What is the most offensive film ever?

[Skull]

we then feel empathy towards Alex when payback is applied because his reborn character is innocent.

No, he's re-reborn so to speak. The tests after his injuries show that he's back to his old violent self, except now he has a bunch of people labeling him as 'victim'.

I dont recall this towards the ending of the film... Maybe I need to rewatch it in the future, but it seemed to me that his reborn character was a victim from his own creation (he made the old man into a monster)

:)

[ghouck]

I'm attracted to anything female

Ever seen the documentary 'Zoo'?  

[ghouck]

we then feel empathy towards Alex when payback is applied because his reborn character is innocent.

No, he's re-reborn so to speak. The tests after his injuries show that he's back to his old violent self, except now he has a bunch of people labeling him as 'victim'.

I dont recall this towards the ending of the film... Maybe I need to rewatch it in the future, but it seemed to me that his reborn character was a victim from his own creation (he made the old man into a monster)

:)

After he jumped out of the window, a nurse was showing him pictures and/or asking him questions, to which he was answering with descriptions violent acts. He wasn't getting sick, he was 'cured of the cure' so to speak. People were also being sympathetic, and IIRC saying he was going to get 'something' for all his pain and suffering, like lawsuit style. This was all in the last 5 or 10 minutes IIRC.

[Flick James]

"jlb67, movies are not supposed to be about morals... its entertainment, its escapism, its anything but reality."

Movies, being an artform, are about alot of things, entertainment and escapism certainly being at the top of the list, but is that all they are?  If so, does that mean that depictions of rape are entertainment?  Not sure I follow you there. 

In any case, this thread definately went a strange direction, and I assume partial responsibility.  Clockwork is far from my most offensive film ever.  I would have to agree with whoever posted "Birth of a Nation."

This a serious thread from the very beginning, so it makes sense this could get ugly.  This site is supposed to be fun and trashy, not so serious, but it's okay if these things happen from time to time.

Oh, and the ratings system.  Don't get me started on that.  I am of the opinion that the ratings system is a joke, and run primarily by representatives of the far religious right.  Not surprising that you see alot of violence and most sex that you see is of the victimizing type, not healthy sex that represents love or consentual lust-filled fun or anything good.  I have some extensive theories about why that is, and I'm sure I'm opening a huge can of worms here, but I'll give the nutshell version.  I think it's because the religious right sees sex as evil, so if they're going to allow sex to be seen on a mainstream basis, it must only be depicted in the most vile light.  Honestly, how often do you see sex portrayed on the screen in a positive way, where it's fun or good or all parties are enjoying themselves?  I'm not saying it doesn't happen.  I'm just saying such depictions are far outweighed by sex where someone is being victimized, or someone involved is not enjoying it, and whoever IS enjoying it is probably the antagonist.  Think about it.

Sorry, everyone, but I love to stir things up.  I don't hate ANYONE here. 

[ghouck]

Honestly, how often do you see sex portrayed on the screen in a positive way, where it's fun or good or all parties are enjoying themselves?

WAY more often than the opposite. Maybe not in the movies this crowd watches, but there are far more romance stories out there than movies depicting rape. Out of my entire collection, I bet the number of rapes happens less than a dozen or so times (ACO, I spit on your grave, Kill Bill), and yes there are more, but that is NOTHING compared to the number of movies that show or imply consensual sex. Heck, even 'Cannibal Holocaust' has an equal number of rape and consensual sex scenes.

I'm just saying such depictions are far outweighed by sex where someone is being victimized

I really don't think that's true. This board leans towards horror films, which of course aren't typically laden with consensual sex, and do tend to show more violence, but it still doesn't come close. Just as a frame of reference, look through all of Andrew's reviews and tell me how many have rape scenes, and how many have consensual sex. I bet even with the tables tilted there's still more consensual sex.

