And it takes more wit than Mr Goody-Two-Shoes Spielberg possesses to understand that it's satire, not a piece of social engineering but about the evils of social engineering.
Sure, but an utterly nihilistic masterpiece. There's no positive solution presented at all, and like Spielberg said, you're sure Alex is worse than ever at the end. It's a horror film.
@@benjamingamache6441 Very sorry, studied it at university and don't recall anyone saying it was tough to comprehend the nadsat language. Do remember that one quickly got used to it.
Compared to a great many scenes in fillums produced since then, cannot imagine how it could be a tough watch. The way it was presented meant one was at no point unaware that it was a satire.
@@m1lst3r89Kubrick gave the film to Spielberg because he thought he was a better fit for the material. I believe Kubrick couldn’t crack the ending, which is a hard ending to pull off.
Spielberg’s interpretation of the ending is interesting. While I never thought Alex would come out of the hospital “good”, I would think that, as the intelligent young man he was, Alex would have become like the politicians and police chiefs he became acquainted with and simply learn to hide his true nature better. He still would have been a gang leader of a criminal enterprise, only this time he would run for Prime Minister of the biggest criminal gang of that part of the world: the government.
As I understood it from the book, which I read before I saw the movie, that there can't be good without the bad being an option too, a subject touched upon by many theologists of the reformation too.
It’s not how the book ends. There’s another chapter. Even though Malcolm says on the commentary that Burgess was forced to write the last chapter and “it’s rubbish” Burgess says in the forward of the first US release to contain the last chapter (that his publisher cut before it was released in the US) that the US release was incomplete without it. In the last chapter it picks up after Alex says “I was cured alright”. Alex is at a diner with his new droogs and it looks like it’s just starting over again complete with the line “what’s it going to be then eh?” While there he sees Pete (the only former drool that didn’t assault him) and Pete has a family. Alex feels himself getting extremely jealous and realizes he wants a family. That’s where it ends. Burgess said without the missing chapter he feels Alex never grows or matures. He also brought the chapter to Kubrick’s attention and Kubrick wasn’t interested he wanted to end the film with “I was cured alright”.
@@staggerlee1869 yeah the final chapter in the book , is that it has to be his decision to be good not forced or programmed. ..(last chapter) --- he gets well gets a new gang , goes back to his old ways, fighting, robbing raping , home invasion, car theft etc , but he is not having as much fun as before, he then sees pete who has moved on with his life settled down wife and kids type scenario, he then realises that he needs to grow up , like the title a clockwork " mechanical man made " orange is fake and not natural, a natural fruit will ripen in its own time .
I would almost always agree with you on that. However, I suspect he may have missed the main point of the Anthony Burgess novel and that may be because Kubrick somewhat minimized it in the film. The story is ultimately a paean to and argument for human volition. It is actually a theological rumination. Burgess even argued that to take away the volition of another is the “unpardonable sin.”
Kubrick was opposite of Speilberg,Kubrick never would have made a propaganda piece like Munich.He hated what Kirk Douglas & Dalton Trumbo did to Spartacus turning it into like Marxist cult of personality film "I'm Spartacus".
This was a masterpiece of a film that I saw once on the big screen at a revival movie theatre in about 1990. I haven't been able to get it out of my head since. I never want to see it again. For me it was a metaphor of what it's really like in society - and it is like that.
I watched this film once. And that was enough. The material Kubrick created in this movie hangs on you like The Flue, and it never seems to completely heal. Powerful film making.
They both depict a dystopian future in London. So does Brave New World and V For Vendetta... Can someone go stop by London's house and make sure they're okay?
A great movie based on a great book. The movie has the "American Ending". In the British version of the book, there's one final chapter where Alex "grows up" and stops committing acts of violence. Also, the scene where they play "Singing in the Rain" was Malcolm McDowell's idea. After working on the scene for a long time and thinking it still wasn't working, McDowell suggested having Alex sing that song. Kubrick let him do it and they kept it in the movie.
I saw the Alex character embracing his roll as the Front man for a cause he didn't truly care about, only that it would allow him to enter the realm of professional exploration the adults around him operated in, the same as the 2 Droogs who became coppers.
Such an accurate almost prophetic view of modern day..Clockwork Orange to this day is one of my favorite films..Stanley Kubrick was a true genius at film making
I've seen A CLOCKWORK ORANGE many many times. I've always interpreted the ending as a dark comic joke. I never once thought of it as a prelude to a darker, humorless, nihilistic, violent epilogue like Spielberg suggests here. Maybe because I always thought of the UK version where Alex ages out of the whole thing as the likely ending. But holy shit, that's a hell of a take that I'll never be able to unimagine.
It is a darkly comic joke, but the joke was that he wasn't cured when he was made averse to violence because as the second half evidenced, the entire society he existed in had gleefully violent impulses and they all took it out on him when they could. He was only "cured" when he was back to being his violent self because he's a violent man in a violent world. I think the ending works tremendously well for the film because of how heightened and satirical the film is. I haven't read the book, but I imagine the ending where he grows up and leaves the violence behind is more compelling because the book isn't operating on the same tone as the film is.
@@Tuosma The book is well worth reading. It's definitely one of my favorites. However, the 21st chapter of the UK edition does, somewhat, undermine everything that precedes it-as if Burgess is trying to scuttle hastily out of the nihilistic hole he'd spent the previous 20 chapters digging. It's certainly more optimistic in the end, if not entirely believable.
Malcolm McDowell ad libbed the Singing in the Rain scene. It wasn’t scripted. Stanley also left out the last chapter of the book where Alex straightened himself out.
That would have given an extra scene to the character of George, but we didn't really get to know the character too well, so it might not have worked. Unless he was given more lines in act one of the film.
@@m1lst3r89No that's not the real reason, there is an interview of Kubrick talking about the exact thing. He confessed that he changed it because he absolutely hated the ending of the book. Don't remember the exact quote but he said something like: "Alex goes back to his old ways, all is right in the world."
I read somewhere that the American edition of the book “”A Clockwork Orange “ left out the last chapter-the British edition contained the final chapter where Alex begins to reform
Dear James Back Sale. I cannot describe how happy your channel makes me. Film content by people who know what they're talking about and not just another schmo with a camera phone and headphones.
Of course, the "schmo" you reference has gone to the trouble to record themselves, on camera, to present themselves talking about something. They've made something new, even if on an old topic. James Whale Bake Sale just appropriates clips from other sources and reposts them.
