Who does this BTFO more, liberals or conservatives?
>>71850255
nobody
it's kubricks worst movie and it's only legacy is becoming a cultural symbol for edgy teens on par with fight club and donnie darko
>>71850300
Nah, it's actually a masterpiece. Edgy kids who don't understanding what it's attempting to say about free will and see Alex has an idol aren't the film's fault.
What's even the point of the movie?
>>71850255
neither, it's from the 70s so your contemporary arbitrary political split is completely irrelevant
It BTFOs certain psychologists and the original author
>>71850300
i feel like there's a containment board for idiots like you
>>71850432
I bet that you think that Tarkovsky is "deeep" and "poetic" too
>>71850300
Donnie Darko is pure comfycore take it back
>>71850499
And I bet you unironically post about how much of a masterpiece BvS is.
>>71850432
To be fair, at the heart of both modern and 70s politics was a distinction between the Left and the Right when it comes to belief in human nature, the role which biology plays in behavior, and whether or not human nature could and should be altered. The movie is political as fuck.
>>71850499
>hurr I bet you don't even into French new wave
>have you even seen a Fellini film pleb?
>>71850499
Who's your favorite director?
>>71850601
it's a very political film
but it doesn't fit into /pol/'s buzzword liberal or conservative
>>71850797
Max Ophüls and Ernst Lubitsch
>>71850836
I guess buzzword is a buzzword now
>>71850416
It’s simple as fuck. It’s not an argument in favor of human nature like some people say, but a film that already assumes that human nature exists. It’s an argument in favor of free will. Having the ability to control other people either through cognitive behavioral therapy or by various other social means is wrong because A, it can be used for nefarious political purposes, and B, in suppressing the bad aspects of human nature you could unintentionally alter its good aspects.
By the way, this tends to be a problem of the Left, which thinks that human beings are perfectible, and that social institutions are supposed to influence people for the better. A denial (or minimization) of human nature is at the center of both modern Leftist social and economic politics. People like Chomsky think that the reason human beings are bad is because the modern capitalist liberal state system alienates them to the point of madness, and that in a better system evil would almost cease to exist.
That being said, the movie isn't as simple "conservatives are right and liberals are wrong," but it could be interpreted as a libertarian film in some respects.
>>71850980
It's a multi-faceted critique of society that poses an interesting ethical question. It's not a dogmatic statement that "X is good, and Y is bad".
>>71850561
this
>>71851024
The movie clearly argues that individual sovereignty is superior to any form of cognitive control or coercion. It's posed more as a question in the book it's based on.
>>71851191
It's so much more than "teh ending wuz happy becuz he got his freedums back from the gub'mint"
>>71850601
It's a film about philosophy and ethics, not politics. We know very little about the government in the film's universe, save for the fact that they have a secretive authoritarian streak.
>>71850980
>>71851024
It's actually a criticism of the original book
On the surface it's a statement about free-will, but if you dive deeper it's a statement on the inability to change someone and the value of appearances over actual results
It's not a left/right-wing opinion piece, the most overt politics are that of politicians and the EU being shit
>>71851327
No one said it wasn't, but to imply that the film doesn't have a stance is pants-on-head retarded.
People who do this shit are so insufferable. They try to seem clever by arguing that something is deeper and more complex than how it's usually perceived, and yet bring no arguments to the table.
>>71851385
To further this, anyone who hasn't done so and is curious about the subtext behind ACO should read this
http://www.collativelearning.com/ACO%20expanded%20analysis%20.html
Just read the first chapter to understand where it's headed
The changes are too blatant and obvious for it not to be a criticism of Burgess' original book
>>71851379
What distinguishes one set of political views from another is different stances when it comes to certain ethical and philosophical questions
>>71851474
Film, theatre, literature etc. that raises questions but doesn't provide definitive answers or take a particular side is actually pretty common. It's often why these things are even communicated through stories instead of, say, a philosophy lecture.
>>71851582
Not necessarily, usually it's mere differences of opinion in how to best achieve the high-level philosophical goals in practice.
>>71851608
A Clockwork Orange has a thesis. It clearly does. I don't see how other films not having theses is relevant to this film in particular.
>>71851732
The ending is complete and utter filmic bitter-sweetness, both in tone and message. How can you say that it was meant to extol a particular viewpoint?
>>71851644
And it's a different set of beliefs that account for those different means to achieve the same goal. If the goal is a more economically prosperous country, a belief that that greed is a product of our institutions rather than an inherent aspect of human nature wil affect your views on how to best achieve that goal.
>>71851900
This tends to be how they're communicated to laypeople, but it really boils down to specialist questions of economics and governance - hardly philosophical.
>>71851896
The control resulting in the untended consequences it eventually lead to IS a point of view. The film doesn't go on to show a similar kid going through the same process of indoctrination but turning out fine. Arguing that cbt can lead to government control or a suppression of the positive aspects of human existence is clearly a stance.
>>71851969
Being a Rousseauian will affect your stance on economics. You can't separate your philosophical views when it comes to, say, the natural state of mankind, or the origins of alienation from your politics. If you're a biological determinist you will probably be less in favor of income redistribution than a social or environmental determinist is.
Who the fuck cares
>>71850255
Whole film is about not being able to control human nature or free will.
>>71852111
But it strongly implies that Alex will continue to murder and rape and destroy the lives of others, and doesn't answer the question of whether the trade-off is worth it at all.
>>71852459
The point of the ending wasn't to articulate the notion that either we have to live with rapists or accept government control. Of course Alex is back to his old ways; if you have a more deterministic view of human nature, you'd assume that he would. But the film still clearly argues that that the cost of that control wouldn't be innocuous, and that that sort of nefarious government control can be counterproductive even when it comes to the frequency in which violence is perpetrated. That's a clear, strong thesis that shouldn't be minimized. It wasn't a frivolous "it's up to you to decide" Inception-like ending.
>>71850255
Those hot rape scenes were dank dough
>>71850561
/thread
