He came closest to achieving the dream in the early 1980s, when Jack Nicholson and Debra Winger were both attached to the project. It soon fell through, partly because of a complication concerning rights to the book. But perhaps it would have been a rather redundant project anyway, since the essential plot of Red Harvest has turned up, only lightly disguised, in everything from Kurosawa's Yojimbo (a samurai version) to A Fistful of Dollars to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome to Miller's Crossing to Last Man Standing... http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_April_6_Everything_Aussie/625/41623/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 4/16/2009 1:20:40 PM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"] I've been meaning to do this for a while now. Every week I think I'm gonna do it, I find something that happens to be more relevent to my current week. Well, I guess this is as good a week as any. Let's talk about Austrailian flicks. I rewatched Chopper the other night and I must say, I don't remember it being as brilliant as I found it this time around. I also usually like to mention The Interview when talking about Austrailian movies. This is primarily a mindf*ck movie that depends wholly on the performance from Hugo Weaving. It absolutly doesn't fail in this regard. If you haven't seen it, I would highly suggest taking a look. Oh yeah, has anyone out there ever seen Bad Boy Bubby?!?!......... Speaking of mindf*cks. This is one of the most disturbing things I've seen on my tv screen ever. But I think I kinda liked it? I'm not sure yet. [/quote] Great mentions. I always mention The Interview when talking about Australian movies as well!! I picked this one up totally randomly from the libarary without knowing anything about it. It was a wonderful surprise! I have a friend from Australia who burned me a copy of Chopper and said I definitely had to check it out, but I still haven't. I guess I should get around to it. And I've been interested in seeing Bad Boy Bubby for quite a while. I was able to check out Rolf de Heer's Ten Canoes through the Spout Maven program and thought it was quite inventive. I'm sure Bad Boy Bubby is something quite different. But I heard someone refer to it as A Clockwork Orange for this generation which I found interesting. I'm also fascinated by the idea of people who are forcibly isolated from society for much of their life only to be unleased on it. The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser is one of my VERY FAVORITES. I gathered from the description that Bad Boy Bubby is something along those lines??
]]>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:20:40 GMTRisseladaWeekly Theme4/16/2009 1:20:40 PM[quote user="leeroy711"] I've been meaning to do this for a while now. Every week I think I'm gonna do it, I find something that happens to be more relevent to my current week. Well, I guess this is as good a week as any. Let's talk about Austrailian flicks. I rewatched Chopper the other night and I must say, I don't remember it being as brilliant as I found it this time around. I also usually like to mention The Interview when talking about Austrailian movies. This is primarily a mindf*ck movie that depends wholly on the performance from Hugo Weaving. It absolutly doesn't fail in this regard. If you haven't seen it, I would highly suggest taking a look. Oh yeah, has anyone out there ever seen Bad Boy Bubby?!?!......... Speaking of mindf*cks. This is one of the most disturbing things I've seen on my tv screen ever. But I think I kinda liked it? I'm not sure yet. [/quote] Great mentions. I always mention The Interview when talking about Australian movies as well!! I picked this one up totally randomly from the libarary without knowing anything about it. It was a wonderful surprise! I have a friend from Australia who burned me a copy of Chopper and said I definitely had to check it out, but I still haven't. I guess I should get around to it. And I've been interested in seeing Bad Boy Bubby for quite a while. I was able to check out Rolf de Heer's Ten Canoes through the Spout Maven program and thought it was quite inventive. I'm sure Bad Boy Bubby is something quite different. But I heard someone refer to it as A Clockwork Orange for this generation which I found interesting. I'm also fascinated by the idea of people who are forcibly isolated from society for much of their life only to be unleased on it. The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser is one of my VERY FAVORITES. I gathered from the description that Bad Boy Bubby is something along those lines?? http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2009/2/8/40340.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 2/8/2009 11:09:28 AM
Body: What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx A Clockwork Orange is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#46)100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#21)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Alex De Large is the #12 villain)The Revised Top 100 (#70)10 Top 10's (#4 Science Fiction) I watched A Clockwork Orange instantly on Netflix using the little TV streaming device offered by that service, which I bought to accompany my new large-screen TV. The whole experience was thrilling - watching a crazy, eye-poppingly colored film in high definition for the first time! Of course, I digress. I had intended to read the novel on which the film is based, written by Anthony Burgess, first, but, sadly, reading books nowadays for me has taken a back seat to other free-time activities, such as consuming films. As such, I had no idea what to expect again, though I knew from hearsay about the film that it was one big long strain of weird. So, if anything, I expected to be treated to weird on my new TV, in large, crystal clear detail. In that, I was not disappointed. A Clockwork Orange was co-adapted, produced, and directed by Stanley Kubrick, marking his third and final entry on the AFI's Original list (after 2001: A Space Odyssey and Dr. Strangelove). The central character is teenaged Londoner Alex De Large (Malcolm McDowell), who also narrates his tale. Alex spends his days pursuing his pleasures, which include "ultraviolence," rape, and getting high (so the film implies) on milk at the local milkbar as well as music, particularly Beethoven, and enjoying these fine hedonistic pursuits with his "droogs," i.e. his fellow gang members. After a particularly tiring night of these activities, including the beating of a writer (Patrick Magee) and Alex's rape of his wife to the crooned tune of "Singin' in the Rain," his pals decide that Alex isn't shooting high or far enough and begin to assert their displeasure on the subject. Fearing a hostile takeover, Alex turns some of his skill for violence on his friends, which quells them for a time; however, when Alex ultimately murders a Cat Lady (Miriam Karlin) with one of her phallic scupltures (in this case, an exact replica of the phallis), his droogs leave him for the authorities to find. Alex is then imprisoned and