Challenging

Rating: 10/10 (27 February 2002)

This is probably the most intellectually challenging film I've ever seen. I'm really not sure I understand more than a handful of what's happening in this film. I mean, the story is easy enough to follow, and several of the themes become apparent on repeated viewings, but a lot of peculiarities remain. Much of the supporting cast performs their roles with a high degree of stylized exaggeration. I'm not sure what Kubrick was going after with all of this.
Still, at the very least, it's a damn good film that I really enjoy watching.
But every time I do, I'm thrust back into that dame dilemma. What does the ending of this film signify? Clearly, Alex has managed to indulge in thoughts of a highly anti-social nature without being torn apart. So, the effects of the Ludovico treatment are gone. So, what now? The legendary story of the censored final chapter of Burgess's novel has this answer. To viewers who complain about the abrupt ending, you have government censorship of literature to thank. I know what Burgess's take on this was, having familiarized myself with the true ending of the story. But what is Kubrick's take? What does Kubrick think he is saying with this film? Has Alex learned something from his ordeal? It looks like he has not, in which case, the only point of the film seems to be that it is better to be free and evil than a good slave. On this level, the film is more relevant now, in this age of personality- altering drugs people take for depression or ADD. Is complete loss of self to high a price to pay for the elimination of undesirable behavior?
The film is an excellent jumping off point for the topic of criminal justice. Specifically, what is the purpose of incarceration? Do we imprison criminals in order to protect society from them? To reform them? Or to have revenge upon them? It's a particularly fascinating question here in America, since the Death Penalty is still a very living issue for us. You can find in this film loads of material to fuel an energetic discussion on the topic.
But again, I'm at a loss to understand what the driector had in mind. It doesn't concern me. This film is thought-provoking. When I watch it, or even think on it, my mind spirals off into all sorts of issues raised by it. I don't know which issues, or which positions, the director intended to support, if any. And I don't care. It is enough, in my view, that the film provokes thought and discussion.
Added to that, it is simply an enjoyable film to watch, with an intriguing (if slowly developed) story. The structure of the film is beautiful. Slowly, patiently, it builds up an intimate portrait of Alex's pre-prison life. Then, slowly and patiently, it takes us with Alex through prison, through the Ludovico treatment, and to his eventual release. Then, in the third act, it slowly and patiently takes us back again through his previous crimes. Encounters with his parents, with his former friends, and with his former victims tell another story. The one thing that I do think the film is saying, quite clearly, is that people have a natural, emotional desire for animalistic revenge. Toss out the high-minded theories we were discussing earlier. When we hurt, we need to make someone else hurt worse.
As usual, a very dark, pessimistic film about the terrible flaws in human nature.