Why was he evil?
because he was reared in a degenerate culture
>>70734704
It was in his nature. That's all.
The flick, then entertains the notion that the world would be better off letting people be their natural selves. We know that to be untrue, of course.
>>70734704
Boys will be boys.
>>70734778
>The flick, then entertains the notion that the world would be better off letting people be their natural selves. We know that to be untrue, of course.
What in the hell are you on about?
>>70734826
The treatment ruined Alex's life before he jumped off the building.
>>70734826
The ending, retard. Where they reverse the procedure to make him be his shitty awful self again because the progressive government realizes the errors of its ways.
>>70734704
no he was an edgy teen who grew up at the end of the 21st chapter
>>70734841
>>70734855
I get these posts, but what of letting people be their natural selves? And how it's untrue that it would be better? Wth is that.
>>70734924
Do you honestly think that piece of shit, that raped and killed without remorse, was a good person? Do you think he should be allowed to indulge in his every whim because it's "in his nature"?
A Clockwork Orange isn't a complicated movie or anything, dude. But it does some to be 2deep4u.
>>70735035
Dude, I just didn't understand the post because it was poorly written. Has nothing to do with the film being deep or your crappy opinion of it.
Btw, for a simple movie, it sure went over your head.
>>70735123
>Makes a thread asking a stupid question that should have been obvious by watching the motion picture.
>Then claims to be smarter than the people answering his asinine question.
Dunning-Kruger is a hell of a drug.
>>70735035
No but why keep him alive? If the guy is so bad then maybe just kill him? I mean he murdered and raped people it isn't exactly wrong to kill someone like that. To me, it is more cruel to brainwash him and make him behave than it is to just end it for him.
>>70735195
>Makes a thread asking a stupid question that should have been obvious by watching the motion picture.
I didn't understand what he/you wrote because the post was poorly written.
>>70734778
>The flick, then entertains the notion that the world would be better off letting people be their natural selves. We know that to be untrue, of course.
I think it's the comma after flick that threw me off, but this is also a bad interpretation of the film.
sorta on topic:
Why did they make the Ludovico treatment make it impossible for it's patients to have sex of any kind? When Alex realized the 9th symphony was playing in the background the doctor said "this will be the punishment aspect, the governor will be happy." But wouldn't not being able to have sex be punishment enough?
>>70735323
>I'm a boring idiot
Do you do parties?
>>70735375
Marvelesque quips but no real answer to the question. It must be /tv/!
>>70735273
You're exceeding the scope of the film's argument.
Take the work for what it is and stop asking stupid questions like "why not just sentence him to death?!"
The film raises and answers the question in its own terms that it is worse to brainwash somebody to be a good person than to allow them to continue to be a bad person. In this strict sense I would agree, but in a larger aspect I would disagree. That is, bad people shouldn't be allowed to do bad things to other people without consequence.
The point of the penal system is to rehabilitate and then allow people to return to society. The film makes it less clear than the novel that rehabilitation must be a personal journey.
So once again, this adapted novel was 2deep4u.
so end the end only the Priest and prison constable were correct, right?
>>70735438
>The film raises and answers the question in its own terms that it is worse to brainwash somebody to be a good person than to allow them to continue to be a bad person. In this strict sense I would agree, but in a larger aspect I would disagree. That is, bad people shouldn't be allowed to do bad things to other people without consequence.
This is not what the film is saying, you colossal tard.
>So once again, this adapted novel was 2deep4u
You're talking to someone else.
>>70734704
He's not evil.
>>70735570
Fantastic arguments, chap. You sure proved me wrong with those hot opinions and lack of discourse and reasoning.
But yeah, the film really does say it's wrong to brainwash people to be good people. That it's, arguably, a worse offense against man than murder or rape.
I always hated the ending to Back to the Future for the same reasons that this film criticises the brainwashing technique against Alex.
Biff no longer had autonomy. Biff's nature was to be an asshole and yet at the end of the film he was a bootlick.
He gets to live the rest of his life on his knees rather than die on his feet.
....and that's (((problematic)))
>>70734704
In the end he was cured, my brother.
He's white
>>70735865
Biff was never brainwashed. He decided to live like a bootlick after a single beating because deep inside he was a coward. The messages being portrayed here aren't equivalent at all.
>>70735893
Stormblr pls go play in traffic.
>>70735772
>But yeah, the film really does say it's wrong to brainwash people to be good
The film doesn't care about the morality of brainwashing - it's just a device to explore themes, that of personal will and freedom, and of individuality.
>That it's, arguably, a worse offense against man than murder or rape.
The film doesn't say that at all. All of these things are wrong, and the film recognizes it as such.
