A Clockwork Orange Film and Book Analysis

I know many of you out there have probably already seen this Stanley Kubrick classic, but I wanted to review this one because I recently got a chance to read Anthony Burgess’s novel and I thought I might talk a bit about how the novel compares to the film version. Also, even though both the novel and the film are immensely popular, I write this review in hopes that those of you who haven’t experienced them will give both versions of the story a chance. In the following article I go in depth about the story, and the themes it speaks about, so if you don’t want to read spoilers, skip it, but in all honesty I try not to give too much away. In other words: their be spoilers ahead, but you might find the article interesting none the less.

On A Clockwork Orange we meet Alex De Large and his gang of ‘Droogs’. They are all in their teens (Alex is 15 in the novel) and they enjoy going around town at night causing all sorts of trouble. They like to fight with rival gangs, break into people’s homes to terrorize them, rape women, steal cars, beat up old people…basically, anything that involves breaking the law. This motley crew of individuals likes to live by the beat of their own ultra violent drum. These guys want money? They take it! They need a car? They steal it! They want to have sex? They rape a woman! Alex and Co. don’t care for other human beings, they only think of themselves and satisfying their own needs. These kids are young and full of life, but they are cold hearted preachers of hatred. Worst part is that Alex and co. are perfectly happy living this way! Alex can have a day filled with all these vile actions and then go home, put on some classical music and just relax while listening to Beethoven's 9^th Symphony! Will their reign of terror ever stop? Will they ever learn to value human life or respect their fellow man?

Anthony Burgesses novel is an extremely well respected book, it’s been chosen by many critics, scholars and important magazines as one of the best novels to have been written in the English language; though Burgess himself considered A Clockwork Orange one of his “lesser works”. I can understand how an author can grow to dislike his own work, especially when it’s all anybody ever talks about. Imagine everywhere you went people only asked you about this one thing you did, of course it would get annoying. But aside from Burgess's personal perception of the novel, I think it’s a remarkable achievement of literature, and one of my favorite books. The message it puts across is such an important one, speaking to youth, letting them know how things work in the world when it comes to respecting other human beings. This idea of respecting each others because we all deserve it is a theme that pops up regularly in this story. For example, the story often pits the young vs. the old; it addresses the idea of how young people need to respect the elderly because someday we will all reach old age too and we will all want some respect and love from the young. Human beings are human beings no matter what age.

Alex and his gang, beating up an old man 

Another theme addressed is the right all humans should have to choose their own path in life, and that when the time comes to choose it, that it should be one filled with peace, love and respect for all life, to me this is really the central theme of the book: the respect all humans owe to each other, because really it’s the best way to live. Because what happens if we choose a violent, selfish path?  In the story, Alex chooses to continue his path of violence towards everything and so he ends up incarcerated and taken to the state prison for a crime he commits. While in jail, Alex begins to realize he has made a mistake. He discovers that jail is just too awful a place for him. So he volunteers for an experimental method called ‘The Ludovico Technique’. This technique is being tested out by scientists as a means to totally suppress violent tendencies in inmates. Kind of telling us : You don’t want to be good? Then we’ll make you be good! By Force!

The system finally catches up with Alex's violent tendencies

When the scientists begin to test their new technique on Alex, this offers us one of the most memorable images from the film: that of Alex’s eyes forcibly opened, screaming in horror as he is bombarded with violent image after violent image. By giving Alex an overdose of violence mixed with pain causing drugs, they aim to suppress his love for “the old ultra-violence”. But the question asked by this new technique is: should humans be forced into being good? Or should we choose to be good out of our own free will? What the novel and the story is really trying to tell us is this: be good, or the system will make sure you will be. In fact, the system has its ways to force you to learn humility, but it’s not something you might want! In many ways, the book is a warning as to the horrors of going to prison. A place where you will loose the freedom and the rights you have out in the ‘free world’. And ultimately, another fine message this story offers us is this: everything you do will come back to you. The idea that in this world, what you give is what you get. You give violence? Than you can expect to receive it in return; it’s the old idea that every action has a reaction.

