One of the deepest questions that Anthony Burgess’ novel, A Clockwork Orange, raises is whether an individual’s free will should be obliterated for the common good of society. But after watching Stanley Kubrick’s film version of the novel, the viewer may come away with a somewhat altered take on the question of free will than Burgess might have intended, due to the various changes Kubrick makes to the script.
Having read the novel first, I was quite interested in the liberty Kubrick takes by slightly changing the scene in which the effectiveness of Alex’s treatment is tested. For instance, the male actor who is hired to insight the subject’s anger seems to dominate Alex by putting his foot on Alex’s chest and making him lick his boot. He snarls, “ ‘You see that shoe? Well I want you to lick it. Go on! Lick it!…And again. Nice and clean’ ” (Kubrick 82). Here, Alex is virtually powerless to do anything other than what the actor wants. But in the novel, Alex reacts to the first bit of instigation very differently, taking it upon himself to offer to lick the actor’s boots. Alex tells his readers, “I said, real desperate, trying to be nice to this insulting and hurtful veck to stop the pains and sickness coming up: ‘Please let me do something for you, please…Shall I clean your boots? Look, I’ll get down and lick them’ ” (Burgess 125). It is as if Burgess stresses Alex’s desperation and the self-degradation to which he is reduced, while Kubrick stresses Alex’s mere helplessness to illustrate how well the treatment has worked.
This difference in interpretation is also mirrored in a second scene in which a female actress appears in order to arouse Alex. In the film, there is no dialogue exchange between the actress and him. She advances and he goes to touch her breasts, but he immediately doubles over with pain and sickness, and a shout from the audience ends the experiment (Kubrick 83). But in the novel, Alex’s reaction to the female is similar to his reaction to the male. After spying the actress he does feel the inevitable sickness, but he then tries to counteract it by prostrating himself to her. He bellows, “ ‘O most beautiful and beauteous of devotchkas, I throw like my heart at your feet for you to like trample all over…Let me be like your true knight,’ and down I went again on the old knees, bowing and like scraping” (Burgess 128). Again, while Burgess emphasizes the humiliating agony which Alex endures and loss of dignity that accompanies the treatment, Kubrick seems less interested with the personality of Alex than with demonstrating the general outcome of the treatment.
Having read the novel first I cannot say for sure how I biased my reaction is to Kubrick’s interpretation, but as I was watching the film I think I felt less empathy and even sympathy towards Alex than when I was reading A Clockwork Orange. I think a viewer who watches the movie first would be more apt to conclude that Alex only gets what he deserves. While Kubrick shows what happens to Alex in undergoing this cruel and unusual treatment, Burgess tries to make the reader understand just how wretched the character feels during his ordeal. In the film’s scene with the interaction with the male actor, Alex is only shown to be tamed and unthreatening; I am not sure the viewer understands at what expense. Similarly, in the situation with the female actress, I wonder if the viewer recognizes just how humiliated Alex must have felt because in film, he does not grovel; he only feels pain. Although Alex does offer the viewer some insight into his thoughts through voice-overs (here and at other times in the movie), I do not think it is enough for the viewer to substantially delve into Alex’s complex psyche.
Moreover, because I feel that a viewer may be cheated out of a significant personal connection with Alex, I think he/she may draw a very different conclusion about the inevitable question that the story begs: should a person’s free will be subject to the mercy of society? I think that if I had seen the film first, I would not have condemned the treatment so vehemently as I did when reading the novel. Perhaps this is because I think that in general a book offers a kind of intimacy that a film cannot, but I do think that Kubrick’s film lacks some key passages in the novel where Alex tells his readers what is going on in his head, or even physical actions that attest to his complete transformation. And if the film’s viewer is not afforded that, I would guess that he/she might not fully understand both sides of the argument of the importance of free will. He/she would only be introduced to society’s standpoint, rather than the individual’s as well. But who knows; maybe that is what Kubrick intended.
Evilness and violence are major themes portrayed in the novel A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess. The main character Alex, and his droogs, raped, beat, and killed others because they receive enjoyment and pleasure from performing such actions. The movie is portrayed in the same way, with explicit violence and evil doings toward others. A specific element that was included in the movie that was not included in the book is a snake. The serpent helps to aid in the portrayal of evil and violence in the modern world.
The snake was first introduced into the film as Alex entered his room. The serpent was lying at the bottom of his drawer until Alex picked it up and allowed the snake to crawl on him. In one of the following scenes, Alex awakes with the snake lying at the bottom of his bed.
Alex's pet snake represents the evil in his life. Ever since the beginning of time snakes have been seen as sinful and deceitful creatures that people are scared of. Alex is also represented as the same evil and sinful creature whom enjoys doing harm to others, and whom people, the society, is frightened of. The addition of the snake to the movie adds to the theme of evil and violence. At one point in the movie, Alex's correction officer asks "Is it the devil that crawls inside of you Alex"? This line reveals and makes one think of a snake, which represents evil, crawling on Alex and insisting him to perform evil acts. The act of Alex picking up the snake and allowing the snake to sleep with him, insinuates that Alex enjoying to be with evil creatures. The snake represents Alex's evilness.
As Alex goes to jail and then moves into the hospital, he becomes brainwashed by receiving the feeling of illness when violence, rape, and evil enter into his head. When Alex is finally released, he returns home to the news of the death of his snake.
Alex becoming reformed and the death of the snake relate to each other a great deal. As Alex became brainwashed and lost desire to perform evil towards others, the snake died as well. The death of the snake, the death of a thought of to be evil creature, represents the loss of evil in Alex's life. Both the death of the snake and the loss of Alex's will to do evil are occurrences that neither one had control of. Both the loss of life and the loss of wrong doing, are elements in which neither one had control over.
The snake is an important creature in the movie, it is a representation of the evil and violence that Alex performs on others. If the serpent were included in the novel, evil and violence would be portrayed even more. The concept that Alex has a snake as a pet rather than a cat or a dog is very important. If he had a cute and lovable animal as a pet that would be contradicting his evil and violent character. The snake is an evil, slimy, crawly, and creepy creature; not too many people own one as a pet. But those who do choose to have a snake as a pet are bit different than others in society who have lovable pets, which represents another major theme in this novel, the fact that Alex is striving to be an individual. The death of the snake and Alex's loss of showing violence and evil toward others helps one to realize that the snake represents the evil and violence in Alex. When the snake leaves Alex's life, as does his will to rape, beat, and kill others.
Julie Nista