Stanley Kubrick, the auteur director creates a controversial piece of art with A Clockwork Orange, released and distributed by Warner Brothers in 1971. This paper examines the technical cinematic elements that Kubrick uses in the film to actually tone down the graphic, explicit and disturbing themes of Anthony Burgesses novel by choreographing scenes filled with sex and violence into a lyrical theatrical presentation.
The original source of A Clockwork Orange was a novel released in 1962 by writer Anthony Burgess, whose inspiration for the dystopian satire came about when United States Army men assaulted his wife during a blackout in London. The genre of the film adaptation is a cross between a horror, psychological thriller, sci-fi and crime drama. The novel explores themes of freewill and morality, quite similar to Kubrick’s film version. However, the differences between the novel and the film adaptation are significant to discuss because upon an initial viewing, Kubrick’s film version has been known to cause adverse reactions from the audience because of the perversity and violence that is omnipresent in the film. Yet Kubrick transforms the difficult and mature themes from the novel into a cinematic masterpiece by the use of his innovative camera angles, camera movement, the use of a classical soundtrack, lighting and choreography. The shocking nature of the subject matter of the novel not just become bearable to watch in the film adaptation but becomes a riveting piece of entertainment that transcends through the decades and cements itself as a film classic by no less then the prestigious institution known as AFI (American Film Institute).
Alex De Large ( Malcolm McDowell) is the anti-hero of A Clockwork Orange and his character development can be broken down into three parts that are equally 45 minutes into the film. The first part of the film, Alex portrays a hooligan who has no remorse for his ultra-violent ways. He leads the “droogs” into all sorts of mischief purely for the fun of it. In the second part of the film, Alex is sentenced to prison and transforms his character into a very different Alex we saw in the first part of the film. He even makes a physical transformation; His hair is now neatly in place and his smirk is distinctly replaced by puppy dog eyes that portrays an obedient young boy looking to please his superiors. This part of the film really develops his character as it shows that Alex can really be good, if it benefits him and his cause of course. Even when he becomes a willing guinea pig for the government’s new “Ludovico” experiment, he is courteous and looks seemingly reformed on the exterior, specifically when he addresses the head nurse and the doctor, even while screaming in terror during the treatment . And lastly, the ironic twist of fate happens in the third part of the film when Alex becomes the victim of the government because he is used as a media tool to boost the governments reputation because of the moral repercussions of the experiment. These three parts of the film really confirm the Stanley Kubrick’s direction of the character arc of Alex when he transitions from the portrayal of a hooligan to a deceivingly good-natured boy to ultimately the victim of the establishment.
The difference from the original source of the novel and the film adaptation has to be discussed in order to understand how Kubrick tones done the “ultra- violence in this version of A Clockwork Orange as opposed to Anthony Burgesses version. Kubrick mutes the violence and perversion of some sequences by changing the context and nature of Alexs’ victims in the film. In the novel, the scene where Alex and the “droogs” attack Billy Boy and his gang, the victim of the camouflaged gang is a ten year old girl. In the film adaptation, Kubrick uses a well-endowed woman instead of a young pubescent girl. The pedophiliac tone is erased completely from what is depicted in the novel and Kubrick instead choreographs a somewhat lyrical and dancelike scene set on a theatrical stage that is sexy and titillating rather than perverted and sadistic. In the novel, Alex and the “droogs” violently beat up a schoolmaster who has books under his arm instead of the victim Kubrick as chosen for the film. In the film, Alex and the “droogs” chance upon an old beggar man who is drunk under a bridge. Instead of using a man that the society at large benefits from, Kubrick uses a man that has become a nuisance to society. By changing the context of the victim from schoolmaster to drunk old beggar man, the “ultra- violence’ becomes somewhat justifiable than the context of the original source from Burgesses novel. The record store sequence of when Alex meets two young girls sucking on phallic like popsicles is also a scene worth mentioning because in the novel, Alex intoxicates, drugs and rapes these girls however in the film adaptation, there is no mention of drugs or alcohol to lure the two females into copulation. The two girls in the film adaptation look like willing participants in the ménage e trios. From removing once again a contextual element such as drugs and alcohol, the character of Alex can be perceived in an extremely different way. Alex now seems to be a carefree, experimentally sexual and lucky man instead of a perverted and pathetic loser that has to resort to devices such as drugs and alcohol just to get women to have sex with him. And lastly, in the novel the cat lady is depicted as a much elderly lady then the nimble, middle-aged lady that Kubrick uses in the film. By establishing the cat lady in a sports outfit and having her do provocative exercise stretches before Alex’s arrival, Kubrick adds a physicality to her which sexualizes her character. This in turn isn’t as horrific as watching an elderly woman being hit in the face with a phallic piece of art as opposed to the cat lady that Kubrick depicts in the film adaptation.
