Pulled by Kubrick in Britain, following acts of copy-cat violence and death
threats against his family, only now, after his death in 1999, has the film
been re-released.Although many would argue that this is cynical opportunism, post Kubrick, it
is a fitting tribute to his lifetime of cinemagraphic work. Despite its lack of
exposure, its reputation has been part of UK culture and folklore since it
first disappeared from view almost thirty years ago.
It is frightening to think that it has remained unseen for three decades, that
most thirty-somethings can't remember its original release and many
forty-somethings have only the slightest recollection of the events following
its first showings.
That is not to say that the film has been completely unobtainable. It has only
been banned in Britain and can be found showing openly on the
continent. It has also been available in bootleg form for those who have
wished to seek it out; my copy came from Camden Market and is, ironically
packaged in a Disney Fantasia case.
I only watched the bootleg once and, although I recall being entertained, I
remember being less than ecstatic about the film.
With its re-release looming, given a ridiculous Monty Python style
trailer for some unknown reason, I worried that it would come over as very
dated or, as I thought I remembered it, less than worthy of the hype which
has surrounded it.
I was however, unexpectedly, absolutely delighted by seeing it on the cinema
screen.
I still suspect that some of the audience who have only a vague knowledge of
the film will not get what they expected from the trailers, but I am sure that
they will be surprised, even shocked, by what they see.
It hasn't dated that much, Malcolm McDowell, although young, didn't look out of
place ( perhaps his regular appearances in showings of If ... and
Oh Lucky Man have made him a timeless entity, despite his now aged
appearances on television in Lexx and Fantasy Island ), the
film was far, far better than I'd recalled, and it was longer than I thought it
was, but not overly long.
Having revisited the bootleg; there's definitely something lacking when viewed
on the small screen. It's hard to finger exactly what that is; the scale
is all wrong, it lacks size, bite and, dare I say it, punch. There's an awful
lot of mid close-up footage which just doesn't translate well to a reduced
image.
The film centres around Alex, supported by his three Droogs, a gang leader
whose life revolves around the Korova Milk Bar, sex and ultra-violence when he
should be in school.
We never discover where the obsession for this ultra-violence comes from, it
is painted simply as something which exists amidst a society, sometime in the
future, which has collapsed and lost control.
Gangs roam the streets, fighting, raping and killing. There's no explanation
why but it is a reflection on society not too distant in time from the film's
release when gang culture was very pervasive; Mods, Rockers, Teddy
Boys, Skinheads, Greasers and the like.
We watch as Alex and his gang take the pursuit of ultra-violence through
the world they stalk; deriding and beating a beggar for being old and drunk,
through full-scale battle with a rival gang in the midst of their raping, to
an attack on a writer and his wife and her subsequent rape.
To a rendition of Singing In The Rain, Alex kicks his victim to near
death leaving him crippled and witnessing the rape of his wife. A devastating
powerful and beautifully choreographed act.
It is acts such as these which give Kubrick's film such a powerful edge and
makes it such a controversy.
For the full-bloodied male, it's hard not to
have feelings of respect for Alex. Alex the hero, Alex the gang leader. The
man who has no fear, can take what he wants, when he wants it and gets what
he wants. On the other hand, his actions are disgusting, repulsive and cannot be
condoned. It is a paradox of feelings.
And so it continues as the Droogs begin to question Alex's authority and try
to impose their own control upon him. An attempt thwarted by Alex's violence
as he lays down the law. Alex is a man not to be reckoned with. He knows his
place and so should those around him.
But such a response is not easily forgotten and, when they once more journey off
into a night of violence, Alex is betrayed by his Droogs, arrested and later
sentanced to 14 years for murder.
After two years in prison, Alex sees his chance to be released; a new treatment
which would turn him from his violent ways and have him out of prison in no
time at all.
Having undertaken the treatment, he is cured, but not without consequence. He
has been socially modified. He can no longer think of violence or rape without
being overcome with feelings of death and crippling nausea. And this is the
heart of the tale.
Released from prison, Alex is no longer able to fend for himself, he has to
stand there, as a victim, powerless to act.
In a concocted sequence of events, Alex encounters the tramp he beat up and is
himself attacked. He is rescued, only to find that his old Droogs have become
corrupt members of the police force and are only too willing to give out some
violent retribution of their own.
Eventually, disoriented and injured, Alex stumbles upon the house of the
writer he has crippled who in turn takes his revenge upon Alex in the most
ironic manner possible.
Alex takes the only way out he can see, but it doesn't end there.
Alex's demise, if it can be seen as such, is almost heart wrenching. How can
a man be so distorted by society's attempts to control him ? He hasn't turned
from violence, he is just unable to perform it.
But how can we feel such sympathy for a man so guilty of his earlier crimes ?
It is a worrying matter indeed.
Throughout the film, Alex is the hero, despite his acts of violence
his inhumanity is human, his total repression unwarranted and equally as
bad.
Unless one subscribes to the, "Lock them up and throw away the key", view, such
a Christian attitude so many would claim to uphold, it is hard not to see
the issues so clearly raised.
Alex's tendency to violence is never explained, its enactment and consequences
are brutally shown but we never see what it is that has made him, and so many
others, make such violence a part of their everyday existence.
What we see is an attempt to subdue the criminal element by social control.
Social control which has its detrimental consequences and can only be viewed
as having failed.
The only answer is not to control the individual but to change them, but how
to change them is the question which must be asked. If we are all products
of the society within which we exist then it must ultimately be the society
which needs changing.
Kubrick manipulates us well with A Clockwork Orange, achieving disgust
and sympathy for Alex, support and loathing for the attempts to reform him;
it is one of his best films. It is a shame it has taken so long for it to
become available to a larger UK audience.
It has survived its time in the wilderness. Its moral is as clear and
relevant today as it was back in 1971. The only thing dated is the furniture.
Just remember that viewing on the large screen is the best way to see this
film; video and DVD will make a poor substitute.