@@HunterWickProductions What you say is true, but I prefer the all time greats commenting on films as their knowledge and experience and makers of art as well as fans tends to give more depth. I respect schmos but prefer Speilberg and Tarantino's opinions.
@@jedwing True, both have value. It's great to listen to the masters, but I also like conversations around the topic by us mere mortals, as well, where the discussion has more of a perspective from the consumers of the product and what we think about it, since it's our actions and reactions that put guys like Spielberg in the position that they're in. I don't know why I'm commenting on appropriating IP, when I lifted clips out of Jaws (and the sequels) for a video I recently posted to TH-cam looking at the entire Jaws film franchise, the book, and some of the copycat films that followed. I guess I myself am one of those schmoes with a headphone. But I like to think that I brought more to the material than just a re-showing of it.
The character gains immunity or resilience to the programming at the end, which makes the whole endeavor effectively an inoculation to societal experimentation.
The first time I saw Clockwork Orange was when HBO was a new thing. I was way too young to be watching it. The images were so overwhelming, and they sear into your consciousness. One of the things about the movie is that as you get older and watch it over and over again, you're intellectual and more emotional relationship to the film changes as you grow and as you change. I once was fortunate enough to watch a screening of it at Spielberg's screening room at universal studios. I had a friend who is working there and that the time. We watched it just a few days after the Columbine massacre. That was the most emotionally painful watching for me. It was definitely a downer for everyone at the time.
Clockwork Orange is about programming a man to eschew violence. Full Metal Jacket is about programming a man to commit violence, both by the same director.
This video is especially on the nose immediately after the Southport incident and the ensuing riots in response to it. "History has caught up with the film."
100/200 years from now people will still be talking about and analysing Kubrick's work..... they won't about Spielberg......... It's like comparing Beethoven and Bruno Mars.
Kubrick and Spielberg had such a unique relationship, obviously culminating after Kubrick's death with A.I.. I've literally heard Spielberg wax on about Kubrick for almost hours, but never heard him discuss CWO before. He nailed it when he's talking about it being anti-violence, as one of my favorite movies every made, I hate it when my fellow film enthusiasts say it glorifies violence, when it does the exact opposite.
The problem with any movie depicting violence is that some critics and audience members are not up to the intellectual challenge. That is not the fault of the movie. I think Kubrick was exposing the desensitizing of violence but certain people would rather have sermons.
I don't think the film does either. It's more taking a meditative stance on it, like what Apocalypse Now did. That film isn't about being anti war film or pro war film. Just philosophy of war basically.
Yeah, those people don't really analyze the movie, they just see people being violent. It's kinda rare for that on a large scale. Most people don't want to have to think too hard about the plot.
And what's important about the film's anti-violence theme is that it doesn't just settle for seeing Alex as bad for his senseless violence, since there's probably an even bigger focus on how violent society is at its roots. The prison is filled with sadists who enjoy disciplining the prisoners. The medical experiment is just flat out torture. Once Alex gets out, his mates are now cops. The victims are vindictive and while you can rationalize them beating Alex up much like he beat them up, I don't think you can really rationalize using Alex's love for Beethoven as a way to torture him. It's as senseless as Alex's own violence, but because the man is driven by revenge, we "understand" him. The ending's punchline is so perfect because how indeed could we ever expect institutions run on legal violence to cure violent people.
A Clockwork Orange is one of the best movies ever made. It sits atop like a huge mansion on a big hill. Also, it is evident that it is not one of favorite Steven's movies. But it's nice to hear his two cents on it.
The horror of the movie isn't just from the violence of the gangs, it's the response of the state on how to deal with it and the measures they take to reform.
Stanley Kubrick lived in Childwickbury, which is just a stone’s throw from where I live. And the country lane where the Droogs drive the Durango is in my village. Who wants to fucking touch me?
Brilliant film. I admit it hits harder without the redemptive final chapter where he shrugs off his adolescence and embraces his adult side. Not dissimilar to the ending of Trainspotting.
This is where it starts, with the complete contempt and disregard of anything meaningful. Making cruel jokes about anything and everything you dont understand. Go watch the movie again or don't comment.
And yet, Burgess' book ended with precisely the opposite: Alex simply outgrew his "edge." The U.S. edition didn't include that chapter, and the movie didn't either, but that's how the novel ended. Americans simply don't like rehabilitation. It isn't "just."
The violent crime rate today is lower than it was when this film was made. People feel like we have more crime because media coverage of each incidence is dramatically higher than it was back then, when your news was largely restricted to what happened in your local community in a given day.
Pretty good insight into Alex emerging from his experience even worse than he was before. Also, I agree that Kubrick had sort of given up on all of us when he chose to make this movie. And why not: we're just violent, fornicating apes, after all. "2001" more or less said the same thing, but at least that movie had the Star Baby. No Baby here. Anyway. I enjoy the friendship of Kubrick and Spielberg, each secretly wanting to be each other, at least in terms of being directors.
Thing is, using "Singing in the Rain" wasn't Stanley's choice - Malcolm said it was the only song he knew the lyrics to, so he sang it. Of course it still works - brilliantly - but it was an accident of filmmaking, though Stanley (who was scrupulous about what he put in his films) did allow it stand. And, yes, it is depressingly defeatist.
@@johngalt9737 yeah, a good example of now directors get credit or blame for just about everything in their features, ignoring the collaboration of the medium (though I do it too!)
@@Tuosma of course it (sadly) totally changed that classic song forever - no joy now when Gene Kelly splashes his way through puddles after meeting Debbie Reynolds - doobie-do doobie-do
In the original ending of the book, Alex does form a gang, but he becomes a little more wiser now that he's a father. And I'd interpret the ending as some sort of equilibrium (so to speak). He's no longer bound by controlled stimuli due to the institution's experiments, and thus can make his own decisions without fear of convulsions. While Alex does have the freedom to commit harm, he also has the freedom to make the right decisions as well. Even the movie kind of ends with a couple making love in the snow while everyone around them applauds (which isn't violent in the least tiniest bit). That's how I interpret it anyway.
I think the movie is deviating from the book with that ending. I definitely think that was a rape fantasy since the woman is shown struggling to break free and Alex visibly bemused by her pain, pulls her back as the other people applaud him for it. So with that imagery in mind, I think the implication in the movie is just that Alex has returned to his old deviant ways and is content that society will be enabling him when he does it showing that he’s hasn’t changed nor learned anything which especially reinforced when his last line was “I was cured alright”which feels like mockery of the notion.