sentenced to 14 years. After some time in the big house, Alex becomes aware of an experimental procedure called Ludovico behavioral modification, which is being touted by the new political regime in England as the way to solve the crime problem. The procedure essentially works to drug Alex up into feeling physically ill while he is exposed to violent and hypersexual imagery - though it also has the unintended side effect of averting him to his beloved Beethoven when the composer's esteemed Ninth Symphony is played in the background of one of the films. The procedure is also a grand success; Alex is conditioned against violence, rape, and the Ninth, and he is released into the world. The trouble is, he no longer has any defenses, and his prior victims, including his family and the writer, victimize him in vengeance, apathy, or fear. When Alex involuntarily stumbles upon the writer's home, cold and alone one night, the writer realizes who he is (after Alex starts singing "Singin' in the Rain" in the bath) and finds out about his aversion to the Ninth. When Alex takes extreme measure to avoid the excruciating physical response the symphony invokes, the media sensationalizes it, and the poltical order intervenes once again in an effort to save face. When I first began watching A Clockwork Orange, I wasn't sure I was going to like it all that much. For starters, the film could easily be subtitled "Kubrick's ode to the phallis." The costumes of Alex and his droogs feature prominently placed rubber guards at their waists and below, which, to me, looked like external representations of what they were covering up. The imagery with which Alex surrounded himself was hypersexual, including a statue of four Jesuses with their "members" in gold; photographs or paintings of naked women lining most interior walls, and sculptures of the same in the milkbar; his pet snake, Basil, cozying up headfirst to the painting of a woman on her back, legs open, and nothing on; and so on. Not to mention the fact that the rape scenes (or attempted rape scenes) feature completely nude women being wrestled to a state of submission. The images were, no doubt, intended to shock, and to establish Alex and his friends' sociopathy, and they worked, almost too well. In addition, the first half of the movie (aside from these images), experienced some inconsistent pacing. When the film was slower and more methodical - such as when Alex was at his home or chatting up the two ladies with whom he eventually enjoys a romp in the sack - I actually felt more inclined to doze at the same general ponts in the film on two attempts (I tried to watch a first time and then started the film over the next day for a second attempt that was more successful). After allowing the film to play to its conclusion, however, I realized how clever the film was and how Kubrick's genius manifested yet again. The shocking images, accentuated by bright color- orange included - and using camera lenses that rendered them almost surreal, were nothing to the commentary and shocking responses offered by the government and Alex's victims once he was a "free man." In addition, the ending was one of the most intellectually satisfying conclusions of a film that I have ever seen. I understand that the ending of the film was quite different from the ending of Burgess' novel, so different, in fact, that the entire thrust of the film might have been changed if the book ending had been used. As it stands, the images that Kubrick created with the help of his art directors, cinematographers, and costumers emphasized the underlying themes and social commentary no doubt offered by the novel and punctuated the film ending to give it a haunting quality. The film sticks with me, almost 24 hours later, because of it. Malcolm McDowell's performance was amazing. I can't believe this guy is sometmes Linderman on the TV show Heroes. Thirty-five years ago, he made the anti-hero and sociopath Alex De Large charismatic and occasionally sympathetic, particularly after he undergoes his treatment. After being subjected to another beating by his erstwhile droogs, now police officers, and the revenge of the writer, the viewer almost wants him to cast off his conditioning and retaliate the way he used to do, which is a troubling reaction to invoke from the viewer and powerfully elicited by McDowell's eerie ability to switch from full-on, coldly calculating madman to somewhat helpless and forlorn outcast. The false eyelashes he wears over one eye when he's gallivanting around London are iconic and used to creepy effect by McDowell's more unsettling facial expressions. Still, I wouldn't call this film Kubrick's masterpiece by any stretch, as fantastic and creative as it turned out to be. The dystopian future of A Clockwork Orange looked similar to the idyllic future of 2001, at least in its furniture, and the fact that Kubrick, again, underscored the film with predominantly classical works (and this is apart from Beethoven's Ninth Symphony) was not lost on me. Also, the prominently placed soundtrack album of 2001 in the record store scene did not help, and I immediately reacted to that image, feeling it was more a mark of Kubrick's ego than a clever nod to a film gone by. Additionally, as I mentioned, the pacing of this film was surprisingly inconsistent, though it settled into a more deliberate and even pace in the second half. Furthermore, though I understand why the images were used, I'm not sure that, at least, the scene in which the rival gang attempts the rape of a woman prior to Alex's gang entering the scene, and the ensuing brawl, was entirely necessary or serviced the story, except to show the rampant decay and widespread violence or lack of maturity on the part of youth in society. Other violent crimes could have been used, particularly given the scene with the writer's wife so close in chronology, to show the same point. Granted, I'm no Stanley Kubrick, but some of the images included for their shock value crossed a few lines for me and, possibly, for the AFI. This film tumbled 24 spots on the Revised list. In the end, however, I enjoyed A Clockwork Orange on an intellectual level, as it translated the novel's apparent commentary on morality, freedom, choice, behavioral modification, the media, and the political machine to film quite effectively and in an appreciably clever manner. It was powerful and disturbing, though sometimes too disturbing. Due to this quality, the film does not pass the test. I feel as though watching it once suits me just fine, and now, I'd much rather go back and read the novel, which apparently utilizes the funny slang Burgess invented (and the film used to an extent) more prominently. In doing so, I could revisit the messages and see how the book's ending affects the story. As to ratings, I feel A Clockwork Orange deserves an 8 for having minor flaws but being very good. I would also offer a warning to would-be watchers: if you don't like watching films with graphic sex and violence, avoid this film at all costs. Its artistic value aside, A Clockwork Orange would not be palatable for a lot of people, and I don't know if its initial X-rating stands today, but I can see why the film was given it, and this is not a film I can make a case for seeing anyway in defense of Kubrick's artistry. If you're looking to explore Kubrick's films, I think you can get a fine sampling from his filmography, give this one a pass, and still be alright. In satire, which A Clockwork Orange ultimately becomes, Dr. Strangelove is a superior film and has no graphically objectionable imagery. As for me, 2001 is still my reigning favorite, and though he cheekily referred to that film in this one, he did so with good reason - I think that film's his masterpiece even if this film offered a darkly fantastic message that was as satisfying as it was unsettling.