Scenes of the film where Alex distinctly engages in or is subjected to ultra-violence or sex so that Kubrick’s technical elements can be discussed in detail are the following. When the scenes are parsed out, one can see the ways that Kubrick uses his cinematic style to turn an otherwise horrific or erotic sequence into a fantastical choreographed scene that is otherwise extremely different from Anthony Burgesses version in the novel. The very first scene of the film is a very intimate introduction to Alex and merits a discussion as to why Kubrick chose to shoot the opening scene in this matter. Kubrick starts off with an extreme close up of Alex’s smirking face looking directly to the camera and then pulls back the camera to reveal Alex next to his friends, the “Droogs”, then continues to pull back even further to show the viewer the Kordova Milk Bar, where naked white mannequins in provocative poses serving as the tables for the customers are situated all along the far right and left of the walls. This is all done in one continuous shot and while most directors would establish a setting by providing a wide shot of the bar, Kubrick works in reverse. The effect of this shot tells the audience that right away, Alex is the main character of the film. By opening the film with the lead character first and providing the setting second, It also hints at how the lead character will be relating to the props around him. Alex is clearly in charge of his gang, since he is given more focus then the “droogs” that are sitting around him. Also, Alex’s relationship with women who are depicted in A Clockwork Orange is also hinted at in the opening scene. They are treated as less than human and merely objects, just like the white mannequins situated around the Kordova Milk Bar that serve as merely tables. They are used for decoration mostly than serving a real purpose.
The first scene where Alex and his “droogs” commit “ultra- violence” is their first victim, the drunk old beggar man under a bridge. In this scene, Alex pokes the man with a staff in his stomach from a top shot. The shot cuts off to an extreme close up of Alex’s profile right before Alex and his boys begin beating him up. When Alex and his boys do begin beating the drunk old man, the shot is a long shot with a strong backlight so all we see are shadows of the beating. It is important to note here that the first shot of this sequence was an extreme close up of the bottles of alcohol that sit beside the old beggar man. By Kubrick establishing that this victim is a drunk, there can be the possibility for an interpretation that merits Alex’s violence. Thus the “ultra-violence” is left in the shadows and the violence is justified because of the context of the victim, which reduces the cold brutality of the action of the scene.
The second “ultra violent” scene is the fight scene with Alex and his gang with Billy Boy and his Gang in an abandoned theatre/ casino. This scene may be violent when first watched but upon closer inspection, Kubrick uses cinematic techniques with lyrical choreography to make the scene very stylized therefore only suggesting “ultra violence” as opposed to graphically depicting violence. The scene begins with a close up of a painting on the top of the theatre. The classical song of Rossini called “The Thieving Magpie” plays in the background while screams can be heard. The camera then tilts down to reveal that five men in camouflage ( Billy Boy and his gang) are dragging a woman across the stage. As her clothes are being ripped off, she is brought to a pile of old mattresses. Before anything further can happen, Alex and the droogs show up from the shadows in a reverse shot. The woman then scurries off before any act of violence can take place. The woman here once again, much like the mannequins in the Kordova Milkbar is only used for decoration. What is important to discuss is the shot where Kubrick makes use of a “Point of View” shot. The camera is being shot from Alex’s point of view to give the viewer an impression that someone is watching what is taking place on stage. This POV shot also puts the viewer in the role of the spectator, which happens repeatedly in other violent scenes. As the fight ensues between the two gangs, lots of the standard stunt trickery for fight scenes are incorporated much like a Western saloon brawl. Many chairs are broken over each other and one gang member even goes through a window. The end shot is a full shot of all of Billy Boy’s gang on the floor while the “Droogs” stand on top of them. The lighting is backlit just like the scene before it on the bridge so we see more shadows of the final beatings instead of the effect that really bright lighting will do, which can highlight more of the show of brutality. There is only a medium shot of Alex hitting someone but you cannot see the damage. Even the music is syncopated to the action of the men striking down on each other which lends a very dancelike quality to the scene that mirrors the action of Billy Boy and his gang with the woman on stage earlier. So even when the two rival gangs are clearly hitting each other with full force, the impact of the scene is lessened because Kubrick uses backlight, a classical soundtrack and shots that do not frame the actual physical damage of the fighting. We the audiences are only supplied with the usual choreographed fight scenes with the breaking of chairs over each other and lots of aerial tumbles. By stylizing the scene with the rape and fight choreography and adding a classical soundtrack that is syncopated with the action with a very noir-esque backlight, the scene becomes less violent and disturbing and instead more riveting and entertaining to watch.
