Stanley Kubrick was the screenwriter and director of A Clockwork Orange. It was based upon the book by Anthony Burgess. Alexander DeLarge’s narration is distinguished by the use of Nadsat, an invented Russian slang. Nadsat serves the purpose of disengaging the reader form Alex’s violence in the novel. Kubrick employs Nadsat also in the film. However, the effect is not as strong as in the book. Alex’s violence towards the beginning of Kubrick’s movie is clearly visible on the screen. McDougal argues that Kubrick’s first film is the most violent. But, McDougal says this is subjective and arbitrary. McDougal points to the fact that violence is defined only in terms of the understanding and portrayal of the film. Kubrick helps the viewer to understand and see the difficulties associated with defining violence. Stanley Kubrick’s first task in A Clockwork Orange as director is to disengage the viewer from violence like it was described in the book. Peter J. Rabinowitz says that because the violence in the film’s movie is visually and therefore more immediate than the book, Kubrick must find a way to balance our relationship with Alex. (Rabinowitz). Kubrick is ready for this challenge. He does this by altering Alex’s victims to distance the viewer from his horror (McDougal). Kubrick uses clever editing, background music and directing to create this distance. One example is the scene with Billy Boy’s gang. The attempted rape, and the ensuing fight, look more like a ballet performance than pure violence. Rossini’s Thieving Magpie plays behind the action, seemingly echoing the crescendos and highs. It’s more funny than it is frightening. Kubrick is a master at using editing to achieve a distancing effect. This scene shows Alex beating up his gang in order to assert his dominance over them. Alex and his “droogs”, who are walking along a slow-motion pier, hear classical music through an open window. He then turns around and kicks one of his “droogs” into the codpiece. Alex throws another one in the water, and cuts his hand with his knife. The sweet, slow-motion violence is all we hear and Alex throws another one of his droogs into the water. Kubrick has the primary purpose to make Alex more likeable to us. The film’s review contains an excerpt that clearly illustrates this effect.
McDowell makes Alex feel like a fox, and McDowell is a sympathetic character. The movie shows Alex being tortured, beaten and humiliated. So when his bold and aggressive punk nature is rediscovered, it doesn’t seem like a joke on us all but a victory that we all share. Kubrick uses a exultant tone (Kael). Reviewers believe that Kubrick intended to portray Alex through his film. Or, more accurately, the film through Alex. This makes it easy to sympathize with him and make him feel loved (Staiger). Kubrick depicts Alex in the film, adding to our emotional connection to the narrator. Kubrick surrounds Alex a very dull future and world. Alex is, at its core, interesting and vibrant. In a world that is dominated by crime control and rigid characters, Alex is human. Alex is youthful and innocent. Kubrick shows us his world through Alex’s eyes. Alex is the king of his world and therefore, the audience loves him. Although his life is now in decline, he can still maintain his old outlook for at least a while, even though it has been a difficult time. We are confident that he will be released from prison soon and can return to his former ways as seen in the prison fantasy scene. The Ludovico therapy is the major obstacle to his freedom. His freedom from prison does not mean that he can fulfill his violent fantasies. This is not what the audience expected, but it’s our natural instinct to believe that things will “work out”. We feel great empathy for Alex. The film’s turning point is Alex’s Ludovico procedure. This forces viewers to question their relationship with Alex. The Ludovico treatment is the most brutal violence in A Clockwork Orange. Alex experiences its effects and is subject to it. The viewers are moved to sympathize with Alex’s suffering. This is not surprising, given that Kubrick attempts to invoke sympathy in many ways. This seems horribly wrong. Are Alex’s actions not indicative of a violent, corrupt and evil youth? These questions can be answered yes or no, but it is important to examine Kubrick’s motives, which clearly show he tries to guide our emotions with a controlling hand. Ludovico also asks about the audience’s nature and inclination to evil. The scene juxtaposes how we react to violence and their representations. One scholar points out that the film is ambiguous in its own right and a challenge to viewers to see how “evil” may be understood. (Kolker). What is most important in understanding “evil” is how the audience reacts as Alex goes through his treatment in the Ludovico theater. Alex sees violence on the screen that mirrors the crimes he is accused of at the beginning. He is shocked at it unlike us. Is it possible that Alex is more horrified than we by similar violence? Are we not as evil or worse than Alex? We don’t react to violence like Alex, and we would prefer Alex engage in violent behavior rather than seeing him punished for his crimes. Kubrick creates a paradox by comparing the reactions of viewers to Alex’s violence to Alex’s. This shows that society’s perceptions of evil are arbitrary. Although Kubrick seems to suggest that viewers of the movie are intrinsically violent and evil, it is not realistic to assume that this is the case. This notion can be dispelled as Kubrick needs to desensitize his viewers to Alex’s actions. Kubrick creates paradoxes in the audience’s reactions. Although Alex is naturally attractive to them, we don’t react to their violence with horror. Kubrick needs to protect us from Alex because we see his actions as evil. Kubrick wants to demonstrate that violence and evil definitions are subjective. Kubrick creates our sympathy for Alex. Our society also constructs and defines violence and evil. The government’s Ludovico treatment is used to reduce crime and eliminate evil among criminals. This is seen to be corrupt and inhumane as it highlights the problems that the government has in trying to define violence. Kubrick’s government makes promises to “law, order,” society using all possible means. Alex is selected for the Ludovico therapy by the minister to the interior. Young. Bold. Vicious” Alex is referred to by the government as the quintessential embodiment and embodiment of evil. He is, in the eyes the minister of interior, the ideal candidate for the Ludovico therapy. The audience sees that the treatment results in Alex suffering terrible and moral pain. The government is all the victim of Alex’s pain, says the viewer. The audience believes that Alex’s experience of horror is worse than any violence being treated. Kubrick illustrates that morality and evil are not easily defined by the government. Kubrick dismantles the notion that evil can be defined in one film, A Clockwork Orange. Kubrick also questions the notion of a universal moral code. He believes that evil is morally wrong. Philosophers and theologians might call the idea of a uniform morality code “natural law.” This would imply that there would be an intrinsic feeling that unites viewers to identify violence on screen as wrong. Clearly, no such emotion exists. Kubrick creates an emotional connection between Alex and the audience. Before Kubrick can make Alex our friend, he must first protect the audience from Alex’s horrors. The government defines evil for society in the film in the same way that Kubrick guides viewers in their reactions to different forms of violence. Alex, whom the government considers to be evil, is treated inhumanely. His suffering under the Ludovico treatment is comparable to his crimes. This proves violence can only be viewed as a social construct and it cannot be defined. This is the purpose of the film. It demonstrates why Ludovico’s treatment of criminals was not humane. The movie demonstrates that violence is relative to morality and that the principle of protecting others from criminals at any cost to denying them the freedom to be men with choices is truly immoral.
