J.J. Jacobs writes: "ORANGE is a poor film because in the end we want Alex to resume his thuggery if only because the treatment is so dreadful and inhuman; Peckinpah is far more ambiguous about violence, admitting some exultation in it, but also showing us the awful consequences." With all due respect, I disagree. If "we" want Alex cured, it is not necessarily to resume his thuggery. The point of the book, I think, is a bit different from Kubrick's--from Burgess's religious perspective, all humans are sinful and the only possibility of redemption comes when they are free to choose, which justifies the ending that was omitted from the American edition of the novel and Kubrick's film. Kubrick, on the other hand, typically implicates human behavior in a pattern of violent behavior that leaves little hope for redemption--and he implicates all of art in this as well, from commedia d'el arte to Beethoven. For Peckinpah, you might make a case for the use of violence in some of his films--THE WILD BUNCH especially--but in STRAW DOGS, he puts the viewer in the rapist's position (and shows the victim desiring and loving the rape itself), with the timid male (Dustin Hoffman) redeeming himself and proving his manhood only by finally resorting to the violence he had initially refused (and loving it). Is there that much difference between STRAW DOGS and something like DEATH WISH? Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN) ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]