After the Durango- Horror Show sequence, the next lashings of “ultra-violence” is the scene where Alex and the boys enter the “HOME”, where a couple are living harmoniously. The scenes’ violence becomes subdued by a number of factors that Kubrick incorporates into the sequence. The color RED is a motif that Kubrick uses for this scene that creates a highly stylized look to the entire space. It is not by mistake that a lot of books on the shelf, the typewriter of the writer, his robe, his wife’s jumpsuit and shoes, an ornament on the wall, one of the chairs and one of the “droogs” clown nose is red. The splash of red that is deliberately used in the space creates once again a feeling of methodical staging to the “ultra- violence” that is about to ensue. When Alex and his boys enter into the space, the husband is kicked and tumbles backward in a very choreographed manner. The camera also becomes handheld when the woman is put upon the shoulders and turned around. Then Alex starts singing the song “Singing in the Rain” while he repeatedly kicks the husband in the stomach and even slaps the wife in the face. Yet the effect of his singing this song with the action taking place makes the scene very comical and seems like an element to convey how nonchalant Alex’s character is to violence. After Alex cuts out the wife’s dress, he pulls down his pants, where in the camera is tilted up in a low angle. Then the sequence ends with an extreme close up of the husband. We never really see what Alex does to the husband’s wife, everything is just implied by the reaction of the husband in the close up and the close up of the wife in agony. So in closer analysis of this scene, the use of a dominant color, a cheerful song, and the use of camera angles and Kubrick’s chosen subject to focus in on are all cinematic techniques that can suggest a disturbing rape scene without really showing any graphic moments on screen.
The scene in A Clockwork Orange that uses Rossini’s William Tell Overture in a very creative way is the scene between Alex and the two girls whom he meets at the record store. The camera is static all through out this scene and never moves. For the first few seconds the space is empty and all we see is Alex’s bedroom. As the music crescendo’s, Alex and the two girls enter in rapid movement where the frames are speeded up and the action that takes place in the scene is syncopated to the soundtrack. As they get undressed and dressed, in and out of the bed, the tempo of the soundtrack gets faster and actually takes away from the graphicness of the nudity and simulated sex scene. We see everything but nothing all at the same time. This choice by Kubrick to speed up the frames is innovative because the ménage e trio becomes a game of sorts. The dizzying pace of the scene combined with the syncopation to Rossini’s’ music lessens the eroticness of the sex portrayed in the sequence. Again, Kubrick uses these cinematic devices that are less traditional to convey to the audience a sense of hallucinatory delight instead of an intimate moment of sexual revelry. The carnivalesque atmospheric tone is established by the choice of soundtrack and restriction of camera movement alone.
And lastly, the scene of the cat lady is Alex’s last victim before he is brought to prison. In a wide shot, cat lady is established as a very limber middle aged woman. She raises her hips into the air and then folds her waist over in a very provocative stretch when she is first introduced. On the walls are paintings of erotic art with women in very sexualized poses. When the doorbell rings, she lets out a curse: “Oh, Shit” from being upset from her workout being interrupted. From the few seconds we see cat lady, her character compared to the other females in the film is very different. She has her cats around her instead of a partner; she runs a health farm and is fascinated by erotic art. She is clearly an independent, healthy and mature woman that enjoys collecting sexualized memorabilia. When Alex enters her room, the painting on his right only suggests a woman in a sexual position as the frame cuts off the entire painting. What the audience does see is full frame is the giant phallic sculpture. However, it is the cat lady who is the first to attack Alex with a small metal bust while Alex holds on to the giant phallic sculpture to block himself from getting hit. Kubrick switches to a handheld camera, which moves in a circular pattern as cat lady swings at Alex with full force. She eventually falls to the ground and as Alex is about to do her in with the sculpture, it is once again merely suggested that she is hit in the face, as we never really see the actual violence. Kubrick gives us a close up of the cat lady with the camera moving in and out, much like the direction of the sculpture and then it cuts to a painting of a mouth inside another mouth. There is an illusion that she has been violently struck in the face and yet the frame only cuts to this image, which implies she has been struck in the mouth:
Nonetheless, the film has gained notoriety and critical acclaim at the same time for it’s controversial subject matter containing violence and sex that Kubrick captures in a highly cinematic stylized way. Kubrick himself pulled out the film from distribution from Warner Brothers in Britain after his family received death threats and only in the year 2000, after Kubrick’s death has A Clockwork Orange finally been able to be shown in the country. According to press releases from the British Film Institute, a number of “copycat” crimes were linked to the film because of its sexual violence. In the United States, there were censorship issues with A Clockwork Orange as well when its first rating was deemed an X rating. Kubrick reedited some sexuality explicit scenes and rereleased another version in 1973 that got an R rating (IMDB).
Granted the movie as a whole has some very shocking scenes and themes, however as I have gone into great detail in the earlier passages, these violent and sexual sequences are heightened by the cinematic style that Kubrick uses to suggest an explicit and graphic scenario to the audience. Insomuch as most of the scenes containing sex and violence are mostly implied, it is still a film that pushes the envelope in terms of censorship and cinematic style. In no way am I discounting the magnanimous controversy or notoriety for explicit and graphic scenes regarding A Clockwork Orange. By providing a critical analysis of the scenes above, I am able to recognize how Kubrick seamlessly marries innovative camera angles, camera movement, the use of a classical soundtrack, lighting and choreography to allow the viewer to imagine the “ultra-violence” in their heads rather than see it on screen. In conclusion, Pauline Kael in a review for the New Yorker says it best that: “This picture plays with violence in an intellectually seductive way”( January 2, 1972).
No comments:
Post a Comment