I'd read the book, so I hated the movie, until the 3rd time I watched it. When Kubrick makes a film, he's completely changing the focus to what he's interested in talking about.
I'll never be able to listen to the song, Singing In The Rain the same way. LOL. It was pure Genius (I think that Malcolm McDowell might have done it in an Ad Lib).
A Clockwork Orange is a film that looks pragmatically at crime really violent crime and violence. Kubrick sees violence as part of the human condition in this film and demonstrates that it could be controlled but not eliminates or eradicated I don't entirely agree with all Spielbergs thoughts here about Orange but I do agree with his view of Alex at the end. Alex will be a more polished, refined and sophisticated hooligan upon release. No doubt in my mind.
I want to hear what Gene Kelly thought of this movie. Coincidentally, Cliff Edwards, who actually introduced “Singin’ in the Rain” all the way back in 1928 (meaning the song will soon be 100 years old), died the year this movie came out.
The more I watch this film, the more I realize that Alex's victims are more contemptible than Alex himself. All the supporting characters are monsters in disguise, while Alex has the courage to be open about his morally repellant nature. The Ludovico treatment suppressed his tendencies allowing the monsters in disguise to show their true form, transforming Alex from predator to prey, and from villain to hero. When the government gives Alex his free will back, it is a victory for the common man in an oppressive regime. Not a bad flick
Clockwork Orange was talking about a phenomenon that wasn't anything new. The working class young male had for centuries before in literature and news been held up as a threat to the good order of society: which is why the government and its institutions (representing the wealthy business owners who needed the working class labour) argued it needed policing so heavily. From Teddies, Rockers, Neds, Beatniks, Mods, Punks and so on - each counter culture movement rejected some aspect of the status quo, rejected the normal order of society, but were firmly men of age 14 to 21 who through good orderly education by the state could be moulded into diligent effective hard workers and absorbed into society. But they haven't really changed - they have just matured into jobs that suit them and been paid to divert their destructive tendencies somewhere else, such as Alex's colleagues who swap their youth gang life for one the most organised gangs of all - the police - while Alex himself has ills inflicted upon him some might consider more inhuman than much of his behaviour. The idea that it only matches society today is incredibly naive.
malcolm mcdowell recently said that the film was intended as a satire and some of the most disturbing scenes were there because they made Stanley Kubrick laugh.
But steven hes holding up a mirror to society and he chose to live behind the bushes because of it and he only made a handful of films. But he left the movie for the audience to choose whether he went on to cause chaos and harm or settle down and behave appropriately, stanley knew it was the best way, let the audience decide what would happen. So yes you could see the twinkle in his eye however there is a tempered response there with alt outcomes.
One of Clockwork's themes that Spielberg doesn't hit on here (at least not in this soundbite) is that a hierarchy attempting to control the individuals goodwill/freewill to their preferences is an exercise in futility.
I like that, how A Clockwork Orange was pretty much Kubrick's explanation of why he ran off and hid in the English countryside. We'll never defeat violence. The human condition is like the surface of an orange, and we'll always end up where we started.
I certainly believe Spielbergs comment about kubrick living in England.... I think he could make films the way he wanted and could see the critics coming.
The movie was different from the book as well, so if people want to understand the point of the story, they should go and read Anthony Burgess’s novel. It also is a masterpiece. What Spielberg failed to discuss here was free will. Essentially, it’s an allegory about the freedom to choose to be good an dbad, and how reprogramming in the movie fails to work, the book deal with things in a different way. We see Alex contained but essentially without the freedom of will that life tells us essential to make it worthwhile to exist.
But the case of Burgess is interesting, because he regretted writing the book after watching the movie. Can't blame him, his wife was r4p3d by american soldiers during WW2, the whole point that started the book.
Spielberg reaches the wrong conclusion, because Kubrick used the American version of the book as the basis for the film, which cut the last chapter. In the full version, Alex does give up his violent ways, and ends up a normal family man with a regular job, because that's what getting old does. It's like getting old and replacing guns with walkie talkies. :)
The thing is, I never liked the UK ending of the book. It's very much the author (whose wife was attacked by some servicemen when she was pregnant causing a miscarriage) basically trying to do the Christian thing and forgiving his wife's attackers by saying that they were just young. The problem is that in reality many of these violent youths don't age out of it. They become violent adults if they live that long. It takes a huge amount of work to rehabilitate such people if they do end up in prison, and it's just complete fiction that it's just a case of wait until they get a few years older.
Interesting that Spielberg came to that conclusion about the ending of the film because, I believe that the script was based on the US edition of the book which misses the final chapter. The US edition ends where the film does with Alex having gone through treatment and it hasn't worked. However, in the missing final chapter, Alex outgrows his violent behavior himself and matures.
I do wonder sometimes how the movie would have been received if it had the final section that the international version of the book had: The 21st chapter, where Alex meets Pete in a bar, who now has a wife and a family and seems to be happy and Alex wonders to himself if that might be something he'd like to try... The movie is based on the American version of the book with only 20 chapters.
It fascinates me that Kubrick was true to its American release, which omits the final chapter, the only thing that brings a sense of hope to the reader after enduring the damned thing. It definitely makes the tolchok hit harder without.
You are correct… Spielberg is clueless about this movie. Yes he misses the entire point. As I said earlier, Spielberg is a great technical Director but when it comes to depth… He’s clueless.
Like imagine seeing this in the time that it came out. Fucking sick, it’s like an assault on the public it’s so quick and abrasive, but you’ve never stop thinking about it. They didn’t even know movies could do that and this was the first one
WOW! that sure makes sense. Steven Spielberg was a very personal and very close friend of Stanley Kubrick. this interview (short as it is) was very insightful! OH! and when I AM in a place where I cannot be seen, and yet I AM approaching people, I always whistle VERY loudly, 🎵"Button up your overcoat, let the wind blow free, takes good care of yourself, you belong to me. Be careful crossing streets.......".......🎶
Don’t understand the fear from people in the comment section. This has always been my favorite Kubrick movie. In my opinion his best film. Do you realize how he has stripped away the human emotion and showed us the inner workings of our physiological inner selves?
In the book Alex sees the error of his ways. Except the last chapter was cut in America so he may stay bad in Kubrick's universe based on the American version.
