Regarding "A Clockwork Orange", Iain Noble wrote:
>
>
> If I'm baffled by anything it's Tom's description of the film as
> 'decadent' and 'appalling'. I think he's confusing depiction with
> approval.
and
> You might
> disapprove of what something shows or says but that doesn't mean
> it's bad art.
I've tried before to articulate my disgust with this film, and I
usually end up pointing to another Chicago critic:
>> A Clockwork Orange
Capsule by Dave Kehr
From the Chicago Reader
A very bad film--snide, barely competent, and overdrawn--that enjoys a
perennial popularity, perhaps because its
confused moral position appeals to the secret Nietzscheans within us.
It's a movie that Leopold and Loeb would
have loved, endorsing brutality in the name of nonconformism. At best,
Stanley Kubrick's 1971 film suggests an
Animal House with bogus intellectual trappings. But the trappings--the
rationalizations and spurious
arguments--are what make it genuinely irresponsible, genuinely
abhorrent. With Malcolm McDowell, Patrick
Magee, and Michael Bates. <<
A number of friends have told me to see "Silence of the Lambs", and
I've avoided it for the same reasons that I dislike
"Clockwork Orange". I don't think you can make a good movie (or good
art) about serial killers who eat people or about
amoral rapists.
http://onfilm.chireader.com/MovieCaps/C/CL/02005_CLOCKWORK_ORANGE.html
--
Tom Mohr
at the office: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at the home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and when the office server is down: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