The 'Ludovico Technique' in action

Ultimately, Alex learns his lesson. He learns to respect others. At first he is forced into doing this by The Ludovico Technique, but later in the story, the government realizes what a huge mistake they’ve made by trying to use this technique on the general population. In the story, society is horrified of the idea that we could loose our god given right of free will. So they reverse the technique. And the film ends on a rather dark note, with Alex saying “they cured me alright”. Bam! Fade to black. The film does hint that Alex is back to his old violence and music loving self, but every time I watch the film I am left with the doubt in my mind: was he really cured? Or did they mess him up for life? This is a very intriguing way to end the film and my hats down to Kubrick for ending it this way. In fact, Kubrick based his film on the American cut of the novel which ended exactly like that. You see when the time came to release this book in the United States; the final 21^st chapter was omitted. The publishers thought that the original ending on the novel was too happy; they wanted that shocking ending that slams the door on your face. And that’s cool and all, but in reality, this final chapter was so important! It really took the message home! But alas, Kubrick said that he’d based his script on the version of the book that didn’t have the 21^st chapter, and that he’d discovered there was an omitted chapter when he’d already finished the script for the film. He also mentioned that after reading the omitted chapter, he never really wanted to end the film that way anyways. But my fellow readers, when the time comes for you to read this novel, make sure you get the version that includes the final 21^st chapter, you won’t regret it.   

Now, aside from the omission of the 21^st chapter in the film, there are very few differences between the book and the film. Kubrick did an excellent job of translating this book. The themes are intact, practically every scene in the book made it into the film with very few moments being omitted. This is the kind of book that you read, and as you read it you can see the film playing in your mind, you can hear the lines spoken. I swear I heard Malcom McDowell’s voice every time I read the words “Your humble narrator”. In a world where book to film translations are often times disastrous, A Clockwork Orange is not. It is a faithful translation of the book every step of the way. Add to that Kubrick’s pitch perfect visuals and image compositions and you have yourselves a masterpiece. The film is a perfect marriage between images and music, with Kubrick making extensive use of classical music to effectively enhance many of the scenes. In other words: there’s a lot of Beethoven in this film! There are some tough moments to watch too, like the scene where Alex and his droogs break into a house and rape this woman as they make the husband watch. I guess it all serves as a way to nail the idea home that Alex and his pals are completely out of control and have total disregard for human life. It aint easy watching them doing these vile acts, specially as they sing "Singing in the Rain" while doing it. The horrifying part is that there are people like this in the world. People that never learned that the choice to be good to our fellow man should always come from within ourselves.  That same as a freshly squeezed orange can produce delicious orange juice, we are all capable of goodness and humility and that if  we don’t choose to be good on our own, then the system can turn us into mechanical versions of human beings, hence the title ‘A Clockwork Orange’. We don’t want to be Clockwork Oranges now do we?

Rating for the book and film alike: 5 out of 5   

Kubrick (left) and McDowell (right) taking a coffee break in between filming

  

Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon (1975)

Title: Barry Lyndon (1975)

Writer/Director: Stanley Kubrick (based on William Makepeace Thackeray’s novel)

Cast: Ryan O’Neal, Marisa Berenson, Leon Vitali

Review:

In Woody Allen’s Match Point (2005), we follow Chris Wilton (played by Jonathan Rhys Myers) a character who is a scoundrel, a cheat and a liar. He is a guy who is always looking for a way to benefit from somebody else, trying to move up the proverbial “social ladder” without taking the proper steps to do so. This is to say that the main character in Allen’s film doesn’t have money, he simply moves up the ladder by charming the pants off of the right people, by becoming ‘friends’ with the high class and falling in love with them. He lies his way through the whole movie for he is not truly friends with anybody but himself. In the end, you grow to hate this selfish and self centered character because he is so false and two faced. He steals girlfriends, and then two times them. He falls for both the rich and the poor girl. He believes that in this life it is better to be lucky, then good. Yet, he is the main character in the film. I personally couldn’t take being two hours with this major asshole of a character! Yet, I did finish seeing Match Point (Scarlett Johansson’s magnetic sexiness had a lot to do with that) and the film did make an impression on me, but I don’t think it’s a film I’ll be revisiting any time soon. But that’s just my take on Match Point, you my dear reader might feel differently about it.

