The Abstract Point Of A Clockwork Orange — Review
Released for streaming on Netflix two years ago, is this a so called ‘masterwork’ of a film, or just cinematic satire?
Based on the book by Anthony Burgess, Stanley Kubrick’s 1971 adaptation of ‘A Clockwork Orange’, proved greatly controversial, yet influential. The dreamy, edgy swinging 60s sets up the scene for ultra-violent home invasions and tortuously explicit murders performed by ‘The Droogs’. Released for streaming on Netflix two years ago, is this a so-called ‘masterwork’ of a film, or just cinematic satire? Surrounding the idea of free will, this can be tossed around endlessly and reviewed in philosophy as something problematic. But is this film’s talk of freedom and suppression all really necessary? It’s an upfront commentary on humanity that can be deemed as abstract, yet is this label of abstract just an excuse to glamorise the utter violence? Or does ‘A Clockwork Orange’ stand strongly with a point in hand? We can say both. The retro aesthetics, in terms of costume & production design that Kubrick can be recognised for, do play into the significance and absurdity of this work.
Set in a dystopian England where the governed rules are anything but at liberty for citizens, morals aren’t only tested but are completely rejected. In this world, the government finds order in good behaviour, something that the main character, Alex, (Malcolm McDowell) completely detests. Alex has no moral limits and gains pleasure from violence with no concern for the consequences. Within the first half an hour of the film, we see him and his gang of ‘droogs’ beat up a homeless man and mercilessly invade an old man’s home, robbing it as well as raping and murdering his wife. Though labelled as a lesson in testing how far freedom of choice can go, A Clockwork Orange’s meaning can seem scattered.
Seen to represent someone so outwardly alive in his lack of concern for society, Alex’s mad challenging of human morals tests the meaning of freedom. But given themes, are they just barren and only strive to portray substance? It can just be seen as senseless violence for many. The intensely rebellious attitude is a reflection of the oppression faced in this film’s universe, and ultimately is an exaggerated comment on society today. Yet, you could say this about a film like Dirty Harry or Pulp Fiction, given their brutality. This theme, focusing on order vs chaos in society, is no doubt relevant, but however meaningful is it?
The meaning left in it could be that, through its distressing realism, it so rawly opens one’s eyes to today’s illicit society. Commenting on the confusion surrounding the film’s meaning, Kubrick stated, “It is a story of the dubious redemption of a teenage delinquent by condition-reflex therapy. It is, at the same time, a running lecture on free-will.” Furthermore, author Anthony Burgess writes in ‘A Clockwork Orange Resucked’, that the meaning is in the title, ‘A Clockwork Orange’ referring to one who “has the appearance of an organism lovely with colour and juice, but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the Devil or the Almighty State”. In saying this, Burgess does confirm that from his perspective, this is a comment on human nature being sucked away by a totalitarian government. Yet, even given the comment from the author, our perspective as an audience is truly subjective.
In the author’s words, commenting that ‘A Clockwork Orange’ reflects someone who “has the appearance of an organism lovely with colour…but is only a clockwork toy to be wound up by the Almighty State”, refers to our potential for evil, and the importance of it in human nature. This is certainly a thought-provoking theme, as most of the film is. The extreme capabilities of human beings can be an incredibly positive light or looming darkness, given which we choose to act on. Yet when this potential is squashed by a higher state, we can question whether one has free will, if it is still controlled.
In a scene where Alex’s rebellion is lessened by Ludovico’s Technique, a process in which he is brutally forced to watch films of atrociously violent acts, with treatment in order to make him physically sick at even the thought of committing any crime. In the hope to make him less of a threat to present society, he is less of himself. Again, we can think about the fact that is of course necessary to change such wicked behaviour, but we can also think about how it could be, had we not chosen to create any governed rules.
After seeing state officials confirm that Alex has been cured of his homicidal behaviours, a prison chaplain states, “Choice! The boy has not a real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement. The insincerity was clear to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice.” In total, Alex’s behaviour is ceased to be wrong, but he is also ‘ceased to be capable of choosing for himself since he had been rewired to believe what the state had wanted him to believe — that acts of violence simply are wrong. To the normal mind, this isn’t a hard concept to grasp, as we are surrounded by basic morals that tie in with our empathy. Yet to someone with more sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies, this concern isn’t there. So, again, Kubrick leaves us questioning whether or not people in this state of mind should have the choice there in the first place, as they are unable to distinguish that morals are important in humanity.
Furthermore, in 1973, Kubrick decided to ban A Clockwork Orange in the United Kingdom, due to continuous upheaval. Renowned film critic Roger Ebert gave it two out of four stars, stating that it was an “ideological mess”. Comments on its explicit sexuality, dehumanisation, and violence were made, with some thinking that the point of the film in itself was missed. As some claimed its content was to create a raw piece of art, others claimed it was an offensive excuse to pointlessly portray horrific scenes. And horrific the scenes are, though with fashionable features, the torturously disturbing scenes of ‘The Droogs’ murders’ are certainly crude, and have no backstory whatsoever. These brutal scenes can be seen as damaging to audiences, or even dangerous. What kind of insight are audiences given when shown such destructiveness?
If we talk about the stylistic features of Kubrick’s adaptation, they have certainly played into its iconic status, having audiences sometimes classify it as a performance art piece, rather than a film. The renowned costumes of ‘the droogs’ have been used repetitively as Halloween costumes, as well as the storyline being referenced in The Simpsons. The production design is, without a doubt, gorgeous, kooky, and as abstract as the film’s meaning. The interiors stun with colour-blocking wallpapers, framed pictures of 1960s models, and record players spinning in one room.
The sense of 1960s jazz certainly is there, with a slanted, modern design, that Kubrick is known for in other works like ‘The Shining’. Whilst Alex and his gang members commit crime, they dance along to Gene Kelly’s ‘Singin’ In The Rain’, and as Alex is tested through Ludovico’s Technique, a recognisable symphony by Beethoven is played. The 1960s wardrobe bursts with colour, an exaggerated view of Britain in the swinging sixties. Audiences are attracted to these joyful features like music and fashion, the stylistic features making it such a cult classic.
A cult classic needs to be fashionable, but is this fashion in the film pretentious? Especially when surrounded by such violence, as though to say that its chaos can be softened by pretty interiors or a recognisable score. Or does it make it all the more disturbing through adding a joyful song or colourful designs, as they so oppose the distressing acts that Alex and his droogs perform? Had it not had Kubrick’s touch, would we view it the same way? Though Academy Award winner Milena Canonero’s costumes and John Barry’s production design remain outstanding, does their glamorisation gloss over the underlying trauma of the plot? This type of questioning is something we can participate in throughout watching Kubrick’s production, as both, its ideas and meaning are not black and white.
Kubrick’s adaptation of ‘A Clockwork Orange’ is clever in that it has us wondering whether or not it has a point, yet regardless, audiences are still left thinking about the impact of immoral behaviour and how our society responds to it. However consequential it attempts to be, it really can also be seen as blank, leaving audiences to decide on which to focus on. The pop-art aesthetics of the film can overrun the meaning or either try to stir us away from the barren landscape that it can be seen as. However strongly critiqued and analysed it may be, its meaning is all the more subjective, both creating interest and successfully winding up audiences.
Stars Out Of Five: 3.5/5
