ryan.smith.blog

When I got married, my wife kindly suggested that I part with some of the movies in my DVD collection. Some of the titles I let go of were "Eyes Wide Shut", "Boogie Nights", and "A Clockwork Orange". Perfectly harmless family entertainment, right?

"A Clockwork Orange" has always fascinated me. In one sense, it's deranged and sadistic. In another, it's an artistic triumph. I have some of the same feelings about "Eyes Wide Shut". From a moral standpoint, I disagree with such graphic portrayals of sex. From a story perspective, however, I see the importance, at least in Kubrick's mind, of showing what he does.

The first act of "Clockwork" is not for the lighthearted. There are disturbing rape scenes and the murder of an elderly homeless man, all set to exultant classical music. This jarring juxtaposition of beauty and ugliness is a classic Kubrick touch. When married to the shocking images, the music creates a sense of unease that makes the scenes even more disturbing.

And yet, as Roger Ebert points out, Kubrick blatantly flaunts Alex as the hero of the story. The other characters (the "normal" people) are photographed with wide-angle lenses to create a sense of distortion in the world around him. Perhaps this was a sort of reverse psychology. Or perhaps, because the story is told from Alex's point of view, we are merely seeing the world through his deranged psyche.

Once the parade of senseless sex and violence is over, the story truly begins. Alex is arrested for his crimes and through a series of experiments is "reconditioned" to be a respectful, law-abiding citizen. The question Kubrick is asking is, "When you take away a man's free will, does he cease to be a man?" Is it then that he becomes merely a clockwork orange? Something organic that is forced into subservience and thus becomes mechanical and lifeless?

Had we not seen the extent of Alex's crimes, the rest of the story would not work. Kubrick shocks us and then, amazingly, invites us to sympathize. Perhaps the most astonishing thing about the film is that we do, in some way, relate to Alex. We all have a touch of the chaotic within us. In his character this dark side of human nature is displayed in a larger than life performance by Malcom McDowell that still holds up thirty-seven years later.

The film has become a cult classic. I have to wonder though if the countless devoted fans today understand that their favorite film is a cautionary tale and not just a senseless display of "ultraviolence"? Films are so gruesome today that it is difficult to be shocked anymore. I worry that perhaps these devoted admirers are living vicariously through Alex. I don't think that was Kubrick's point.

If you've seen "The Dark Knight", you've seen the influence that McDowell's performance still has today. It is clear that Heath Ledger was channeling the performance in his similarly larger than life portrayal of The Joker. Chaos for chaos's sake.

Perhaps what's most interesting about Kubrick's films is that they are all so different, all so unique, and yet they feel consistent. Aside from stylistic consistencies, the binding tie that is evident in all of his work is a deeply rooted cynicism about modern society and, even deeper, about human nature. Nowhere is that more apparent than in "A Clockwork Orange". Take it or leave it.