A very young Redmond Barry, starting out in life

I bring up Match Point because Kubrick’s often times neglected Barry Lyndon is a film that has that kind of an amoral main character in it. In this film we follow Redmond Barry, a young man who is just getting started in life. He is desperately in love with an older woman named Nora, who also happens to be his cousin. Problems in Redmond’s life begin when Captain John Quin falls for his cousin as well. Shortly after, Redmond finds himself in the middle of a good old fashion pistol duel, fighting for Nora’s affections. Redmond wins the duel, but ends up having to run away to another town to escape the authorities and thus, Redmond’s journey through life begins.

He learns early on that you can't trust just anybody 

Barry Lyndon is the kind of film that I like to call “span of life films” because they are films that follow a character through out most of their lives. They are epic in this sense. Most of these types of films follow a character from their very birth (or very young age) until their deaths (or very old age). One such film that comes to mind is Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006) where we meet the main character when he is literally born on the streets of France. We then follow him as he develops into a young man and finally we get to see the tragic end of his short life. Oliver Stone’s Born on the Fourth of July (1989) sees Ron Kovic start life as a child, playing war games in the forest with his friends, we then follow him as he becomes a teenager, going to the prom and falling for his high school sweet heart. Then we follow him to war, and finally we get to see when he returns from war and confronts the grim reality of his life. Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979) is the same. Birth, maturity, death. In Barry Lyndon we meet Redmond Barry first when he is but a teenager, falling deeply in love for the first time, a naïve young man, not fully understanding the nature of the world he lives in. We then follow him when he ventures out into the world for the first time on his own, learning that you can’t trust anybody, learning to stand on his own two feet in this cruel world. We then see him join the military, see the horrors of war. And finally, we see him choosing his own path in life, and where those choices take him. When we finally leave Redmond, he is an old man, weary and beaten by life.

Barry joins the army in The Seven Year war!

I mentioned the main character in Match Point earlier in this review and I mentioned how despicable he is, making the film a tough watch for me. The main character in that film was simply not someone I wanted to be with for the whole duration of the film. In contrast, the main character in Barry Lyndon, Redmond Barry manages to be likable even though he is for all intents and purposes a cheat and a scoundrel. In this sense, I think the film captures the duality of the human experience perfectly. Hard as we try, none of us are as squeaky clean as we like to think we are. We are all imperfect creatures, with many flaws and grey areas. But at the same time, we are not entirely despicable are we? This is a truth about human beings: we are both equally good and bad. Redmond Barry is equal parts a charming and despiteful character. One scene that let’s us see this is when in his travels across the country; he comes upon a German peasant girl, living alone in a hut, raising a child all by herself while her husband is at war. Redmond wants to bed her, so he tells her that he is an officer in the war (a blatant lie) and that he is constantly risking his life for his country, but he is lonely. He lies to her, to be with her. He is being insincere and opportunistic. In an interview Kubrick mentions that “when we try to deceive, we are as convincing as we can be, aren’t we?” This much is true about this scene, which lets us see the duality of man. Barry isn’t necessarily a terrible person, a person could aim to be far worse then he is, but he isn’t perfect either. And I loved how the film was truthful about this aspect of human nature, without making the character be entirely unlikable. I think this is part of the reason why the film is a bit cold and detached, we are not supposed to entirely warm up to Redmond. Thackeray himself said that his novel was “a novel without a hero”

Barry's mission in life: to move on up that social ladder

When Kubrick made Barry Lyndon, he’d already made a name for himself as a director, having directed Dr. Strangelove (1964), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969), and A Clockwork Orange (1971), so there was a lot of anticipation when he announced that he was going to make Barry Lyndon. Various events made Kubrick choose Barry Lyndon as his next project. Originally, what Kubrick wanted to do was a film on Napoleon Bonaparte, unfortunately, another film based on the life of Napoleon was made (Waterloo (1970)) and it tanked at the box office, so the studio dropped the production of Kubrick’s Napoleon film. Instead, Kubrick went and did a film that took place during the same period, and thus, Barry Lyndon was born. Kubrick was a life long fan of William Makepeace Thackeray’s novels, in fact, Kubrick also wanted to make a film based on Thackeray’s Vanity Fair, but someone beat him to it by making a televised mini-series based on that novel. He dropped his idea for making Vanity Fair, but opted to go with Barry Lyndon instead. I haven’t read the novel, but from what I gather, the film is faithful to it save for a few minor changes Kubrick made to it to get to certain moments quicker. Its baffling though that the film still ended being more than three hours long!

