A Clockwork Orange (the Movie) (Part III)

Continuing with the Neutrals:

1. The slight alternate ending. In the book, the state restores Alex to his former self in some sort of reverse-conditioning process. In the movie, nobody tells Alex that they reversed his conditioning. He just wakes up from his suicide jump to find that he is miraculously back to normal. Alex does tell the resident psychologist that he had some dreams about doctors working in his brain, but the nurse quickly dismisses them as unimportant dreams. I like this choice because it gives some kind of eerie quality to Alex’s recovery, as if the state were still controlling him. I don’t like this choice because in the book, Alex’s recovery means that he is a capable of choice again. The movie takes away this existential factor by making it seem like the state is still manipulating Alex long after his recovery.

2. The slight alternate ending, Part II. Alex doesn’t ever “grow up”. Remember how Alex’s taste in music and ambitions in life change after he leaves the hosptital? He makes the free choice to mature and leave the ultraviolence to the new wave of youth. The movie never makes it this far and instead cuts the story as the paparazzi is snapping photos of Alex and his good buddy the Minister. I like this alternate ending because it leaves Alex’s future up to the viewer’s imagination. I don’t like this alternate ending because again, it shirks some of the existential elements of the book. Alex’s growing up is an expression of his free choice to reform himself and is used to contrast the state’s forced attempts of reform. The movie ending implies that the state still reigns over Alex by gently coercing him into a political friendship with the Minister.

3. Actually, thinking about it now, I think these alternate ending points do touch upon some existentialist concepts- mainly that one of intersubjectivity.

Finishing with the Negatives:

1. THERE IS NO MENTION OF “A CLOCKWORK ORANGE” IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE. If you hadn’t read the novel, you would have absolutely NO CLUE why it is actually called A Clockwork Orange. The part where Alex reads a bit of the manuscript on the author’s desk before he rips it up? Gone. The part where Alex screams “Am I just to be a clockwork orange?” to the scientists? Gone as well. These lines were important to include because A) they are the title of the movie and B) becoming “a clockwork orange” shows how Alex is robbed of his free will during his reformation and becomes a mechanistic “good Christian”.

2. Missing out on the inner thoughts. We miss Alex’s take on things when his thoughts can’t be said aloud. For example, we miss Alex’s opinion on what a good government is (one that allows its citizens to choose to act wrongly or rightly). Sometimes Alex’s thoughts are the greatest bits the novel has to offer. The movie does have some voice-over parts for when Alex refers to himself as “your narrator”, so why not include some of his more important thoughts?

3. The great line and motif of the novel “What’s it going to be then, eh?” is only mentioned ONCE in the entire movie. The Chaplain says it at the beginning of one sermon and even in this instance the full implications of the line are not realized. The line is one of the most important existentialist elements of the book because it indicates choice. In the book, different characters pose the question to Alex and in each instance, Alex’s capability to answer changes.

4. When Alex attacks the cat lady, he isn’t distracted by the bust of Beethoven and he doesn’t slip on the milk saucer. He actually just goes nuts and impales the poor lady with a sculpture of a giant penis. While it is a highly entertaining and surprisingly artistic scene, it glosses over two of the most important subtle details of the book. The bust of Beethoven fits in with the theme of Alex’s love for music and his fall on the milk saucer is an homage to the drugged milk drinks Alex enjoys. See the clip (you know you HAVE to see the sculpture now) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M74lTNyHb8f

5. The great scene where the Chaplain tries to absolve himself of moral responsibility for Alex’s treatment is cut. His monologue was so great in the book because it had such a clear link to existentialist philosophy. Pretty much, the Chaplain allows Alex to be “rehabilitated” out of fear of losing his job. He avoids taking responsibility for this action by making it seem like he had no choice, when in fact, he knows he did. Existentialism holds every man responsible for his own actions and allows us to judge someone based on their actions.

6. The missing parallels between Alex and Jesus Christ. In the movie, Alex compares himself to Christ’s torturer as he carries the cross on his back, but he never compares himself to Christ. In the book, Alex directly compares himself to Christ when he is betrayed by his droogs and in front of his mother. Although I personally disagree with the Alex/Christ parallel (mainly because Alex is not a willing sacrifice), I thought the parallel did add another layer to the story.

7. Alex just screams when he jumps out of the window. In the novel version, Alex screams as he is jumping, “Goodbye, goodbye, may Bog forgive you for a ruined life” (pg 188). I thought this line was particularly powerful because it places the burden of Alex’s suicide upon the society that forced its conception of a “good citizen” on Alex, in effect changing his very identity. The line raises an important existentialist question: is Alex correct in placing blame? On the one hand, it is true that the state stripped away Alex’s identity and replaced it, but on the other hand, it is ultimately Alex that decides to take his own life (unsuccessfully). I believe the existentialist would offer the following answer: it is not worth living without the ability to choose. Alex’s autonomy was robbed and to the existentialist, this means his humanity was robbed as well. By skipping out on this line, the movie again sacrifices some existentialism.

Whew! Now, I realize this was quite a long entry, but you have to admit it is very interesting to compare the visual/auditory and literary tellings of A Clockwork Orange. You might ask, if I have so many negative points, why do I still give the movie a positive rating? Well, I think my negative points were extremely nitpicky and specific compared to the positives. Also, the movie has to appeal to more than the avid reader or existentialist (I think we can admit we are far and few between these days). The movie did have to skimp out on some philosophical analysis in favor of action and good storytelling, but it didn’t compromise too much.

So overall, the movie is a fantastic interpretation of the existentialist novel. I highly recommend it.

The End!!

As faithful an existentialist as ever,
~Alexa Semonche~