Mechanical minds in an organic world: the paradox of 'A Clockwork Orange'
Decay, desires, and drives
“There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie, and Dim, and we sat in the Korova Milkbar trying to make up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening. The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence” — Alex, A Clockwork Orange
I recently watched Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange."
This cinematic masterpiece is based on Anthony Burgess' 1962 novel, which paints a satirical and dystopian vision of the near future. While I'll be discussing some spoilers, it's a film that truly needs to be seen firsthand to be fully appreciated. So, still...read on.
Kubrick found himself intrigued by the depth of Burgess' novel. And at its core, "A Clockwork Orange" is a vivid exploration of orchestrated aggression. It delves into themes of individual autonomy, free will, and good vs evil...
While these themes are frequently debated in relation to the story, I feel that a crucial element is often overlooked. There's an underlying essence that many fail to consider: what gives Alex, the main protagonist, a propensity for the old ultraviolence?
Kubrick's film seems to be a bold critique of psychological conditioning. Alex is a young delinquent. A hooligan. A hooligan with a drive and desire for classical music and ultraviolence. His eventual capture leads him to prison, where, after two years, he appears reformed. Eager for an early release, Alex volunteers for an experimental procedure promising to rid him of his violent tendencies. However, the outcome leaves him as nothing more than a hollow shell, devoid of any genuine emotion or will.
The behavioral conditioning he undergoes doesn't truly reform him; it merely incapacitates him from acting on his violent impulses. It's only after a near-fatal act that Alex breaks free from this induced state, returning to his pre-operation drives, although his propensity for ultraviolence remains ambiguous.
Kubrick's interpretation of the novel includes a world with many unique characters, where everyone feels untrustworthy, surreal, and off. Alex is also our narrator and seems unbothered by the mysterious surreal aesthetics...all of this makes for an unforgettable viewing experience. It makes you feel unsettled and unsure about...everything.
And the film's dark humor is evident in scenes where Alex and his "droogs" nonchalantly commit heinous acts or casually lounge in a milk bar. This twisted world seems to mirror Alex's disturbed psyche.
Now, let's take a step back for a moment.
The name: "A Clockwork Orange." Burgess title juxtaposes the organic and lively (represented by "orange") with the mechanical and disciplined (represented by "clockwork"). He even described the title as a metaphor for something organic and full of life being transformed into a mechanism...
The film and book both suggest the idea that when a person loses their free will, they become merely a mechanical object, like a "clockwork orange.”
I want to focus on this idea of conditioning for a moment...
I've discussed how societal frameworks, values, language, and symbols collectively contribute to an apparatus that promotes conformity, making us more predictable. I'm not passing a moral judgment on this; it's merely an observation.
However, this is the tension the film and Kubrick play with. The tension between societal order and individual freedom. While conditioning might offer a solution to societal problems, it comes at the cost of individual freedom and the further potentiality of various unique human experiences and expressions.
In the film, the Ludovico technique “worked” for some time. The efficacy of the method is showcased to a select group of "powerful" individuals. They observe Alex as he falls to his knees in front of a man who strikes him, and he subsequently shows a submissive demeanor towards a young naked woman. While Alex's spiritual advisor from prison criticizes the government for depriving Alex of his autonomy, the state representatives present are satisfied with the outcome. Consequently, Alex is granted his freedom from incarceration.
Now...
On the one hand... I see the commentary on how we as a society should evaluate what leads individuals, such as Alex, toward a life of violence. We should look at the societal pressures...
However, the film seems to push the message that Alex in many regards has an inherent drive towards evil. In this case, I do wonder, what if the Ludovico technique had actually worked, permanently? What if it had prevented him from being able to act on his violent impulses? (Example: his act of rape which he expressed zero remorse for.)
So, the state aims to "free" society from the menace of violent individuals like Alex, this freedom results in the coercion of the individual, stripping him of his authentic desires and emotions.
I suppose I'm intrigued by this idea of authentic drives and desires. The portrayal of Alex, driven by his violent tendencies, is presented as his true and innate drive and desire. However, one has to ponder: is Alex's initial life of ultraviolence a result of unrestrained freedom? While we, as viewers, perceive Alex to be free before his procedure, he is, in reality, bound by his own drives and desires. These desires and drives are not solely his own creations; they are influenced, and shaped, by the societal structures around him. At least to some extent.
I suppose I'm putting forward that Alex never had free will...
Let me try to sum this up...
On one hand, the narrative of "A Clockwork Orange" prompts us to question the societal conditions that breed individuals like Alex. Is it poverty, lack of education, broken family structures, or the media that glorifies violence? Or perhaps it's the very fabric of a dystopian society that fails to provide its youth with meaningful avenues for self-expression and growth. The environment in which Alex thrives is one of decay, both moral and societal. This backdrop serves as a silent commentary on the failures of institutions meant to nurture and guide.
However, juxtaposed against this societal backdrop is Alex's seemingly inherent drive towards ultraviolence. His acts, especially the heinous act of rape, are executed without a hint of remorse. This raises the ethical dilemma: if there exists a technique, like the Ludovico procedure, that can effectively curb such violent tendencies, should it be employed? I think the film and story assume the answer is more clear than what our reality and understanding of the psyche actually suggests.
For example... the story assumes free will to be true in many regards. If our desires, drives, and actions are influenced by external factors, to what extent do we truly exercise free will? Is free will an illusion, a construct that we cling to, believing we're making independent choices when, in reality, we're products of our environment, upbringing, and societal pressures?
So, Alex's ultraviolence can be seen as an extreme manifestation of societal failures.
I suppose my answer to all of this is I don't know.
However, the film and story truly prompted me to introspect and question my own understanding of freedom, choice, and responsibility. And consequentially, the role society and the state plays in formulating that understanding.