A futuristic London is run by the youth--it is terrorized by them, rather. People lock their doors at night as young men in lipstick and top hats wielding chains and knives run amok, stealing, raping, burgling, beating and generally causing mayhem at will. The police are ineffective at quelling the gangs who roam and fight, hopped up on milk-plus. It is a dark London filled up with dark characters.
Alex DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell) is head of his droogs, Pete, Georgie and Dim who are one such gang clad in baseball pants and bowler hats. His criminal record is extensive and he lives by inspiration. These impulses are largely fueled by his love of music, particularly that of the great Ludwig Van. His cheeky grin, piercing blue eyes and natural charm help him lead with pomp and swagger.
His demise comes when he "accidentally" bludgeons a woman to death with a large penis sculpture and he is imprisoned. With good behavior he is transferred to a medical facility to take part in a new experiment which will wipe out crime for good. Through means I won't reveal he is conditioned to become physically ill when the temptation for violence or sex arises. Thus, his ability to choose whether to be good or evil is effectively taken away from him.
The novel of the same name was written by Anthony Burgess in 1962, and it is my favorite book. I have a fascination with dystopias and director Stanley Kubrick has been able to transfer this world onto the silver screen keeping Kubrick's inherent cynicism and flair for stage picture, whilst staying incredibly true to the source material. This is true in all but one major respect: the English edition of the novel has 21 chapters, the American has 20. Kubrick chose to adapt the American version which is important when analyzing the Alex's character as well as Kubrick's message to the audience. I will tread carefully here and state only that the Alex of the end of the 20th chapter is entirely different to the one in the 21st; Kubrick neglects to show the final, incredibly significant change of character.
All sorts of ethical questions are raised in the book and consequently by the movie as well. The most glaring one tackled is the importance of free will: if a man is no longer given the ability to choose to be evil does that necessarily make him good? One of the defining characteristics of man as opposed to other creatures of the animal kingdom is his ability to reason--if that is taken away is the man still a man?
This plays out some very contradictory theories on religion, but in the end the Church is probably seen as a positive pillar of society. The priest of the prison where Alex is confined condemns the practices of this medical facility being used on the boy. Strangely though, Alex also has a pet snake, figures of Jesus in his room and a giant painting of a naked woman. In one shot the three are seen together creating an obvious allusion to the Garden of Eden. If Alex is evil and has the biblical references throughout his room, then what artistic statement is Kubrick trying to make?
Also the issue of the role of the intellectual and the artist arises. Scientists utilize film to shape the nature of man, but is this correct? Kubrick surprised me in his choosing to do this film as it reflects rather poorly on the role of the filmmaker. However, Kubrick always had very strong and judgmental ideas of the ways in which people interact and how society functions as a whole and his films could be strongly argued subvert the traditional role of the filmmaker in the same way he utilizes them in "A Clockwork Orange".
This is a very, very divisive film with strong critics against it. I think that their complaints stem mostly from the aggrandizement of the villain (which is something I have always loved). I spent about five minutes grappling with the content trying to decide whether Kubrick loved or hated Alex and in the end I determined that he feels neither. It comes across as a love of this sadistic young man, but in the end Kubrick was angry at the ways in which people follow others blindly, never having ideas of their own. I believe that Kubrick loved the idea of Alex as someone who hears music and reacts to it. His choice is wholly his own and he chooses to be bad.
The artistic elements of the film are startling and eccentric. Visually, Kubrick is at his best designing a world of abstract color and design that juxtaposes the artistic with the destroyed. There is very little to define this film in a particular era; it simply is its own world of vivacity and blood. The director's fondness of music is clearer throughout than it is any of his films other than "2001: A Space Odyssey," which makes sense considering Alex's love of classical music. What I have neglected to mention is the uncomfortable humor of the movie. At times it is very funny, though one might feel ashamed to laugh considering the content. The music is crucial to this as Kubrick used it (I think...) to be an on-going joke. Continuously there are pieces chosen which clash in tone with that of the visual elements of the scenes in which they are played. For instance, Beethoven's 9th symphony is remixed using all sorts of weird electronic equipment and a toy piano, I believe. It is Kubrick mocking us for feeling uncomfortable watching what he presents us; it is a cruel jab.
He was very lucky to find Malcolm McDowell. It is well known that this film almost didn't get made as Kubrick searched unsuccessfully for two years trying to find someone to play Alex. In the end I think McDowell has done what no actor has done before: he threatened to upstage Kubrick. His twisted, maniacal and hilarious Alex at times makes one almost forget that Kubrick meticulously planned every bit of his performance, and that is an impossibly rare feat.
Not everyone will enjoy this film, but everyone should see it especially because there has never been another film like it. In order to fully appreciate it, though, it is probably important that you go into it with deep bitterness about humanity. Only then will everything make sense.
4/4
No comments:
Post a Comment