Reflections
on “A Clockwork Orange”
Scripted
and directed by Stanley Kubrick
Based
on a work by Anthony Burgess
Starring
Malcolm McDowell, Patrick Magee and Warren Clarke
Often summed up as a
damning indictment of the State’s willingness and capacity to exercise control
over its citizens, “A Clockwork Orange” is that but is also so much more in
that it invites its audience to consider or reconsider some fundamental truths
about society and human nature…
Peaceful co-existence in
society is dependent on showing consideration toward others, recognising that
our actions have an impact on others and accepting responsibility for that. This
is instilled by parental nurturing and enforced by state-sponsored rules and
laws.
Of course, man is not necessarily
a disciplined or moral organism on whom it is easy to impose constraints and
direction, as is suggested by the film’s title. There is always the potential
for conflict as a result of individuals exercising their self-serving free
will, poor or weak parental nurturing, governmental policies developed for
political effect rather than societal benefit, and subjective or corrupt enforcement
by officers of the law. Indeed, in this film we are presented with a
somewhat pessimistic series of characterisations and events that may lead us to
question whether man is truly capable of achieving conduct in line with
principle and idealistic values.
It is in this context
that “A Clockwork Orange” takes place and the film can usefully be divided into
three parts for our consideration: conduct and crime, punishment and treatment,
and consequences and repercussions.
At the very start of the
film, we are presented with a group of four self-centred, indulgent and amoral
juvenile delinquents, led by Alex DeLarge, who bolster one another’s egos and
sense of self-worth through bluster, acts of assault, rape and theft, and
through shared moral indifference. Yet these adolescents are dependent on the
very social order and conventions they wilfully scorn and mock for their self-absorbed
and hypocritical survival and upkeep.
Alex’s ineffectual
parents seek a quiet and easy life without conflict, question or
responsibility, and more or less turn a blind eye to his undisciplined and
narcissistic attitudes and conduct because that is easier than trying to assert
themselves or impose authority. As a result, Alex and his cronies appear to
have determined that within society there is little real resistance to their
use of brute force and the childlike and manipulative imposition of their wills,
leading to an excess of confidence and shows of bravado.
There are ironic disputes
within our band of young delinquents as they expect, with a considerable degree
of hypocrisy, respect and loyalty among the group members, but Alex, their de
facto leader, wishes to exercise his authority and exert control, so he follows
the successful pattern of violence he has been in the habit of pursuing and
beats his “friends” into submission to his will.
Beyond sharing
experience, principles and aims, social groups appear to require common respect
and consideration to create a bond and be successful, and in denying this honourable
concept and indulging his own ambitions, Alex sows the seed of discontent among
his “friends”, leading to revenge and betrayal…
A planned break-in goes
awry and Alex kills his victim. He is then betrayed by his friends and is
arrested for murder. This apparently crosses a moral line, even for Alex,
though he may be more concerned about the consequences for himself than the
fact he has taken a life…
Up until now, the only
figure of authority we have seen is Alex’s social worker who is presented as
corrupt, abusive and self-serving. Now the police officers who arrest Alex are
portrayed as judgmental, brutal and manipulative, imposing personal evaluations
and means of meting out punishment rather than being impartial instruments of
seeking justice.
In prison, strict
discipline is imposed and it is clear that the authorities are in favour of
vengeful punishment rather than expend time and effort on rehabilitation,
though the prison pastor makes some attempt at reforming inmates’ souls and
responds favourably to Alex’s efforts to ingratiate himself and thus ensure he
has a relatively easy time in prison.
So far, we have
encountered few positive role-models or examples of upright and responsible
behaviour in society.
After two years, Alex
claims to have seen the error of his ways and wishes to undergo a new
state-sponsored treatment which will allow him, if successful, to go free in
two weeks. It is fairly clear he is motivated by the prospect of early release
rather than truly believing in the apparently noble purpose of the programme,
to “cure” delinquency and violent behaviour.
This miracle cure is to
be achieved not by the high-minded raising awareness of the consequences of our
acts on others and development of a sense of responsibility and accountability,
but rather by means of brutal and invasive brainwashing and aversion therapy
which will condition Alex to feel physically ill at the thought of violence,
sex and, as an accidental by-product, his beloved Beethoven’s 9th
Symphony.
The powers that be are
willing to resort to extreme and dehumanising methods to achieve their aim,
using science to deprive individuals of personal freedom and natural instincts
and training them to respond to others in what they judge to be a more
society-friendly way.