]]>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:09:28 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts2/8/2009 11:09:28 AMWhat's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx A Clockwork Orange is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#46)100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#21)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Alex De Large is the #12 villain)The Revised Top 100 (#70)10 Top 10's (#4 Science Fiction) I watched A Clockwork Orange instantly on Netflix using the little TV streaming device offered by that service, which I bought to accompany my new large-screen TV. The whole experience was thrilling - watching a crazy, eye-poppingly colored film in high definition for the first time! Of course, I digress. I had intended to read the novel on which the film is based, written by Anthony Burgess, first, but, sadly, reading books nowadays for me has taken a back seat to other free-time activities, such as consuming films. As such, I had no idea what to expect again, though I knew from hearsay about the film that it was one big long strain of weird. So, if anything, I expected to be treated to weird on my new TV, in large, crystal clear detail. In that, I was not disappointed. A Clockwork Orange was co-adapted, produced, and directed by Stanley Kubrick, marking his third and final entry on the AFI's Original list (after 2001: A Space Odyssey and Dr. Strangelove). The central character is teenaged Londoner Alex De Large (Malcolm McDowell), who also narrates his tale. Alex spends his days pursuing his pleasures, which include "ultraviolence," rape, and getting high (so the film implies) on milk at the local milkbar as well as music, particularly Beethoven, and enjoying these fine hedonistic pursuits with his "droogs," i.e. his fellow gang members. After a particularly tiring night of these activities, including the beating of a writer (Patrick Magee) and Alex's rape of his wife to the crooned tune of "Singin' in the Rain," his pals decide that Alex isn't shooting high or far enough and begin to assert their displeasure on the subject. Fearing a hostile takeover, Alex turns some of his skill for violence on his friends, which quells them for a time; however, when Alex ultimately murders a Cat Lady (Miriam Karlin) with one of her phallic scupltures (in this case, an exact replica of the phallis), his droogs leave him for the authorities to find. Alex is then imprisoned and sentenced to 14 years. After some time in the big house, Alex becomes aware of an experimental procedure called Ludovico behavioral modification, which is being touted by the new political regime in England as the way to solve the crime problem. The procedure essentially works to drug Alex up into feeling physically ill while he is exposed to violent and hypersexual imagery - though it also has the unintended side effect of averting him to his beloved Beethoven when the composer's esteemed Ninth Symphony is played in the background of one of the films. The procedure is also a grand success; Alex is conditioned against violence, rape, and the Ninth, and he is released into the world. The trouble is, he no longer has any defenses, and his prior victims, including his family and the writer, victimize him in vengeance, apathy, or fear. When Alex involuntarily stumbles upon the writer's home, cold and alone one night, the writer realizes who he is (after Alex starts singing "Singin' in the Rain" in the bath) and finds out about his aversion to the Ninth. When Alex takes extreme measure to avoid the excruciating physical response the symphony invokes, the media sensationalizes it, and the poltical order intervenes once again in an effort to save face. When I first began watching A Clockwork Orange, I wasn't sure I was going to like it all that much. For starters, the film could easily be subtitled "Kubrick's ode to the phallis." The costumes of Alex and his droogs feature prominently placed rubber guards at their waists and below, which, to me, looked like external representations of what they were covering up. The imagery with which Alex surrounded himself was hypersexual, including a statue of four Jesuses with their "members" in gold; photographs or paintings of naked women lining most interior walls, and sculptures of the same in the milkbar; his pet snake, Basil, cozying up headfirst to the painting of a woman on her back, legs open, and nothing on; and so on. Not to mention the fact that the rape scenes (or attempted rape scenes) feature completely nude women being wrestled to a state of submission. The images were, no doubt, intended to shock, and to establish Alex and his friends' sociopathy, and they worked, almost too well. In addition, the first half of the movie (aside from these images), experienced some inconsistent pacing. When the film was slower and more methodical - such as when Alex was at his home or chatting up the two ladies with whom he eventually enjoys a romp in the sack - I actually felt more inclined to doze at the same general ponts in the film on two attempts (I tried to watch a first time and then started the film over the next day for a second attempt that was more successful). After allowing the film to play to its conclusion, however, I realized how clever the film was and how Kubrick's genius manifested yet again. The shocking images, accentuated by bright color- orange included - and using camera lenses that rendered them almost surreal, were nothing to the commentary and shocking responses offered by the government and Alex's victims once he was a "free man." In addition, the ending was one of the most intellectually satisfying conclusions of a film that I have ever seen. I understand that the ending of the film was quite different from the ending of Burgess' novel, so different, in fact, that the entire thrust of the film might have been changed if the book ending had been used. As it stands, the images that Kubrick created with the help of his art directors, cinematographers, and costumers emphasized the underlying themes and social commentary no doubt offered by the novel and punctuated the film ending to give it a haunting quality. The film sticks with me, almost 24 hours later, because of it. Malcolm McDowell's performance was amazing. I can't believe this guy is sometmes Linderman on the TV show Heroes. Thirty-five