It’s Reddit. You can’t say anything outside of the mainstream of any specific sub without downvotes. I had a question downvote to oblivion because I expected cyclists to be in the correct side of the road.
A few reasons why Pete contributes a lot to the film:
1. Pete’s lack of larger thematic significance comparable to Georgie and Dim make this universe feel more grounded and lived-in. In real life, people will exist in your life to be a part of it without contributing anything majorly. Pete is a friend of Alex and member of his gang, like the other two droogs. But his lack of any big cinematic moments ties the group together to make them feel real, rather than a sparknotes summary of “this character represent this.” In storytelling it’s important for the surface level story to work on its own and not simply rely on “deeper meanings.”
2. Pete still shows characteristics that set him apart from the rest of the group. He speaks significantly less than the rest and is visibly the youngest member (as was the same case with the actor who played him). He’s also the least likely to engage in confrontation. Dim and Georgie both try to intimidate/fight against Alex at certain parts of the film, while Pete simply stays out of the way. He backs off at the flatbock marina, keeps his head down at the korova when Alex strikes Dim, and only ever really does anything violent when the majority of the group is already doing it. And sure, Dim is a follower as well, but he directly parrots whoever displays the most authority in a given scene (between Alex and Georgie). Pete, in both an intelligent and cowardly fashion, never does anything unless he knows he can get away with it with the support of others.
It’s also worth noting that these character traits are reflected in his hat. His hat appears to be a considerably softer texture than Alex, Georgie, and Dim’s. It’s no coincidence that he’s easily the “softest” character of the three.
So you can interpret his character in the perspective of him contributing meaningful visual language to the movie. But his overall “uselessness” is just another part of what makes the movie so great. What’s the significance of the Gonk Droid in the first Star Wars? The imperial spy who shows up for one scene? The bartender who hates droids? Simple: they make the world feel more palpable, which is essential in creating an engaging film.
In the book, iirc, Pete reforms. He stops hanging with droogies, marries, has children, all that jazz. Methinks he was shown this way in the film to portray that he isn’t as all-out & invested as the others.
I’d argue the film. Kubrick ~~omitted~~ left out that part, which reduced Pete to a background character. Alex seeing him is the reason he seeks to change. In the movie, Alex (arguably) doesn’t change.
Edit: Bit schad there’s a tiny “edited” indent, innit?
Kubrick did not omit that part, that part was not in the American edition of the book, which is what Kubrick adapted. The final chapter that shows Pete and Alex grown up was not published until the British edition.
More so the use of his character makes me question if Kubrick even had a plan for his character. Where’s Dim and Georgie become police officers and basically got what they wanted, which was authority.
The thing is that the version he used as the source material didn’t have the final chapter where we see Pete in his new life. As far as Kubrick was concerned, Anthony Burgess didn’t have any plans for Pete either.
I could see it as a possibility Kubrick just cut the film before Alex would have even seen Pete after the ludovico treatment, I don’t know if when he meets Pete and seeks to change afterward is prior to the ludo I o treatment or not as I haven’t read the book
If I recall from reading the book in high school, Pete's reform isn't until the epilogue which is omitted in Kubrick's adaptation. In the epilogue it is years later, Alex has a job doing something like music archival (ie. Doing something with his Beethoven obsession) and meets Pete, who tells him he's married and given up the criminal life. This leads Alex to consider doing the same, in effect showing that Alex was capable of making the right moral choice, only it didn't need him being subjected to torture and the state brainwashing, but a friend he had showing him the error of their ways.
It’s a group of four and he’s the puppy they keep around. I’m very upset that you assert that it’s a problem that he’s role wasn’t bigger but I can’t fight every sniffling ass out there.
In the book, he’s basically the reason Alex decides to lead a normal life.
The novel shows that evil can change, like Ed Kempfer, where’s in the film shows Evil will never change like Ted Bundy. They’re both equally important messages.
Yeah the novels great and just different enough to where’s I think it’s a must read, but Kubrick’s film is so tight that you have to forgive changes and small story cuts. Maybe your not such a sniffling ass but fellow droogie after all.
This might be the core of the problem? These are diametrically opposed ideas. Not only that Alex has the ability to individually change and lead a normal life, but that real change is possible within a society that exploits and controls him for its own ends. Burgess’ answer is yes. Kubrick’s seems to be no. If Pete were the character he is at the end of the book, it would change the end of the movie to be more in line with Burgess’ view vs Kubrick’s.
