Americans got spooked
Americans got spooked
That movie delivered its themes and commentary with beautiful subtlety.
loolyeah, the subtlely of a woman getting bludgeoned to death by a giant cock statue.
what lmao
yeah, the subtlely of a woman getting bludgeoned to death by a giant cock statue.
what lmao
The reviews that came out around the Venice Film Festival were mostly positive. The reviews coming out now are basically saying what a lot of people have been saying around here and because of that it's getting rotten scores.
yeah, the subtlely of a woman getting bludgeoned to death by a giant cock statue.
what lmao
Sure, there are scenes shown from Alex's point of view that are not subtle. And that's because Alex is a psychopath and not the least bit subtle. But I'm not talking about that stuff. I'm talking about the central idea of the film, which is about the removal of Alex's choice and free will. The Ludovicho technique sought to basically deprogram the humanity out of him (choice) in order to tame him and civilize him. And the movie poses to the audience if we do this, if we basically reprogram violent criminals aren't we then just denying this part of our nature. This evil cannot be removed by society. And if it needs to be conditioned out of people then aren't we just turning ourselves into something else?
I think the idea is subtle because I don't think a lot of people came away from A Clockwork Orange understanding that underneath the non-subtle scenes were very difficult question about human nature and the role of society in maintaining order.
The controversy of the movie was the surface violent content. The shock value. But the subject matter underneath it was complex, difficult and didn't offer any easy answers. And it was mostly not SPELLED out for the audience in the same way that some of this movies seems to be
It's a polarizing movie it seems.I keep hearing good things about this movie and it keeps winning awards at film festival but why does the RT score keeps going down? I don't get it.
It's a controversial film. It's that simple. I mean just look at Dave Chappelle's latest special:I keep hearing good things about this movie and it keeps winning awards at film festival but why does the RT score keeps going down? I don't get it.
Sure, there are scenes shown from Alex's point of view that are not subtle. And that's because Alex is a psychopath and not the least bit subtle. But I'm not talking about that stuff. I'm talking about the central idea of the film, which is about the removal of Alex's choice and free will. The Ludovicho technique sought to basically deprogram the humanity out of him (choice) in order to tame him and civilize him. And the movie poses to the audience if we do this, if we basically reprogram violent criminals aren't we then just denying this part of our nature. This evil cannot be removed by society. And if it needs to be conditioned out of people then aren't we just turning ourselves into something else?
I think the idea is subtle because I don't think a lot of people came away from A Clockwork Orange understanding that underneath the non-subtle scenes were very difficult question about human nature and the role of society in maintaining order.
The controversy of the movie was the surface violent content. The shock value. But the subject matter underneath it was complex, difficult and didn't offer any easy answers. And it was mostly not SPELLED out for the audience in the same way that some of this movies seems to be
"We live in a society" etc
Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" is an ideological mess, a paranoid right-wing fantasy masquerading As an Orwellian warning. It pretends to oppose the police state and forced mind control, but all it really does is celebrate the nastiness of its hero, Alex.
Now Alex isn't the kind of sat-upon, working-class anti-hero we got in the angry British movies of the early 1960s. No effort is made to explain his inner workings or take apart his society. Indeed, there's not much to take apart; both Alex and his society are smart-nose pop-art abstractions. Kubrick hasn't created a future world in his imagination -- he's created a trendy decor. If we fall for the Kubrick line and say Alex is violent because "society offers him no alternative," weep, sob, we're just making excuses.
Alex is violent because it is necessary for him to be violent in order for this movie to entertain in the way Kubrick intends. Alex has been made into a sadistic rapist not by society, not by his parents, not by the police state, not by centralization and not by creeping fascism -- but by the producer, director and writer of this film, Stanley Kubrick. Directors sometimes get sanctimonious and talk about their creations in the third person, as if society had really created Alex. But this makes their direction into a sort of cinematic automatic writing. No, I think Kubrick is being too modest: Alex is all his.