Leave it to Spielberg to give the most anodyne, surface reading of what Kubrick and Burgess had in mind. He even did two movies himself in "Minority Report" and "Munich" which cover philosophically adjacent topics related to crime and violence (and the control of crime and violence) and retribution, but seems blissfully unaware of what's going on in this movie. The novel and the film are notably different, in particular, the endings, and the concerns of Burgess and Kubrick seem to have been different in regard to the overall theme--carried in the meaning of the title--with Kubrick seeming more concerned with the loss of identity and authenticity due to the social/therapeutical programming of humans, and Burgess seeming more concerned with the implication for the individual's soul if his freedom of choice is removed. Spielberg doesn't hint at any of this, but seems to think the Big Idea is that "kids are bad and getting worse (those punks!)" and "despite society's best efforts, they will probably re-offend." Of course, my readings of "The Temple of Doom" and "Hook" have always been that they're the homosexual wish-fulfillment analogs of Lewis Carroll's "Alice" stories, and movies only a committed child molester could love, so I do favor more challenging and pointed critiques. Lastly, calling "A Clockwork Orange" "the first punk rock movie" is as cringe-worthy as referring to "2001" as the first "ChatGPT movie" or something like that.
Violent crime in large cities was a huge concern in the time it was made, but hardly new - this film actually feels somewhat dated in its fear of rebellious youth, given that violent crime has been declining continuously for 30 years now in all nations, for reasons not entirely agreed upon.
Yeah but in general the fear of teenagers and young people endures. So much of the anti-Gen Z, anti woke, anti BLM stuff you see in conservative media is just fear of youthful vigor in disguise and oh my God the world is going to hell in a hand basket because of these lunatics. So even if the statistics say otherwise, this perception and fear will always exist. I remember reading something form Greek literature written 400 BC where this old guy was bemoaning these ignorant and savage youths of today.
And he doesn't kick the man to death, he sexually assault his wife in front of him. The man survives and is the same one who plays Beethoven to push Alex to jump out the window. It seems that Spielberg fundamentally does not understand the point of the movie, which is about the need of choice for people to be good, not some forced intervention that does not allow another choice for socially acceptable behavior. He also has that idea that it was better before when the reality is that we simply did not know about a lot of the actions that occurred.
@@CastlesForEyesWell. it's similar to something I noticed before, if you ask a person who wrote a really good song what it means, the answer you get will tend to be simplistic at best. Putting the words together does not mean you understand the implications of what was said. Many creators are often not very deep thinkers.
@@nebularain3338Factual point in the movie Spielberg got wrong. That person being kicked does not die and later is the one who uses music to push Alex into trying to kill himself. You can watch the movie and see I am right. I have other examples that are not interpretation, they are factual, observable actions in the movie.
I went to see this in Sweden in 1988, it was banned in Ireland and we went not fully aware of what we were about to witness .i was with my girlfriend and a few of her female friends, all of us were about 18. We all wanted to leave but thought, better to stay and see how the end would somehow justify the evil and horror we were witnesses to. Sadly it wasn't to be and we all felt very traumatised for some time after.
A Clockwork Orange is a masterpiece
And it takes more wit than Mr Goody-Two-Shoes Spielberg possesses to understand that it's satire, not a piece of social engineering but about the evils of social engineering.
Sure, but an utterly nihilistic masterpiece. There's no positive solution presented at all, and like Spielberg said, you're sure Alex is worse than ever at the end. It's a horror film.
A real horror-show
It has aged better than what some people would think, the film made me start to watch Kubrick and other cult films, and here I am.
@@castelodeossos3947I mena, Spielberg met Kubrick at one point discussing about The Shining.
Like several of Kubrick's films, A Clockwork Orange is a tough watch but you'll never forget it.
It's an even tougher read trying to comprehend the nadsat slang, I was about halfway through before I fully grasped the language.
@@benjamingamache6441 Very sorry, studied it at university and don't recall anyone saying it was tough to comprehend the nadsat language. Do remember that one quickly got used to it.
Compared to a great many scenes in fillums produced since then, cannot imagine how it could be a tough watch. The way it was presented meant one was at no point unaware that it was a satire.
@@castelodeossos3947 very tough satire.
Not that tough, the movie is done in a very stylized, theatrical, cartoonish, comic bookish way.
Wow its so cool to hear Steven Spielberg talk about a Kubrick film.
When you hear Spielberg talk about why he changed Kubrick's AI film so much it is very uncool
@@lawjefThe ending of AI was shot for shot storyboarded by Kubrick
@@vladikoff i don't trust one bit to Spielberg saying all sweet and soft stuff was Stanley's. Yeah sure.
@@m1lst3r89 if you think the ending is nice and sweet you missed the point completely
@@m1lst3r89Kubrick gave the film to Spielberg because he thought he was a better fit for the material. I believe Kubrick couldn’t crack the ending, which is a hard ending to pull off.
Spielberg’s interpretation of the ending is interesting. While I never thought Alex would come out of the hospital “good”, I would think that, as the intelligent young man he was, Alex would have become like the politicians and police chiefs he became acquainted with and simply learn to hide his true nature better.
He still would have been a gang leader of a criminal enterprise, only this time he would run for Prime Minister of the biggest criminal gang of that part of the world: the government.
Can you imagine him winning the election though? the public know he is a murderer.
As I understood it from the book, which I read before I saw the movie, that there can't be good without the bad being an option too, a subject touched upon by many theologists of the reformation too.
there's no difference between the two . Repression only lasts so long
It’s not how the book ends. There’s another chapter. Even though Malcolm says on the commentary that Burgess was forced to write the last chapter and “it’s rubbish” Burgess says in the forward of the first US release to contain the last chapter (that his publisher cut before it was released in the US) that the US release was incomplete without it. In the last chapter it picks up after Alex says “I was cured alright”. Alex is at a diner with his new droogs and it looks like it’s just starting over again complete with the line “what’s it going to be then eh?” While there he sees Pete (the only former drool that didn’t assault him) and Pete has a family. Alex feels himself getting extremely jealous and realizes he wants a family. That’s where it ends. Burgess said without the missing chapter he feels Alex never grows or matures. He also brought the chapter to Kubrick’s attention and Kubrick wasn’t interested he wanted to end the film with “I was cured alright”.
@@staggerlee1869 yeah the final chapter in the book , is that it has to be his decision to be good not forced or programmed. ..(last chapter) --- he gets well gets a new gang , goes back to his old ways, fighting, robbing raping , home invasion, car theft etc , but he is not having as much fun as before, he then sees pete who has moved on with his life settled down wife and kids type scenario, he then realises that he needs to grow up , like the title a clockwork " mechanical man made " orange is fake and not natural, a natural fruit will ripen in its own time .