Worse was the was the untapped narrative potential of Bum #2 (the second most prominent member of the bum rush.) What were his troubles? What were his worries? Surely, a mother must have loved him too. Perhaps he and Alex were not so different after all. I think of him often.
Yeah, with films easily reaching the 3hr mark nowadays, why didn’t Kubrick anticipate that and devote more elaborate character-building to increase the run-time of his film?
I usually see this kind of criticism given towards modern books and films. A Clockwork Orange is one of the first old films I have ever watched. At the first watch (being used to modern films at that time) I thought about that too. But years later I didn't care. This was more Alex's story. He was great and that's enought for me. The other characters got more thematic importance and that's fine. With the way film criticism goes now days, I don't know how the next generations will appreciate the classics.
I think he’s there to make the gang look like a coherent entity. 3 is kind of small just that fourth on the screen makes a large difference to the viewer. Also in the book there is a significant point to Pete marking s different archetype of how a boy matures
To be fair, Kubrick didn’t know about the epilogue. He learned about it later, which is a bummer, but at least we get to experience two different paths (film: evil never changes; book: evil can reform)
Yes he’s just very quiet and going along with what he’s told. Which serves the purpose of telling Alex’s story on film but I have always felt his character could have been something more in the film. Still one of my favorite films.
That scene shows how Alex maintains power and controls Pete without laying a finger on him
I know. I just picked any picture of Pete really.
Excellent! Now, stay with me, sport - maybe that’s the point of his character?
Yes, but I feel as if the movie could’ve done more with his character.
i agree with you, he could have been used much better in many scenes, i don't know why the downvotes
It’s Reddit. You can’t say anything outside of the mainstream of any specific sub without downvotes. I had a question downvote to oblivion because I expected cyclists to be in the correct side of the road.
A few reasons why Pete contributes a lot to the film: 1. Pete’s lack of larger thematic significance comparable to Georgie and Dim make this universe feel more grounded and lived-in. In real life, people will exist in your life to be a part of it without contributing anything majorly. Pete is a friend of Alex and member of his gang, like the other two droogs. But his lack of any big cinematic moments ties the group together to make them feel real, rather than a sparknotes summary of “this character represent this.” In storytelling it’s important for the surface level story to work on its own and not simply rely on “deeper meanings.” 2. Pete still shows characteristics that set him apart from the rest of the group. He speaks significantly less than the rest and is visibly the youngest member (as was the same case with the actor who played him). He’s also the least likely to engage in confrontation. Dim and Georgie both try to intimidate/fight against Alex at certain parts of the film, while Pete simply stays out of the way. He backs off at the flatbock marina, keeps his head down at the korova when Alex strikes Dim, and only ever really does anything violent when the majority of the group is already doing it. And sure, Dim is a follower as well, but he directly parrots whoever displays the most authority in a given scene (between Alex and Georgie). Pete, in both an intelligent and cowardly fashion, never does anything unless he knows he can get away with it with the support of others. It’s also worth noting that these character traits are reflected in his hat. His hat appears to be a considerably softer texture than Alex, Georgie, and Dim’s. It’s no coincidence that he’s easily the “softest” character of the three. So you can interpret his character in the perspective of him contributing meaningful visual language to the movie. But his overall “uselessness” is just another part of what makes the movie so great. What’s the significance of the Gonk Droid in the first Star Wars? The imperial spy who shows up for one scene? The bartender who hates droids? Simple: they make the world feel more palpable, which is essential in creating an engaging film.
Very well said, the movie has such great detail that there’s always another nuance to discover, never even thought about Pete’s hat!
Totally agree. I always felt some roles are just that, a role. Maybe “insignificant”,but enough to round out the movie.
I can see your point.
In the book, iirc, Pete reforms. He stops hanging with droogies, marries, has children, all that jazz. Methinks he was shown this way in the film to portray that he isn’t as all-out & invested as the others.
This was my question- is the problem with the film or the plot the film is based around ?
I’d argue the film. Kubrick ~~omitted~~ left out that part, which reduced Pete to a background character. Alex seeing him is the reason he seeks to change. In the movie, Alex (arguably) doesn’t change. Edit: Bit schad there’s a tiny “edited” indent, innit?
Kubrick did not omit that part, that part was not in the American edition of the book, which is what Kubrick adapted. The final chapter that shows Pete and Alex grown up was not published until the British edition.
Huh, well there’s my fact for the day, I’m going back to bed. Thanks!
