Kubricks' celebration of violence. 0/100.

Rating: 1/10 (28 January 2003)

It is abundantly clear that Kubrick was a film-maker of genius. This genius was not balanced by anything resembling a moral sense. This film with it's synchonized beatings and hilarious in-out rape scenes are indication of a creator who was so in love with the image that what was actually shown doesn't matter, as long as it looked good. (Think of the whole of "2001".) There is a scene in this film where a middle aged woman is raped and beaten to death with the huge phallus she keeps as a work of "art". In many ways this is the crucial scene in the film. It is much changed from the book - but only in ways that make us feel that she was just getting her just rewards. Kubrick loads the dice so much that he is at this point more manipulative than Spielberg or Disney would ever dare. Are we supposed to think that a woman ( who quite obviously in the context has no man about the house ) who keeps giant phalli around is just asking for it - YES is quite clearly what Kubrick felt. Why does the film do this. Is it because Kubrick was a violence loving mysoginist. There is no evidence I have to say yes to that. The only answer that I can come up with is that Kubrick just liked the way it looked. That scene though is just typical of a film which dehumanises victims, family and everybody else. The only character allowed the merest semblance of life is Alex - our hero. Even if you appreciate the glorification of the thug, this is still not a good film. Most of it looks like some godforsaken mix of Lindsay Anderson and Ken Russell. The acting is constantly abysmal in that way that only British actors seem able to achieve. To sum up this is pornographic film making posing as a statement about free will. Your still allowed to like it, but be honest with yourself why.
Incidentally the director of this film finished his career with a 3 hour snoozefest suggesting that adultery was somehow equivalent to murde. Odd that.