Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

A Clockwork Orange

Jasonbot

Jasonbot

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Aug 15, 2006
2,467
0
The Rainbow Nation RSA
I've finished reading the book and recently watched the movie and was just thinking how much of a cult classic it is. The book and movie tie in quite well bar a few things but the thing that really ticks me off is the awkward, almost tacky settings in the movie vs. what I had imagined in the book. Has anyone else 'round here read/watched the movie/book. I realise it's old but it is a classic right?
 
Not sure about A Clockwork Orange.

But I think your equation is incorrect:

x^2+4=0
x^2=-4
x=±2

-2 or 2 squared is 4.

4 does not equal -4.

You answer would be correct if the equation was:

x^2-4=0
x^2=4
x=±2

Of course I could be missing something.
 
I watched this a few weeks ago for the umpteenth time and have also read the book, but that was some time ago. I believe that the main themes of the novel are well-reflected in Kubrick's film but the ending of the film is a little ambivalent... can't remember how the book ends, but apparently there are are a number of different version in print, some with a missing chapter (21).

You have to remember that it was filmed some time ago, that was a pretty standard portrayal of what the 'future' could potentially look like with the added Kubrick twists from the perspective of late 60's-early 70's.

In later years, Anthony Burgess and Stanley Kubrick fell out over a number of issues, according to Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)#Anthony_Burgess.27s_response
 
sushi said:
Not sure about A Clockwork Orange.

But I think your equation is incorrect:

x^2+4=0
x^2=-4
x=±2

-2 or 2 squared is 4.

4 does not equal -4.

You answer would be correct if the equation was:

x^2-4=0
x^2=4
x=±2

Of course I could be missing something.
Click to expand...


I just noted that. See, I was doing some maths and thought it time for a new sig. I changed it after realising my error. :(
 
sushi said:
Ah, I see.

Of course you could always use some imaginary (i) numbers.
Click to expand...

Ya, Ill do an equation now...

x^2=-4
x=4i ?? Is it 4i or 2i
root -4 to teh power of 2 =4 right?

Anyways, anyone here actually read the book? Or are macrumorers all viddying vonny creeches.
 
Jasonbot said:
Ya, Ill do an equation now...

x^2=-4
x=4i ?? Is it 4i or 2i
root -4 to teh power of 2 =4 right?

Anyways, anyone here actually read the book? Or are macrumorers all viddying vonny creeches.
Click to expand...

x^2 + 4 = 0
x^2 = -4
x = sqrt(-4) = sqrt(4)*sqrt(-1)
x = 2i (could be -2i too though)

Using the quadratic equation:
x^2 + 4 = 0
x^2 + 0x +4 = 0
a=1, b=0, c=4
x = (-0+-sqrt(0^2 - 4*1*4))/(2*1)
x = +-sqrt(-16)/4 = -sqrt(-4)
x = +-sqrt(4)*sqrt(-1)
x = +-2i

Never read or seen Clockwork Orange.
 
x²+4=0
x²=-4
x=sqrt(-4) V x=-sqrt(-4)
x=2*sqrt(-1) V x=-2*sqrt(-1)
x=2i V x=-2i
 
Blue Velvet said:
You have to remember that it was filmed some time ago, that was a pretty standard portrayal of what the 'future' could potentially look like with the added Kubrick twists from the perspective of late 60's-early 70's.
Click to expand...

I'd go with that... it's very much a product of its times.
 
ROFL how this turned into a maths thread.

re a clockwork orange, it depends on what version you read. I have the one with chapter 18 (I think) where he goes back to the Milkbar and well the ending is surprise. But many people hated that ending for various reasons.

I agree, the ending in the movie is odd, but overall I still think the film is a classic and Burgess' theory or language inventions are amazing to anyone interested in linguistics.
 
Jasonbot said:
but the thing that really ticks me off is the awkward, almost tacky settings in the movie vs. what I had imagined in the book.
Click to expand...
I suppose so, but it is supposed to be Alex's retelling of events rather than a documentary-style view of that world. The almost cartoony portrayals always seemed okay to me.
 
jng said:
ROFL how this turned into a maths thread.

re a clockwork orange, it depends on what version you read. I have the one with chapter 18 (I think) where he goes back to the Milkbar and well the ending is surprise. But many people hated that ending for various reasons.