A great film has a piece of every age that came before it and every age yet to come. Immortal relevance
Great line
always enjoy listening to Spielbergs takes on films and storytelling
I would almost always agree with you on that. However, I suspect he may have missed the main point of the Anthony Burgess novel and that may be because Kubrick somewhat minimized it in the film. The story is ultimately a paean to and argument for human volition. It is actually a theological rumination. Burgess even argued that to take away the volition of another is the “unpardonable sin.”
Kubrick was opposite of Speilberg,Kubrick never would have made a propaganda piece like Munich.He hated what Kirk Douglas & Dalton Trumbo did to Spartacus turning it into like Marxist cult of personality film "I'm Spartacus".
This was a masterpiece of a film that I saw once on the big screen at a revival movie theatre in about 1990. I haven't been able to get it out of my head since. I never want to see it again. For me it was a metaphor of what it's really like in society - and it is like that.
Id happily watch it again 😂
A masterpiece of a book turned into a masterpiece of a film.
I watched this film once. And that was enough. The material Kubrick created in this movie hangs on you like The Flue, and it never seems to completely heal. Powerful film making.
I actually often think of a list of undeniably brilliant films I have no desire to watch again. This movie tops that list.
as a born and bred londoner its scary how very close this mirrors life in london today
I've been saying for years that Clockwork Orange is every bit as telling as 1984.
They both depict a dystopian future in London. So does Brave New World and V For Vendetta... Can someone go stop by London's house and make sure they're okay?
It has one of the best soundtracks ever. (Can’t go wrong with Beethoven and Rossini.)
A great movie based on a great book. The movie has the "American Ending". In the British version of the book, there's one final chapter where Alex "grows up" and stops committing acts of violence.
Also, the scene where they play "Singing in the Rain" was Malcolm McDowell's idea. After working on the scene for a long time and thinking it still wasn't working, McDowell suggested having Alex sing that song. Kubrick let him do it and they kept it in the movie.
I saw the Alex character embracing his roll as the Front man for a cause he didn't truly care about, only that it would allow him to enter the realm of professional exploration the adults around him operated in, the same as the 2 Droogs who became coppers.
this movie was foreshadowing, way ahead of its time.
"A Clockwork Orange" was as much about the past and present as it was about the future.
A Clockwork Orange made violence into an art form. The genius of Kubrick was always testing the limits of the times .
Such an accurate almost prophetic view of modern day..Clockwork Orange to this day is one of my favorite films..Stanley Kubrick was a true genius at film making
It has aged better than what most people give it credit for.
I've seen A CLOCKWORK ORANGE many many times. I've always interpreted the ending as a dark comic joke. I never once thought of it as a prelude to a darker, humorless, nihilistic, violent epilogue like Spielberg suggests here. Maybe because I always thought of the UK version where Alex ages out of the whole thing as the likely ending. But holy shit, that's a hell of a take that I'll never be able to unimagine.
Well, I think the US edition of the novel that Kubrick had something to do with.
It is a darkly comic joke, but the joke was that he wasn't cured when he was made averse to violence because as the second half evidenced, the entire society he existed in had gleefully violent impulses and they all took it out on him when they could. He was only "cured" when he was back to being his violent self because he's a violent man in a violent world.
I think the ending works tremendously well for the film because of how heightened and satirical the film is. I haven't read the book, but I imagine the ending where he grows up and leaves the violence behind is more compelling because the book isn't operating on the same tone as the film is.
@@Tuosma The book is well worth reading. It's definitely one of my favorites. However, the 21st chapter of the UK edition does, somewhat, undermine everything that precedes it-as if Burgess is trying to scuttle hastily out of the nihilistic hole he'd spent the previous 20 chapters digging. It's certainly more optimistic in the end, if not entirely believable.
It is great to hear him comment on this one.
Malcolm McDowell ad libbed the Singing in the Rain scene. It wasn’t scripted.
Stanley also left out the last chapter of the book where Alex straightened himself out.
Because he read the US copy of A Clockwork Orange. Because Americans don't like seeing criminals straightening themselves out.
That would have given an extra scene to the character of George, but we didn't really get to know the character too well, so it might not have worked. Unless he was given more lines in act one of the film.
@@m1lst3r89No that's not the real reason, there is an interview of Kubrick talking about the exact thing. He confessed that he changed it because he absolutely hated the ending of the book.
Don't remember the exact quote but he said something like: "Alex goes back to his old ways, all is right in the world."
@@PrinceSmith7 i don't know about that but official story is what I highlighted in my previous comment.
I read somewhere that the American edition of the book “”A Clockwork Orange “ left out the last chapter-the British edition contained the final chapter where Alex begins to reform
The message I took away from the ending of A Clockwork Orange is that no matter how hard society tries, man prevails
Its always interesting hearing people talk about Kubrick movies, because everyone always has a different scene that sticks out.
Dear James Back Sale. I cannot describe how happy your channel makes me. Film content by people who know what they're talking about and not just another schmo with a camera phone and headphones.
Of course, the "schmo" you reference has gone to the trouble to record themselves, on camera, to present themselves talking about something. They've made something new, even if on an old topic. James Whale Bake Sale just appropriates clips from other sources and reposts them.
@@HunterWickProductions What you say is true, but I prefer the all time greats commenting on films as their knowledge and experience and makers of art as well as fans tends to give more depth. I respect schmos but prefer Speilberg and Tarantino's opinions.
@@jedwing True, both have value. It's great to listen to the masters, but I also like conversations around the topic by us mere mortals, as well, where the discussion has more of a perspective from the consumers of the product and what we think about it, since it's our actions and reactions that put guys like Spielberg in the position that they're in.
I don't know why I'm commenting on appropriating IP, when I lifted clips out of Jaws (and the sequels) for a video I recently posted to TH-cam looking at the entire Jaws film franchise, the book, and some of the copycat films that followed. I guess I myself am one of those schmoes with a headphone. But I like to think that I brought more to the material than just a re-showing of it.
@@HunterWickProductions That is true. Some mere mortals are very knowledgeable, as well.
The character gains immunity or resilience to the programming at the end, which makes the whole endeavor effectively an inoculation to societal experimentation.
What a difference one final chapter can make.
