tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6722895377719228596.post532072360372198735..comments2024-03-26T02:30:50.235-05:00Comments on The Midnite Drive-In: Tolchocking to the ClassicsQuiggyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12434473473185065992noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6722895377719228596.post-2754193563308512672016-04-19T19:15:33.787-05:002016-04-19T19:15:33.787-05:00Great job with this post! We are so lucky you dec...Great job with this post! We are so lucky you decided to join us! Thank you for that by the way!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05438426325139567933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6722895377719228596.post-30047068400948140042016-04-15T04:52:55.040-05:002016-04-15T04:52:55.040-05:00The book is definitely one of my favorites. I'...The book is definitely one of my favorites. I'm not as much a devotee of the film, although I do think Kubrick is only one of a handful of directors who could have pulled it off without being to over-the-top or too censorial. Thanks, ChrisQuiggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12434473473185065992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6722895377719228596.post-75136153254785187332016-04-14T12:43:41.906-05:002016-04-14T12:43:41.906-05:00Fabulous article on one of my all-time favorite fi...Fabulous article on one of my all-time favorite films...I can tell it's one of yours, too! It's dazzling on so many levels...the futuristic production design, Kubrick's iconic camera work, the brilliant script adaptation that teaches us the lingo of droogs in amazing shorthand...first rate. As is your post--I am excited to pull this DVD off the shelf again, thanks to you!!<br />-Chrisangelman66https://www.blogger.com/profile/16471674180789592940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6722895377719228596.post-84221033829013146652016-04-10T14:03:30.774-05:002016-04-10T14:03:30.774-05:00This movie and a previous entry "Adventures o...This movie and a previous entry "Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai..." are indications that the more profound effect a movie has on me, the better I can write about it. Thanks for the kind words.Quiggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12434473473185065992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6722895377719228596.post-42369862820155924862016-04-10T14:01:39.939-05:002016-04-10T14:01:39.939-05:00I'll say one thing. it was a very erudite rep...I'll say one thing. it was a very erudite reply. :-) Thanks.Quiggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12434473473185065992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6722895377719228596.post-15109573163212634012016-04-10T11:43:57.335-05:002016-04-10T11:43:57.335-05:00Great work, this was a big and tough subject to ta...Great work, this was a big and tough subject to tackle and I really enjoyed reading. Thanks so much for joining the blogathon! Nice to have such a great post be part of it. Kristinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11659951781597698530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6722895377719228596.post-88354397619540044892016-04-10T06:10:24.415-05:002016-04-10T06:10:24.415-05:00[Continued]
Still, some claim this element led to...[Continued]<br /><br />Still, some claim this element led to Kubrick unwittingly glorifying violent behavior, but I think there’s also something deeper and more disturbing at play: Kubrick is claiming that Alex exists in every one of us. Everyone has the potential for evil and violence, no matter their morals or personality. This is also shown in the reaction of Alex’s victims to his helpless state in the last third of the plot: of course, they have every right to desire vengeance, but their violent reactions are contrasted with the New Testament idea of “turning the other cheek” and loving one’s enemy. Both they and Alex reject these ideas, gleefully clinging to the Old Testament idea of “an eye for an eye.” In the book, F. Alexander is portrayed as especially hypocritical, since in his writings he expresses something like a Christian view of humanity, claiming all humans are “capable of sweetness” in spite of everything.<br /><br />The difference between the two endings is striking. Burgess was a lapsed Catholic, but it seems like in this case you could take the man out of the Church but not the Church out of the man, for the book’s ending has quite a Catholic philosophy: that though we are fallen beings born into a fallen world, there is potential for redemption and grace, but only if we choose it for ourselves. In contrast, Kubrick was much more cynical; even when he read the original ending (during the making of the film, I might add), he claimed he felt the story was stronger without it. Spielberg once claimed AOC was Kubrick’s “most defeatist picture,” the one in which he appears to give up on humanity. I haven’t seen all of Kubrick’s oeuvre yet, but I would have to agree. The film’s ending is both hilarious and creepy, with the individual evil of Alex DeLarge subsumed into the greater ill-will perpetuated by the totalitarian government of Burgess’s futuristic Britain. I was disappointed by this conclusion on the first viewing, having read the book first, but now having seen it again, I don’t think we are meant to leave the theatre with a sense of resolution. AOC, both book and movie (but especially the movie), is about leaving the viewer with questions, food for thought. No wonder AOC has remained popular and haunted us ever since.