>bad people shouldn't be allowed to do bad things to other people without consequence.
At no point does the film say that they should. Jesus Christ. Are you mental? The ending is ironic.
>>70735438
>The film raises and answers the question in its own terms that it is worse to brainwash somebody to be a good person than to allow them to continue to be a bad person.
I think it is open to interpretation but I do agree with that argument that it is worse to brainwash somebody than it is to allow them to continue being bad. However, this wasn't arguing that prisons are immoral, just that attempts to forcibly turn someone into a good person are immoral. If anything it is arguing that, if left unrestrained, the penal system can be even worse than the criminals that inhabit it. That is not a bad argument at all and makes you consider whether your form of punishment is truly just.
>>70735992
The movie is missing an entire chapter, though, and it could be argued that Alex did pay for his sins during the course of the movie.
>>70736060
The movie is not concerned with Alex paying for his sins, as it's completely besides the point, and undermines the satire if so.
>>70735992
The hallmark of an imbecile. Mistaking commentary for irony.
>>70736040
I didn't say prisons are immoral. I said that brainwashing is. Just like the film, but the film misses out on the bigger picture. As >>70736060 says the movie is missing a chapter. Rehabilitation is a personal journey like I've said before. You can't force somebody to be sorry for their crimes. They have to do it themselves.
>>70736134
>The movie is not concerned with Alex paying for his sins
You're confused, Alex is deliberately shown as being punished through the last third of the film. Not only on the film itself, but in real life also. He got his eyelid ripped during the ludovico treatment scene, a rib broken during the beating from his droogs, etc. Kubrick tortured the guy so it would reflect on the final product.
>>70736155
>Mistaking commentary for irony.
No, that's not the sort of irony I mean. The ending is an ironic twist. Alex gets off the hook for his crimes because the state has to cover up for their mistake. There is commentary there, and it's obvious. You're just not bright enough to figure it out
>rehabilitation is a personal journey like I've said before. You can't force somebody to be sorry for their crimes. They have to do it themselves.
Huh? That's not what either the book or the movie says.
>>70736302
>ur wrong cuz ur uhm dumb
Fantastic argument, you should post more.
>>70736204
>You're confused, Alex is deliberately shown as being punished through the last third of the film.
So? This is not Alex paying for his sins. This is an ironic set of circumstances in which people take revenge on Alex. It's not supposed to be atonement. He is paying for his past misdeeds, but it's completely besides the point.
>>70736155
>You can't force somebody to be sorry for their crimes. They have to do it themselves.
I think the film is saying this too, it just isn't saying it directly it is showing you it. I am not talking about the book either, maybe you think the book is better but I don't think the movie fails at what it is trying to do.
>>70736394
>This is an ironic set of circumstances
Yes, Kubrick was mostly known for his randomness and disregard for details.
>>70736302
Dude, there's a lot of subject matter and content to be discussed and anaylzed, but I'm disregarding the politics and government crap right now because the pea brained OP asked about why Alex was evil. You're the one that is dimwitted.
>>70736402
The movie is missing a chapter is all, really. They're both fine. The book just wanes more on him returning to crime and then contemplating giving it up on his own terms.
That's what's more important to the question of "why was he evil?" and the resulting answer and implications to the plot.
>>70736355
Except I pointed out where you were wrong regarding the ironic ending. The film is not proposing how deviants should be rehabilitated, and neither is the book. The book simply says that kids like Alex will probably grow out of it. Kubrick left it out because he rightly saw it as extraneous.
>>70736527
>He thinks it's about kids and juveniles
You need to be 18 to post on this site, champ.
>>70736507
>Dude, there's a lot of subject matter and content to be discussed and anaylzed, but I'm disregarding the politics and government crap right now because the pea brained OP asked about why Alex was evil.
You said I was an imbecile for saying the ending was ironic. I defended that. Sorry I treaded on territory you refuse to encroach for fear of confusing an OP that is probably long gone.
>You're the one that is dimwitted.
Yeah, and you're not overcompensating for anything.
>>70736569
No I don't. I already said that the film's main themes deal with will power, freedom and individuality.
>>70735893
/thread
In the book he eventually chooses to stop being an asshole on his own.
I don't know why they left that part out.
>>70735964
This. I bet that all it took was for George to stand up to Biff so that every other kid in the school would no longer fear Biff.
>>70736204
That is just a coincidence. That has nothing to do with Alex himself.
>>70737441
>I don't know why they left that out
Kubrick owned an edited copy that didn't have that part.
Was Alex really evil, or just a product of his environment?
The book was much better. The movie is a 6/10 at best.