The first time I saw Clockwork Orange was when HBO was a new thing. I was way too young to be watching it. The images were so overwhelming, and they sear into your consciousness. One of the things about the movie is that as you get older and watch it over and over again, you're intellectual and more emotional relationship to the film changes as you grow and as you change. I once was fortunate enough to watch a screening of it at Spielberg's screening room at universal studios. I had a friend who is working there and that the time. We watched it just a few days after the Columbine massacre. That was the most emotionally painful watching for me. It was definitely a downer for everyone at the time.
Clockwork Orange is about programming a man to eschew violence. Full Metal Jacket is about programming a man to commit violence, both by the same director.
This video is especially on the nose immediately after the Southport incident and the ensuing riots in response to it. "History has caught up with the film."
Absolutely epic masterpiece 🏆
Fascinating, thank you.
Great film, great soundtrack too.
100/200 years from now people will still be talking about and analysing Kubrick's work..... they won't about Spielberg......... It's like comparing Beethoven and Bruno Mars.
A masterpiece of film making
Wow, such an in-depth analysis it's gonna take me months if not longer to understand what he means.
Hollywood needs the old-school titans more than ever
Kubrick and Spielberg had such a unique relationship, obviously culminating after Kubrick's death with A.I.. I've literally heard Spielberg wax on about Kubrick for almost hours, but never heard him discuss CWO before. He nailed it when he's talking about it being anti-violence, as one of my favorite movies every made, I hate it when my fellow film enthusiasts say it glorifies violence, when it does the exact opposite.
The problem with any movie depicting violence is that some critics and audience members are not up to the intellectual challenge. That is not the fault of the movie. I think Kubrick was exposing the desensitizing of violence but certain people would rather have sermons.
I always thought that people who said it glorified violence never actually watched the whole movie.
I don't think the film does either. It's more taking a meditative stance on it, like what Apocalypse Now did. That film isn't about being anti war film or pro war film. Just philosophy of war basically.
Yeah, those people don't really analyze the movie, they just see people being violent. It's kinda rare for that on a large scale. Most people don't want to have to think too hard about the plot.
And what's important about the film's anti-violence theme is that it doesn't just settle for seeing Alex as bad for his senseless violence, since there's probably an even bigger focus on how violent society is at its roots. The prison is filled with sadists who enjoy disciplining the prisoners. The medical experiment is just flat out torture. Once Alex gets out, his mates are now cops. The victims are vindictive and while you can rationalize them beating Alex up much like he beat them up, I don't think you can really rationalize using Alex's love for Beethoven as a way to torture him. It's as senseless as Alex's own violence, but because the man is driven by revenge, we "understand" him.
The ending's punchline is so perfect because how indeed could we ever expect institutions run on legal violence to cure violent people.
A Clockwork Orange is one of the best movies ever made. It sits atop like a huge mansion on a big hill.
Also, it is evident that it is not one of favorite Steven's movies. But it's nice to hear his two cents on it.
I read the Anthony Burgess novel it was based on before I saw the film.
Both are brilliant in different ways.
I'm surprised nobody has ever made a film of 'One Hand Clapping,' by Burgess.
The horror of the movie isn't just from the violence of the gangs, it's the response of the state on how to deal with it and the measures they take to reform.
I concurr, Spielberg's approach is a tad simplistic, no wonder
Stanley Kubrick lived in Childwickbury, which is just a stone’s throw from where I live. And the country lane where the Droogs drive the Durango is in my village. Who wants to fucking touch me?
I would
“Come and get one in the yarbles! If you have any yarbles, you eunuch jelly thou."
I guess I will too
Real horrorshow, my little droog.
Clockwork Orange was a sick, twisted, demented, violent and absolute great theatre.
Brilliant film. I admit it hits harder without the redemptive final chapter where he shrugs off his adolescence and embraces his adult side. Not dissimilar to the ending of Trainspotting.
That's because that ending is very, *very* stupid.
@@Mr.Goodkat Just because the protagonist doesn't learn anything by the end doesn't make the ending itself stupid.
@@mikitz I never said it did, I am not talking about the ending to ACO the film, I am referring to the books omitted final chapter.
Kubrick resided in the English countryside, hiding from the wrath of Gene Kelly.
This is where it starts, with the complete contempt and disregard of anything meaningful. Making cruel jokes about anything and everything you dont understand. Go watch the movie again or don't comment.
And yet, Burgess' book ended with precisely the opposite: Alex simply outgrew his "edge." The U.S. edition didn't include that chapter, and the movie didn't either, but that's how the novel ended. Americans simply don't like rehabilitation. It isn't "just."
The violent crime rate today is lower than it was when this film was made. People feel like we have more crime because media coverage of each incidence is dramatically higher than it was back then, when your news was largely restricted to what happened in your local community in a given day.
Bump
Pretty good insight into Alex emerging from his experience even worse than he was before. Also, I agree that Kubrick had sort of given up on all of us when he chose to make this movie. And why not: we're just violent, fornicating apes, after all. "2001" more or less said the same thing, but at least that movie had the Star Baby. No Baby here. Anyway. I enjoy the friendship of Kubrick and Spielberg, each secretly wanting to be each other, at least in terms of being directors.
Thing is, using "Singing in the Rain" wasn't Stanley's choice - Malcolm said it was the only song he knew the lyrics to, so he sang it. Of course it still works - brilliantly - but it was an accident of filmmaking, though Stanley (who was scrupulous about what he put in his films) did allow it stand. And, yes, it is depressingly defeatist.
Came here to say this
@@johngalt9737 yeah, a good example of now directors get credit or blame for just about everything in their features, ignoring the collaboration of the medium (though I do it too!)
It wasn't planned, but when he did it, Stanley told him to do it again because it was perfect and he got the rights to use the song.
@@Tuosma of course it (sadly) totally changed that classic song forever - no joy now when Gene Kelly splashes his way through puddles after meeting Debbie Reynolds - doobie-do doobie-do
I think I actually saw *A Clockwork Orange* first. Either way, I saw both of them for the first time as a teenager renting them on VHS.
I think the movie is an indictment on the optimism of science to solve and remedy evil. One must change the heart for that.
In the original ending of the book, Alex does form a gang, but he becomes a little more wiser now that he's a father. And I'd interpret the ending as some sort of equilibrium (so to speak). He's no longer bound by controlled stimuli due to the institution's experiments, and thus can make his own decisions without fear of convulsions. While Alex does have the freedom to commit harm, he also has the freedom to make the right decisions as well. Even the movie kind of ends with a couple making love in the snow while everyone around them applauds (which isn't violent in the least tiniest bit). That's how I interpret it anyway.