years ago, he made the anti-hero and sociopath Alex De Large charismatic and occasionally sympathetic, particularly after he undergoes his treatment. After being subjected to another beating by his erstwhile droogs, now police officers, and the revenge of the writer, the viewer almost wants him to cast off his conditioning and retaliate the way he used to do, which is a troubling reaction to invoke from the viewer and powerfully elicited by McDowell's eerie ability to switch from full-on, coldly calculating madman to somewhat helpless and forlorn outcast. The false eyelashes he wears over one eye when he's gallivanting around London are iconic and used to creepy effect by McDowell's more unsettling facial expressions. Still, I wouldn't call this film Kubrick's masterpiece by any stretch, as fantastic and creative as it turned out to be. The dystopian future of A Clockwork Orange looked similar to the idyllic future of 2001, at least in its furniture, and the fact that Kubrick, again, underscored the film with predominantly classical works (and this is apart from Beethoven's Ninth Symphony) was not lost on me. Also, the prominently placed soundtrack album of 2001 in the record store scene did not help, and I immediately reacted to that image, feeling it was more a mark of Kubrick's ego than a clever nod to a film gone by. Additionally, as I mentioned, the pacing of this film was surprisingly inconsistent, though it settled into a more deliberate and even pace in the second half. Furthermore, though I understand why the images were used, I'm not sure that, at least, the scene in which the rival gang attempts the rape of a woman prior to Alex's gang entering the scene, and the ensuing brawl, was entirely necessary or serviced the story, except to show the rampant decay and widespread violence or lack of maturity on the part of youth in society. Other violent crimes could have been used, particularly given the scene with the writer's wife so close in chronology, to show the same point. Granted, I'm no Stanley Kubrick, but some of the images included for their shock value crossed a few lines for me and, possibly, for the AFI. This film tumbled 24 spots on the Revised list. In the end, however, I enjoyed A Clockwork Orange on an intellectual level, as it translated the novel's apparent commentary on morality, freedom, choice, behavioral modification, the media, and the political machine to film quite effectively and in an appreciably clever manner. It was powerful and disturbing, though sometimes too disturbing. Due to this quality, the film does not pass the test. I feel as though watching it once suits me just fine, and now, I'd much rather go back and read the novel, which apparently utilizes the funny slang Burgess invented (and the film used to an extent) more prominently. In doing so, I could revisit the messages and see how the book's ending affects the story. As to ratings, I feel A Clockwork Orange deserves an 8 for having minor flaws but being very good. I would also offer a warning to would-be watchers: if you don't like watching films with graphic sex and violence, avoid this film at all costs. Its artistic value aside, A Clockwork Orange would not be palatable for a lot of people, and I don't know if its initial X-rating stands today, but I can see why the film was given it, and this is not a film I can make a case for seeing anyway in defense of Kubrick's artistry. If you're looking to explore Kubrick's films, I think you can get a fine sampling from his filmography, give this one a pass, and still be alright. In satire, which A Clockwork Orange ultimately becomes, Dr. Strangelove is a superior film and has no graphically objectionable imagery. As for me, 2001 is still my reigning favorite, and though he cheekily referred to that film in this one, he did so with good reason - I think that film's his masterpiece even if this film offered a darkly fantastic message that was as satisfying as it was unsettling. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/28/40034.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/28/2009 4:01:33 PM
Body: Today’s clip isn’t exactly film-related, but it does tie into Kevin’s list from earlier about unsuccessful movie prophecies. Plus, its title somewhat references Back to the Future, and anything paying tribute to BTTF immediately sparks my interest (this tie-in may have even influenced my vote for president). The comedy short comes from FunnyorDie.com and stars Paul Scheer of Human Giant (and Bride Wars, just to make this more movie-related) in two roles. One role, really, but its divided into two parts, “Alex” and “Future Alex.” And the whole thing is a play on the idea of fashions of the future. Anyway, the video made me think of the Oscars’ usual ignorance of science-fiction costumes, particularly of designs for films set in the future (meaning Star Wars‘ win in the category was apparently okay). Why wasn’t Jean-Paul Gaultier nominated for The Fifth Element? And what about Milena Canonero for A Clockwork Orange? Of course, even more disappointing than those snubs was the failure to nominate Joanna Johnston for Back to the Future Part II, a film so visionary in its futuristic fashions that fans campaigned to have Nike produce a pair of sneakers similar to those seen in the movie. Maybe we won’t have self-drying clothes in 6 years, but what a great concept and what a great execution of that idea in Marty McFly’s jacket. Much better work than anything seen in Driving Miss Daisy, that’s for sure. If only we could go back in time and change the Academy’s mind. “Clothes to the Future” with Paul Scheer from Paul Scheer Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:01:33 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/28/2009 4:01:33 PMToday’s clip isn’t exactly film-related, but it does tie into Kevin’s list from earlier about unsuccessful movie prophecies. Plus, its title somewhat references Back to the Future, and anything paying tribute to BTTF immediately sparks my interest (this tie-in may have even influenced my vote for president). The comedy short comes from FunnyorDie.com and stars Paul Scheer of Human Giant (and Bride Wars, just to make this more movie-related) in two roles. One role, really, but its divided into two parts, “Alex” and “Future Alex.” And the whole thing is a play on the idea of fashions of the future. Anyway, the video made me think of the Oscars’ usual ignorance of science-fiction costumes, particularly of designs for films set in the future (meaning Star Wars‘ win in the category was apparently okay). Why wasn’t Jean-Paul Gaultier nominated for The Fifth Element? And what about Milena Canonero for A Clockwork Orange? Of course, even more disappointing than those snubs was the failure to nominate Joanna Johnston for Back to the Future Part II, a film so visionary in its futuristic fashions that fans campaigned to have Nike produce a pair of sneakers similar to those seen in the movie. Maybe we won’t have self-drying clothes in 6 years, but what a great concept and what a great execution of that idea in Marty McFly’s jacket. Much better work than anything seen in Driving Miss Daisy, that’s for sure. If only we could go back in time and change the Academy’s mind. “Clothes to the Future” with Paul Scheer from Paul Scheer Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/tenenbaums/archive/2009/1/27/39969.aspx Post By: Tenenbaums
