<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Films @ Dave's Info Cafe &#187; a clockwork orange</title>
	<atom:link href="http://films.davesinfocafe.com/tag/a-clockwork-orange/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://films.davesinfocafe.com</link>
	<description>Random observations on movies</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:36:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Expansion of Violence</title>
		<link>http://films.davesinfocafe.com/the-expansion-of-violence/</link>
		<comments>http://films.davesinfocafe.com/the-expansion-of-violence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 00:17:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Film Criticism and Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Film History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Film Special Effects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Genre]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[a clockwork orange]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[film violence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flags of our fathers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters from iwo jima]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[saving private ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the exorcist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the wild bunch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://films.davesinfocafe.com/83/the-expansion-of-violence/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is quite common now to see graphic violence in films. You can even watch it on prime time television in the UK &#8211; just sit through a few episodes of Rome. We are used to going to the cinema now and seeing buckets of blood and gore, limbs and heads being hacked or sawed [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is quite common now to see graphic violence in films. You can even watch it on prime time television in the UK &#8211; just sit through a few episodes of Rome. We are used to going to the cinema now and seeing buckets of blood and gore, limbs and heads being hacked or sawed off. Most horror films now have more and more ingenious ways of dispatching their victims. It is inescapable. Even serious films, &#8220;Saving Private Ryan&#8221;, Clint Eastwood&#8217;s Iwo Jima double bill etc. show the realities of war in great detail. Kids&#8217; movies also have plenty of fantasy violence nowadays and this is what kids expect.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not going to get into the debate about whether it has got too extreme because we are where we are now. Taking something away is much more difficult than letting some one have something in the first place. But when did it all start to get out of hand.</p>
<p>My first memory as a child of seeing something graphic on a film screen was when my dad took me to see &#8220;The Alamo&#8221; (1960) with John Wayne. I had been brought up on a diet of western TV series on the television but seeing this huge spectacle was exciting. But the scenes that stuck in my mind were during the final battle scenes where Davy Crockett (John Wayne) was killed by a Mexican cavalryman&#8217;s lance and the end of Jim Bowie (Richard Widmark) being bayoneted by Mexican infantrymen. I had never seen anything so graphic before and certainly not in my TV westerns.</p>
<p>But I think that the real opening of the floodgates happened with Sam Peckinpah&#8217;s &#8220;The Wild Bunch&#8221; (1969). Watch it now and you may think that it is not a great deal different to a lot of films today in its depiction of violence. However, at the time there was a great uproar in the artistic community and the public at large and opinion was very much divided. Peckinpah made violence and death an artistic statement in the film. The use of slow motion and explosive blood pouches to simulate real bullet wounds made some of the fight scenes seem balletic, horrific and intriguing all at the same time. Peckinpah had a penchant for violence and this is encapsulated in the Wild Bunch&#8217;s final battle where hundreds of Mexican army soldiers are dispatched by a Gatling gun in slow motion with blood bursting from their gunshot wounds falling helplessly backwards down steps. To much critical acclaim I might add.</p>
<p>It had an incredible impact on making  action movies. No longer could you make westerns where one cowboy shot a gun and another fell off his horse. The boundary had been shifted. A new aesthetic of violence had been created. It quickly spread across other genres and boundaries were pushed and crossed and the system of censorship was tested severely over the next two decades. There was also a leap forward in the use of make up and special effects to emphasise the violence at this time.</p>
<p>Films like &#8220;The Exorcist&#8221; (1973) tested the boundaries in the horror genre creating not only physical violence but more disturbingly psychological and supernatural violence. The special effects and make up on this film produced some stomach churning results. The Censors worked overtime with this as nothing as graphic or detailed or disturbing had been seen on the screen before. There was a lot of hype around the film before it opened and people went to the screenings t be terrified. News of some individuals having heart attacks during the film only served to widen its notoriety and its appeal in some quarters. A number of scenes were deleted before it passed the censors for theatrical release. Only in recent years with the rise of DVDs  have some of the deleted scenes been reinserted.</p>
<p>Two years before in 1971, Stanley Kubrick had released &#8220;A Clockwork Orange&#8221; which had told the story of a group of disaffected young men and one in particular &#8211; Alex &#8211;  and the alienating world they lived in. It had been criticised for its extreme, almost glorified, ultraviolence and graphic rape scenes. There were a number of copycat violent incidents following the release of the film which sparked off a very heated public debate over the links between film violence and its impact on impressionable people. It grew so heated that Kubrick removed the film from the public domain with no one being able to see the film for over 25 years. The debate overshadowed the themes of the film which were very relevant at the time &#8211; the alienation of young people in the early 1970s; the brutal concrete landscape and environment that people were living in; and the violent reaction of the state to rebellious youth.</p>