I think the movie is deviating from the book with that ending. I definitely think that was a rape fantasy since the woman is shown struggling to break free and Alex visibly bemused by her pain, pulls her back as the other people applaud him for it.
So with that imagery in mind, I think the implication in the movie is just that Alex has returned to his old deviant ways and is content that society will be enabling him when he does it showing that he’s hasn’t changed nor learned anything which especially reinforced when his last line was “I was cured alright”which feels like mockery of the notion.
I'd read the book, so I hated the movie, until the 3rd time I watched it. When Kubrick makes a film, he's completely changing the focus to what he's interested in talking about.
I'll never be able to listen to the song, Singing In The Rain the same way. LOL. It was pure Genius (I think that Malcolm McDowell might have done it in an Ad Lib).
A Clockwork Orange is a film that looks pragmatically at crime really violent crime and violence.
Kubrick sees violence as part of the human condition in this film and demonstrates that it could be controlled but not eliminates or eradicated
I don't entirely agree with all Spielbergs thoughts here about Orange but I do agree with his view of Alex at the end.
Alex will be a more polished, refined and sophisticated hooligan upon release. No doubt in my mind.
I posted on Malcolm’s Facebook site for a Clockwork Orange sequel. Alex in all grown older today’s world where he is a Member of Parliament. Lol
It wouldn't require a huge leap of imagination to expect Alex to become a mob boss later on.
I want to hear what Gene Kelly thought of this movie.
Coincidentally, Cliff Edwards, who actually introduced “Singin’ in the Rain” all the way back in 1928 (meaning the song will soon be 100 years old), died the year this movie came out.
The more I watch this film, the more I realize that Alex's victims are more contemptible than Alex himself. All the supporting characters are monsters in disguise, while Alex has the courage to be open about his morally repellant nature. The Ludovico treatment suppressed his tendencies allowing the monsters in disguise to show their true form, transforming Alex from predator to prey, and from villain to hero. When the government gives Alex his free will back, it is a victory for the common man in an oppressive regime. Not a bad flick
Clockwork Orange was talking about a phenomenon that wasn't anything new. The working class young male had for centuries before in literature and news been held up as a threat to the good order of society: which is why the government and its institutions (representing the wealthy business owners who needed the working class labour) argued it needed policing so heavily. From Teddies, Rockers, Neds, Beatniks, Mods, Punks and so on - each counter culture movement rejected some aspect of the status quo, rejected the normal order of society, but were firmly men of age 14 to 21 who through good orderly education by the state could be moulded into diligent effective hard workers and absorbed into society. But they haven't really changed - they have just matured into jobs that suit them and been paid to divert their destructive tendencies somewhere else, such as Alex's colleagues who swap their youth gang life for one the most organised gangs of all - the police - while Alex himself has ills inflicted upon him some might consider more inhuman than much of his behaviour. The idea that it only matches society today is incredibly naive.
Sad we will never see amazing films like this again.
malcolm mcdowell recently said that the film was intended as a satire and some of the most disturbing scenes were there because they made Stanley Kubrick laugh.
Goddamn, although I can't say I'm surprised to hear that. Kubrick's sense of humor was unusual.
@@PrinceSmith7 It's hilarious, the guy eating toast while Mom wails ostentatiously and Dad explains Basil's sad end.
But steven hes holding up a mirror to society and he chose to live behind the bushes because of it and he only made a handful of films. But he left the movie for the audience to choose whether he went on to cause chaos and harm or settle down and behave appropriately, stanley knew it was the best way, let the audience decide what would happen. So yes you could see the twinkle in his eye however there is a tempered response there with alt outcomes.
One of Clockwork's themes that Spielberg doesn't hit on here (at least not in this soundbite) is that a hierarchy attempting to control the individuals goodwill/freewill to their preferences is an exercise in futility.
Yes. Not to mention despotic even if it were even possible. (See also: Singapore's ongoing experiments with mass oppression/repression).
That would appear as THX-1138
@@anotherdamn6c both movies same year.
A Clockwork Orange is Stanley Kubrick’s most defeatist movie . It defeated everything Steven Spielberg ever did 😂
I always saw the movie as the paradox of viewing violent criminals as victims of society.
I like that, how A Clockwork Orange was pretty much Kubrick's explanation of why he ran off and hid in the English countryside. We'll never defeat violence. The human condition is like the surface of an orange, and we'll always end up where we started.
"Lomticks of toast" is forever in the lexicon.
I certainly believe Spielbergs comment about kubrick living in England.... I think he could make films the way he wanted and could see the critics coming.
The genius of Kubrick is that he never made the same movie twice - not even close to it.
Kubrick's films often take a dark view on humanity. Given the impermanence of all things, life is tragedy.
This was the holding up of the mirror to ourselves and our species. Truly confronting.
This was quite revealing and intriguing
Epic Cult Classic 🕶️🤙🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
The movie was different from the book as well, so if people want to understand the point of the story, they should go and read Anthony Burgess’s novel. It also is a masterpiece. What Spielberg failed to discuss here was free will. Essentially, it’s an allegory about the freedom to choose to be good an dbad, and how reprogramming in the movie fails to work, the book deal with things in a different way. We see Alex contained but essentially without the freedom of will that life tells us essential to make it worthwhile to exist.
A Clockwork Orange meets 2024 “Hello where've you been? We've been waiting for you “
first time i saw Clockwork i was on acid and 15 i think. It was nuts to say the least.
Apparently Anthony Burges hated the movie. But then again, Stephen King really dislikes the movie, The Shining.
But the case of Burgess is interesting, because he regretted writing the book after watching the movie. Can't blame him, his wife was r4p3d by american soldiers during WW2, the whole point that started the book.
@@jesustovar2549 is that true?
Spielberg reaches the wrong conclusion, because Kubrick used the American version of the book as the basis for the film, which cut the last chapter. In the full version, Alex does give up his violent ways, and ends up a normal family man with a regular job, because that's what getting old does.
It's like getting old and replacing guns with walkie talkies. :)
The thing is, I never liked the UK ending of the book. It's very much the author (whose wife was attacked by some servicemen when she was pregnant causing a miscarriage) basically trying to do the Christian thing and forgiving his wife's attackers by saying that they were just young. The problem is that in reality many of these violent youths don't age out of it. They become violent adults if they live that long. It takes a huge amount of work to rehabilitate such people if they do end up in prison, and it's just complete fiction that it's just a case of wait until they get a few years older.