Post To: Tenenbaums Blog
Post Date: 1/27/2009 2:28:04 PM
Body: Last week, I told you about the best film of 2008. Today, I'll tell you about the worst.This particular stinker has the distiction of being on several critics' year-end Best Of lists (including both Adam and Matty from my beloved Filmspotting) and of earning a score of zero on the Metacritic score from the honorable A.O. Scott of the New York Times, thereby placing it in the ranks of the worst of all time. The film is cloaked as a high-brow commentary, meant to inspire dialogue strumming up the brilliance of its writer/director. It is also a shot-by-shot remake of the German original from 10 years ago, translated to English so that the original target audience can experience the message without subtitles. And it is a huge failure. The film is Funny Games.A film isn’t brilliant because it tells viewers that it’s brilliant. Audiences should not allow a filmmaker to convince them that a film is masterful, that it’s meant to challenge them and the conventions of Hollywood by playing with their emotions and viewpoints on violence. Writer/director Michael Haneke is a talented filmmaker, but it's excruciating to see worthy issues of cinema and audience preconceptions invalidated by patronizing.A startling creepiness factor is noticeably present in the film's opening half hour or so, in which two young men (Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet), dressed in white complete with white gloves, terrorize a wealthy family (Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, and Devon Gearhart) at their lakeside vacation home. But when the violence begins, the audience is in for a forced lesson so telling in style that it robs itself of any legitimacy.Haneke plays with suspense-film standards that audiences have come to accept. Instead of graphic scenes of violence, all such scenes take place off camera and are replaced with long, close-up reactionary shots of the survivors; Pitt's character talks directly to the audience multiple times, ironically checking in on their natural responses; A scene runs beyond its tolerable length, thereby drawing attention to itself; When the payoff of good defeating evil occurs, a scene so satisfying that the audience is nearly salivating for it, Haneke provides that gratification and then immediately erases it. Haneke has been banking on the audience's thirst for justice from the first scene of discomfort, and though the message is effective, it is immediately lost in the filmmaker's out-of-control ego.All of Haneke's devices are noteworthy in theory, but his execution is beyond heavyhanded. Contrastingly, Stanley Kubrick (with the help of Anthony Burgess' novel) achieves true brilliance with his handling of ultra-violence in A Clockwork Orange. In that film, the institutional dismantling of protagonist Alex's sadistic past through prolonged exposure to drugs and that very same ultra-violence pulls the audience along through the treatment. These scenes are intense and difficult, but the film up to that point has meticulously prepared the audience for such a redemption by fire. Kubrick is inviting the audience, after enduring some of the most brutal scenes they've ever seen, to decide whether the transformation is effective. Based on the resulting heartbreak of the rehabilitated Alex, the film stands a giant success without being preachy. In Funny Games, the audience is given no such freedom, leaving to question whether Haneke respects his viewers' intelligence at all.Additionally, instead of an intelligent meditation on film audiences' perception of violence and thrillers, the brutal, pointless cruelty evoked by the torturers is the primary message to shine through. Haneke is working with the above brand of terror that rivals that of The Dark Knight, yet he fails to provide any accompanying thought or escapism. This is full-throttle malice with no parachute, and though such safe refuge is not required in film (see The Bicycle Thief or most classic European cinema), Haneke's approach comes off as pointlessly damaging. Combined with the filmmaker's overstated contrivances, the film overall provides nothing other than frustration. There is an authentic feeling of wasted time and empty manipulation felt at the conclusion of Funny Games, and that gut reaction is what the film deserves. The abundant cruelty, however depicted, is the film's legacy along with the ever-present strings of a puppetteer. The tools for brilliance are there, but Haneke is just too damn smart to make the film work.
]]>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:28:04 GMTTenenbaumsTenenbaums Blog1/27/2009 2:28:04 PMLast week, I told you about the best film of 2008. Today, I'll tell you about the worst.This particular stinker has the distiction of being on several critics' year-end Best Of lists (including both Adam and Matty from my beloved Filmspotting) and of earning a score of zero on the Metacritic score from the honorable A.O. Scott of the New York Times, thereby placing it in the ranks of the worst of all time. The film is cloaked as a high-brow commentary, meant to inspire dialogue strumming up the brilliance of its writer/director. It is also a shot-by-shot remake of the German original from 10 years ago, translated to English so that the original target audience can experience the message without subtitles. And it is a huge failure. The film is Funny Games.A film isn&rsquo;t brilliant because it tells viewers that it&rsquo;s brilliant. Audiences should not allow a filmmaker to convince them that a film is masterful, that it&rsquo;s meant to challenge them and the conventions of Hollywood by playing with their emotions and viewpoints on violence. Writer/director Michael Haneke is a talented filmmaker, but it's excruciating to see worthy issues of cinema and audience preconceptions invalidated by patronizing.A startling creepiness factor is noticeably present in the film's opening half hour or so, in which two young men (Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet), dressed in white complete with white gloves, terrorize a wealthy family (Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, and Devon Gearhart) at their lakeside vacation home. But when the violence begins, the audience is in for a forced lesson so telling in style that it robs itself of any legitimacy.Haneke plays with suspense-film standards that audiences have come to accept. Instead of graphic scenes of violence, all such scenes take place off camera and are replaced with long, close-up reactionary shots of the survivors; Pitt's character talks directly to the audience multiple times, ironically checking in on their natural responses; A scene runs beyond its tolerable length, thereby drawing attention to itself; When the payoff of good defeating