A contribution to Jim Emerson's (Scanners) Contrarianism Blog-a-Thon
____________________________________________________
By Robert Humanick
A thief, rapist, and murderer residing in England at some unidentified point in the future, Alex (Malcolm McDowell) is the bloodthirsty and Beethoven-loving protagonist at the center of Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. Throughout the film, Alex, like his victims, will be subjected to much pain and suffering -- a great deal of it under undeserving circumstances -- but even at his most heinous he is presented as a diabolical anti-hero, someone to side with and root for. We know this because it is indicated in his voice-over narration: he comments upon the unfolding events as if recalling them from some point in the future, regarding the audience as a fellow chum ready to take part in some of the ‘ol ultraviolence.
Real horrorshow, yes, but Kubrick’s orchestration of so much mayhem is lacking a much-needed ideological backbone. On a technical level, the creation of this not-so-distant-future is certainly impressive, and Kubrick’s godlike control of his camera, sets and actors is as impressive as ever. It’s an unparalleled orgy of colors and sights and sounds, the sick entertainment value of which quickly evaporates, taking with it any semblance of importance. Context is nonexistent (How did this society come into being? How did Alex get to where he is today? How is this state of affairs allowed to perpetuate?), so we’re required to accept Alex’s brutal instincts at face value. With little to contrast against all the mayhem, the beatings and riots quickly take on a light, comical tone.Maybe that’s the point, but Kubrick never takes the necessary next step in subverting the violence he engages us with. The role-reversal is obvious when Alex is subjected to the government’s own brand of torture, but this serves only to celebrate his destructive yearnings (which, in turn, represent nothing more than surface-deep characteristics). He’s not even a type-A stock persona, but a walking criminal report -- a stick figure to project upon -- and, like Alex’s criminal instincts, the degradation of society is also an unexamined given, existing only to legitimize our protagonist’s ruffian behavior. It’s a self-reinforcing circle of shallow justification and, worse yet, the film never aims to criticize us, the audience, for getting off on it all in the first place.
Kubrick’s series of unfortunate events is a striking façade built on a shaky foundation, jumbling recognizable, contradictory elements together in a manner meant to shock and titillate, albeit in a purely knee-jerk fashion. Pornographic artwork is commonplace in the home environment (a sculpture of giant penis lies casually on a table and seemingly defies physics when touched), women suck passively on cock-shaped lollipops, and a chorus line of four naked Christ figures adorns Alex’s shelf while he fucks two girls silly, the William Tell Overture blaring in the background.This is all eye-opening at first glance, but what is it supposed to mean? Kubrick might turn some heads by playing classical music and popular tunes atop scenes of rape and torture, but it amounts to less in the way of commentary than it does simple contradiction (and without anything in the way of subtext, all this once-scandalous rah-rah pornography appears fairly tame by today’s standards). Much less is read into A Clockwork Orange than is merely projected upon it, and Kubrick’s level of engagement with these moral quicksands (freedom of choice, nature vs. nurture, self vs. the system) lies just barely outside the realm of black and white.
Kubrick was often unfairly characterized as a cynical director -- an understandable reading of his attentiveness to our frailties, for sure, but one that also disregards his obsession with our potential for greatness beyond our generally regarded limitations. Here, however, his better instincts seem to have failed, and it’s not for lack of familiarity with satire. Dr. Strangelove found humor in oncoming nuclear disaster by scrutinizing our world leaders’ flailing about like fish on a hot plate and, in the midst of it all, asking why such a thing was allowed to come to be. By comparison, A Clockwork Orange accepts the violence at its core as the product of a failed society, only to spend the duration sitting back and grinning at the proceedings, patting itself on the back for thinking it knows better. Alex’s parents, counselors, teachers and government officials may have indeed failed him, but for all the finger-pointing, the film never rises above its angst-ridden misgivings.With a sensational work such as this, classification as satire can all too easily be used as a means of broad-sweeping legitimization, something that seems indicative of an absence of closer scrutiny. What, exactly, is Kubrick satirizing? Our collective obsession with violence? Lazy authority figures who allow chaos to run amok? The ease with which the masses are swayed by the press? These issues and many more are obvious causes of the film’s envisioned world (and ones very much in need of discussion in our own), yet all we are allowed to glimpse are the effects they bear, thus robbing the work's social analysis of a much-needed dimension.
