Zodiac Discussion Forum

Notifications
Clear all

Gaikowski was such a nice guy

65 Posts
16 Users
0 Likes
9,201 Views
(@tomvoigt)
Posts: 1352
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

From the Good Times Jan. 1, 1972 issue, a review of A Clockwork Orange, byline Dick Gaik:

"A man can get his rocks off just as easily by hitting someone over
the head with a club as by raping a woman, preferably doing both in
the same encounter."

and further into the review:

"I left this movie with this heavy nihilistic feeling that anything,
absolutely anything which would bring the downfall of this society is
good. From this viewpoint every rape, robbery and murder which
contribute to the collapse of this rotten civilization is a good and
revolutionary act."

 
Posted : February 28, 2018 7:31 am
(@druzer)
Posts: 229
Estimable Member
 

He does seem like a sweet guy! I would like to get a better sense of the context of these comments, is the entire review on your site somewhere?

 
Posted : February 28, 2018 7:47 am
(@tomvoigt)
Posts: 1352
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

He does seem like a sweet guy! I would like to get a better sense of the context of these comments, is the entire review on your site somewhere?

Yeah, I posted it years ago.

The first quote was his description of the film. The second quote was how it made him feel.

 
Posted : February 28, 2018 7:59 am
(@druzer)
Posts: 229
Estimable Member
 

Thanks man, I will check it out. It’s not that the quotes sound ambiguous or that I fear you are misrepresenting his comments, I just want to get a better sense of how he discusses these kinds of issues in print.

 
Posted : February 28, 2018 8:10 am
(@tomvoigt)
Posts: 1352
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

Thanks man, I will check it out. It’s not that the quotes sound ambiguous or that I fear you are misrepresenting his comments, I just want to get a better sense of how he discusses these kinds of issues in print.

No worries.

Between August 1969 and when Gaikowski’s movie review was published a couple of years later, I dare say no other examples exist of a San Francisco newspaper printing anything about getting rocks off.

:lol:

 
Posted : February 28, 2018 8:16 am
(@druzer)
Posts: 229
Estimable Member
 

Thanks man, I will check it out. It’s not that the quotes sound ambiguous or that I fear you are misrepresenting his comments, I just want to get a better sense of how he discusses these kinds of issues in print.

No worries.

Between August 1969 and when Gaikowski’s movie review was published a couple of years later, I dare say no other examples exist of a San Francisco newspaper printing anything about getting rocks off.

:lol:

That is worth a ponder!

 
Posted : February 28, 2018 8:34 am
 Boo!
(@boo)
Posts: 62
Trusted Member
 

He’s doing an ‘edgy’ review of an ‘edgy’ movie in his ‘edgy’ magazine. So?

I’m yet to see anything of any real substance to put Gaik on the suspect list. As fun as it is to ponder.

Same goes for all the well known suspects though I suppose. No real evidence for anyone.

 
Posted : February 28, 2018 2:01 pm
Zresearch
(@zresearch)
Posts: 475
Reputable Member
 

When it comes to "a clockwork orange" I think leaving the last chapter out of the film ruined the point of the book.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the film as well as the book, but when you remove that last chapter it completely changes the message and meaning of the tale.

In the last chapter of the book "Alex" is cured from the damage done by his government treatment and is released. He runs into one of his "droogs", this droog is with a woman and has obviously grown up, he mocks Alex’s childish slang and dress, and conveys to Alex that he has obviously changed for the better, This leads Alex to question his lifestyle, it allows him to grow, and to truly change, on his own.

While the film, which leaves this out, would lead you to believe that Alex was just as evil as before. The film gives the impression that people can not change, while the book gives the message that even the worst of us can become good people.

…perhaps if the film included the last chapter it would have been less appealing to psychopaths.

 
Posted : February 28, 2018 6:17 pm
(@tomvoigt)
Posts: 1352
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

He’s doing an ‘edgy’ review of an ‘edgy’ movie in his ‘edgy’ magazine. So?

Gaikowski wrote for all to see that he felt murder was good. Have you ever done that? Under any circumstances?

 
Posted : February 28, 2018 8:29 pm
(@quagmire)
Posts: 208
Estimable Member
 

I think you’ve got to consider that California (and in particular San Francisco) in the late 60’s to early 70’s was a little different to how things are half a century on.

Psychedelic drugs, Vietnam, the hippy culture, anti-establishment sentiment, racial riots, etc were all part of a turbulent society and it was quite “cool” for people to tune into this and act like they didn’t give a sh*t. Don’t think we can really compare the writings of cutting edge people of the time with how the average person acts today, especially given the number of snowflakes out there who go the press or the police if you say the word negro or make a joke about the mother in law.

Having said that, only an hour ago I was reading the comments and replies on a Facebook news thread about a mentally ill woman who had killed a friend. There must have been hundreds of comments from mothers, grannies, teenagers, etc who said they’d “burn the evil witch”, “torture her for days” or “kill her slowly”, etc. These angry rantings are either just the modern day equivalent to the anarchic writings of the counter culture or we have a disturbing number of homicidal mums and grannies out there.

 
Posted : March 1, 2018 3:53 am
 Boo!
(@boo)
Posts: 62
Trusted Member
 

Gaikowski wrote for all to see that he felt murder was good. Have you ever done that? Under any circumstances?

I’m not a writer and have no public works. Richard has many thousands of words available to see and there’s bound to be a few ‘comparisons’. Small world and all that.

The guy ran an anarchist hippie style magazine. I’m not surprised he had some twisted views. Doesn’t mean he was Zodiac.

 
Posted : March 1, 2018 4:03 am
(@tomvoigt)
Posts: 1352
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

Don’t think we can really compare the writings of cutting edge people of the time with how the average person acts today

Then lots of other examples must surely exist? By all means, point me to them, because I’ve been looking a long time.

 
Posted : March 1, 2018 4:16 am
(@tomvoigt)
Posts: 1352
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

I’m not surprised he had some twisted views. Doesn’t mean he was Zodiac.

Didn’t say it did.

In your world it’s apparently normal to be stimulated to the point that rape and murder is ok. Gotcha. I have never reached that point.

 
Posted : March 1, 2018 4:18 am
(@tomvoigt)
Posts: 1352
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

I think you’ve got to consider that California (and in particular San Francisco) in the late 60’s to early 70’s was a little different to how things are half a century on.

Virtually all of the Zodiac suspects were Californians from the late 1960s. Now, how many discussed being stimulated to the point that murder was a good thing, or anything even close to that? The percentage would be extremely low. Therefore, the "oh but it was normal back then" doesn’t hold water.

 
Posted : March 1, 2018 4:31 am
 Boo!
(@boo)
Posts: 62
Trusted Member
 

Didn’t say it did.

In your world it’s apparently normal to be stimulated to the point that rape and murder is ok. Gotcha. I have never reached that point.

What, lol.

They are his words not mine. You quoted them in the OP, remember?

 
Posted : March 1, 2018 5:17 am
Page 1 / 5
Share: