A Clockwork Orange (1971)

Directed by: Stanley Kubrick | 131 minutes | drama, crime | Actors: Malcolm McDowell, Patrick Magee, Adrienne Corri, Miriam Karlin, Warren Clarke, James Marcus, Michael Bates, Clive Francis

The controversial film ‘A Clockwork Orange’ is a film that is beautiful and very unpleasant at the same time. It is a film that is thought-provoking because of the moral dilemmas that are presented, and is still topical and meaningful in its choice of subject.

Kubrick’s film was attacked at the time for its apparent revelry in violence and its nihilistic tone. There were reports of actual acts of violence that would have been inspired by the film. Now the events in the film are certainly violent, but not in such a way that after seeing the film you feel like a good dose of violence. On the contrary: you are left with an oppressive and uncomfortable feeling, and you resolutely disapprove of the violent acts in the film.

The protagonist’s actions are in fact a textbook example of senseless violence and therefore completely reprehensible. For no reason or cause, Alex beats up a bum with his “Droogs” and molests the household of a married couple, beating the man and raping the woman. The low point comes when Alex is arrested one night after killing a woman with a decorative giant penis (you have to see it to believe it).

The film raises important questions. For example, how should we as a society act against a community in which gangs reign supreme and there is hardly any respect for fellow human beings? More “blue” on the street? Severe penalties? Better rehabilitation? Education about “norms and values”, perhaps?

Alex is tried and imprisoned (with a sentence of 14 years). He undergoes the “normal” prison life and receives Bible education. Then an experimental project is put forward, the so-called Ludovico treatment, which may make incarceration for certain inmates unnecessary (allowing the cells to be used again for political criminals). The brutal and evil Alex proves to be the ideal test subject for this method of treatment. He has to watch uninterrupted movies with the most horrific acts of violence in them, while being injected with a substance that makes him nauseous. As a result, certain of Alex’s objectionable tendencies will be nipped in the bud in the future by becoming physically unwell when they occur to him. In a demonstration we see how he is verbally and physically attacked by a man, but that because of his treatment he cannot do anything in return. He even has to stoop to licking the man’s shoe sole.

However effective this treatment is (or appears to be), the question is whether these kinds of treatments and rehabilitation processes are humane and morally justifiable. If we interfere with man’s free will, aren’t we stripping him of an essential part of his humanity? Should the solution be that as robots we all have a programmed package of behaviors? Is a good deed (or an avoidance of a bad one) really good if it is not of free will?

The answer to these questions may not be simple, but it is nevertheless indicative that, as much as we have grown to hate him, we still have a bit to do with Alex when we see what a pathetic little man he has become after the Ludovico treatment. This is not least due to McDowell’s brilliant portrayal of Alex, who aptly portrays every nuance of his character and can come across as both horrifying and sympathetic.

Alex’s sometimes theatrical behavior and artificial language is complemented by the form and style of the scenes in question. The composition of the shots is often beautiful, as are the sets, lighting, and accompanying music. Alex loves the music of Beethoven, whose Ninth Symphony runs like a thread through the film. The music sometimes creates an alienating and surreal effect, especially when its beauty does not match the content of the images. However, the stylization does not reach the point of romanticizing the acts of violence. Only during the moments when the gang members attack each other is the artistic register fully opened with clearly choreographed images and bombastic background music. Alex’s senseless actions towards his innocent fellow human beings, on the other hand, are portrayed raw and directly, creating the “right” sense of unease and disapproval.

Some images from the film have now settled in the collective memory. Alex’s eyes, wide open by a nasty pair of pliers; the opening shot of Alex’s head, sporting a bowler hat and an artificial “eyebrow” around his right eye, showing a devilish grin; the shot of the four gang members under a bridge, with a blue light giving them long, threatening shadows.

These images, which remain burned into your retina, are all the more memorable because of the disturbing theme of the film. It is all these elements together that give the film its class: Kubrick’s indelible style, combined with the high-profile content and the superb acting of McDowell, make this film an absolute masterpiece.