Kubrick lays down the morality trap !!!

Rating: 10/10 (29 June 2017)

'A Clockwork Orange' is violent, it's brutal, but what it's not is a film that glorifies its violence as many critics and audiences believe it does. Every scene of violence, however ugly it may be, serves a purpose thematically. The violence is often accompanied by playful classical/modern music. I think the music and playful tone of the scenes directly express the allure that violence holds in the minds of youngsters like Alex. An important aspect to be noted in the violent scenes is the lack of blood or the lack of shots showing the after-effects of violence. It's just unreasonable violence. But the lack of logic behind the committing of these violent acts and the playful tone of the scenes will make the viewer question why violence is so alluring to Alex and his 'droogs'. Why does he get stimulated by the prospect of harming others? Is Alex a bad seed, is he naturally 'evil'? Now although this question is not directly answered, there are hints and imagery littered throughout the film that suggest otherwise. In the movie, Kubrick depicts a society around Alex that cannot completely wash its hands off the crimes of Alex and claim absolution from the guilt of giving rise to boys like him. Kubrick implicitly hints towards the existence of elements like parental neglect and abuse, the insidious hypocrisy of authority figures like Mr.Deltoid, governmental impotence in dealing with and thereby curbing vandalism and criminal activity, systemic fascism and an overall societal apathy leading to perennial decadence. These elements underline the notion that Alex in spite of his demonic actions and tendencies might not be naturally evil and he might not be the sole person to blame. Alex is a product of the society that he lives in and of course a product of the government that 'protects' him.
On one hand, Kubrick opens up the discussion in the social context, but at the same time, he manages to convincingly condense the discussion to a personal level too. This is because the questions of morality that this film asks will be viewed and remarked upon differently by every viewer based on their own sensibilities. After Alex undergoes the Ludovico Technique and gets completely stripped of his right to choose, everything that comes up in the film subsequently involves Kubrick making the audience ask themselves the tough central question: Should I feel sorry for Alex? This is the sequence where the extensively wild nature of Alex's 'ultra- violence' in the first half of the film achieves further relevance and purpose. Had Kubrick not had the proverbial 'balls' to show Alex at his worst in his violent days in the most visceral manner possible, the viewer's dilemma while seeing Alex suffer after undergoing the experiment, would've somewhat lost its potency. It is interesting to note that there is a reference made in the film about the distinctions between the Old Testament and the New Testament of the Bible. I think this is pertinent, because anyone who sides with the Old Testament's 'eye for an eye' attitude towards wrong-doers will retain their contempt towards Alex even during his moments of extreme suffering and will not sympathise with him. They will support the experiment due to the result offered by it which is the eradication of the criminal instinct, even if it means making Alex undergo inhuman treatment. But anyone who sides with the New Testament's far more liberal attitude towards wrong-doers, will sympathise with Alex and protest against the government's totalitarian decision to strip him of his humanity instead of giving him the time to redeem himself on his own. Opting in favour of the experiment means the dehumanisation of criminals who after all are still human beings. While being patient and allowing the criminal in prison to correct himself from within and then allowing him to go out into the world again, involves risking the prospect of releasing potential ticking bombs into the world who can easily revert back to their darker selves. Kubrick severely tests each and every viewer's dedication and conviction to their beliefs, no matter which side of the divide the viewer falls on with regards to the questions of morality. I appreciate the fact that unlike the original novel, Kubrick leaves the question answered without allowing Alex any sort of redemption in the end and thereby not allowing the viewer any reprieve either. He presents the problem, but doesn't present a solution to the problem because a universal, all encompassing solution to such a complex issue might not be so easily available in the first place. The relevance of the issue of capital punishment in our current times proves how even today, these issues remain unresolved. The more overarching social problems explored in the film are easier to locate and take care of, compared to the central issue of morality and the inherent subjectivity involved.
'A Clockwork Orange' has the distinctive Kubrickian austerity to it. The camera placements, the intricate detailing of the sets to juxtapose futuristic advancements with dystopian decadence, the symmetrical visual compositions, the extensive use of wide angle lens, the extreme idiosyncrasies of the characters, the darkly comic tone,etc. everything screams out the name Kubrick. Now, let's talk about Malcolm McDowell. This is one of the most uninhibited portrayals of a despicable character in film history. He prances around like a peacock owning every minute. There is an intensity to him that complements Kubrick's style perfectly. McDowell's version of the 'Kubrick stare' which the film starts off with might be my favourite and the most iconic of them all. Wendy Carlos' score for the film is dark, hypnotic and again works brilliantly with Kubrick's visual style. Kubrick himself was a master when it comes to using music to underline mood and tone. Just like 2001, he makes optimum use of classical music and the music is in itself a character in the film.
This is one of the easiest recommendations that I can ever make.