I agree, the ending in the movie is odd, but overall I still think the film is a classic and Burgess' theory or language inventions are amazing to anyone interested in linguistics.
Click to expand...

I read the one with the missing last chapter but found the final chapter on the internet, it was good (excellent) and bought the story full ciccle showing Alex back on a life of crime which he actually almost gets bored of and gives up instead of requiring the Ludivico technique to "cure" him.
 
This book kind of freaked me out. Burgess definately wasn't afraid to go to some extremes to make his point... :p
 
the book is great. and i did enjoy the movie, but as BV stated, the last chapter was originally left out of the US release for various reasons and as such the film doesn't include it either, which makes the whole thing a bit different between the two. Burgess was a great writer. love his work.
 
iGav said:
I'd go with that... it's very much a product of its times.
Click to expand...

Agreed. When the movie played in the Boston area in '71-'72, It was rated "X", and for a short time, bore the "Banned in Boston" legend. (Most members here are probably not old enough to remember the "X" rating. It simply meant that no one under eighteen was admitted under any circumstances to a movie that bore this rating. ) The movie was very controversial. "Everyone needs to see this movie!" vs. "This movie is total garbage, and the book should be banned", were heard a lot. You were considered "rebellious" if you had read the book, and really rebellious if you went to see the movie.

I do indeed consider it to be a classic. It helps I think, if one reads the book before viewing the movie. I seem to remember barnes and noble releasing an edition recently, that contains the missing chapter 21. I could be mistaken.

Today, the sex and violence portrayed in the movie really don't shock anyone.

Sort of off-topic: The "Banned in Boston" bit comes from the time when the Boston archdiocese and and old (now long defunct) organization called "The watch and ward society" were actually able to censor books, publications, and movies for material they just didn't like. It turned into a marketing tool. I think the last movie to be "banned in boston" was Caligula, which also starred Malcolm MacDowell, oddly enough.

Oh yeah, how I got to see "Clockwork Orange" at age 15: The old fashioned way. A friend at the theater let me in. :D

The Theme is in my iTunes library.
 
Jasonbot said:
I read the one with the missing last chapter but found the final chapter on the internet, it was good (excellent) and bought the story full ciccle showing Alex back on a life of crime which he actually almost gets bored of and gives up instead of requiring the Ludivico technique to "cure" him.
Click to expand...

Does he really go back to a life of crime? Think about it. He sees the picture of a child and it sparks something in him - maturity. That's what irked me about the movie. In the book and story as Burgess envisioned it (from what I understand) Alex isn't cured by any technique, rather he grows up or rather will grow up. I took it as Burgess was making a statement not just about teenagers and adolescence but rather about us all and the - what some would call - "primitive" desires and instincts we have: not just physical sex and attraction, but also to be loved by our own families, esp. our mothers.
 
The book is on my list to read, but there are many before it.

The movie though is a cult classic and by far one of my favorite movies. Kubrick was one of the best directors ever (still is). Anyone who tries and tell me that 2001: A Space Odyssey was not a phenominal movie is out of their mind. :p
 
That is still one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen. It's right up there with Eraserhead. It's not something I care to see repeatedly, but it's still one of the greats.
 
i can watch the movie over and over again. i have read the book 4 times, everytime i read it i get someting new from it. one of the few books that does that for me. Malcolm McDowell as an actor is highly underrated in the role as Alex. it is my #1 Stanley Kubrick movie, tied with The Shining.
 
bartelby said:
Tacky?:eek:

Which bits?
Click to expand...

The general settings look all tacky and immitation futuristic, like teh retro chairs+wallpapers and even the clothing the people wear as opposed to the height of fashion they should be wearing in the 1950's/60's or whatever.

bartelby said:
1985 is another good Anthony Burgess book.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a George Orwell book?
 
yes, I have. I read the book years before I saw the film since I was living in England where is was (perhaps still is) banned. Kubric apparently WANTED it banned (sanctimonious git).
What surprised me about the book was that so much attention had been given to the violence etc. that no one mentioned the brilliant linguistic play and invention. The writing is breathtaking. Ultimately, I found the book unsettlingly conservative in spirit and the film completely lacking the vibrancy of the novel...

YT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back