A Clockwork Orange : there will never be a film this powerful ever made again

bc even years years after i first watched it it still shocked stunned and absolutely blew me away

i cant think of any movie made from 1990 on that is as powerful as this film. the only movie close to as powerful as this film is true romance. i'm talking a movie that is so explicitly realistically violent that if feels like the real thing which makes for the most powerful movie.

the depictions of violence in this film are as real as anything put on film.

i cannot imagine the reception it got when it first came out in theaters. everyone must have been shell shocked in a stupor leaving the theater.

i really want to find out about this. did anyone on here watch it in a theater when it first came out?

every movie made before this movie the violence is not really explicitly shown or visceral which is 2 descriptors of the violence in this film.

---

lukejbarnett

"did anyone on here watch it in a theater when it first came out?"

My first time seeing it was in a theatre and I had no idea what the fuck I just watched and why it was such a big deal.

I fucking hate it now.

One of the worst movies ever made.

---

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

One of the worst movies ever made.

No, that would be Jubilee.

so what do you think of it? was it not the most powerful film you've ever watched? not personally necessarily but objectively, to the masses?

there is something about the presentation of violence and sex, them being shown so casually that is daunting on the viewer.

also these things are hyper realistic and hyper explicit.

even the 2nd time i watched it i was stunned, left disquieted.

the fact that you are forced to be complicit in the violence and rape and responsible for it bc of the pov camera style and perspective of the story is alarming and hard to take.

---

lukejbarnett

I find ACO interesting viewing, but it doesn't really rock my boat much. It wasn't until about 1988 when I saw it on a re-release.

There are many other powerful films since this one that I would prefer to watch.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

As a kid I didn't know such a thing as a re-release showing existed. I'd be shocked and call someone old if they said they saw Clockwork Orange in the theaters.

---

Bing.. Wobbledy wobble, wo-wo-wobble, wobbin'
https://vocaroo.com/1hz4nrSop8zd

Well one can look at it the other way, one could have been too young, or not even born upon initial release. It was a very adult themed movie and ACO wasn't available on home video either until the 90's.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

I saw it in a theater, and it was glorious! It's one of my top five favs of all time. Number one, of course, is 2001: A Space Odyssey. It's the greatest film of all time imho, and I've seen it several times in a theater.

And yes, I am old. But as the saying goes "Do not be distressed by becoming old. It is a privilege denied to many."

---

😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 😠 Let's go, Brandon! 🙂 I like cashews!

I thought it was fascinating. Was it the movie's depiction of violence that turned you off?

Malcolm McDowell was excellent and I love the weird, electronic score.

---

"My life is over. I might as well dance with Johnny Slash!"

"Was it the movie's depiction of violence that turned you off?"

Yes.

---

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

The lighthearted violence made me nauseous and I'm glad I never saw it on the big screen.

I didn't like that aspect of it either, at all

---

If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana

It's one of my top five favs of all time. Number one of course, is 2001: A Space Odyssey.

---

😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 😠 Let's go, Brandon! 🙂 I like cashews!

Requiem for a Dream is pretty damn powerful and much more relentless than Clockwork, I've heard the Belarusian war drama "Come And See" is also overwhelming for many and have heard them say the most powerful movie they've ever seen. period. Both were made after ACO.

Historically speaking ACO might be a ground breaking movie for depicting sex and violence but both have been ramped up considerably in the ensuing decades since it's release so now it's very tame by comparison (look at the "torture porn" genre).

Requiem for a Dream is pretty damn powerful and much more relentless than Clockwork, I've heard the Belarusian war drama "Come And See" is also overwhelming for many and have heard them say the most powerful movie they've ever seen. period. Both were made after ACO.

Good calls! I would prefer to watch RFAD and C&S over ACO and both I find more powerful and potent.

I find ACO only interesting as part of the Kubrick oeuvre and there are far more powerful films. Many in fact.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Also Bonnie And Clyde is more violent than A Clockwork Orange and was released first and the spaghetti western genre has violence in it and many of those were made first too.

wrong, bonnie and clyde is like a disney movie compared to aco. now while i found the violence and blood and realism of violence in b and c to be quite graphic for its time 1967 so i could understand the social importance of it the violence is never really shown in visual ways.

you still feel disconnected from it like watching a tv show in the '80s like the a team where you dont really see the violence. whereas in aco it is shown in very disturbing, in your face, this is how it is graphic ways.

apparently you don't know what the violence in aco is like. i mean it's a harrowing experience watching the hardcore no hollywood tricks special effects. it's not a hollywoodized glamorized or fake you can tell it not real violence. it is the most violent movie ever made as far as i'v ever seen.

it's historic bc of its' depictions of sex and nudity and violence. adn i have the book on this subject. its' called something like ultra violent movies. it details all the important landmark movie of violence change in cinema history.

