TRY THE WINE
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wiktionary.org
twitter.com
i'm kinda surprised he didn't have his big gay houseboy rape Alex while he was drugged, it would have been an ironic reversal of what Alex did to his wife.
Ah, the French champagne
I cant believe you've done this
ya see
i was gonna argue that kubrick is too ""traditional"" to include male rape but the true reason is that he probably didn't want to stray too much from the book.
W E L L
E
L
L L E W
E
L
L
F O O D
A L R I G H T ?
WELL
E
L
L
This was Kubrick’s worst film by far
>in that same house
>dude clearly angry at you and giving you this look
>don't put two and two together
>not 2001
the movie doesn't explain it well but it was years since he had been in that house and considering all of the other shit alex was going through it makes sense that he wouldn't have realized until it was too late
Ready for love.
shitty bait fren.
stop
kill yourself.
is it weird to get sexually erect from looking at plants?
Why did the director autist never stick to the fucking source material.
have you actually read it?
I think he did a good job, absolutely no one else could capture it as well as he did.
adapting one medium to another almost never works 1:1 retard
both are fine on their own and both have different lessons to teach
The only thing he changed drastically was the ending, and it was definitely for the better.
>sign up for body guard / personal assistant job
>told to rape someone with known stds that killed your employer's wife
naw man
to buy some time, you have some wine
cheers
Saw this in the theater recently and when the wheelchair guy starts freaking out after realizing Alex's identity the audience started laughing their asses off.
dont know if I believe you but it is interesting how accepted visual language changes over time for cinema and scenes can take on different meanings
I laughed at this when I first saw it as a kid. Probably more a sign of the increasing immaturity in society than anything else.
Thats disappointing.
I've had similar experiences with screenings of other classic movies. Its part of the reason why I gave up on even seeing classic screenings anymore. You'd think the audience would be better about it going to see such a thing, but they're only marginally better then a crowd seeing a Transformers movie from my experiences.
i found this part horrifying desu, made me very uncomfortable
i think this is one of kubrick's comfiest,because the narration gives it a level of intimacy and explanation not found in his other stuff
When they screen classic/arthouse movies here (most sessions are sponsored by universities) the audience usually remains dead silent until the credits, then they start claping and/or screaming.
Alex's truant officer's hand on his junk would like a word with you.
>he probably didn't want to stray too much from the book.
Like how he left off the last chapter, that changes the entire story?
>known stds
Just making up shit, are we?
That would be full metal jacket
ANOTHER CLOCKWORK ORANGE THREAD, YEESSS?
A BUNCH OF FAGGOTS IN THIS THREAD, YEESSS!
Not at all my dear boy! There is a certain 'je ne sais quoi' about a firm, young carrot I must admit
It's also part of the story that Alex and his friends were high off their asses, and it's not like they took their time in the house before raping the wife, taking in the decor and layout.
That's one of his best tho, in my opinion.
And he only changed it because they changed the book and he didn't know he'd read the edited version.
Agreed
Plebs try to deal with anything that makes them too uncomfortable by laughing at it. It's a weak psychological ploy to try to reduce the thing that disturbs them to something absurd and therefore easily ignored (this doesn't actually work, but they take comfort in the posturing).
It's not not a coincidence that today's most popular entertainments are movies that have literally the fate of the entire universe at stake but are quippy as fuck and basically action comedies. Retards can only accept a serious premise if it comes heavily sugarcoated.
t. bug chaser
you might onto something user.
Lmao
FOOOOOOD....ALLLLRIIIGHHHHTT?!?!?!
Defending making shit up, huh?
are we pretending he didn't make AI and eyes wide shut?
eyes wide shut is kino
Why the fuck do you think the audience laughed? Have you even taken a look at his fucking face? I can't stop laughing myself.
he didn't make AI you fucking idiot
i'd call you a pretentious faggot if you weren't completely correct
yes he did and the shit ending was completely his idea, spielberg wanted to leave it at the kid sitting at the bottom of the sea with the blue fairy statue
It's overrated but his worst is definitely fmj.
The actor was chewing up the scenery in that scene, it was so overdone. The whole character was - he's ALWAYS TALKING VERY LOUDLY AND PRECISE, like a lot of stage trained actors are.
Kubrick very rarely did things randomly, and I'll leave it up to you to figure out why he chose that actor and that performance. I have my ideas, but I know it'll just trigger 20 more pages of autistic chicken squawking because it might be critical of Kubrick's choices.
Kubrik has never made a bad movie and a clockwork orange is one of his best.