<br /><br />Gosh that was a long reply. Can you or can you not tell how much this story has been on my mind?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6722895377719228596.post-88534036153939206332016-04-10T06:09:34.402-05:002016-04-10T06:09:34.402-05:00[Be warned: this is a twopart post]
I just read t...[Be warned: this is a twopart post]<br /><br />I just read the book and watched the movie this year and am utterly fascinated with both—obsessed even, I’ll admit. Few works of art manage to be as disturbing, entertaining, and thought-provoking. Burgess may have felt he did better work elsewhere but the novel is much too creative and philosophically-engaging to be so blithely disregarded by its creator.<br /><br />AOC was no doubt Kubrick's most controversial movie-- and considering nearly every film he made generated some form of controversy, that's saying something! I had avoided the book and especially the picture for years due to its reputation for being unpleasant and violent, but when I got around to them this year I was taken aback by how funny both are. The comedy is very dark, but it is there. The movie has moments that even border on slapstick. In fact, in the 2007 Malcolm McDowell commentary track, McDowell said when they were making the film, the crew and cast regarded it as a black comedy and political satire. Much to his surprise at the first screening, there was not a single titter in the audience as everyone was too busy gaping at the screen with shock. However, he said the last time he went to a screening (which at the time of that recording must have been the early to mid-2000s), the audience "got it" and roared.<br /><br />The movie is still controversial to a degree, though I don’t think it’s from the depiction of the “ultraviolence” itself any longer. (Indeed the violent scenes are tame by today’s standards: they’re stylized and not always particularly bloody. We also never see the consummation of the rape of Mrs. Alexander, only the cruel, horrifying build-up.) I think it’s Alex himself who makes people uncomfortable: he’s a funny, charismatic, sexually attractive villain-protagonist who never achieves redemption and many viewers, I think, are disturbed by how much they enjoy him. Kubrick often compared Alex to Shakespeare’s Richard III, but even Richard got his come-uppance in the final act. There’s also the presentation of the material; in the essay which comes with the 2011 Blu-ray, the author observes that “[i]n Kubrick’s capable hands, even the ugliest world can be beautiful when filmed in slow-motion with a wide angle lens. We’re treated to the lovely sounds of Beethoven and ‘Singin in the Rain’ while terrible scenes are playing out before our eyes. Rather than frown on the behavior of the nefarious Alex, Kubrick invites us to delight in his evil deeds, even to mentally participate…. [L]ike Alex during the Ludovico treatment, we can’t avert our eyes from the carnage unleased by the droogs, nor can we ever hear Beethoven’s Fifth again without thinking certain uncomfortable thoughts. Is Kubrick really celebrating rape and violence? Anyone who thinks so doesn’t understand Kubrick, who surely expected his audience to read between the lines.”<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6722895377719228596.post-9702151427217121622016-04-09T18:30:28.388-05:002016-04-09T18:30:28.388-05:00Can't say I blame you for not wanting to watch...Can't say I blame you for not wanting to watch it. Even I get a little queasy sometimes, and I am closer to "jaded" than I an "innocent". Thanks.Quiggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12434473473185065992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6722895377719228596.post-85375475500850052592016-04-09T07:05:19.743-05:002016-04-09T07:05:19.743-05:00I didn't realize there were two versions of th...I didn't realize there were two versions of the book, and that the earlier book was truncated. I read the shortened version some years ago, which I found thoroughly unsatisfying. The ending didn't seem to make much sense, but you've shown me why.<br /><br />I haven't seen the film, and I admit I have no plans to because I'm one of those sensitive viewers. However, I enjoyed your review very much, along the points you raised.<br /><br />P.S. When I was a kid, my brothers and I were big fans of Mad magazine too. Like you, we loved that it referenced movies we were not allowed to see, so it made us feel all hip and In The Know. We would STUDY that magazine – I'm not kidding!Silver Screeningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04955048716754142299noreply@blogger.com