This is all politically
motivated as the government wishes to be able to claim reduced levels of
criminality in order to attract votes. This scurrilous and manipulative purpose
is confirmed and enhanced by a theatrical performance designed to gain positive
government publicity during which Alex is summarily humiliated and debased, and
actors and models happily participate in an attempt to develop their own
careers.
Having paid the price of
humiliation and character-changing treatment, Alex gains that which he had
schemed to attain – his freedom.
On his release, Alex
learns something of the consequences and cost (to himself) of his previous
actions and conduct, a lesson that will have a more personal, emotional and
immediate effect than his social conditioning.
When he returns to his
parental home, Alex is rejected by his parents who have all but replaced him
with a considerate and appreciative lodger. This rejection causes Alex some
emotional distress and reveals a certain lack of awareness of the effect of his
conduct while he lived at home, and a depth of feeling for his parents and the
stability they provided, factors he had taken completely for granted and whose
deprivation he has brought about through his own actions and attitude.
He has thus begun the
process of sharing and understanding the consequences of his past actions and
discovering man’s capacity and predilection for vengeful acts rather than
idealistic acts of charity and understanding.
He next encounters the
old man he and his “droogs” or friends beat up viciously near the beginning of
the film. Taking advantage of Alex’s state of bewilderment and hurt at his
parents’ rejection of him, the old man hauls Alex before his friends and invites
them to give him a good hiding.
Alex is saved, somewhat
ironically, by the authorities in the form of a couple of policemen, but it
transpires these policemen are none other than two of Alex’s former “droogs”
and they proceed to beat him in revenge for his abuse of them…
It appears that talk of principle,
social understanding and forgiveness is just that – talk. When presented with
an opportunity for old-fashioned revenge, the scale is tipped by human nature
in favour of brute vengeance.
This is reinforced and
clarified by Alex’s next encounter…
Still suffering
physically and emotionally from his experiences at the hands of his parents,
the old man and his former friends, Alex ends up seeking help at the door of
another of his former victims.
Alex has returned,
inadvertently, to the scene of a rape and assault he and his friends inflicted
on a couple in the opening part of the film. Although the now wheelchair-bound
writer and owner of the house is initially willing to show sympathy and
understanding to Alex (whose rehabilitation by dubious means has gained
considerable publicity), when he realises Alex was responsible for his own
life-changing assault and the brutal rape of his wife, personal reaction
overwhelms him and he abandons his liberal and well-intentioned principles, and
he sets about torturing Alex psychologically, driving him to attempt suicide
and completing the vicious circle of violence.
Alex survives and his
story is simplified and manipulated for political and commercial gain by the
press. His attempted suicide is presented as the result of his misguided
medical treatment and political ambition, and certainly not the result of his
own actions and Alex is treated well in order to buy his silence and avoid
further negative political publicity.
Thus, the press will
benefit with an attention-grabbing story, the politicians will benefit as they focus
on Alex’s rehabilitation and, of course, Alex will profit, while the full
sordid and brutal truth of his past remains concealed or ignored.
Indeed, at the end Alex
experiences dreams and sees images that suggest he has reverted to his natural
inclinations…
Perhaps
human nature cannot be overcome despite our façade of civilisation…
This may be viewed as a
representation of the eternal conflict between social responsibility and the
exercise of personal freedom, but I think it is much darker than that. There
are no heroes in this story. No-one comes out well as no-one has behaved in line
with the principled and idealistic values we like to think are at the heart of
society. It may be that morality, principle and justice do not exist and life
is what we in society choose to make of it and accept. We set our own standards
and live by them, or not…
Although presumably
conceived as a satire to shock viewers out of their complacent negligence or
indifference regarding the direction in which society was going, something
misfired in the perception of this film and its import in some quarters.
Rather than be sensitised
to, or concerned and sickened by the violence and consequences on display,
certain youthful elements in the seventies took inspiration from it and this
led to a spate of violent incidents which eventually caused Kubrick to withdraw
his film from presentation for a number of years.
This may have been due to
the fact that in this rather bleak tale most of the characters are less than
admirable and, perhaps because there are no heroes on display, Alex appears
more positive and dynamic than was anticipated as he shows a degree of challenge
and integrity by remaining largely true to himself. This was enhanced, of
course, by Malcolm McDowell’s supremely confident, composed and charismatic
performance.
Perhaps the theatrical,
staged style also led to a lack of clarity in the goals of the film. This
“detached” style actually suited and enhanced some of his other films such as
“2001: A Space Odyssey” and “Barry Lyndon”, but here I wonder if it may have
contributed to the fundamental misapprehension of the film by some on its
release.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