His copy literally didn't have that ending.
he's basically having the mother of all conniption fits and if he was physically capable of it he would walk right to that bathroom and pull Alex apart with his bare hands. The actor did a great job of simulating something that few of us will ever witness and hopefully never experience personally, I guess the extreme camera angle does make his facial expressions look a little strange so I'll let your audience off the hook and not hunt them down for being plebs
If you watch some interviews, the actor said he tried to play it normally and Kubrick kept getting him to ham it up more and more, why? Idk
I still don't understand why people say it's a shit ending
A person of color, sir.
my family copes with everything by laughing. It annoyed me for a while until I realized most other families just scream at each other instead. Laughing is waaaay better, even if you know it's nervous laughter.
Kubrick never made the goddamn movie you fucking retard. He had plans and wrote some shit but he never made it, probably because he wasn't happy with it. This is a man who spent YEARS planning his movies.
What the FUCK was this guy's problem?
sounds like you need a bit of the old get out
I always thought that character was pathetic and not in the good way.
the wife died of a "mysterious illness" connected to being raped hmmm
SHE WAS VERY BADLY RAPED YOU SEE
come on big guy, the film is full of exaggerated characters, they are almost comic book tier in their mannerisms, practically grotesques, he fit right in with the prison guard, the chaplain, the truant officer, Dim, etc, they were all almost comical in their exaggerated delivery and it worked perfectly for what Kubrick wanted to create, a surreal almost fever-dream for the viewer. The scary thing is the stone cold psycho Alex is played as the most even keeled rational one of the bunch and that's why so many viewers relate to him and why he makes such a great protagonist
That's Darth Vader to you.
>yfw maybe Alex was really pozzing all of his rape victims but as an Alpha+ predator himself he was too strong to suffer from being infected with it
NO SHE’S DEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
>he watches it for the audience
fmj is the ultimate pleb filter though
Eyes Wide shut is great
Ahem
>what is Fear and Desire?
I'M GONNA SAY IT
Sounds like a faggot audience. People always hide behind laughter when confronted with things uncommon to them.
>accepted
Accepted by faggots. Good visual grammar will always be good.
Most “”””cinephiles”””” don’t actually like classic movies, but pretend they do to signal “””highbrow tastes.””””
The guys reaction IS sort of funny, the movie has some dark comedy.
A Clockwork Orange is a dark comedy I don't know what you guys are being so pissy about. Do you faggots cry when people chuckle at the dick sculpture too?
Because his version of The Shining is better than Stephen King and his made for tv garbage.
>when you nuttin but your ghost wife still suckin
Obviously it was a broken heart, like Padme
>Do you faggots cry when people chuckle at the dick sculpture too?
If i went to see the movie and i saw a bunch of manchildren going "ahahaha diiick xddd" i would cringe pretty hard too.
If I went to see the movie and I saw a faggot being all serious while a gaint dick statue is used to menace someone I'd cringe pretty hard too.
Pretty much this. Alex isn't a changed or better person at the end of the movie, he's just conditioned to feel disgust towards aggressive and sexual behavior. The worst thing that happened to him is that he can't listen to his favorite classical music anymore. However, over time the conditioning will lose it's strength and hold over him. Everything he did that was reprehensible by societies standards was forgiven and forgotten about, given the way Alex appears and responds while sitting up in the hospital bed. He was put through the ringer with jail and his kidnapping, but he's going to get away with all of it in the end. While the audience won't typically engage in the same behaviors, Alex comes out as a fantastic protagonist by the end of the film. He gets a clean slate to start anew, and there are no other characters with which the audience pulls for or are motivated to find endearing. The film is practically a way of conditioning individuals to find anti social behavior more forgivable, among other things. The film is prone towards being overblown or overpraised depending on the social circles one might find themselves; however, it really is a solid film that deserves to be preserved for future generations. Solid stuff.
my exact experience with Hereditary on a crowded weekend
>he can't take giant dick statues seriously
laughing at your life senpai
>I've actually found myself speaking nadsat at random occasions
Has any other movie featured a convincing fictional language or dialect like this?
this
dongs are just funny dude ya know? fucking libtards in there ivy towers with there gay art and shit
just like FMJ, this flick is one of the stealthiest darkest comedies ever, NOT THAT I EVER DID but if you ever watch ACO on acid with friends you'll all be howling at how hilarious it is, FMJ is a comedy too, shit he practically left in the pauses where you can mentally insert the laugh track for added surreal effect
>yfw
First time I saw the film, I laughed pretty hard. Particularly at the opening segment that documents his crime spree up until he gets arrested and also at this scene when the writer remembers what Alex did. Don't see what the issue is, the film is a dark comedy. I think I can even remember Malcolm McDowell referring to it as such. You sound like some tryhard mature faggot who takes things too seriously
No straight male would write a male rape scene
That's part of the benefit, or lack thereof, of seeing it at the theater, along with the big screen.
guys are always sharing their fantasies of how some criminal scumbag or other is going to get butt fucked in prison
I always call steak steaky wakes and eggs eggy weggs now
>has never made a bad movie
have you tried to watch "Eyes Wide Shut"?
even seeing that Sheila's tits or her peeing scene couldn't save that train wreck
this is why i wear headphones and just listen to johannes brahms whenever i watch classic screenings
Eyes Wide Shut is gorgeous. What's wrong with it?