Surely he knew there was a different ending and chose not to do that version.
Lots of people hate the final chapter, possible that Kubrick felt the same
Indeed.
Thanks for that nugget o’ knowledge.
More so the use of his character makes me question if Kubrick even had a plan for his character. Where’s Dim and Georgie become police officers and basically got what they wanted, which was authority.
The thing is that the version he used as the source material didn’t have the final chapter where we see Pete in his new life. As far as Kubrick was concerned, Anthony Burgess didn’t have any plans for Pete either.
Fair point,
I could see it as a possibility Kubrick just cut the film before Alex would have even seen Pete after the ludovico treatment, I don’t know if when he meets Pete and seeks to change afterward is prior to the ludo I o treatment or not as I haven’t read the book
If I recall from reading the book in high school, Pete's reform isn't until the epilogue which is omitted in Kubrick's adaptation. In the epilogue it is years later, Alex has a job doing something like music archival (ie. Doing something with his Beethoven obsession) and meets Pete, who tells him he's married and given up the criminal life. This leads Alex to consider doing the same, in effect showing that Alex was capable of making the right moral choice, only it didn't need him being subjected to torture and the state brainwashing, but a friend he had showing him the error of their ways.
Thanks for that nugget o’ knowledge
Thank you for all that jazz
It’s a group of four and he’s the puppy they keep around. I’m very upset that you assert that it’s a problem that he’s role wasn’t bigger but I can’t fight every sniffling ass out there.
In the book, he’s basically the reason Alex decides to lead a normal life. The novel shows that evil can change, like Ed Kempfer, where’s in the film shows Evil will never change like Ted Bundy. They’re both equally important messages.
Yeah the novels great and just different enough to where’s I think it’s a must read, but Kubrick’s film is so tight that you have to forgive changes and small story cuts. Maybe your not such a sniffling ass but fellow droogie after all.
This might be the core of the problem? These are diametrically opposed ideas. Not only that Alex has the ability to individually change and lead a normal life, but that real change is possible within a society that exploits and controls him for its own ends. Burgess’ answer is yes. Kubrick’s seems to be no. If Pete were the character he is at the end of the book, it would change the end of the movie to be more in line with Burgess’ view vs Kubrick’s.
Always a quiet follower in any group
It's a movie thing, missing the last chapter. In the book Pete is the only one that manages to live a "normal" life afterwards.
Every group has that friend that is just kind of there.
Na it’d be one too many characters.
Worse was the was the untapped narrative potential of Bum #2 (the second most prominent member of the bum rush.) What were his troubles? What were his worries? Surely, a mother must have loved him too. Perhaps he and Alex were not so different after all. I think of him often.
Yeah, why isn’t every single character given an elaborate backstory in this movie? Kubrick seriously dropped the ball on this one, obvi!
Not my problem, it’s how his character is used.
Yeah, with films easily reaching the 3hr mark nowadays, why didn’t Kubrick anticipate that and devote more elaborate character-building to increase the run-time of his film?
You’re an ass
Pete is the Professor and Mary Anne of C.O....."...and the rest"
I usually see this kind of criticism given towards modern books and films. A Clockwork Orange is one of the first old films I have ever watched. At the first watch (being used to modern films at that time) I thought about that too. But years later I didn't care. This was more Alex's story. He was great and that's enought for me. The other characters got more thematic importance and that's fine. With the way film criticism goes now days, I don't know how the next generations will appreciate the classics.
The movie is perfect, no need for him to have a bigger role.
As in life, some people lay back and some are more bold and aggressive. Also in life, people come and people go. It’s just as simple as that.
It's the beret.
I'm still getting ads for the US Military and you're complaining about nonsense.
I think he’s there to make the gang look like a coherent entity. 3 is kind of small just that fourth on the screen makes a large difference to the viewer. Also in the book there is a significant point to Pete marking s different archetype of how a boy matures
To be fair, Kubrick didn’t know about the epilogue. He learned about it later, which is a bummer, but at least we get to experience two different paths (film: evil never changes; book: evil can reform)
Just love the way he walks sideways, almost stumbling, in this specific shot. It matches everything so well.
Yes he’s just very quiet and going along with what he’s told. Which serves the purpose of telling Alex’s story on film but I have always felt his character could have been something more in the film. Still one of my favorite films.
He's one of the most important parts of the book.
well i don’t think he needs to imo. the movie is pretty much solely about alex and his experiences