What in hell is Kubrick up to here? Does he really want us to identify with the antisocial tilt of Alex's psychopathic little life? In a world where society is criminal, of course, a good man must live outside the law. But that isn't what Kubrick is saying, He actually seems to be implying something simpler and more frightening: that in a world where society is criminal, the citizen might as well be a criminal, too.
In 1972, Roger Ebert had this to say in regards to A Clockwork Orange:
And these passages could be minorly edited and sound very much like a review for Joker:
Critics understood the film perfectly fine at time. Plenty of them loved the film, plenty of them hated it, and they all knew it would be a heavily discussed film because of its shock value and how it presented its themes.
Rottentomatoes is hardly the best source to get review from Series and Shows.It's a controversial film. It's that simple. I mean just look at Dave Chappelle's latest special:
Ebert's review was famous for its negativity and I think completely misunderstanding the ideas in the movie
I mean this is just confirmation bias. You're choosing to believe the reviews which align with your view on the movie. It would be better to look at the actual content of the reviews and judge based on that. I was pretty skeptical of the movie before the reviews hit and I still am but seeing some positive reviews from reviewers I know has given me enough interest to watch the film, while at the same time some other reviews kind of hint at problems I was concerned about. I think at such a point it's best to judge the film by watching it than using positive reviews to champion the film or dismissing negative ones based on some larger imagined narrative.The reviews that came out around the Venice Film Festival were mostly positive. The reviews coming out now are basically saying what a lot of people have been saying around here and because of that it's getting rotten scores.
It's honestly annoying. We're going to see these type of reviews for all kinds of movies moving forward because the USA has a violence/gun problem.
This is also true of his Fight Club review I think.He showed he understood the movie in the review. Everything you mention in your post is what he mentions in his review. He just didn't think it worked.
He showed he understood the movie in the review. Everything you mention in your post is what he mentions in his review. He just didn't think it worked.
Wait so there's a disparity between American reviewers and non American for this film?
Had to laugh that one review talks about "young men like Phoenix". The man is 44 years old, lol
To try to fasten any responsibility on art as the cause of life seems to me to put the case the wrong way around. Art consists of reshaping life but it does not create life, nor cause life. Furthermore to attribute powerful suggestive qualities to a film is at odds with the scientifically accepted view that, even after deep hypnosis, in a posthypnotic state, people cannot be made to do things which are at odds with their natures.1. Original sin: the religious view.
2. Unjust economic exploitation: the Marxist view.
3. Emotional and psychological frustration: the psychological view.
4. Genetic factors based on the 'Y' chromosome theory: the biological view.
5. Man, the killer ape: the evolutionary view.
He showed he understood the movie in the review. Everything you mention in your post is what he mentions in his review. He just didn't think it worked.
Ebert's review strikes me as someone too preoccupied with how the movie would affect viewers than grappling seriously with the ideas presented by the movie
Which, again, is something that can be said about many American reviews of Joker and the discourse on the Internet about the film so far, undoubtedly this will get even more polarizing after the film gets wide release
It's a controversial film. It's that simple. I mean just look at Dave Chappelle's latest special:
I disagree. mass audiences will eat up this movie more than film twitter like folks who have proven they are unfit to be professional reviewers
In 1972, Roger Ebert had this to say in regards to A Clockwork Orange:
And these passages could be minorly edited and sound very much like a review for Joker:
Critics understood the film perfectly fine at time. Plenty of them loved the film, plenty of them hated it, and they all knew it would be a heavily discussed film because of its shock value and how it presented its themes.
Am I allowed to come back to laugh at this?People are already putting together online harassment "gangs" inspired by the movie. #JokerGang is one on Twitter. Won't be long until they move it to real life and start beating up people while wearing clown masks.
A much better film, in your opinion.Ad Astra was a much better film that also played in competition. It's a shame that this won top prize.
Most people laugh at him anyway
Yes. In fact, we should all laugh.
Damn what happened to Blame Space?