Kubric (extreme right) directing some of his actors under the candlelight

Technically speaking, the film is a major achievement. There is great beauty in every shot, every detail. The wardrobe, the locations, the natural lighting, the performances; all amazing. It is one of Kubrick’s most beautiful looking films. The location shooting on this film was masterful, there is great beauty in the landscape and the buildings in which Kubrick chose to shoot this picture in. His decision to shoot the film entirely with natural lighting gives the images great authenticity, and those scenes that take place in candlelight are especially beautiful in my book as are many of the images in the film. Sadly, it was a film that tanked at the box office because audiences found it boring and too long, and so did many critics. Talk about Kubrick films, and chances are that many of his other films will be mentioned, while this one will be ignored. I myself had not seen this film until last week, and I fancy myself a huge Kubrick fan! I will admit that the film is not an easy watch. It is three hours long, and a deliberately slow and long film, this much is true. I’ll be honest; Barry Lyndon is not my favorite Kubrick film (or least favorite either) but it is a beautiful looking and engaging film. Once I started Redmond Barry’s journey towards becoming Barry Lyndon, I wanted to know how he would end up. It is a sad film, it is a tragic film. But it also has its beautiful happy moments. Like life, this film can be bitter sweet. And it is a film that has profound observations on life, for example, one of the films major points is, that no matter where we are in the social ladder, be we rich or poor, a ‘peasant’ or an aristocrat, in the end, when death comes calling for as all, we all end up the same way, in the end we are all equal. Speaking of the end, my final take is this: this movie may be slow, and it may be three hours long, but theres no denying its awesomeness, give yourself a chance to check out this beautiful film at some point, I dont think you'll regret it.  

Rating: 5 out of 5

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Title: Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Starring: Nicole Kidman, Tom Cruise

Review:

Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut is a film that explores what happens when a relationship becomes stale. This is something that can happen when two people have been living together for so long, that the spark that was once there when the couple first met is gone. There is none of that thrill and excitement that the couple might have felt in the early stages of their relationship. So they start considering infidelity, they start looking outside of their established relationship for that thrill. The question that the film asks is: are you sure you want to do that?

On this film we meet a couple who has reached success in their lives. They each excel on their respective fields, they have a daughter, and they have an enviable apartment. This wealthy couple has wealthy friends who invite them to expensive parties where the rich and powerful mingle. But, even though this couple has everything they could hope for in terms of material things, their relationship is in shambles. The routine and hassle of their daily lives has destroyed a once fruitful relationship. So much so, that they both toy with the idea of betraying their matrimonial vows. They even have an extensive conversation about it while smoking a joint. Nicole Kidman’s character goes into this whole monologue about how she was mentally unfaithful to him years ago, how she desired this other man. One day Tom Cruise’s character meets up with an old college buddy of his who ends up giving him the address to a secret gathering. He doesn’t give him details as to what goes on in these gatherings, but Cruise is intrigued. What does this exclusive group of people get together to do? And should he even be considering going there?

On this film Kubrick was exploring various themes. One of them is how the rich and powerful can numb themselves with every possible sensation and experience money can buy. And then they get bored. They have it all, they’ve seen it all, so now they feel compelled to look for new thrilling experiences to entertain themselves with. This is a theme I saw played out in an old Hammer film called Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970), a film in which four rich dudes are so bored with everything that they accept the invitation to participate in a black mass to resurrect Dracula himself. Of course, they end up regretting they ever accepted the invitation and end up paying dearly for their lust for excitement. On Eyes Wide Shut, the rich protagonist is looking for new ways to entertain himself as well. He is bored with his married life, so he is looking for outside entertainment; something new to liven up his sexual life. But instead of participating in Black Mass like the aforementioned Hammer film, Cruise decides to join a group of rich people who like to participate in all sorts of sexual escapades. By sexual escapades I mean of course orgies.

