A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971) (****)

To make A CLOCKWORK ORANGE or to not make A CLOCKWORK ORANGE that is the question. I once debated a close friend about this very question. He argued that too many people take it as a glorification of violence rather than the intended indictment, therefore making it a bad influence on society. I argued that an artist isn't responsible for people not understanding their work. Upon its release, Roger Ebert called it an “ideological mess” and Pauline Kael said it was pornographic. And yet it has endured.

Director Stanley Kubrick adapted Anthony Burgess's novel about a future where gangs of youth indulge in drug-laced milk then go on good "old ultra-violence" sprees where they beat and rape freely. Alex De Large (Malcolm McDowell, IF…) is the leader of one of these gangs. In one night, they beat up a drunk in the street, fight a rival gang and then con their way into the home of a writer named Mr. Alexander (Patrick Magee, CHARIOTS OF FIRE) where they savagely attack him and force him to watch them gang rape his wife (Adrienne Corri, DOCTOR ZHIVAGO). He's content with their penny ante thuggery, but his second-in-command, Georgie (James Marcus, TV's DOCTOR WHO), and the gang's goon, Dim (Warren Clarke, O LUCKY MAN!), have loftier marks like the rich cat lady (Miriam Karlin), who runs a fitness farm. Alex does not like to be challenged.

Alex lives with his ineffectual Mum (Shelia Raynor, THE OMEN) and Dad (Philip Stone, FLASH GORDON). When he continuously misses school, his parents ask the social worker Mr. Deltoid (Aubrey Morris, THE WICKER MAN) to drop by and have a little chat with the boy. It seems everyone in his life knows that he's up to no good, but is more interested in keeping up a cheery British attitude than taking any real action in the matter. But when Alex gets caught; it's then they throw the book at him. In prison, Alex charms his way into the good graces of the chaplain (Godfrey Quigley, EDUCATING RITA) by reading the Bible (he likes all the killing and begetting parts). He learns of a new procedure that will "cure" him of his evil. The controversial behavioral modification method, a pet project of the Minister of the Interior (Anthony Sharp, BARRY LYNDON), will use drugs and repeated violent imagery to make Alex physically sick of violence and sex, but in the process he becomes ill of the music that plays over the images — his favorite musician Ludwig Van Beethoven.

The film's depiction of violence is the main point of contention. Kubrick's use of music seems to be the key to this issue. The classical music used over the opening scenes of violence from Alex and his droogs is rousing. It gives the impression that the violence is just a jolly good time. That's the first gut reaction to the juxtaposition. But in total Kubrick is clearly condemning violence in his use of irony throughout. So why use the rousing music other than irony, which could be misinterpreted?

Alex is the narrator. It's his favorite music. Ultra-violence is his favorite pastime. Kubrick is putting us into his mind and is messing with our minds. When Alex goes through the classic "Ludovico Technique," he becomes sick of the violence and the music associated with it. Alex screams out that Ludwig Van did nothing wrong and they shouldn't use his music that way. If you get queasy during this moment then you're connecting with what Kubrick intended. The "cure" sequence makes the reasonably caring person question any pleasurable response they might have had to the start and solidifies the negative response in those who disliked it from the beginning.

Kubrick's critique of violence points fingers at every individual and all of society, particularly British society in this case. The hands off approach to Alex before he is caught and adherence pointless manners and bureaucracy make society unable to deal with the root of violence. They ignore problems until someone dies. Then their cure is to play with a man's mind so he doesn't really change, just simply can't act on violence. The chaplain argues this no longer makes them human, because it robs them of free will. And what of this cure? The film skewers society's reaction to the "rehabilitated" as well. Kubrick paints all of society as inherently violent. Alex's victims' responses to him are clear to this point. In the end, Alex is dealt with in a sterile way — a pawn in the war between the pro and con sides of the Ludovico Technique. Society isn't interested in the individual — good or bad — only their own agenda. Alex comes to symbolize all societal problems. Can any society fix them? It comes down to personal responsibility.

And so it comes down to the personal responsibility of the viewer on how they react. The scene when Alex confronts the cat lady subtly addresses this issue. Alex is titillated and deranged by his area's highly sexualized pop art, but the cat lady, who collects the same art, is normal. But what does it say about the art in the ironic result of Alex's break in? There are no easy answers to any of the questions the film brings up.

Upon its release, the film spurred gang violence and Kubrick pulled the film. But it still exists. It has inspired violence again, but the world has not come to an end because of the film. Is the artist responsible for every reaction his film creates or only the intended one? For those whom watch the film and act out violently, is it a chicken and the egg situation? They were already violent; the film didn't make them that way. To ban the film would be simply denying the root problem. So should Kubrick have made this film? I think the film answers that question for itself. Sometimes the easiest or safest answer is not always the best for humanity as a whole.

* SPOILER ALERT *

Alex is a charming killer and society is rotten in this film no matter how you read it. Because the film is from Alex's point of view, we come to relate to him, especially when he's abused by the system. As Kael argued, the youth of 1971 would embrace the killer as a hero because society was worse. And she's right that the film can be read that way. But in her assessment of the film she views the end as Alex's victory over society, but any rational person will see it as the demise of society. The grinning sociopath put on top by a corrupt society. They made him and they freed him and they fashioned him the hero.