---

lukejbarnett

Alex and his droogs are shown fighting a gang at the start and you don't see much just someone drop kicking, someone landing through a table, someone being tossed through the air and a chair being broken over someone, from the best of my memory that's more or less it and that is extremely tame, next to the bloodbath in Bonnie and Clyde, bullet's going into bodies etc, it's nothing.

We see them hitting a homeless fellow with their canes and booting him, it's largely in shadows and at somewhat of a distance compared to the violence of gunfire in Bonnie and Clyde and the spaghetti westerns, the scenes in Hitchcock's "The Birds" and the visual of people with their eyes gouged out.

Then Alex boots the writer three times, once up the chin and twice in the stomach to the beet of singin' in the rain, I think he spanks his wife one time with his cane too, then the rape is totally off screen so doesn't count.

A glass bottle of milk is smashed over his face, he has his injured nose pressed on and squeezes the guys balls and gets punched across the face, during the "treatment"/ demonstration he gets hit a couple of times but very tame and has to lick a boot.

Come to think of it the violence in ACO is spaced out and tame when it happens, note above it's all a kick or a slap and then no violence for awhile and then a little small amount again, the most violent stuff is Alex's biblical fantasy of whipping Jesus and stabbing people with swords and even that is tame and technically off screen (least the whipping mostly is I think).

Then he jumps from a window and you don't technically see the fall/impact, to call a movie with this as it's extent the most violent ever made is hard to conceive a modern movie goer saying, Bonnie and Clyde you DO see the violence, you seem to be saying it cuts away and is implied that's not true.

it's not just about what you see its what you feel, disturbing viscerally on a different kind of level, subconscious and what you imagine. and in aco it is far and away the most disturbing violence ever which resonated with audiences over 50 years now.

this movie is legendary for it's bad reputation. it has a well earned notorious, infamous reputation of being dirty, sinful, and transgressive. this mvoie was so ahead of its time with it's depictions of violence hardcore violence that really stay with you disturbs you long after you've watched this film.

this is also about perspective and time frame. in 1971 before this film came out no one had ever seen this real of depictions of violence or sex in a major hollywood release film.

any film historian or person who has watched 1000 movies or knows about the history of violence and sex in movies knows this. so you arguing is futile, pointless, ignorant, and quite frankly shows you do not know about the history of vioence and sex in movies.

it's widely known, accepted and obvious that this film changed the course of what was accepted in movies by the MPAA. so if that is not enough to prove that this film was way ahead of it's time in terms of explicit violence and nudity and sex then i don't know what is.

---

lukejbarnett

this is also about perspective and time frame. in 1971 before this film came out no one had ever seen this real of depictions of violence or sex in a major hollywood release film.

Watch Ken Russell's The Devils - '71 from the same year. That is far more powerful and disturbing in its imagery and violence.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

I saw "The Devils" once and that was enough for me. It was highly unpleasant. Ken Russell puts me off.

---

"My life is over. I might as well dance with Johnny Slash!"

Russell was a true and genuine auteur, but his excesses diminished a lot of his work.

I like Women In Love , The Boyfriend, The Music Lovers, Tommy and from the 80's I like Altered States, Crimes Of Passion, Lair Of The White Worm which is a hoot and Salome' Last Dance is fun to watch as well.

There are several I need to see. I can't say if I like The Devils. It was designed to shock and it is very disturbing indeed.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

I still want to see "Altered States", because it looks so unusual. And "Crimes of Passion", because I think you said that Kathleen Turner gives a very good performance and I do like her.

Glenda Jackson was very good in "Women in Love". But you are a lot more familiar with KR than I am.

---

"My life is over. I might as well dance with Johnny Slash!"

"it's not just about what you see its what you feel, disturbing viscerally on a different kind of level, subconscious and what you imagine."

I agree but what might be effective on one person may not be on another, every film with a disturbing reputation if you go look them up, you will find someone saying "is that it?" and express bafflement that other's are bothered by it, they'll watch it multiple times without any distressing effect on them, then someone will ask them what movie disturbed them and they'll say something which will now in turn baffle that person.


