A Clockwork Orange

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.A Clockwork Orange is Stanley Kubrick's most important social statement about violence, hatred, and suppression of personality. Kubrick delves into social issues much deeper than the author of the novel, Anthony Burgess, but on the other hand, he changes the main idea of ​​the work of art by cutting out the ending. The leitmotif of A Clockwork Orange is simple: hate breeds another hate. All those whom Alex harmed at the beginning of the film, regardless of their education, standard of living or other factors, harm Alex in return in the second half of the film. Only to the defenseless Alex, who is unable to respond to them. On the one hand, there is a clear idea that evil does not go unpunished. Alex gets what he deserves for every crime he commits on screen. On the other hand, can revenge be considered justice? Kubrick clearly compares and shows that all those who take revenge on the defenseless Alex are no different from him and pursue the same idea - ultraviolence. The theme of violent treatment of the desire for violence is the main one in both the novel and the film. It is obvious that it is impossible to wean a person away from violence by force. The treatment does not suppress Alex's desires, it only fights his ability to commit evil. He is doomed to eternal torture, during which he will experience an irresistible desire to beat someone or have sex with someone throughout his life, but will be unable to do so due to excruciating feelings of nausea. This is a direct suppression of the personality, during which Alex is left with no choice. The presentation of the results of the treatment is very revealing. Kubrick makes A Clockwork Orange in bright tones, expressive images, almost satirical. Therefore, the demonstration of the insignificance of the cured Alex on stage is made in a caricatured way, so that the actors bow to the ministers and governors, while Alex is openly humiliated, showing his inability not only to commit crimes, but also to banal self-defense or satisfy sexual needs (rights that an ordinary person has). Kubrick shows the hypocrisy of society and state institutions through theatricality. That there are "performances" going on at the top, and not a real solution to existing problems. And no one ever cares about ordinary people. After all, governors and ministers only care about elections, and Alex becomes a collateral damage for both sides: one side (condemning him to torture for the rest of his life, calling it treatment); and for the other (driving Alex to a suicide attempt for political purposes and revenge). Until now, the main question left after the film is its ending. It caused a scandal in UK, which led to the film being banned for 27 years. Many saw the film as propaganda of violence. Of course, this is not the idea that Kubrick was conveying. However, it is noteworthy that the novella has a different ending, which was cut off in the film. There is a story that Kubrick read a version of the novella where the pages at the end were torn out and he liked it. And later, even after learning and reading the ending, he did not add it to the script and shot the film like that, with an open ending. However, in my opinion, it is important to understand here, that the ending in the book is a straightforward and obvious idea, told to the readers almost in plain text. Something like a way to solve the problem. Kubrick obviously did not agree with this idea (for a number of reasons). And in general, Kubrick is characterized by not offering solutions to problems in his films. His task is only to highlight the problem and explore it. And the viewer must draw conclusions on his own. The question of whether Alex will change or not depends on the viewer. Those who themselves feel hatred (and it doesn't matter whether towards innocent people or even criminals) will think that Alex will always remain a criminal. Others will think that he will definitely change. But Kubrick gives both Alex and us, the viewers, the opportunity to choose. It is we who choose how to interpret the film, and that is its genius.