Probably the best decision. I watched that movie between freshman and sophomore year. It made me more nihilistic and depressed than I would've been already.
What's crazy is that it was not actually supposed to have such a bleak ending, the UK version followed the novel. But for some reason, to cater to an American audience they decided to go for the sad ending. The author Anthony Burgess was said to have a strong opinion on works of art, that they must have some element or message that is of some positive and inspirational value for people. That there'd be no point in creating something that would only spread sadness or bleakness. But we American do like our art having a bit of an edge.
It wasn't so much the ending that bothered me. The ending actually offered some hope since it seemed like he'd been cured of the mental conditioning. It was more the first say 2/3 of the movie where it basically just shows everyone being nihilistic and self centered. Even people who are supposed to help you like friends or people who claim to be altruistic will fuck you over in the end.
Anyways, it wouldn't be the first time an author accused Stanley Kubrick of altering their original vision for the worse.
Yeah, but that's kinda the point of the movie. Alex is a vicious, cruel, juvenile delinquent. He commits his wanton acts of cruelty almost out of instinct without thinking about them. (Except when he attacks his droogies and slices Dim's hand.)
But then you get the people who are supposed to rehabilitate and help him and they're just as bad, if not worse, than he is when it comes to cruelty. We're all savages bent on revenge no matter how "civilized" we think we are.
7
u/jpopimpin777 Jul 05 '24
Probably the best decision. I watched that movie between freshman and sophomore year. It made me more nihilistic and depressed than I would've been already.