The group behaves in many ways like a religious cult. Their religion being sex. They gather in a secret temple, they perform ritualistic dances and ceremonies before indulging in their sexual acts. They wear ceremonial garments which include these awesome looking masks. By the way, whoever was responsible for making the beautiful masks in this movie deserve some sort of mask making award. But I don’t think Kubrick was necessarily trying to comment on the nature of cults and religion. He was talking more about sexual behavior. The question the film asks is, are you sure you want to venture out into the world in search of a more intense sexual experience? On the one hand, Cruise tries to have sex with a prostitute, in search of this new excitement, but the film shows us that that kind of search can lead to all sorts of dangers, of the venereal kind. So in this way Kubrick is saying: you go out looking for sex in the streets you might catch something you don’t want to catch! It is a dangerous game to play, with way too many risks.

The other comment Kubrick makes is on how much aberrant sexual behavior there is in the world. There is one moment in the film in which Cruise is walking down the street, he walks past a bunch of porn shops, a porn theater, and he walks by a group of teenagers which hurl sexual insults at him. This scene encapsulates how sexually charged the world is, in a way expressing what Freud said about humans being entirely sexual creatures. Sexual desires can lead one down dark paths, if you don’t think so then you should watch the first ten minutes of a film called Irreversible (2002), where a character walks into a night club for people who enjoy the truly twisted and downright sick part of sex. There are a couple of characters in Eyes Wide Shut that represent this type of behavior; Kubrick is obviously warning us with this film about the dangers of choosing to go down these perverted paths.

Visually and technically speaking, Eyes Wide Shut is flawless, as is the norm with a Kubrick film. But I noticed one thing was different with this movie: the colors. Kubrick is known for the use of whites and blacks in his films; white being the color that dominates most of his works. But on Eyes Wide Shut things were a little different. Warm colors dominate the films palette. I thought this was very adequate because of the films sexual themes. Another interesting aspect of this film is how it contrasts these warm colors (mostly different shades of yellow) with blue, a color that can be considered cold. Was Kubrick contrasting the warmth of sex with the coldness in the main couple’s relationship? I thought so.

I’m going to wrap this review up now, sorry if I stretched things out too long, but when a film is this good, reviews just flow out of me and I can’t seem to stop typing! Eyes Wide Shut was made in 1999, yet the film felt timeless. In contrast with other Kubrick films which obviously reflect the times they were made in, when I re-watched Eyes Wide Shut the film felt like it could have been made yesterday. Another interesting aspect of Eyes Wide Shut is that it was made while Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman were still married, which of course makes the intimacy between the characters that much more legitimate and genuine. But I’ll warn you, if you are expecting an explicit or graphic sex scene between Kidman and Cruise’s characters, you will be disappointed. This never really comes to be. Strange how a couple of years after this film -a film which tries to reinforce the importance of strengthening the marital bond- Cruise and Kidman split up. Maybe the themes they explored while making this film touched them in a deeper way than they expected? That being said, I think a great job was done by all. Kidman and Cruise gave stand out performances, and Kubrick delivered his last great film.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Lolita (1962)

Title: Lolita (1962)

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Writer: Vladimir Nabokov

Cast: James Mason, Shelley Winters, Sue Lyon

Review:

When anybody talks about Kubrick films, certain movies always pop up. 2001, A Clockwork Orange, The Shinning, Eyes Wide shut. Hell; even Dr. Strangelove might pop up in the conversation. But not many end up mentioning Lolita. And even less people mention Barry Lyndon. And the films before Lolita? Even less. I was one of those; I’d never seen Kubrick’s Lolita. That is until recently when I decided to finally sit down and see one of those Kubrick classics that had slipped away.

Lolita is the story of a man, Prof. Humbert, who finds himself falling deeply in love with a young girl named Lolita. Problem is, Lolita is only a 12 year old girl! Yet he continues pursuing his relationship with the girl. He is blinded entirely by lust and “love”. The movie explores these themes thoroughly. It asks (and answers) important questions like: Can Prof. Humbert let go of his love for Lolita? How is this relationship viewed by society in general? Is it love or is it lust? Can a relationship like this one work? Is it worth pursuing?

