by Allan Fish
(UK 1971 137m) DVD1/2
A bit of the old ultraviolence
p Stanley Kubrick, Bernard Williams d/w Stanley Kubrick novel Anthony Burgess ph John Alcott ed Bill Butler m Walter Carlos (including Henry Purcell, Edward Elgar, Giacchino Rossini, L.Van Beethoven, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov) art John Barry, Russell Hagg, Peter Shields cos Milena Canonero
Malcolm McDowell (Alex de Large), Patrick Magee (Mr Alexander), Michael Bates (Chief Guard), Warren Clarke (Dim), James Marcus (Georgie), Michael Tarn (Pete), Anthony Sharp (Minister of the Interior), John Clive (stage actor), Adrienne Corri (Mrs Alexander), Miriam Karlin (Miss Weathers), Carl Duering (Dr Brodsky), Clive Francis (Joe), Dave Prowse (Julian), Philip Stone (Dad), Sheila Raynor (Mum), Aubrey Morris (P.R.Deltoid), Godfrey Quigley (prison chaplain), Paul Farrell (tramp), Steven Berkoff (cop), John Savident (conspirator), Margaret Tyzack (lady conspirator),
Viddy well at this horror show cine, o my brothers. Kubrick’s most controversial film, this was the definitive cult film in the U.K after its withdrawal from our eyes for 26 years. (Indeed, I still remember the sweaty-palmed glee with which I devoured the film for the first time when a friend imported a video copy from the US.) A horror comic masterpiece of sorts, without a shadow of a doubt, it follows the story of a young murderer cum rapist in a futuristic nihilistic Britain who is released from prison after undergoing the Ludovico experimental treatment, this time as a victim of society.
It has been described as the British precursor to Taxi Driver, which it heavily influenced (and ironically the showdown at the Five Points in Scorsese’s later Gangs of New York is also faintly reminiscent of Clockwork), but it is more than just that. It’s a savage indictment of not only contemporary society but a futuristic vision, too. Though Burgess’ novel was written back in 1962, so that Kubrick’s vision of the future does have many dating aspects (Alex’s turntable, the awful hairdos, etc.), its nihilistic vision is as clear now as it was over thirty years ago. And though it has been called the sort of film tailored to a masculine audience – and I have to admit most of the friends I know who didn’t like it were young women, who were alienated by what they perceived as brutal misogyny – in many ways it’s to young girls that the film has proved most accurate in its prediction. Many point out the prophecy of the football hooligans and Heysel, but it’s also scarily indicative of gang culture, arguably even more a problem today than it was then. Just look carefully in that opening shot and we see that there are three or four such apparelled droog gangs, at least one of whom contains a young girl member. In the light of numerous exposés in the modern media of girl gangs, we can see that they and Burgess’ antiheroes share much in common. Furthermore, attacking its violence seems rather unfair; its scenes of violence (think of the derelict casino) owing more to Tex Avery than to extreme violentia, its rape scene shocking, but far from explicit.
Cinematically, meanwhile, its influence has been immense; one thinks of Trainspotting in particular, with its equally antisocial narrator hero and copycat decor in a nightclub, and of course Blur’s ‘The Universal’ video. Its narrator’s quotes are the stuff of legend. Its most memorable scenes are ingrained on the psyche as if we, too, had undergone Ludovico brainwashing; the opening salutation to the camera in the Korova, Alex singing ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ while kicking the helpless Magee (Gene Kelly never spoke to Kubrick after this), the gang battle to the strains of ‘The Thieving Magpie’, Alex disciplining his cohorts along the flat top marina, the murder of Karlin with a phallic sculpture and the cynical finalé and last line (“I was cured all right!“). And if the photography, the amazing interior design of the Korova and the immortal electronic reworking of the classics by composer Carlos weren’t enough, the directorial zeal of Kubrick is nothing short of sensational. Yet it’s McDowell we remember, smiling devilishly from behind his fake eyelashes, Burgess’ immortal Nadsat slipping from his tongue as immortally as Hamlet’s soliloquy from Gielgud’s. He may have been forever typecast, but it’s a one performance shoe-in for greatness.
An outstanding, economical review as usual Allan. While this is a film that I not only dislike, but loathe, I don’t want to muddy the discussions on it as I know that others whose opinions I respect (Allan among them) think very highly of it. I will say though that I’ve always found it kind of funny/ironic that I really like Kubrick, but my feelings toward his two most acclaimed films have ranged from strong dislike (Clockwork) to indifference (2001).
You might be right, Dennis, as I’ve considered this interpretation too! I guess the thing about it is, there are other films that where I’m horrified or turned off by subject matter but still “enjoy” (probably not the right word, but I don’t have a thesaurus handy to find a better one at the moment!) watching them. I haven’t really had that experience with ACO.
Still, I’m not above revisiting it again now, a few years removed from last viewing. I own it, so I’m sure it will happen at some point.
Dennis – I agree with you, Kubrick, I believe wanted to repulse the audience, make you uncomfortable and he succeeds admirably. A brilliant work and a very fine review. The film is certainly deserving of its high place on Allan’s list.
Hi! Allan,
Thanks, what a “no-hold bar” review of a film that I have watched for the first time…Hmmm… 🙄 2 or 3 years ago?!?…I guess?!? I must admit that I have only viewed this film “once.”