"and in aco it is far and away the most disturbing violence ever"

Disturbing is a feeling, it is something produced in brains meaning it needs a subject, it's impossible for something to be disturbing without a subject (cause who's being disturbed? the feeling doesn't exist without a feeler) so it's subjective not objective (like box office or something like that) you could say "well the most disturbing one is the one which disturbs the most amount of people then" but that would never be ACO considering how much there's been made sense, Requiem For A Dream would 100% disturb a greater percentage of people so would many, many other films which have come along with new film making techniques and less censorship in place.

I don't know what other criterion you could attempt to use other than amount of people, it's such a subjective thing anyway.

"Which resonated with audiences over 50 years now."

The movie garnered it's reputation more due to the events surrounding it, than the content in the film itself it came out and people who were caught for crimes back then (beating a homeless person to death this really happened) it became very controversial because of the things happening outside the film in reality and the media as they always do used media (movies later it'd be games) as a scapegoat so they can pin the behaviour of the youth on that and therefore shun the responsibility from themselves (like how they abused them) people love this easy answer BS to problems in society, this film got caught in the crossfires and hyped up because of THAT, not the actual stuff which is in the film itself, after all the worse the movie is made out to be the more believable they think the claim will be it's behind these things.

On top of this Kubrick pulled the movie from viewing and it couldn't be seen in England (I think it was England maybe even whole UK) until Kubrick died which took until 1999 giving it more than two decades of being this unseen, only spoken of film for many people, giving it this mythical quality, all you hear about is rape, violence and madness in it and your imagination is imagining all sorts of graphic stuff by the time many people were actually able to see the film itself, it was already infamous by now due to the crimes linked to it by the news and the controversy of it being banned, made it all seem worse than it really is so the whole "resonated with audiences over 50 years now" had a LOT of outside help from the media and Kubrick and word of mouth, I have a friend still to this day thinks there's graphic rape scenes in the movie against males and females and even thinks the movie is simply about "rape" (as if that's a plot) he wasn't even born until a long time after the movie was released and rumours and Chinese whispers still got him, shows the movies reputation is filled with BS about what it even is.

"any film historian or person who has watched 1000 movies or knows about the history of violence and sex in movies knows this."

You said ANY person will I have not watched 1000 movies on the button like you required but I have seen over 6 or 7 thousand for sure and I didn't know it so that's apparently at least one of us doesn't, then again you did say I need to have seen 1000 not more than that so guess I'd need to search around for someone who has only seen 1000, no more, no less and see if they know that or not to disprove your statement.

"so you arguing is futile, pointless, ignorant, and quite frankly shows you do not know about the history of vioence and sex in movies."

Sounds hostile, that's a bad thing, I like civil discourse and genuine respect even if I do come off as a smart ass I try not to aim it at the actual person themselves like you have here and more their statements and in a silly, playful sort of way, you sound worked up.

I just have seen movies before Clockwork which were filled with worse violence IMO and have seen MANY made sense which were a hundred times worse, like the poster who responded to me said Requiem For A Dream and Come And See, had a much stronger effect on him and I have heard from other's those are the worst they've seen granted they never said they seen Clockwork Orange but he did and considering how many "come and see is the most disturbing movie I've ever seen" comments I've seen and how well known and seen ACO is, I guarantee many of them have too.

You said any film historian or person who's seen a 1000 movies knows what you're saying is true SO my arguing is futile, pointless, ignorant etc, that "so" is key, it's actually saying BECAUSE they all know it, it makes my argument invalid, if we all pursued that thinking there'd never be an original thought, majority would always be right and any free thinking or differing opinions would be incorrect precisely because the "historians" or "educated" know differently, history is full to the brim of examples of a minority going against the so called experts and being right, changing things, it's actually an expected banality it's so common especially in science, psychology and other important fields like those, it could also happen in a trivial one like a movie debate too, that being said it's not true anyway.

wait you just contradicted yourself. you said disturbing film is subjetive not objetive. then you said the movies made many years after aco are much more disturbing like requiem for a dream. what?

but if it is subjective then how can you say also that well if the most people were disturbed by a film that means it is factually the msot disturbing?

im only going to have to give you to prove to you this film's lasting legendary reputation for being a maverick transgressive, anti autority boundary pushing as far as what the MPAA actually allowed in this film by one thing: the unprecedented at the time, the year 1971 amount of nudity in this film.

at least in american cinema at this time, 1971 we americans only had a few movies, one i can think of right now made before this film that has a lot of nudity being the 1966 film blow-up. and this might not even be an american film, it might be an Italian film. but anyway the people all speak English.

but even this film which has 5 or 6 tits doesn't have anywhere close to the amount of tits or nudity that aco has. and they are not clearly shown bc of the way one scene is edited and another is so quick a flash of a tit or tits that you can barely see either instances of nudity in these 2 scenes.

so finally in this film we have full on nudity, clear, long shots of tits. and a hell of a lot of tits. this film has at least, 12 tits! unbelievable amount of tits in this film. and it's all sprinkled out, spaced out throughout this whole film! an achievement that is amazing to behold given this film was made in 1971!

most american viewers had never seen this many tits in 1 film. so this is why and how this film changed the movie industry in america. this is a landmark nudity film.

you atacked my respect and integrity first i was only retaliating against you.

your wrong bc the film histhorians and educated people like roger ebert rate and review movies. so there is a science a way of grading films based on criteria. well honed, researched, process of taking what was learned in film school, ways of dissecting what is important in films; did the film accomplish what it set out to do is one of them that goes into the process of reviewing and rating films.

thus it is a science and a fact that critics have when they rate and review films. their facts are more important than mere opinions of just regular people reviewing and rating films.

also i have to put caligula in the category of the most disturbing filmls ever made. now this film is disturbing.

---

lukejbarnett

I didn't contradict myself disturbing is subjective and I stand by that but I said most people would find Requiem for a Dream worse I never said therefore it's objectively more disturbing because it isn't but it's objectively true most will think so, they aren't "right" though, there is no right but it will impact more people.

In regards to the nudity like you said in American movies exactly, nudity was in tons of foreign films for decades in Haxan Witchcraft through the ages you see a girl giving a demon a rim job for Christ sake or maybe it's the other way around? and that came out in the silent era, yes Clockwork had more breasts than most American films until that date, I never denied the film was historic and no doubt it would have been one of the most disturbing movies made back then for lot's of people but there was still countless films with nudity and ore violent ones, most just didn't get the attention ACO did.

"you atacked my respect and integrity first i was only retaliating against you."

I must have missed the post where I did that. The whole time I thought we were both simply disagreeing on a movie and I don't recall ever saying anything against you at all, I also don't know where your "retaliation" is, all you did was explain how it was a landmark nudity film, I don't think anything you're doing is an attack on my respect or integrity nor has anything I've said to you been an attack on yours, you sound mad in the head tbh.

"your wrong bc the film histhorians and educated people like roger ebert rate and review movies. so there is a science a way of grading films based on criteria. well honed, researched, process of taking what was learned in film school, ways of dissecting what is important in films"

You don't learn things in film school, it's a school not a place of education that being said you might luck out and learn something but it'll be stuff that I myself can learn and have learned at home like the various film movements, film history and watching and analysing movies, there is plenty of places you can learn so much online and in books, Ebert and "historians" of film are just people and just like me or anybody else their emotions and their own experience watching the film is what they draw from not any knowledge of film others aren't privy to.

Ebert himself said he based his own reviews on what the film did to him and his experience with it, there is no authority of film criticism, every opinion is worth as much as any other most of the time anyway.

"thus it is a science and a fact that critics have when they rate and review films. their facts are more important than mere opinions of just regular people reviewing and rating films."

If it was a science and a fact they wouldn't all disagree with each other, every critic if using fact would all be saying the same thing and what facts? film is subjective by nature, it's like saying because there is student's of music, who know it's history and movements then whatever songs they say are the best are indeed the best then I listen to it and it's shit to me because it's just taste just like with movie critics too.

yes you did contradict youself by saying the following, :you could say "well the most disturbing one is the one which disturbs the most amount of people then"

so if you can say it then it is correct.

thats faulty logic though bc it is factual that requiem is more disturbing than clockwork if you can ask 100 people and 90 of them say rfad is more disturbing to them than aco. that is factual and provable and true bc they said it's true. so ir's as true to them as it is to every individual person. so it's objectively true.

uh no fucking way? a movie made in 1920 something, haxan: withcraft throughout the ages has a sexual scene? and not only that but a sexually extreme scene?

i'm by no means an expert on film nudity history but i know enough and watched enough american movies to know that anerican movie makers were pussies until the late '60s, early '70s. well at least the hayes code and the mpaa were pussies and sexually repressed.

you are the one who pointed out my attacks on you. then you contrasted your style of debate which you desribed as respectfully civil.

you didn't like my insulting way of calling you ignorant.

not true. if film school was not educational then you wouldn't pay money to get a degree in film studies and the degree wouldn't be worth a career in the film field.

sorry but you cant learn what ebert knows just by listening to him. you have to go to film school to learn the process of critical film theory.

ebert was the best film reviewer of all time. and he still is. he is film. there is a very good reason why he was respected for film criticsm more than any other person in film history.

