The work of an Evil Genius

Rating: 7/10 (16 June 2016)

If you watch this to gain extra depth from your discerning mind and senses, the more disturbing it becomes. Even though the violence is stylized, comical, choreographed and phony, the movie's theme is more repugnant than most Avant Gaurde and Noir film makers could even fathom making. This film, although groundbreaking in its shameless and willful ambition, has some flaws. The flaws are artistic choices that are meant to convey an idea while a few other flaws are just poor craftsmanship. The acting is quite uneven in some areas. The set designs, background settings along with inappropriate wide angle camera shots, for me, detract from the personal focal points required for me to get personally involved and connected. Most everything in Clockwork Orange looks too post 60's modern from the home decors, artwork, and some other set designs. It is highly unlikely that middle aged people will sport funky futuristic furniture and art in their home, especially in England. What's more off-putting was some of the dialogue and kitschy usage of British youth slang. And I think this turned off many viewers as well. I am convinced that Stanley Kubrick was a genuinely evil man. Whether or not one agrees with this charge is not important to me, but after I begin to make a compelling argument against this film from a moral standpoint, you may consider it. To begin, our protagonist and (Humble Narrator)is a sadistic villain, who, without any rationale or excuse, commits heinous crimes without giving any personal reasons for doing so. As we follow Alex and his gang of Droogs on this voyeuristic rampage we witness their assaults on innocent victims, both young and old. There aren't any social or anarchist purposes for doing so. They do it just for kicks. This fuels their rebellious spirit, and somehow we are supposed to admire them.
As our Humble Alex gets arrested and sent to prison, we witness the process of rehabilitation through punishment and 'Aversion Therapy'. Once Alex pays the price and does his time he is chosen to be a guinea pig for a new experiment by a renowned psychiatrist. Alex goes through the grueling process through being administered of drugs and subjected to watching non-stop screen violence. Alex is cured, or reformed rather. He is sent out into the real world again for a second chance.
This is the fatal moralistic flaw of the film and why I think the message is seriously wrong. While Alex is being confronted with hostility he gets ill and queasy when trying to fight off his temptations for revenge and self-defense. This is not necessarily the benefit he needs, but rather the benefit to society for those that had the misfortune of being in his presence. What we see is that Alex has not fundamentally changed in his character. He is still the dastardly menace he always was inside. The difference is that he has been conditioned to feel physically bad when giving into temptation. I'm not sure if this Scientific medical programming of the mind works as it is shown here, but if it is then we are faced with another controversial topic. The story reveals that as we are supposed to be appalled by violence and brutality it is even worse to nip the problem in the bud by sacrificing a sick person's natural instincts. This is a bad message. It is also an anti-establishment message. This movie has been lauded by many art house and cinema majors. I believe that these people imbue too much profundity and meaning into a film than doesn't exactly deserve much notoriety. Sure, Kubrick was a die-hard perfectionist who was dedicated to his craft. He was a true artist. And that is why I give this film 7 out of 10 stars. The effort, dedication, meticulous camera work and effective angles make for an effective movie. But it is what I call a really well made 'bad movie'.