Allan said,” It has been described as the British precursor to Taxi Driver, which it heavily influenced (and ironically the showdown at the Five Points in Scorsese’s later Gangs of New York is also faintly reminiscent of Clockwork), but it is more than just that…”
Wow…I wasn’t aware of that fact, just like I wasn’t aware of the “strong influence(s) that Hammett’s Chandler’s, and Woolrich’s work had on Polanski’s making of the 1974 film Chinatown.
…”It’s a savage indictment of not only contemporary society but a futuristic vision, too. Though Burgess’ novel was written back in 1962, so that Kubrick’s vision of the future does have many dating aspects (Alex’s turntable, the awful hairdos, etc.), its nihilistic vision is as clear now as it was over thirty years ago…”
Allan, what a great point…you bring up here…about Kubrick’s nihilistic vision in this film.
Thanks, for the “straight” and to the “point” review of Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange.
What number is this?
Omg! number six!
DeeDee 😉
Clockwork is a hypnotic film, and I have trouble relating to people who don’t see that instinctively (and they’re out there – among critics, Ebert and Kael not only attacked the film morally in 1971, but also aesthetically – they found it broing, which still seems inconceivable to me.)
It’s also morally troubling, but I think Allan’s statement on the violence: “its scenes of violence (think of the derelict casino) owing more to Tex Avery than to extreme violentia” is actually part of the problem. Because Kubrick’s depiction of the victims is so cartoonish and the identification with Alex so complete, he stacks the deck in favor of his film’s argument. I remember Burgess’ novel being more ambiguous and complex. But I’ve discussed the film’s ethics elsewhere and don’t really want to get into that conversation again.
Alan, this is one of your finest reviews. It’s sharp, and I also like how British it is, not only its language but also with the Blur reference to the current events. Keep up the good work, lad.
Yes Movie Man it is a hypnotic film! You site Ebert and Kael, which is fair enough, but the film won Best Picture of 1971 from the New York Film Critics Circle, which indicates that there are far more scribes that reject the ‘morally troubling’ argument than don’t. I reject it as well, and that’s why (like Allan) I consider this film to be one of the surpreme masterpieces of the 1970’s as well as Kubrick’s greatest film.
I am thrilled there is unison here at WitD on this intoxicating film.
Dee Dee, John Greco, Dave, and Dennis really have made some great points here, which is no surprise.
Yes, let’s see how people react to the final quintet. Kael generally didn’t like Kubrick – she generally didn’t like people smarter than herself. She had a streak of sheer meanness in her that was unmistakeable, for all her qualities. I often think of critics as literary characters, and Kael would be Miss Havisham rotting away in her wedding dress and cursing the world because some guy had dumped her at the altar. I’ll leave you to consider who the other major critics would be like.
classic, as a not-so-great-fan of Kael I love this analogy (though I do give credit where credit is due in regards to her influence). she is certainly Miss Havisham.
one can only assume who Ebert becomes…
let me second the fact that this review is from a Brit (I believe MovieMan made the first connection) makes it to me, even more enjoyable– I think part of the allure is in fact the process many of you had to go about to see it. and yes, love the Blur reference too. Am I the only one that thinks at least some of the inspiration for the white boiler suit was that pete townshend wore it all through the tommy shows (starting in ’69 see ‘woodstock’ for example)? maybe, maybe not.
I do really love this film, and it is (quite) far and away my favorite Kubrick. i’ve always loved this take on the film:
http://www.collativelearning.com/a%20clockwork%20orange%20review.html
any fans of other Burgess? I’ve always thought his “The Doctor is Sick” would make a great film, and it’s a personal favorite book of mine.
also what can be said of Warhol’s ‘Vinyl’ from the same subject matter?
As far as the differences between Burgess’s novel and Kubrick’s film, let’s not even get started. One is a BOOK. The other is a FILM. The film is by STANLEY KUBRICK. LOL!!!! We all know that Kubrick didn’t give a hair about being absolutely faithful to his source material. Thank God for that! Had he put every page of every book he adapted on screen we’d be looking at BORING films all bordering on the 4 hour mark. Kubrick understandsw what works visually and asthetically on screen better than just about any director in the medium since Chaplin. Best example would be THE SHINING. Look at Kubricks version. Look at Stephen King’s page-by-page television adaption. Guess which one made me and everyone else that tuned in consider putting a plastic bag over our heads with a belt wrapped around our throats for slow suicide? Kubrick was a brilliant script editor on top of everything else and used his sources as springboards to fuel his bigger interests. His vision of CLOCKWORK works better than the novel by Burgess.
Dennis – I was moved by your words for Kubrick and I understand it – there are certain experiences in life including certain films that stay with you forever. Kubrick’s work is so passionate, and like you say there will never be films like his again. What amazes me is that some critics over the years have found his work cold. I disagree- I think his work is extremely moving and passionate. Even when I am not a fan of one of his works, like “2001” the passion at least for me is there.
Dennis, just out of curiosity – what was your impression of the novel?
Bobby, I found Burgess’s novel very matter of fact. Almost as if he knew how clever he was beinhg with 5roog speak. But, I feel the novel is more straight to the point with labeling Alex as a criminal and making its point about failed beaurocracies that create thugs that it works like reporting rather than a novel. Kubricks interpretation, and the one that I find more probing and far more creative sees Alex as a child, a boy in a mans body who, coddled by lazy parents and a society too wrapped up in themselves to notice the violence and anarchy they created through their own carelessness. The first half of the movie is playful as its Alex’s view of his world.