The thing with Lolita is that it feels like an extremely safe movie for a Kubrick film. In his films (like Eyes Wide Shut and A Clockwork Orange) Kubrick was never afraid of addressing sexual issues. In fact, many times he explores them with complete abandon. He was never shy in terms of exposing humanities ferocious sexual nature. I was expecting Lolita to be some kind of a shocker in this sense. After reading about the film, I thought it was going to be all kinds of shocking and graphic. But what I got was the complete opposite of that. I’m thinking that since the film was made during the early 60’s it ended up being a restrained Kubrick film. It never pushes the envelope all the way like Kubrick films usually do. But we have to remember, this was a different era for filmmaking, audiences were different as well. More conservative, anything sexual would be taboo, especially themes like the ones this one was adressing. Cinema has lost its inhibitions, but there was a time when even talking about sex was unheard of in films. This was something that changed with the coming of the late 60's and early 70's when films suddenly became very sexual. I’m sure this type of film must have been ultra shocking to audiences in 1962.

In reality, Lolita is shocking only in premise. An old man (who is obviously in his late 50’s) falling in love with a 12 year old girl is shocking enough as it is, without the need to show anything too graphic. And that’s as far as Kubrick took the theme. At least visually. The thing with Lolita is that everything concerning the odd couple’s sexual exploits is completely implied, never seen. I’ve never seen director Adrian Lyne’s version of Lolita the one starring Jeremy Irons, Dominique Swain, Frank Langella and Melanie Griffith. I’m willing to bet that that version went a little further in terms of what it shows. As it is, Kubrick’s version shuts the door on the audience whenever anything sexual is going to happen between Humbert and Lolita. For the discerning viewer, it shouldn’t be too difficult to deduce what is going to happen when the scene fades to black, which is essentially what Kubrick does here.

Kubrick doing his thing.

The thing about Kubrick’s Lolita is that the story grabs you. You can’t believe how twisted everything gets. Prof. Humbert is a man feeding a sick dream, yet he continues to push forward with his desires and plans. This is an aging man desperate for lust. A man willing to do anything to satisfy that desire. A line that Prof. Humbert says sums up how he feels: “What drives me insane is the two fold nature of this nymphet, of every nymphet perhaps, this mixture in my Lolita of tender, dreamy childishness and a kind of eerie vulgarity. I know it is madness to keep this journal, but it gives me a strange thrill to do so. And only a loving wife could decipher my microscopic script..” Humberts lustful desires blind him, for what happens when people start noticing what you are doing? Asking questions? How will society judge and view a relationship between an adult and a child? These questions are addressed through Claire Quilty a character played by the one and only Peter Sellers. Quilty notices something strange in the relationship between these two individuals. He sees Lolita as a prisoner who needs rescuing. Sellers performance is a specially crazy one. The character he plays seems to want to help Lolita on the one hand, but on the other hand, he appears to be a completely amoral character. Will Lolita ever find a normal man to fall in love with?

Lolita might be tamer film then what we are used to seeing from Kubrick. But that’s only because its earlier Kubrick, and the film was in my opinion a victim of the times it was made in. Yet, some things never change, and Kubrick’s perfectionism as far as image and composition goes is very much there. The film is edgy thematically, so if you can’t take this kind of story, about an old man lusting over a young girl, don’t bother renting this one. But you might enjoy how the film explores its themes so completely, all the ins and outs, the causes and the effects. Basically, its important that this kind of film is made. It shines a light on a reality in society, and I’m always for that.

 The book on which the film is based on

This movie shines most of all performance wise. James Mason is a particularly despicable character, I kind of got to hate him. Shelley Winters played Lolita’s mother, a woman who tries to earn Professor Humberts attention, while Prof. Humbert is really after her daughter. It’s a strange lustful triangle. I loved how Shelley Winters performed her character with a sick desperation, and a touch of insanity. A woman unhappy with her status quo in life. She is the kind of woman who thinks that marrying a man will save her life. Lolita is played with a childhood innocence and playfulness by Sue Lyon. Though in the book Lolita is supposed to be 12 or 13, in the movie she actually looks closer to 16 or 17 years old. Because of this and other reasons, some might feel that the film is very different than the book. My take on that is that this is the way the author of the book wanted it, since the screenplay for the film was written by Vladimir Nabokov himself, the author of the novel on which the book was based on. The film lasts for two and a half hours, and at times it’s very slow in pace. But the film is ultimately extremely satisfying and involving, if you manage to stick through it all the way to the end.

Rating: 4 out of 5