To be fair, something about the inherent hypocrisy present in the film’s ironic conclusion suggests that Kubrick himself regards it all with some degree of contempt -- how else to react to such a vile creature as Alex being pampered and heralded so gloriously (even if the society that glorifies him isn’t all that much better)? Without anything to confirm or deny this supposed attitude on the part of its director, A Clockwork Orange only succeeds in recreating these very hypocrisies rather than deconstructing them. Kubrick knew very well the power of the critical mind, but for once in his illustrious career he managed to create a film that was outright unproductive in its cynicism.___________________________________________________
House contributor Robert Humanick's writings have appeared in Slant Magazine and on his blog The Projection Booth. He also works sporadically with fellow Slant critic Paul Schrodt at The Stranger Song.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
The Unscrupulous Side of Kubrick: A Clockwork Orange
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
A refreshing and spot on critique. While I still think it's a very good film, it's uncritical indulgence of violence is a pretty severe flaw.
I don't know what Kubrick's intent in this regard was, and as you've pointed out, some parts of the film, including the ending, suggest a critical angle. But attentions aside, I think in its impact the film fails to avoid wallowing in its violence, and encourages the viewer to do the same.
On these sorts of issues, I often am tempted to avoid worrying about authorial intent and take a "by their fruits ye shall know them" tack. If the fans love it for the cheap thrills of its sadism--and I think its safe to say that in this case many do--then you've probably failed to give a very sophisticated treatment of the sexual-sadistic seductions of brutality. I almost hate to say it, but many esteemed treatments of violence fail on this test. For example, take a look at the comments on a random YouTube clip from Apocalypse Now. However it was intended, it's largely received as war porn by a large segment of its fans.
This was really weak.
I'm too tired to write much. But...well...it doesn't have these criticisms and expositions and so on because the picture is being dictated first-person by an extremely unreliable narrator. It's his story from his point of view. Furthermore, he's a teenager with a teenager's maturity. And finally, his behavior isn't the result of a failed society -- he's just a bad person, hence Kubrick's deletion of the novel's 21st chapter regarding choice.
One more thing about the lack of explanation -- this was what made Kubrick's cinema so intellectually engaging. Whereas a novel's engagement comes from its abundance of exposition, movies, at least as Kubrick authored them, were about piecing together that which is not overtly explained. The mise en scene details are always there (usually in wide frames), and there's plenty of suggestion at what bridges the sections, but it's never overtly explained. Very often, the most important details are presented casually, de facto, so to speak -- to the point where you don't even realize it was important until a second viewing. It requires the audience's participation.
This essay seemed really academic to me.
One other thing regarding "ideology." Kubrick's films were never about ideology. He simply presented situations and left the opinions and judgements to the audience. This is why his films have been considered so emotionally cool -- he's doing as little as possible (Clockwork aside, as that was its intention, not unlike Humbert in Lolita, a story told by a pedophile and murderer) to create sympathy in his characters.
Fish in a barrel. Taking shots at Kubrick is easy. His intellect always served as a challenge to those looking to get noticed. He's not beyond critiical reproach, but it's just getting old; Kubrick was cold, detached, anti-human, blah, blah, blah. He was an impeccable filmmaker and cared as much about his art as anyone ever has. I would be impressed with this piece if it had been directed at someone who needs it, like Linklater, but then again, Armond White beat you to it. How about Eastwood? Gimme something new.
I deleted my two previous comments because some accidental cutting-and-pasting errors made them very hard to follow. I'm reprinting them here as they should have appeared in the first place.
anonymous (6:35 pm)I've seen the film probably four or five times now, starting in my early teens, when I expectedly lapped it up. It's visuals were so off the charts of anything I'd ever come to know before that it was all pretty mind-blowing, even to the point where it made me feel rotten inside (in that good, cinematic sort of way).
Revisits dimmed this adoration more and more as time went on (although, for the record, I am within arms reach of liking the film, despite my focusing entirely on its flaws here). That being said, I've never experienced it in a critical way that indicated that its satire was to be taken at such, and because it focuses so singularly on its narrator's perspective, I feel that the film itself has bought into that same perspective as well. I seriously doubt this is the film Kubrick intended for me to see - as the attitudes I get from it seemingly run in opposition to every other work in the man's catalogue - but that still doesn't make it appear to be anything less than a failure of communication.
Sorry if it seemed academic, but seeing as I am a college senior hopefully bound for a master's in journalism, it's kind of impossible to break outside of those regular writing habits. I wrote this piece as I write all of my film-related works: jump write it sorting out thoughts until they take a fuller shape. I dislike taking notes and would rather cull things from the lingering experience, shaping the thoughts and feelings - like paint - until the gel into a satisfactory form.
That being said, I am intrigued by your contrary-to-my-contrary views. I certainly dig on the whole "audience participation" thing - it's kind of a given - but I simply never found ACO rewarding in that manner once I began to watch movies with a more critical eye. Cite some of these indicating examples that you say Kubrick has for us, and maybe I'll be swayed upon discovery of them. Opinions can rightfully change when you learn more, and I'm all about the learning.
anonymous (6:51 pm): When I say "ideology", I'm referring to the essence that drives the work in question: What is it trying to discover or convey? In this manner, ACO felt slipshod to me, for reasons I already detailed at length to the best of my still-young-cinephiliac capabilities. I get what the film is "saying", but whatever Kubrick wanted me to take from it all is so far lost in translation.
anonymous (8:00 pm): A little bit of research on your part would have yielded the obvious fact that I'm nothing short of a Kubrick fanatic, that 2001 is my favorite film, etc. Yet masters don't always make masterpieces, and it was a damn intimidating endeavor to critically examine what I so earnestly disliked about a very popular film made by one of my favorite filmmakers (hence, the Contrarian Blog-a-Thon). The title of the piece should say enough about this matter: unlike all of his other films, ACO is the only one that seems to me to lack some moral or intellectual core or consistency - in my mind, that rare screw-up by one of the art form's greatest humanists. Did you miss paragraph six? "Kubrick was often unfairly characterized as a cynical director... here, however, his better instincts seem to have failed..." Whether you agree with me or not, this alone should indicate that in no way is Stanley on my shit list (I still remember my gut sinking when I heard the news of his death).
Lots of Kubrick fans have one movie that isn't up to par for them. For some it's FMJ, others The Shining, even EWS. It's cool -- so long as you print opinions, you'll get opinions in return.
A few links that go in depth about his work:
http://www.movienavigator.org/eyeswideshut.htm
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/
I don't agree that this critique was refreshing. Jonathan Rosenbaum, for one, has been saying this for years.
I also don't agree that the film "fails to avoid wallowing in violence." It successfully wallows in violence, first committed by the protagonist and then committed against him, and yes, generally without subtext. Kubrick is heavily influenced by "abstract filmmaking," and ACO has the structure of an abstract film, even though IMO its images are too accessible for it to qualify as avant garde. The meaning of these images are derived from how we feel about them as they are presented chronologically.
Anonymous mentioned mise en scene, and that's fair, but ACO also reveals its meaning through montage - how the sucession of images minute to minute and hour by hour make us feel, and where we are left at the end. (Basically, to oversimplify a bit, we've discovered that violence for any reason, justified or not, is exciting, making us all potential Alexes. Also that it's equally stomach-turning in all instances, if we allow ourselves to identify with others, which explains why we're not all actual Alexes.)
I think history will judge ACO to be Kubrick's best movie, with the possible exception of 2001. I certainly think it has more to say about why humans go to war than does Dr. Strangelove, which is passionate and funny but not as challenging.
P.S. I do think Kubrick loved his species as much as any director, but calling him a humanist might be stretching it a bit.
I'm not sure what the complaint is here? We are supposed to like the violence and in return feel dirty for it. That's the point.
And I don't need to know why Alex got this way, just like I don't need to know why Hannibal got to be a cannibal. When Hollywood tries that it starts to go bad.
I love that this movie just picks up and asks you along. It seems like in your criticism, you're asking for more structure from this movie and less complexities which is what makes it great.
I would say that Eyes Wide Shut is a brilliant failure for Kubrick. A Clockwork Orange is just brilliant. But that's my opinion and I could be completely wrong.
I have to go along with Anonymous 6:35 (as he is coming to be known). This is really surprisingly weak. Kubrick is philosophically misanthropic (or at minimum critical) in his cinematic aims. He is also, as you no doubt know, manipulative. It evidently does not occur to you that Kubrick intends for your experience watching his film to be analogous to Alex's as he is forced to watch scenes of transgression, his eyes pinned open, learning "disgust" and "revulsion." The difference being, of course, that no one is forcing you to keep your eyes on the screen; you just can't turn away.
Why do you think it is a given that a film (or any artwork) must explicitly, within its narrative, reject or undermine violence? Is this some new rule I'm unaware of, codified in Hollywood, approved by the arbiters of morals? Does this mean there's no other way for an artist to provoke responses to violence and its depiction?
What if an artist decides he wants us to identify with a violent, amoral character -- then leaves us to consider the consequences of that identification?
I'm going to respond to piper, because it's the only one I feel up for right now, as sleep isn't far off...
It did feel, to me, that the intended "point" was that we, the audience, are supposed to feel dirty for liking the violence at hand, but I hardly felt that a result of the film itself -- it seemed like the logical extension of what I imagined Kubrick was hoping to get at (and what I'm detailing having not gotten).
I didn't think of Alex so much as a villianous character with a past, but as a walking metaphor without ample explanation or exploration. He represents so much that's wrong with the state of humanity, but I didn't get the sense of ACO attempting to explore that humanity beyond the sum of his actions.
We might be talking past each other here - and let it be known that, while I do just dislike the film, I find it to be complex and challenging, even if I find it very flawed - but if anything, the film left me wanting more complexity. Alex might smash the cat ladies' face in with a giant cock, but it doesn't seem to me much more than a shallow shout-out to typical teenage hang-ups about sex.
Now speaking generally...
In case it's not apparent in my writing, I'm going to state this outright: the books are hardly closed on ACO for me. I may very well be dead, dead wrong in my assertions, but how are we to learn anything about any film if we don't articulate our thoughts and share them with others? If, however, one more person accuses me of being a "Kubrick hater," I'm going to have to simply ignore it. You don't have to read much to realize that I adore the man and the majority of his films.
Hi, interesting article, rob. I'm not sure if I'd have tried the "context" attack myself--a lot of films and dystopian novels just present their visions to you, without much explanation, and left it to us to guess the progression.
In the case of Clockwork, I'd say it was an exaggeration of existing tendencies in society at the time Burgess was writing it--the Teddy Boys, the fascistic tendencies of Britain at the time, experiments done in the Behavioral Sciences, etc.
But it's a brave attack, judging from the response (I'm an ambivalent Kubrick fan myself, and this isn't one of my favorites, either).
Interestingly, we had a similar discussion of the film in a_film_by, only the focus was on the adaptation from novel to screen:
Kubrick's writers
Kubrick's writers 2
Kubrick's writers 3
It was a longish discussion and probably tedious to anyone who comes upon it later, so I just linked to the highlights of what I said, but if you click on the first link and scroll down, you'll find an outline of the entire thread fo the discussion.
Anyone that calls you a Kubrick Hater is missing the point. You have to love something to pick it apart. If you hated Kubrick you wouldn't bother.
A Clockwork Orange does have a viewpoint and a moral center. It is best articulated by an unexpected character late in the film.
When Alex is paraded in front of the clinic and his new "aversion" to violence is demonstrated, it is the Priest who is horrified.
- Quote -
"PRIEST
Choice! The boy has no real choice, has he? Self interest, fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self abasement. Its insincerity was clearly to be seen. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice.
MINISTER
Padre, these are subtleties. We are not concerned with motive, with the higher ethics; we are concerned only with cutting down crime. And with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons... He will be your true Christian, ready to turn the other cheek. Ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the very heart at the thought even of killing a fly. Reclamation, joy before the angels of God. The point is that it works!"
- End Quote -
Sure, we see Alex rampaging and we also see him tortured and wronged. But it's clear that ACO deals with choice. He's bad, but Kubrick is so good - it confuses.
The pleasures of ACO are multiple.
There's Anthony Burgess' wonderful dialog (lifted in large chunks into the screenplay), Kubrick's liquid camera movements and comprehensive direction, the wonderfully mod set designs, the luminous colors, Malcolm Macdowell's spunky portrayal, slow and fast motion scenes, run-down locations, the strange and cool Walter Carlos Moog score, reflections of the moonshot age it was made in, the inventive costumes, the sheer wonder of the whole experience of watching it.
There are scenes, like the flatblock marina and the confrontation with Joe the boarder, that are so well shot and performed that any screen grab is art.
Of course, if you read the book, you will see that some of that stick-figureness is present in it, and that Burgess constructed a sort of British-intellectual morality play peppered with some of the most joyous use of invented words and Russian slang. Kubrick lifted that vibe and modified it. ACO's tone is strange, and purposefully so.
I think it's the rape that spooks people out.
Post a Comment