[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"]Uh, yeah, I'll just say I disagree with you on that one. I found the last chapter to be utterly ludicrous. I don't think it fit in with the context of the film's themes at all. I'm glad Kubrick said he wouldn't have used that ending if he had known about it while making the film.
I did see the film before I read the book, if that means anything.
Heh well we must have read a different book. The final chapter is the only thing that makes firm sense of the novel from my perspective, and it is the one thing that leaves the movie as little more than a visual experiment.
[spoiler] In it, the main character becomes jealous of the status of his former droogs who have moved on with their lives and are enjoying them without the need for external violent stimuli. It's the picture of an addict of adrenaline as a drug who finally realizes the drug is keeping him from better things. So he makes a decision to move on. And this time it's a choice he makes, not like the prison incident in which he is "wound up like a Clockwork Orange". [/spoiler]
Makes perfect sense to me, frankly. The movie is essentially missing the key final component in expressing the concept of man as an agent who reacts in his own way to external stimuli rather than being conditioned by external stimuli like one of Pavlov's dogs. It also misses the important philosophical question silently posed on whether there is really any difference between the two.
i thought the way the movie ended made it ambiguous for the viewer while the book had a proper ending to give conslusion to how a character has changed. i thought both were good but was design for different purposes.
Log in to comment