evil occurs, a scene so satisfying that the audience is nearly salivating for it, Haneke provides that gratification and then immediately erases it. Haneke has been banking on the audience's thirst for justice from the first scene of discomfort, and though the message is effective, it is immediately lost in the filmmaker's out-of-control ego.All of Haneke's devices are noteworthy in theory, but his execution is beyond heavyhanded. Contrastingly, Stanley Kubrick (with the help of Anthony Burgess' novel) achieves true brilliance with his handling of ultra-violence in A Clockwork Orange. In that film, the institutional dismantling of protagonist Alex's sadistic past through prolonged exposure to drugs and that very same ultra-violence pulls the audience along through the treatment. These scenes are intense and difficult, but the film up to that point has meticulously prepared the audience for such a redemption by fire. Kubrick is inviting the audience, after enduring some of the most brutal scenes they've ever seen, to decide whether the transformation is effective. Based on the resulting heartbreak of the rehabilitated Alex, the film stands a giant success without being preachy. In Funny Games, the audience is given no such freedom, leaving to question whether Haneke respects his viewers' intelligence at all.Additionally, instead of an intelligent meditation on film audiences' perception of violence and thrillers, the brutal, pointless cruelty evoked by the torturers is the primary message to shine through. Haneke is working with the above brand of terror that rivals that of The Dark Knight, yet he fails to provide any accompanying thought or escapism. This is full-throttle malice with no parachute, and though such safe refuge is not required in film (see The Bicycle Thief or most classic European cinema), Haneke's approach comes off as pointlessly damaging. Combined with the filmmaker's overstated contrivances, the film overall provides nothing other than frustration. There is an authentic feeling of wasted time and empty manipulation felt at the conclusion of Funny Games, and that gut reaction is what the film deserves. The abundant cruelty, however depicted, is the film's legacy along with the ever-present strings of a puppetteer. The tools for brilliance are there, but Haneke is just too damn smart to make the film work. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/7/39219.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/7/2009 5:00:47 PM
Body: It’s only a couple of short weeks before the 2008 Oscar nominees are announced, and the internet is abuzz with prognostications. One hotly debated topic is whether or not Wall-E can pull off a Best Picture nomination, or even a win. It would be the second animated film to be nominated in the category, after Beauty and the Beast, which got the honor before the Animated Feature prize existed. Will the stodgy old Academy seat Wall-E at the kid’s table, giving it an easy win in the animation category, or will it be allowed to play with the big boys? A best pic nomination for Wall-E would be a rare honor for animation in general, but it would also be a long over due rarity for another reason: Wall-E would only be the second best pic nominated film in the history of the Oscars to be set in the future. The only one to date is A Clockwork Orange. When you consider how many nominees are period pieces (I didn’t care to count), this represents a massive bias on the part of the Academy. It’s clear that they love the past, but they hate the future. What would the history of the Academy Awards look like if the Hollywood elite wasn’t terrified of speculative fiction? Below, seven movies about the future that should have been nominated for Best Picture: 1. Metropolis The first Academy Awards, held in 1929, gave honors to films produced in both 1928 and 1927, so this should have at least been nominated. Of course the nomination process was rather primitive back then, and American audiences probably wouldn’t have been familiar with German films such as this, but for the purpose of revisionist history, we’ll say it got snubbed. There’s something very 20th century about Art Deco skyscrapers and class conflict, but Metropolis‘ depiction of 2026 still feels relevant today. The film laid the ground work for countless sci-fi tropes, including sexy female androids (see #5). 2. On The Beach This 1959 post-apocalyptic drama stars Gregory Peck as the captain of a US submarine stationed in Melbourne. Set in the near future of 1964, nuclear war has wiped out the rest of the planet, and it’s only a matter of months before the wind brings the deadly radioactive fallout to Australia. The film is a beautiful meditation on the inevitability of death, featuring a solid performance by Ava Gardner, and the most melancholy work by Fred Astaire I’ve ever seen (he does not sing or dance). On the Beach was nominated for both Best Score and Best Editing Oscars, and director Stanley Kramer won a BAFTA. 3. 2001: A Space Odyssey Kubrick’s masterpiece wasn’t completely snubbed; it received four Oscar nominations, with a win for Visual Effects. But the fact that it didn’t get a Best Picture nomination is criminal. The film is consistently listed on top 100 movie lists, and breaks the top ten on plenty of them. It’s clear that something went very wrong that year. Perhaps the snub can be blamed on the fact that the film was so far ahead of its time, that many people just didn’t get it. Pauline Kael said it was “a monumentally unimaginative movie.” 4. Solaris This 1972 Russian science fiction film is just as cerebral as 2001, and perhaps an even deeper plumb of the human psyche. The Palme d’Or nominated film, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, follows the story of psychologist Chris Kelvin as he ventures to a distant space station, orbiting the water-covered planet Solaris. The station has fallen into disarray, and Kelvin soon figures out why. An apparition of his dead wife appears, apparently created by Solaris using Kelvin’s brain waves. The film is slow and introspective, and is one of those rare gems of science fiction that transcends the trappings of the genre. It should have at least been nominated for Best Foreign Language Film; instead, it wasn’t nominated for anything. 5. Blade Runner For some, saying that Blade Runner was one of the five best films of 1982 is stating the obvious. Perhaps the blending of sci-fi and noir seemed at the time to be nothing more than a cheap genre gimmick. But the enduring quality of Blade Runner makes it clear that it deserved more than the two nominations in received for Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects. The snub of Blade Runner is perhaps the best way to prove the Academy’s bias toward the past, when you consider that Ridley Scott’s 2000 film, Gladiator was not only nominated for Best Picture, but it won! I repeat, Gladiator won Best Picture, while Blade Runner was not even nominated. Which did you think was the better movie? 