The Most Unethical Movie Produced Since the Second World War

Rating: 1/10 (10 February 2004)

Almost all commentators have for two generations bestowed unmixed praise on this movie. I do not deny its technical merits. But it is impossible to arrive at a fair evaluation, without taking into account the secret propagandistic aim. The film was intended as a weapon in a protracted and still unfinished war within psychology and psychiatry. One of the fighting sides consists of psychodynamic therapists, or for short, psychotherapist. Their procedures are to a greater or lesser extent based on psychoanalysis. The other side consists of the behaviour therapists, whose approach is based on learning theory. During 40 years I have encountered no more than two persons who have pointed out the flaws of A Clockwork Orange'. One was the late Professor Hans-Jürgen Eysenck at London University. I myself am the other one. I discussed the movie in my doctoral thesis in 1984, and once more in The Non-Authentic Nature of Freud's Observations' (2 vol., 1993). The latter is acknowledged as one of the most important writings within the trend of modern Freud criticism, which started in the 1990s. If we want to grasp the real nature of the movie, we cannot avoid a careful scrutiny of the context in which the movie is embedded. We must direct our attention toward many facts which at the first glance seem to have no relation to the movie. I ask the reader to be patient; in due course I shall justify my `digression'. - - - Psychoanalysis was created by Sigmund Freud around 1895. Freud boasted that psychoanalytic treatment will not merely cure some, but each and every neurotic patients. In addition, it will provide a life-time guarantee against relapse. (Anyone doubting that Freud said such foolish lies may take a look at Gesammelte Werke, vol. XI, pp. 467-469.) One of his further (and equally mendacious) claims is that he and his followers have gathered a wealth of highly surprising clinical observations, which provide foolproof evidence of the theory. For almost a century Freud's followers repeated these claims. Not until the last ten years have they been forced to admit the truth, viz. that treatment has no therapeutic effect; that all non-trivial observations were faked; and that many of Freud's alleged patients did not even exist. - - - It may be debated whether behaviour therapy started in 1924 or 1904. But there is scientific proof that the treatment is highly efficacious. And while the normal duration of psychotherapy is measured in years, the duration of behaviour therapy is measured in weeks. Psychotherapists rightly perceived it as a dangerous rival. For many decades they succeeded in keeping it away from psychic clinics. However, thanks to Professor Eysenck the existence of behaviour therapy could no longer be concealed after 1960. The result was an immense reduction of patients seeking psychotherapy. The members of this profession suffered great economic problems. Their first counter attack was to start a world-wide campaign against behaviour therapy. There are specific reasons why it was easy to start such a campaign. It had always been the goal of psychotherapists to convert their patient into a true believer of psychoanalysis. And they had usually succeeded with this goal, even if the patients had not been cured. Many former patients held influential key positions: university teachers, reporters, writers of fiction, movie directors. Newspapers disseminated the lie that behaviour therapists treat bed-wetting children with electric shocks. Quite a few of my own university teachers asserted that behaviour therapists aim at transforming their patients into automatons without emotions. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE' IS PART OF THIS HIGHLY UNETHICAL CAMPAIGN. THE AIM IS TO DISSUADE SICK PEOPLE FROM TURNING TO THE HIGHLY EFFECTIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY FOR HELP. INSTEAD, THEY SHOULD GO TO PSYCHOTHERAPISTS, THEREBY SAVING THEM FROM ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. - - - Now look at Kubrick's movie, but not with eyes wide shut. A key theme is that the government has decided to apply behaviour therapy to criminals. What motive is attributed to the government? Is the aim to reduce the rate of relapse among convicts and, hence, to reduce the number of future victims of crimes? Oh no! Is humanitarian concern involved as regards a young boy who is serving a 14-year prison sentence? Oh no! If we may believe Mr. Kubrick, the government consists of scoundrels who needs the prisons for detaining their political opponents. Therefore it is imperative to empty the prisons rapidly of ordinary criminals. For this purpose behaviour therapy comes as a godsend gift. - The evil-minded parody of the outcome of the treatment depicted in the movie, is not even possible in homo sapiens. The boy invariably starts with strong aggressive feelings and with preparation for a violent action. Only as a second step is he overwhelmed by nausea. - There are many other things Kubrick and his writer would prefer the spectator not to notice. First, the troubles the boy experienced after release from the prison, are not in the least a result of the treatment. These troubles would not have occurred, if mass media had not given widespread publicity to his case and, without any respect of anonymity, informed the whole country that from now on it is safe to perform aggressive acts against this boy. Second, prior to the conviction the boy used to beat up peoples just for fun, with minor consequences for himself until a woman was killed for fun'. After he was released, each of his former victims was satisfied with performing one single act of retaliation. It would not take many days before he was through with all the retaliatory acts. And afterwards he had no reason to fear further violence. Third, who would sincerely claim that keeping the boy in prison for 14 years would be a more humane treatment? - Two final questions to the reader: Do you think that the description of the war within psychology is a superfluous digression? Do you think that users, reviewers and experts should not bother about the Kubrick's evil-minded aim, when they evaluate the movie?