That Chaplain sticks in my throat

Rating: 2/10 (30 May 2006)

One problem with this movie is that senseless violence is depicted as glamorous. (This is obviously less of a problem after Pulp Fiction and Sin City.) Speaking for myself, I find this to be only a minor problem.
My main problem is different: the movie raises an important issue, but deals with it in a confused and illogical manner. The issue is whether something like the Ludovico treatment, if feasible, would be ethical. For those who have not yet seen the movie, the Ludovico treatment is a (fictional) conditioning process, by which a violent criminal comes to associate the sight of violence with strong nausea. The purpose is to make the criminal practically unable to use violence ever again.
Presumably, the Prison Chaplain speaks for Burgess and Kubrick when he complains that the Ludovico treatment is unethical because it robs the patient of his free will: the patient avoids violence because he fears nausea, not because he has changed his ethical outlook.
What the Chaplain says is well phrased, as can be seen in the "memorable quotes" section. It is also very silly. It is silly because it assumes that people who try to avoid nausea have lost their free will.
Imagine a criminal who has been to jail and has abandoned crime because he fears going back to jail: does this mean that the threat of jail deprives people of their free will? Imagine also a man who experiences nausea after tasting Bearnaise sauce in a restaurant: this man is unlikely to eat Bearnaise sauce again, but can he sue the restaurant for depriving him of his free will (as opposed to suing for food poisoning)? If the answer to both questions is no, then a man who abandons crime because he fears nausea has not lost his free will, either.
On the other hand, if the answer to either question is yes, that means that people lose their free will when they have to suffer the consequences of their actions. So this is what the Chaplain's tirade amounts to: there is no free will if people suffer any consequences from their actions; and therefore there is no free will in the real world. It sounds absurd if put in these words, but this is the only way I can make sense of what the Chaplain says.
It might be argued that there is a qualitative difference between fear of prison and nausea: the two emotions activate different brain pathways, for instance. There can be reasonable disagreement on the differences between the Ludovico treatment and prison, and there is plenty of room for debate on this issue. The fact is that the movie does not even begin to address the issue! The Chaplain does not explain why he is opposed to the Ludovico treatment, but not to prison. Nothing in the movie suggests any reason to prefer prison to the Ludovico treatment; if anything, the Ludovico treatment is portrayed as faster and more effective in reducing crime. This brings me back full circle to my starting point: the movie raises an important issue, but deals with it in a confused and illogical manner.
In spite of all this, I was entertained by the movie: there is an interesting story and stylish cinematography, as one would expect from Kubrick. The violence is unpleasant, but it is not gratuitous: it shows what kind of person the main character is, and what kind of people he hangs around with. But at the end of the movie, what remains in my mind, and sticks in my throat, is the Chaplain's speech. I perceive it as an insult to the intelligence of the audience. Should I be more disturbed by the violence? I don't think so, because the violence is fictional, while the silly ideas that the Chaplain is advocating can do serious damage to an impressionable mind.