---

lukejbarnett

Your post is filled with alluding to what others think and even explicitly stating something is objectively true when 90 out of 100 say it, it's concerning, that sort of thinking is what went on in all dictatorships most famous example being Nazi Germany I suppose when 90 out of 100 said the Jews were vermin they were correct? of course they weren't and you are conflating "objectivity" with "universalism" it's just like a waste of time if someone actually thinks if a bunch of people say a false statement that means it's a true one, they're likely so far gone they aren't likely to understand anything you are saying when they can't even understand how utterly absurd that is.

History and present day is filled with examples of the majority being wrong, filled to the brim, there's already a herd mentality that takes over people anyway and many keep their real views to themselves. Best for all of us to use reason and logic, instead of irrelevant appeals like what anyone else thinks.

Your reasoning as to why film school must be educational shows an unearned faith in school "qualifications" I know you know these are given out by people and people are also very dumb and people make mistakes and many institutions are incompetent, in fact they're all as incompetent as the people running them, your faith is misplaced, film school is a waste of time, most successful filmmaker's Tarantino And Fredkin to name a couple urge you to never go whatever you do because of what a waste of time it is, money drive society and people's motives not educating others but lining their pockets etc,

Ebert did not learn any secret knowledge which can only be found inside of school and the contents of it never leave it's walls and can only be bestowed onto you if you geographically go there and learn the same, anything taught in those classes he was in left with the students in their minds and spread on the internet, into books they wrote etc, you do not need to attend a class for anything, all the info is already out there and can be accessed with much less effort and expense and Ebert employed no knowledge when critiquing films anyway he said so himself it's about how the movie made him feel and was very adamant regarding this and would simply report "what happened to him" when sitting watching it, he seemed even worked up over getting people to understand this, he was merely reporting his subjective experience and basing it on his feelings watching not any sort of knowlegde.

He would even give negative reviews for films he disagreed with morally like Friday the 13th and most famously Blue Velvet, this is not anything he learned in film school, all film critics are just judging just like any other film goer.

intersting you saying this bc a few days ago, a talk show host said about herd mentality pertaining to covid-19 in the us was akin not exagerrated, to everyone agreeing blindly with hitler during ww2 and everyone agreeing with russia in regards to the hostile and violent takeover of ukraine.

this let's agree and go along with the majority, the status quo regardless of it being wrong and dangerous and lethal bc we don't want to create controversy or trouble by disagreeing would we?

i will never agree with the gay agenda or trans agenda being force fed on everyone in america nowadays. i will die by fighting against all these immoral things.

you can't say people are gay anymore? uh what? the word gay was always acceptable to them. it's not offensive or disrespectful to them. it is merely stating they are gay not straight with no negative ill will.

they are just making up arbitrary meaningless rules as they go along anyway bc queer was always offensive and wrong before but now it is preferred? what? that makes no sense. but maybe the word is all about intent not about the word?

i have to disagree with him and roeper's very ill prepared, novice, too simplistic analysis, amateur movie review of wolf creek. one of the most effective suspense horror films to come out in the last 17 years.

their way too basic final judgment analysis was pathetic. it sounded like they just watched their first horror movie. so they had no way to compare or contrast it to any other quality horror film to adequately review or rate it.

they said it was sadistic with no reason behind it? kind of the point of a serial killer is the fact that they often don't have a motive. yet ebert gave a glowing review of a very sadistic film, much more sadistic than wc called the devil's rejects. where the antagonists were celebrated like heroes.

wait ebert gave thumb down to blue velvet? boy im sure he changed his rating years later. as it's been a cult classic for at least 30 years now.

---

lukejbarnett

ebert was the best film reviewer of all time. and he still is. he is film. there is a very good reason why he was respected for film criticsm more than any other person in film history.
—————
Wrong. That would be Pauline Kael. And Ebert would agree.

---

"My life is over. I might as well dance with Johnny Slash!"

apparently you don't know what the violence in aco is like. i mean it's a harrowing experience watching the hardcore no hollywood tricks special effects.

It's tough to watch the home invasion scene. The way Georgie paralyzes that man by by jumping and landing on his lower back with the knees…

---

Bing.. Wobbledy wobble, wo-wo-wobble, wobbin'
https://vocaroo.com/1hz4nrSop8zd

Home invasions are terrifying. Someone coming into your domain and robbing and/or killing you and your loved ones

Unimaginable

---

If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana

I thought this movie sucked ass personally.

---

Dendrolagus Uranus

I agree.

---

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall