Monday, December 26, 2022

cinema history class: a clockwork orange (1972)

The session: "1972: Fifty Years of Horror, Sci-Fi and Fantasy."

All four movies in this session are from the year 1972 -- The year that brought us Richard Nixon's reelection, the ugliest baseball cards in Topps' history, and the Dow's first close above 1,000.


As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 4: A Clockwork Orange (1972)
Directed by Stanley Kubrik

My Impressions Going In:
I saw this film many years ago. Long enough ago that I had only vague memories of it -- a few vague images, including someone singing "Singing In The Rain" while smacking others with an umbrella, and of someone having his eyes forcefully held open. That said, I did remember the basic premise.

Plot:

In exchange for having his sentence commuted, a violent criminal agrees to be the guinea pig for an experiment in behavior modification.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
I'm not exactly a huge Kubrik fan. Not that I'm an expert. I have liked or loved most of his films that I've seen -- Especially Dr. Strangelove. On the other hand, I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is hugely overrated—It's visually stunning and the whole Hal thing is really interesting, but it seems too intent 0n getting the science right and stunning the viewer with that. As a result, the storytelling suffers. Keeping in mind that I didn't care for what is possibly Kubrik's most celebrated work and that, having seen Clockwork (albeit a long time ago) and didn't have much in the way of firm memories of it, I didn't have the highest of hopes for it.

But watching again, it floored me.

First, let's talk about the use of color. The use of vivid -- overly vivid color creates an uncomfortable feeling of dissonance. The colors themselves are beautiful, and yet the images are so jarring that their vividness makes them ugly. And it starts at the very beginning, with the opening screen I've seen this in other films, notably Edward Scissorhands (1990) and Shock Treatment (1981), but rarely does it achieve such a profound effect.

The imagery itself is also both disturbing and beautiful. The nude tables in the milk bar, the choreographed brutality of the rape, the penis sculpture used as a murder weapon...all of these visually stunning elements serve to make the viewer squirm. 

Along with the visuals, the choice of music did a superb job of driving the mood of this film. The beauty of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony juxtaposed with the vicious cruelty of Alex' (Malcolm McDowell) gang helped to strengthen the dissonance I discussed above. Of course, that dissonance is actually part of the story -- the cruel, violent sociopath is completely enamored of Beethoven's Ninth.

Even Alex' narration helped serve this conflict. Alex is clearly intelligent and clever. He even speaks of the events with a dose of jolly humor. He seems almost likeable, despite being such an obviously horrible person. For me, of course, that's a joy. I have, on numerous occasions noted that I love watching films or TV with antiheroes. Alex happens to be more"anti" and less "hero" than most, but he is undeniably interesting.

At one point I noted that Malcolm McDowell, starring as Alex, reminded me of Mick Jagger. I note this because Keith told us afterwards that at one pint the plan was to have Mick Jagger star as Alex and the rest of the Rolling Stones support him as his gang. It's an interesting thing to think about, and it might have worked, though I suspect it would have hurt the band's musical career.

The whole movie seems to be a commentary and condemnation of the government -- a theme that, as far as I can tell, Kubrick revisited many times in his career. But aside from the heavy-handed message (which one may or may not like), it's a fascinating story and great to watch.

Ratings
Me: 10
Bob-O: 10
Ethan: 10

No comments:

Post a Comment