In the book, it's vaguely implied that Alex is raped by his old friends turned cops in this scene
>sounds like you need a bit of the old get out
trips AND a funny post
dude, you need to get blowed by someone!
stunted adolescent sexuality for one
Kubrick's addiction to both refined sugar and masturbation runs through the whole film and ruins the whole film
pretty much unwatchable
>Kubrick's addiction to both refined sugar and masturbation
What are you on about
can't you read?
>Alex isn't a changed or better person at the end of the movie, he's just conditioned to feel disgust towards aggressive and sexual behavior.
I recently showed this movie to my wife for her first time. I have read the book before, so during our post-film discussion I told her about the books final chapter that does not appear in the film and how it fundamentally changes the meaning of the story. My wife sided with Kubrick's take, saying that a person like Alex simply would not change nature overtime.
>stunted adolescent sexuality
you don't think that the sexual material in the movie is present in society at all? I don't think it was just him coming up with all of it
Nadsat is really a fun language. I showed this movie to my group of friends years back and we were every so often slipping some Nadsat in conversation. My personal favorite words:
>Droog/Droogies (friend)
>Rasoodocks (mind)
>Gulliver (head)
>Yarbles/Yarblockos (testicles/balls)
I also found it mildly amusing that Alex referred to God in the novel as "Bog."
lmao look at all the (you)s you got with this gay shit
I haven't read the book, so my position is solely based on the film. Alex's character would need far graver consequences and stipulations placed upon him to begin the process of true change. From what we're shown his attitude and outlook is momentarily altered, but he's not a significantly different person. Individuals with true personality disorders are never / rarely ever get "fixed." Alex is merely in the process of adapting to the new rules, expectations, and other related factors of his environment by the end of the film. Conditioning is only strong as long as the stimuli are consistently paired. He may not become a leader of a degenerate gang again, but his anti social tendencies will manifest in some way or another. The film is fantastic in its combination of dark comedy and depiction of anti social behavior, along with how society reacts towards it and enables it in direct ways, indirect ways, and unintended ways. He's sympathetic and relatable in ways, practically an antihero. There are arguably worse people in the films reality compared to him.
that's the point. like the other 2 psychos he's going to get into a position of power and still behave like before
I watched this for the first time yesterday, but I didn't exactly get the ending? Was the minister being sarcastic about helping him or did he genuinely ended his suffering?
the old man made the government look foolish, so to save face, they gave Alex his old mind back, and made som good pr out of it. Alex is a hero now
Am I a bad person if I’ve jerked off to the rape scene?
This basically It's like what we have today, Alex is a victim and victimhood status means a lot.
Bog is Russian for god. That's where the name comes from. Son of Bogdan ("god given")
>I say plebs laugh at shit that makes them uncomfortable
>user writes post laughing at my comment
I say appy polly logies
So why was Alex randomly replacing some words with Russian or whatever it was?
because its the future and thats how rebellious teenagers talk
He was influenced by Russian bots on a forum for twisted psychopaths.
I put Ovaltine in milk and call it milk plus
Am I the only one who believes Alex has been effectively completely unaffected by his treatment? That while lying in the hospital bed in the end, would just as happily rape or kill anyone he wanted, but had learned instead to bide his time?
His aversion to sex was so extreme I wouldn't think he could casually joke about or make violent jokes in his interview with the doctor woman.
Then the final scene with him raping some broad while the crowd watches? It's obvious he's unaffected
>I was cured all right
I think you're right
The original release of the book is 21 chapters, divided into three 7-chapter parts: Alex's World, Alex being rehabilitated, and Alex post-rehabilitation. The American version of the novel only had 20 chapters, which is the version Kubrick based the film off of.