6. Brazil Terry Gilliam’s dystopian black comedy might have had a shot at few Academy awards if Gilliam hadn’t burned every bridge in Hollywood as he made it. The film operates in the dystopian mold cast by 1984, with a healthy dose of dark humor and fantasy. It’s one of the most egregious examples of a studio re-cutting a film and essentially destroying it in the process. Fortunately, Gilliam’s cut is readily available on DVD now, but the director’s trustworthiness in Hollywood is still highly suspect. Gilliam is one of those filmmakers who, no matter how good a movie he makes, will never be welcomed into the inner sanctum. Still, Brazil deserved a Best Picture nomination. 7. Children of Men When the 2006 Best Picture nominees were announced, you may have heard a faint stream of cursing on the wind. That was me. I know that people tend to win Oscars when they’re “due,” which easily explains why The Departed took home the top prize, but the fact that Children of Men wasn’t even nominated is just silly. It was nominated for Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing, which is the Academy’s way of saying, “Wow, this movie is incredible, but it’s about the future, so let’s only honor that one really long take near the end.” Bullshit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:00:47 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/7/2009 5:00:47 PMIt’s only a couple of short weeks before the 2008 Oscar nominees are announced, and the internet is abuzz with prognostications. One hotly debated topic is whether or not Wall-E can pull off a Best Picture nomination, or even a win. It would be the second animated film to be nominated in the category, after Beauty and the Beast, which got the honor before the Animated Feature prize existed. Will the stodgy old Academy seat Wall-E at the kid’s table, giving it an easy win in the animation category, or will it be allowed to play with the big boys? A best pic nomination for Wall-E would be a rare honor for animation in general, but it would also be a long over due rarity for another reason: Wall-E would only be the second best pic nominated film in the history of the Oscars to be set in the future. The only one to date is A Clockwork Orange. When you consider how many nominees are period pieces (I didn’t care to count), this represents a massive bias on the part of the Academy. It’s clear that they love the past, but they hate the future. What would the history of the Academy Awards look like if the Hollywood elite wasn’t terrified of speculative fiction? Below, seven movies about the future that should have been nominated for Best Picture: 1. Metropolis The first Academy Awards, held in 1929, gave honors to films produced in both 1928 and 1927, so this should have at least been nominated. Of course the nomination process was rather primitive back then, and American audiences probably wouldn’t have been familiar with German films such as this, but for the purpose of revisionist history, we’ll say it got snubbed. There’s something very 20th century about Art Deco skyscrapers and class conflict, but Metropolis‘ depiction of 2026 still feels relevant today. The film laid the ground work for countless sci-fi tropes, including sexy female androids (see #5). 2. On The Beach This 1959 post-apocalyptic drama stars Gregory Peck as the captain of a US submarine stationed in Melbourne. Set in the near future of 1964, nuclear war has wiped out the rest of the planet, and it’s only a matter of months before the wind brings the deadly radioactive fallout to Australia. The film is a beautiful meditation on the inevitability of death, featuring a solid performance by Ava Gardner, and the most melancholy work by Fred Astaire I’ve ever seen (he does not sing or dance). On the Beach was nominated for both Best Score and Best Editing Oscars, and director Stanley Kramer won a BAFTA. 3. 2001: A Space Odyssey Kubrick’s masterpiece wasn’t completely snubbed; it received four Oscar nominations, with a win for Visual Effects. But the fact that it didn’t get a Best Picture nomination is criminal. The film is consistently listed on top 100 movie lists, and breaks the top ten on plenty of them. It’s clear that something went very wrong that year. Perhaps the snub can be blamed on the fact that the film was so far ahead of its time, that many people just didn’t get it. Pauline Kael said it was “a monumentally unimaginative movie.” 4. Solaris This 1972 Russian science fiction film is just as cerebral as 2001, and perhaps an even deeper plumb of the human psyche. The Palme d’Or nominated film, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, follows the story of psychologist Chris Kelvin as he ventures to a distant space station, orbiting the water-covered planet Solaris. The station has fallen into disarray, and Kelvin soon figures out why. An apparition of his dead wife appears, apparently created by Solaris using Kelvin’s brain waves. The film is slow and introspective, and is one of those rare gems of science fiction that transcends the trappings of the genre. It should have at least been nominated for Best Foreign Language Film; instead, it wasn’t nominated for anything. 5. Blade Runner For some, saying that Blade Runner was one of the five best films of 1982 is stating the obvious. Perhaps the blending of sci-fi and noir seemed at the time to be nothing more than a cheap genre gimmick. But the enduring quality of Blade Runner makes it clear that it deserved more than the two nominations in received for Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects. The snub of Blade Runner is perhaps the best way to prove the Academy’s bias toward the past, when you consider that Ridley Scott’s 2000 film, Gladiator was not only nominated for Best Picture, but it won! I repeat, Gladiator won Best Picture, while Blade Runner was not even nominated. Which did you think was the better movie? 6. Brazil Terry Gilliam’s dystopian black comedy might have had a shot at few Academy awards if Gilliam hadn’t burned every bridge in Hollywood as he made it. The film operates in the dystopian mold cast by 1984, with a healthy dose of dark humor and fantasy. It’s one of the most egregious examples of a studio re-cutting a film and essentially destroying it in the process. Fortunately, Gilliam’s cut is readily available on DVD now, but the director’s trustworthiness in Hollywood is still highly suspect. Gilliam is one of those filmmakers who, no matter how good a movie he makes, will never be welcomed into the inner sanctum. Still, Brazil deserved a Best Picture nomination. 7. Children of Men When the 2006 Best Picture nominees were announced, you may have heard a faint stream of cursing on the wind. That was me. I know that people tend to win Oscars when they’re “due,” which easily explains why The Departed took home the top prize, but the fact that Children of Men wasn’t even nominated is just silly. It was nominated for Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing, which is the Academy’s way of saying, “Wow, this movie is incredible, but it’s about the future, so let’s only honor that one really long take near the end.” Bullshit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 830