<p>I believe these films were turning points in the depiction and expansion of graphic violence in the cinema and paved the way for graphic violence in realistic and fantasy films of today.Whether that is a good thing or not I leave to you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://films.davesinfocafe.com/the-expansion-of-violence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Film Director &#8211; Stanley Kubrick</title>
		<link>http://films.davesinfocafe.com/film-director-stanley-kubrick/</link>
		<comments>http://films.davesinfocafe.com/film-director-stanley-kubrick/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:29:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Film Authorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Film Directing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2001 a space odyssey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[a clockwork orange]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barry lyndon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dr strangelove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eyes wide shut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[full metal jacket]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lolita]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paths of glory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spartacus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stanley kubrick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the shining]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://films.davesinfocafe.com/12/film-director-stanley-kubrick/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When I was following my Film Studies A Level course I got the chance to brush up on my auteurs or authors. Kubrick is usually held up as the quintessential example of the auteur. An auteur or author is a concept developed by French critics to denote a director (usually) who is more than just [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I was following my Film Studies A Level course I got the chance to brush up on my auteurs or authors. Kubrick is usually held up as the quintessential example of the auteur. An auteur or author is a concept developed by French critics to denote a director (usually) who is more than just the guy who makes sure the job gets done. They actually put their own unique and indelible stamp on a production. Typically, you can look at the body of work from an author director and see his signature whether it be in the form of recurring themes in the subject matter, visual style, etc. Stanley Kubrick is a great example because his films cross a whole range of genres. Just think of :</p>
<ul>
<li>War films (Paths of Glory, Full Metal Jacket),</li>
<li>Sci Fi (2001 - A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange),</li>
<li>Horror (The Shining),</li>
<li>Historical Epic (Spartacus, Barry Lyndon),</li>
<li>Comedy/ Satire (Dr Strangelove)</li>
<li>Love and Sex (Lolita, Eyes Wide Shut).</li>
</ul>
<p>With a Kubrick film you expect to see certain things like:</p>
<ul>
<li>Controversy &#8211; a lot of his films entertained controversy at the time of their release. Lolita was about adaptation of a controversial novel about what we would now see as paedophilia; Paths of Glory portrayed the shocking treatment of French soldiers in the trenches by their generals; and, A Clockwork Orange was banned because of its graphic violence before Kubrick himself withdrew it from general circulation.</li>
<li>Arresting images &#8211; In each of Kubrick&#8217;s films there are images that linger on in the memory. The battle scenes in Spartacus, the balletic violence of the fight scenes in A Clockwork Orange, Slim Pickens final hurrah astride a nuclear warhead in Dr Strangelove&#8230;There are so many.</li>
<li>Technical Excellence and Innovation &#8211; For a great many of his later films Kubrick experimented with the latest technology to achieve originality on screen. Barry Lyndon is a good example. Kubrick and his cinematographer found a way to shoot scenes in candlelight and the results achieved provide a remarkable quality of picture. In 2001 - A Space Odyssey, a highly-engineered, circular, revolving stage with camera set up was built to simulate the scenes in a space station. In addition, some of the most sophisticated special effects of that time went into that movie.</li>
<li>Recurrent themes &#8211; Don&#8217;t expect a happy ending in a Kubrick film. Even the funniest (Dr Strangelove) ends with the world being destroyed by nuclear bombs! The stench of death is never very far away. Society brutalising the common man &#8211; the soldiers in Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket, the slaves in Spartacus, Alex in A Clockwork Orange (eventually). There always seems to be an objectivity or detachment in Kubrick&#8217;s work. There is always something that makes you think, some shock or contravention of the genre rules. The Shining was described by some critics as the first horror film with the lights on. Music is used in subtle ways to heighten the message being conveyed. Who can forget the spaceships in 2001 waltzing in space to the Blue Danube. Or the world ending in Dr Strangelove to the strains of Vera Lynn singing We&#8217;ll Meet Again. And where music met controversy when Kubrick had the temerity to use electronic synthesiser versions of Beethoven&#8217;s Ode to Joy in A Clockwork Orange.</li>
<li>Control -  Ever since his early films up to and including Spartacus, Kubrick would always have total control over the output and finished product. This personal requirement meant that he did not work that often (only 16 films in over 48 years) as studios shyed away from giving a director that much control. He was a perfectionist and would only release a film when he was happy with it. That also meant painstaking and long shooting schedules. Obsessive might be one way of describing him.</li>
</ul>
<p>As he is no longer with us we can only look back at the significant body of films he left rather than anticipating the next Kubrick controversy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://films.davesinfocafe.com/film-director-stanley-kubrick/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

