Marginally Kubrick's Best

Rating: 10/10 (5 July 2008)

Originally a novella by Anthony Burgess, one that emerged from the same British dystopian tradition that had previously given us Brave New World and 1984, the film is an adaptation that is mostly faithful to the book in terms of plot, but also is very distinctly Kubrick in its visual style. The imagery is surreal, bizarre and frighteningly entertaining, given the often disturbing subject matter.
Malcolm McDowell plays Alex Delarge a (supposedly 15-year-old, according to the book) sociopath who spends his nights terrorizing the British public of the near future, along with his droogs (meaning friends, but in a subordinate way). The film includes the use of the 'Nadsat' slang that was the defining feature of the book and is sort of a hoodlum dialect composed of Russian words, cockneyed English and slang from both languages). Alex and the droogs engage in a choreographed street battle with a rival gang set to Rossini's 'The Thieving Magpie' before assaulting an elderly couple while singing show tunes. After a series of shenanigans, including a high-speed orgy set to the William Tell Overture, Alex murders a woman during a robbery and is arrested. After two years in prison, the nearly totalitarian state attempts to reform Alex using a form of brainwashing known as the Ludovico technique.
As vile as Alex and the droogs are, we are aware that their society is almost as bad. This world is full of gaudy pop-art, run-down housing and there is not a single character we are meant to sympathize with in the first third of the film. Alex's parole officer P.R. Deltoid (Aubrey Morris) is particularly sleazy, only concerned with 'reclaiming' delinquents to benefit his own professional prestige. His position is clearly meant to create the appearance that the state is doing something about crime; in other words for public relations, hence his initials P.R. Alex's last victim is a nasty elitist who warns him: "I'll teach you to break into real people's houses!" In addition, we learn later that even Alex's parents are so shallow that they quickly find a replacement son once he is sent to prison. This is not to excuse the behavior of Alex; this character is absolutely reprehensible with not one redeeming quality. But because of the magnetism of McDowell, we willingly go along for the ride with him.
As for the most famous part of the film, the brainwashing sequence, it is for one thing a brilliant satire of the will-sapping, mind-numbing power of the mainstream media. On a more literal level, it is an exercise in aversive therapy: Alex is conditioned against violence, sex and even his other love, the music of Beethoven, by being made to suffer in their presence. This brings about the central philosophical question posed by the story: if one cannot choose between good and evil, then what value do they even have? The prison chaplain (the only remotely sympathetic character in the film) poses these questions, but the government dismisses such thinking as mere "subtleties." Of course, even in real life this is a moot point to some. The Ludovico technique, if realized, would be a profound example of applied behaviorism. A hardcore behaviorist like B.F. Skinner (a man both fascinating and creepy) would likely approve of this brainwashing as a means of control. Since Skinner considered human beings to be nothing more than complicated machines (clockworks, if you will) the issue of freedom of choice is meaningless, as free will is an illusion. By this thinking, we are only the products of a series of chemical reactions and we do not choose to do anything, any more than an ice cube chooses to melt.
If Dr. Strangelove and 2001 were about technology that slips out of human control in the accomplishment of its human-directed tasks, then A Clockwork Orange is about the danger of technology being used to directly control humans. In the age, of pre-emptive wars and terrorism-induced paranoia, both these ideas are still frighteningly relevant. We must never give into the temptation to "sell liberty for a quieter life."
Finally, A Clockwork Orange, is a rare adaptation that is, in the opinion of many, actually an improvement on the source material. Certainly, Kubrick did very well to remove Burgess' cop-out ending, the gravest flaw in that otherwise great book. On the other hand, Kurt Vonnegut used this book and movie as an example of the superiority of words to film, saying "there can be only one Clockwork Orange by Stanley Kubrick. There are tens of thousands of Clockwork Oranges by Anthony Burgess, since every reader has to cast, costume, direct, and design the show in his head. The big trouble with print, of course, is that it is an elitist art form. Most people can't read very well." So while this movie is just one of many interpretations of a single novel, there is no denying that it is a great, if hugely controversial, one. It clicked with me instantly and upon seeing the final image and hearing the final words I was immediately aware that I had experienced something unique and incredible.