A stylish interpretation of Burgess's dystopian novel -OR- misogynist art porn masquerading as relevant social commentary? (possible spoilers)

Rating: 9/10 (14 February 2003)

Perhaps a bit of both. While the visual shock of the "ultraviolence" has diminished over time, the inherent perversity of the acts and the aloof demeanor and sociopathic sadism and apathy of the droogs can still elicit responses of disgust and repulsion from viewers. However, the almost comic tone and musical-like choreography in Kubrick's presentation leave others wondering exactly how to react and undermine the perceived severity of the crimes being committed. Nevertheless, Malcolm Macdowell effectively captures the amoral essence of Alex on-screen, his charismatic and well-mannered veneer belying his perverted and ingrained sociopathic tendencies. After an arrogant power trip and betrayal by his disillusioned droogs, Alex goes to prison. There, he learns of and enrolls in an experimental aversion therapy program in an effort to rehabilitate himself (although it is unclear if his motives are to get better or to get out of jail more quickly). The tables are then turned on Alex, and the viewer is shown that the inhumanity of society's punishment is as repulsive as the depravity of Alex's crimes. The film raises a variety of socially relevant questions: Is society truly able to ever rehabilitate criminals? (is this Alex's case solely, or youth in general?) What are the dangers of allowing society to remove free will in exchange for security? What means, if any, are useful and/or justifiable to change the inherent nature of a person? With increased fear in the present age, societally and self-imposed suspensions of freedom, and recent phenomena like the reprehensible idea of "the criminal as victim", Burgess's prescience and Kubrick's provocative vision of Burgess's dystopia seem quite relevant and foreboding.