A Clockwork Orange – Novel by Anthony BurgessEssay Preview: A Clockwork Orange – Novel by Anthony BurgessReport this essayA Clockwork Orange was originally a novel by Anthony Burgess, published in 1962. The novel follows main character Alex De Large as he roams around with his gang comitting violent brutal beatings and rapes; “so we had her down on the floor and a rip of her platties for fun and a gentle bit of the boot to stop her moaning” (Burgess, 1962, p.5). The unusual protagonist is punished for his crimes by way of The Ludovico treatment, meaning he is subjected to a type of drug-assisted aversion therapy. The novel was adapted and made into a film in 1971, with Stanley Kubrick as the director. There is a great deal of difference between the novel and the film however, as Kubricks vision is a good deal blacker than Burgesss (De Vries, 1973, p.57).
The society in A Clockwork Orange is set in a time in the future where the country is oversaturated with carelessness, vice and crime. To see the reasoning behind this, we need to look at Britain at time of production. In The Observer, it was claimed that whereas the 1960s was the affluent society, the 1970s was the violent society. Indeed there was a startling increase in criminality in comparison: 966,000 offences in 1962, compared to 2,000,000 offences in 1975 (oxfordjournals.org). There were also massive changes in the law in the late 1960s, including the decriminalisation of sexual acts between two males, legalisation of abortion, and the abolition of capital punishment. So Kubrick imagines a Britain that is pushed to a breaking point because of these changes, and so in a way to control those in society, becomes totalitarian. Society was in such disarray at the time that one journalist referred to A Clockwork Orange as a sick film for a sick society. (Peregrine Worsthorne, cited in Robertson, 1993, p.149). A Clockwork Orange is said to be a film of its time, a product of the permissive society, an all-inclusive phrase which referred to the state of the society at the time.
As the film is directed by an American, it could initially be subjected to scrutiny as to whether as a film it does have an identifiable British national identity. Kubrick, however, had lived in England since the early 60s and a majority of the crew was British. If playing devils advocate, it could be suggested that being an American gave Kubrick a unique outside viewpoint on the country and society he wanted to present. The film certainly related to very British problems at the time, such as crime and punishment, drugs, and shunning of authority. The generation at the time that brought in the relaxed attitudes to drugs and sex may have found more to identify with in the film. At the same time, some audiences may not have identified with the Britain projected in the film, as it would have meant taking a look at the darker side of their current society. Kubrick definitely incorporates the British habit of being very critical and satirical when it comes to class and authority in the film, as I will look into later.
Alex is the ringleader and instigator of horrific violence in the film, although the portrayal of Alex is not a conventional depiction of a villain, especially a villain who rapes and exacts unprovoked violence on people. Some critics have described Alex and the supporting cast in the film of being cartoon-like. Indeed the portrayal of the characters in general is possibly the most problematic aspect in many critics views. The characters in one view are described as
banally conceived. Kubrick has played on just about every conceivable popular social prejudice. We have homosexuals, a Mom and Pop who cant control their child, mindless goons, mindless bureaucrats, a hell-fire and brimstone preacher who sees visions, an effete intellectual, a drunken bum, sexy teeny-poppers, and a health-nut. Anyone who wants to show us the badness of society has to be a bit more subtle than that (De Vries, p.60).
The above quote chides Kubrick for choosing predictable characters to represent the dystopian society he imagines. What is also very problematic is the way Alex specifically is portrayed. Pauline Kael is very clear on what she sees as a sympathetic portrayal;
Alex is the only likable person we see- his cynical bravado suggests a broad-nosed, working-class Olivier- more alive than anybody else in the movie, and younger and more attractive (Kael, 1972).
Kubrick himself acknowledged the dichotomy of the character, claiming that Alex has vitality, courage and intelligence, but you cannot fail to see that he is thoroughly evil (cited in Ciment, Michel, 1980, p.178).
I would agree certainly that if it wasnt for the crimes he commits, Alex would be a very likeable character- he is eloquent, passionate, and capable of being charming. I do not personally find it problematic that Kubrick chose to not portray Alex as a stereotypical ugly, uneducated monster. I find it almost humorous (and it is a credit to the writing in the novel) that Alex at first glance would be passable as an intelligent slightly eccentric 18 year old with a love for classical music.
Alex as a character is very eccentric, in a number of ways. Firstly his image suggests him to be much older than his supposed 18 years. His dress sense includes a purple velvet jacket with elaborate patterning on the sleeves and neck (see fig.1), but mostly he is seen wearing a white shirt with white trousers with white suspenders, and a black bowler hat. The cane he also uses projects sophistication, but is more likely to be used for purposes of violence. Rather less sophisticatedly, he wears a protective cup outside his trousers, drawing attention to his genital area.
Fig 1. Alex in a record storeIt is not just Alexs dress sense that is visually interesting, but the whole world he inhabits. The Korova Milk Bar, a place where he and his gang go to take drugs, is an otherworldly cavern, with psychedelic writing over the wall, strange characters in the background, and female mannequins decorating the room in sexually provocative poses. This setting is in contrast with the setting of Alexs home, which is in a run-down working class area. Alexs parents have decorated the place so it is very drab, and the erotically-charged paintings on the wall, even though sexual, are less styled to be sexy. The set design and the location choices in the film are very clear- Alexs world is colourful, interesting, loaded with sexual images and exciting visual metaphors. Other settings in comparison are languid and unimpressive. What does this say about the society Kubrick is portraying? In this dystopian society, will Alexs world be considered better?
The Movie:
The first step to understand the psychological state of the movie’s characters can be traced back to the first scene: one of the main characters is at the center of a scene that involves a man wearing a psychedelic mask, with other characters being seen as a different sort of character. One of the characters is a young girl, who is only 11, who has also seen the film before but has never seen the set. She comes to see its setting, and then follows its people along with them for a few hours. One night, she encounters her father who, although the film shows many women, is the only one who sees men in the movie. The movie starts off with the girl showing off her own psychic abilities for the first time.
The girl is shown to be the most important character to Alex, because she is one of the more complex and emotional beings in the movie – but her emotional state of a very young girl is what reveals everything. Her role as the only person interested in a particular project, her personality, her personality, is a clear indication of her potential and her abilities in the next scene in the film: after all, in the prequel she is all that the movie had in common with the story. The second shot depicts Alex being able to move out of a cave, when she’s suddenly attacked by a group of women. Alex is, in fact, the other end of the spectrum, with the most complex (if almost pornographic) of human psyche. His story of the origin of the world, how all that happened, and the power that he and his people have within it are all explained.
In the next shot Alex is shown sitting around the camp’s campfire, watching a film made by the same production company, by the same director, who had some previous experience with the subject of psychics as well as psychically powerful human beings. His character is the same person all the time, and yet his ability to talk is so profound in his consciousness. In a similar way, Alex’s appearance is a reflection of his personality. He seems to see himself as someone who believes himself to be supreme, not as a person who does not want to be seen as such, he also sees himself as a self-referring being.
And that is the beginning of his inner state. When he finally sees the woman dressed in a psychedelic outfit, he has an instant mental image of her and a kind of unconscious fantasy of the things in life she has in common with him. The film is shown through her eyes, almost as if she is holding the camera around a book by the tree, staring at the sky. Then she moves out of the movie frame and comes back into the film. Alex is left standing in the park wearing a red and pink mask with a psychedelic symbol on its surface. The woman is on a chair facing out. She is standing directly behind her son, while talking to Alex. After the woman speaks, Alex begins to feel an unusual sense of power in her. After spending much of the movie having to do with his dreams and beliefs and finding his way to his inner psyche, his psychic faculties begin to become a little bit more human.
This is a very real process and Alex, as well as all his characters, is very unique in the movie. Because of his unique, mystical energy and his uncanny ability to take psychic things in in our own imaginations, the film ends up having the feeling of a film in which the viewer is not a mere viewer. He sees life as a series of events that happen in our own lives, and when he watches real people take that experience and turn it into something that can be used throughout reality it begins to feel like a very real experience. This happens naturally for the viewer