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT8748157830Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/brilliant/MemberTagFilms.aspxbrilliant
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 285

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT179137285Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drugs/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrugs
Number of films tagged: 1643

Number of people who tagged: 130

Number of times used: 488

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:36:00 GMT1643130488Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sex/MemberTagFilms.aspxsex
Number of films tagged: 2414

Number of people who tagged: 126

Number of times used: 548

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:42 GMT2414126548Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disturbing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisturbing
Number of films tagged: 283

Number of people who tagged: 119

Number of times used: 394

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT283119394Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverrated
Number of films tagged: 152

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT152106240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Boring/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT177105207Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sci-fi/MemberTagFilms.aspxsci-fi
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 103

Number of times used: 375

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT217103375Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 524

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 623

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:04:41 GMT524102623Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/future/MemberTagFilms.aspxfuture
Number of films tagged: 492

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 258

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:46:43 GMT492101258Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Crazy/MemberTagFilms.aspxCrazy
Number of films tagged: 133

Number of people who tagged: 98

Number of times used: 180

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:53:36 GMT13398180Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/weird/MemberTagFilms.aspxweird
Number of films tagged: 90

Number of people who tagged: 83

Number of times used: 131

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:57:36 GMT9083131Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/violence/MemberTagFilms.aspxviolence
Number of films tagged: 952

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 240

]]>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:34:09 GMT95282240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Creepy/MemberTagFilms.aspxCreepy
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 211

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT17081211Tag