[Flick James]

I'm not talking about just rape scenes here.  And you're right, among the films that are talked about here, you have a very strong point.  But, I am married, have a wife that enjoys what we would call "chick flicks" on this forum, and she agrees with me on this, but I was a bit too broad on my previous post, so allow me to clarify.  What I'm talking about are films that are geared toward adults, those that have mature content.  I'm not talking about PG-13 or mildly R sex here, I'm talking about any film that comes under the gun of the ratings board as to whether or not they get a R or an NR rating.  I apologize, I did not specify that.

There was a great documentary by the name of This Film is Not Yet Rated that illustrates exactly what I'm talking about.  Most films that depict any kind of graphic sex that make it through to get an R rating typically depict sex in the way I was describing, and if they show graphic sex as something positive, there is a tendency for those scenes to be removed or edited to get the R rating.  This Film is Not Yet Rated is an awesome documentary.       

[ghouck]

I've seen it and I really don't agree with, well, any of it, and I really don't see your POV as being right. There are TONS of movies out there with positive sex scenes, more so than rape scenes. What you've done is classify most of them as "PG-13 or mildly R sex" and discounted them altogether. You say that movies have to cut sex scenes to get an R rating, then discount the ones that are PG13 or 'mildly R' as not being the issue. Well they are, there are more positive sex scenes out there than rape scenes.    Myself and some of my employees were counting the number of films we could think of that displayed graphic rape scenes, , , we came up with less than 2 dozen.

Also, I think this hits the key of the issue at hand: The difference between graphically displaying something and implying it. The original point is that some didn't want to see graphic, blatant rape scenes and questioned weather they are necessary or not, wanted or not.

[Flick James]

Well, yes, I did relegate my argument to graphically depicted sex, as that was what I was talking about.  And, I will restate it, I'm not just talking about rape scenes anymore.  I think I made that clear.  I think you may be fixating on that, which is understandable to a point because that's what I started with.

We're not going to see eye to eye on this, I'm pretty certain of that.  That's okay.  I'm going to give you some karma and stop posting on this thread, because I am being misunderstood and I am mature enough to realize that some of that is my own fault.  I'm sure there's got to be someone out there that understands what I'm trying to say about the ratings system.  Anyone?

Anyway, I've got to get back to having fun on this site.

[Fausto]

After he jumped out of the window, a nurse was showing him pictures and/or asking him questions, to which he was answering with descriptions violent acts. He wasn't getting sick, he was 'cured of the cure' so to speak. People were also being sympathetic, and IIRC saying he was going to get 'something' for all his pain and suffering, like lawsuit style. This was all in the last 5 or 10 minutes IIRC.

If I understand correctly, Anthony Burgess' main point with the novel was that it is as inhuman to be totally good as it is to be totally evil - in other words, being a well behaved saint because you have to isn't the same as having a choice to be good. The versions of Alex before and after treatment are two completely opposite extremes, one who chooses to be an evil rapist/murderer, and one who has to be saintly or else feels sickness and pain. Both versions end badly.

Interstingly enough, the original book featured an extra chapter in which Alex, after returning to the Droog lifestyle, decides he's outgrown it and wants to be a productive, law abiding citizen. The American version was published without the final chapter, as the publisher decided it was too corny and opted, as Kubrick did, for the "evil wins out" ending. Burgess was furious about this, because it fails to show any moral evolution on the part of the character. The problem with Burgess' argument is that the lost chapter doesent show this either - Alex still learns nothing from actually being a victim himself, he just "grows out of it", as if his behavior is just a result of being young.

[Flick James]

Thanks for that post Fausto.  I know there was an extra chapter, and I must have read the American version.  I bought it in a used book store many years ago.  I like that.  Simple maturity counts of alot in one's moral evolution.

[Skull]

"jlb67, movies are not supposed to be about morals... its entertainment, its escapism, its anything but reality."

Movies, being an artform, are about alot of things, entertainment and escapism certainly being at the top of the list, but is that all they are?  If so, does that mean that depictions of rape are entertainment?  Not sure I follow you there. 

Its all about pulling emotions...

