A Clockwork Orange: The First 25 Years

Yvonne Ng demonstrates A Clockwork Orange’s controversial history by listing some of its worst criticisms and best rewards. She argues that the film is as relevant today as it was in 1972. She describes the culture of the society in the film as plausible and real. She divides the film into three parts (thesis, antithesis and synthesis): Alex and his droogs enjoying their daily ultra-violence, conditioned Alex receiving retribution from those he tortured, and finally Alex receiving money and help from the government as long as he presents them in a good light.
Ng writes about the state taking away a man’s choice as brainwashing. A state or a church might want “good” citizens as opposed to freedom to choose. This takes away humanity. Ng also points out that everyone in the film is involved in violence and has justifications for it. She commends the director for balancing opposing forces throughout the film, such as freedom with imprisonment, etc. She lauds him for creating in the viewer a belief that the government is at least equally as evil as Alex. Kubrick does this with the inhumane experiment. She compares Alex’s treatment to a similar treatment in the movie A Short Film about Killing.
Ng explains some of the language used by the youngsters in the film, called Nadsat. This language is used to distinguish the young from the adults. She also writes about his filming techniques and what they emphasize. We learn of the meaning of the empty theatre where rape takes place which is also represented by pseudo-art and meaningless culture: the society is spiritually empty. However, Alex, who still appreciates Beethoven is also capable of ultra-violence. Passions are rooted in human nature. She argues that the film is still relevant concerning generation conflict, sources of violence, corruption, and institutional base of power.

PennTags Feed for /tag/violence+nadsat

A Clockwork Orange: The First 25 Years