In the 21st and final chapter of the book, Alex is older, free of the forced conditioning of the Ludivico technique, and is becoming more mature. Alex lives a more "moral" life straying away from violence without the conditioning. The book ends with Alex considering starting a family with a wife and child. He ponders the scenario of his son growing up to do the same violent, criminal things he had done in the book. He thinks, about how he could try to keep his future son from following the same horrible path that he did. Alex comes to the conclusion that he cannot "force" his son to be good because he wants him to. His son can only make that choice of his own free will (hearkening back to how the Ludivco technique did not change his morality, only his behaviors).
Author, Anthony Burges, wrote the book with 21 chapters to represent 21 years of age. Burges was of the notion that growing up and figuring out things for ourselves is what makes us change and mature, believing 21 to be the general age most of us gain that maturity.
he was cured by almost dying, and yes he'd be happy to start rapine in mass again
I don't think there are 2 opinions about it this? It was fairly obvious he was still the same psycho, in the "test" he tried to grab the actress's tits almost instantly.
> I didn't exactly get the ending? Was the minister being sarcastic about helping him or did he genuinely ended his suffering?
In short, the minister is using Alex as a tool for the government.
The writer was anti-government and was a political activist that felt the Ludivico technique is inhumane. The writer's original intention was to use Alex (after being beaten by his old friends) in a story to paint Alex as a victim of government control. However, after the writer found out Alex raped his wife, his plans changed. The writer still wanted to use Alex as a tool, but decided to do this by making Alex kill himself due to the Ludivico technique.
In the hospital, the minister had the conditioning removed from Alex, "helping" Alex, but with the motive to use Alex as a tool to spin the PR against the writer and anti-government political activists. The minister is doing this by basically saying "look at these anti-government activists, trying to kill this poor boy after he was reformed by our technique, so we will remove the conditioning in order to keep him safe from those who oppose the government."
don't ever share your thoughts on a film again.
Alex was back to his typical self, while the minister did an attempt to push his own narrative. Alex is fully aware of his situation and the bullshit / happenstance that got him to where he is. He's more empowered at the end of the film compared to where he started and society is no better off.
The author of the novel had the setting in the future and created a lexicon of what he envisioned to be the slang of teens of that age. Most of it is a combinations of Russian and cockney rhyming slang.
in the book the two girls alex has sex with aren't his age, they are 10 year old children, and he doesn't just have sex with them, he rapes them
But also the old guy was like one of those hyper liberal assholes who whines all the time about criminal rights and how poverty causes crime.
His revenge seems fitting to who he was.
The film makes it pretty clear that the conditioning was removed. That psychological test they did at the end was to test that the conditioning was in fact removed. When Alex says "I was cured all right," he is affirming that he is "cured' of the Ludivico technique, i.e, he is back to his old, violent self.
Thanks for the clarification and insight, user.
EYEEE KNEWW WOT IT WOZZZZ
I thought the message of the movie was that so many facets of society rely on the presumption of their necessity for suppressing the violent criminal impulses of mankind that the people of these institutions would go so far as to systematically undermine and oppose the invention of any technique which might definitively eliminate the threat which these impulses pose to society.
B. to the A. to the S-E-D hey boy that's BASED
>Probably more a sign of the increasing immaturity in society than anything else.
t fagot
Now now, little Alex.
>spielberg wanted to leave it at the kid sitting at the bottom of the sea with the blue fairy statue
still wouldn't have stopped it from being a shitty film
Did he actually love his wife?
It's an absolute joy to watch.
Lol fagg contrarian opinion.
This was, ofcourse, Kubrick at his best
>It's not not a coincidence that today's most popular entertainments are movies that have literally the fate of the entire universe at stake but are quippy as fuck and basically action comedies. Retards can only accept a serious premise if it comes heavily sugarcoated.
Excellent point.
I went twice, once with my friend once with my gf.
The first time the audience was fucking captivated. The second time the audience was a bunch of jeering fucking brainlets and ruined the experience and my gf didn't get the intended experience. Normies are quite literally cattle.
unironically not this
Its based on a book about sexual conspiracy you fucking brainlet, of course its heavily sexual.
what movie?
one female table, please
question is did she love him?
and what happened then, o my brothers? i slashed his bollocks off, and everything was as right as rain again.
>apple file name
You're on the same page as me, but I've learned that it triggers Kubrick fanbois, for some reason.
And, the whole movie is told from Alex's point of view...and he's an unreliable narrator. Like, everyone is how Alex perceives society.
I don't know enough about that but I do know that she was VERY BADLY RAPED
>reddit file name
>knowing what a Reddit filename looks like
Tssss why dont i try the laugh or cry of somethin
its suppose to be funny is it not? malcolm mcdowell laughs at it in the commentary. He even says that audiences that laugh today are more like how he saw the film, being with dark humor.
The Dark Knight Rises