To me a rape in the movie is no different then watching a story about a mother, her baby and the grandmother . The Grandmother is having a heart attack. The mother takes the grandmother to the ER and forgets the baby is in the car (in the end of the story grandmother lives and the baby dies) [I seen the ending of this story. Sorry I dont know the name of it (and I dont actually care either) is but I think it was part of a medical drama on TV. I seen this at my mother-in-laws house and I thought wow that is such a horrible story what is the freaking point? I wouldnt call it Entertainment... but somepeople do like this morbid crap and they find it as entertainment.]

Sorry, everyone, but I love to stir things up.  I don't hate ANYONE here. 

Dont be sorry, I like these kind of topics (it doesnt mean Im right either but its fun to see what others think)

[Paquita]

Ya know what movie offends me?  Phat Girls.  Seriously.  I thought this was gonna be a funny movie (well as funny as  one might expect Mo'nique to be) and all about fat power and BBWs and... it wasn't.  It was REALLY depressing and I think it was a bit fat-bashing.  It was about Mo'nique being overweight and having a low self-esteem and trust issues and I don't even think it was resolved in the end.  I felt really sad after watching it.  If I was a BBW I'd probably be more offended.

I will say that I can't watch rape or animal deaths either, but I understand that these scenes are (sometimes) necessary in a movie to portray intense evil.  I try really hard not to be offended and see the movie through to the end before making any judgement though and I'm usually pleased with the rest of the movie.  I don't watch the graphic scenes though; I cover my eyes or leave the room and my husband tells me when they're over, but when a movie has been on for 45 minutes or so and I've only seen about 20 minutes of it, I just stop watching - This happened with Night Train Murders, I felt physically ill like 30-40 minutes into the movie and couldn't finish it.

[Ozzymandias]

I'm attracted to anything female

Ever seen the documentary 'Zoo'?  

Ozzymandias speaks: No. What is that?

Actually, I like both Clockwork Orange and Last House on the Left, even though I think rape is as low as you can go. I also realize that maybe I'm just touchy about My Son John.

After I posted that I found this on You Tube: Andy Milligan trying comedy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2_QrgtRwvg


Ozzymandias has spoken!!!

[Rev. Powell]

I understand and respect your point.  The danger with something like THE CLOCKWORK ORANGE rape scene is that some people, particularly young people, will not get the deeper message and see it as a pure glorification.  I think this is why Kubrick withdrew the film from circulation in Britain after some copycat crimes.  

Im bothered by this argument because:

London After Midnight is one of the earlist films used in a court for a man that kill a woman in 1928. He claimed Chaney's performance drove him temporarily insane.

Charles Manson used The White Album to Kill.


Its bothers me because its hard to predict insanity. Evil people will do evil things and we (non evil) shouldnt be censored by "what might be inspired" when its not clear what will trigger evil.

You shouldn't be bothered by it.  Yes, an insane person may claim to be inspired to violence by anything. 

But we would be kidding ourselves (and look pretty silly) if we didn't acknowledge that A CLOCKWORK ORANGE inspired more copycat crimes than WHEN HARRY MET SALLY.  (And because someone always brings it up: yes, and the Bible has incited more more violence than both of them).

That's NOT an argument for censorship, however.  The value of free expression to society VASTLY outweighs the harm of a work of art inspiring a crime here or there.

Kubrick withdrew his film from circulation where he could voluntarily, there was no censorship involved. He personally could not live with the idea that people had suffered because of something he created.  That was his call and he had every right to do it.

   

[Rev. Powell]

Interstingly enough, the original book featured an extra chapter in which Alex, after returning to the Droog lifestyle, decides he's outgrown it and wants to be a productive, law abiding citizen. The American version was published without the final chapter, as the publisher decided it was too corny and opted, as Kubrick did, for the "evil wins out" ending. Burgess was furious about this, because it fails to show any moral evolution on the part of the character. The problem with Burgess' argument is that the lost chapter doesent show this either - Alex still learns nothing from actually being a victim himself, he just "grows out of it", as if his behavior is just a result of being young.

That final chapter is now included in most editions of the book, it would be hard to find a copy without it.

And you and Kubrick were right: the final chapter was weak.  It didn't ring true and lessened the impact of the book.  And you are correct that in that last chapter Alex doesn't really seem to choose to be good; he just grows bored of being bad.