Interesting that Spielberg came to that conclusion about the ending of the film because, I believe that the script was based on the US edition of the book which misses the final chapter.
The US edition ends where the film does with Alex having gone through treatment and it hasn't worked.
However, in the missing final chapter, Alex outgrows his violent behavior himself and matures.
I do wonder sometimes how the movie would have been received if it had the final section that the international version of the book had: The 21st chapter, where Alex meets Pete in a bar, who now has a wife and a family and seems to be happy and Alex wonders to himself if that might be something he'd like to try... The movie is based on the American version of the book with only 20 chapters.
Spielberg on the other hand leaves his mansion gate and door wide open.
It fascinates me that Kubrick was true to its American release, which omits the final chapter, the only thing that brings a sense of hope to the reader after enduring the damned thing. It definitely makes the tolchok hit harder without.
wow Spielberg completely misses the point about evil and free will. But then I guess he never read the book.
Hmm the book and the film are pretty much exactly the same, scene for scene no? He did embellish anything if I remember correctly.
@@TheLunarnotesapparently one version of the book has another chapter, omitted from the movie, which changes the impact.
You are correct… Spielberg is clueless about this movie. Yes he misses the entire point. As I said earlier, Spielberg is a great technical Director but when it comes to depth… He’s clueless.
@@2424rocket yeah wow, I totally see what you mean. Add this to the column of "Things I Learned About Famous Directors"!
He's a bit off, the film is from 1971 and they don't play Kelly singing until the end credits.
Very good 👍
Lets not forget it is a book first....written by Anthony Burgess.
Without that Kubrick never makes it.
1:41 Spielberg doesn't even know the decade when it was made (smh...)
Like imagine seeing this in the time that it came out. Fucking sick, it’s like an assault on the public it’s so quick and abrasive, but you’ve never stop thinking about it. They didn’t even know movies could do that and this was the first one
Seeing this at 13 was interesting
In the book he isn't violent anymore. He wants to become a father after seeing a baby. Kubrick left out the final chapter.
WOW! that sure makes sense. Steven Spielberg was a very personal and very close friend of Stanley Kubrick. this interview (short as it is) was very insightful! OH! and when I AM in a place where I cannot be seen, and yet I AM approaching people, I always whistle VERY loudly, 🎵"Button up your overcoat, let the wind blow free, takes good care of yourself, you belong to me. Be careful crossing streets.......".......🎶
0:22 Kubrick saw the future and the future is now.
Classic.Period.
I watched it once in the 90s. I wish I wouldn’t have.
Don’t understand the fear from people in the comment section. This has always been my favorite Kubrick movie. In my opinion his best film. Do you realize how he has stripped away the human emotion and showed us the inner workings of our physiological inner selves?
In the book Alex sees the error of his ways. Except the last chapter was cut in America so he may stay bad in Kubrick's universe based on the American version.
Leave it to Spielberg to give the most anodyne, surface reading of what Kubrick and Burgess had in mind. He even did two movies himself in "Minority Report" and "Munich" which cover philosophically adjacent topics related to crime and violence (and the control of crime and violence) and retribution, but seems blissfully unaware of what's going on in this movie. The novel and the film are notably different, in particular, the endings, and the concerns of Burgess and Kubrick seem to have been different in regard to the overall theme--carried in the meaning of the title--with Kubrick seeming more concerned with the loss of identity and authenticity due to the social/therapeutical programming of humans, and Burgess seeming more concerned with the implication for the individual's soul if his freedom of choice is removed. Spielberg doesn't hint at any of this, but seems to think the Big Idea is that "kids are bad and getting worse (those punks!)" and "despite society's best efforts, they will probably re-offend." Of course, my readings of "The Temple of Doom" and "Hook" have always been that they're the homosexual wish-fulfillment analogs of Lewis Carroll's "Alice" stories, and movies only a committed child molester could love, so I do favor more challenging and pointed critiques. Lastly, calling "A Clockwork Orange" "the first punk rock movie" is as cringe-worthy as referring to "2001" as the first "ChatGPT movie" or something like that.
Violent crime in large cities was a huge concern in the time it was made, but hardly new - this film actually feels somewhat dated in its fear of rebellious youth, given that violent crime has been declining continuously for 30 years now in all nations, for reasons not entirely agreed upon.
Yeah but in general the fear of teenagers and young people endures. So much of the anti-Gen Z, anti woke, anti BLM stuff you see in conservative media is just fear of youthful vigor in disguise and oh my God the world is going to hell in a hand basket because of these lunatics. So even if the statistics say otherwise, this perception and fear will always exist. I remember reading something form Greek literature written 400 BC where this old guy was bemoaning these ignorant and savage youths of today.
I think Mr. Spielberg is on to something. Great video.
Punk Rock Movie?!
He’s not wrong on that note.
Clearly he hadn't seen the film in years. Singing in the rain doesn't play during the film, Alex sings it. Actual song plays over the end credits.
And he doesn't kick the man to death, he sexually assault his wife in front of him. The man survives and is the same one who plays Beethoven to push Alex to jump out the window. It seems that Spielberg fundamentally does not understand the point of the movie, which is about the need of choice for people to be good, not some forced intervention that does not allow another choice for socially acceptable behavior. He also has that idea that it was better before when the reality is that we simply did not know about a lot of the actions that occurred.
@@jd190d ~ Yeah, I was really surprised, especially considering how much he admired Kubrick.
@@CastlesForEyesWell. it's similar to something I noticed before, if you ask a person who wrote a really good song what it means, the answer you get will tend to be simplistic at best. Putting the words together does not mean you understand the implications of what was said. Many creators are often not very deep thinkers.
@@jd190d A TH-cam nobody telling one of the most celebrated film makers that he's wrong. That's comedy!
@@nebularain3338Factual point in the movie Spielberg got wrong. That person being kicked does not die and later is the one who uses music to push Alex into trying to kill himself. You can watch the movie and see I am right. I have other examples that are not interpretation, they are factual, observable actions in the movie.
And look at Britain today!
I went to see this in Sweden in 1988, it was banned in Ireland and we went not fully aware of what we were about to witness .i was with my girlfriend and a few of her female friends, all of us were about 18. We all wanted to leave but thought, better to stay and see how the end would somehow justify the evil and horror we were witnesses to. Sadly it wasn't to be and we all felt very traumatised for some time after.
This movie was shocking, bizarre, funny and sexy... I liked it!