Reviews

A Clockwork Orange was shockingly violent for its day. Our nerves have, of course, been hardened by the intervening thirty years of steadily mounting physical violence in cinema. As emotionally conventional as the R-Rated "Saving Private Ryan" may be, its opening D-day sequence would not have seen the light of day if the film had been released a quarter century earlier. Hence, young viewers seeking a thrill from "A Clockwork Orange" may be bitterly disappointed by the movie's tameness compared to the offerings of today.

However, for more sensitive viewers, "A Clockwork Orange" is still shocking because of its cold lack of empathy. The events of the film are told by the main character- Alex deLong- a teen of above-average intelligence, charm, and aggression. His emotional makeup lacks empathy for others and a sense of duty to society and fellow humans. He is as ruthless as he is capricious, cruel, and selfish. Yet he is likably good-humoured.

The society he lives in is one much like the America of today (And Britain of 1970)- a trash-littered concrete jungle defaced by graffiti, decay, and a sense of hopeless acquiescence. The totality of the society's moral bankruptcy becomes fully apparent only in the latter half of the film during and after Alex's "Conversion".

****************Spoilers begin******************

The film has two phases- the first depicting Alex's cruel coldness, and the second depicting the cruel coldness of the society that made him. progression from first to second phase occurs when he is imprisoned for murdering an old woman and tries to obtain early release by agreeing to participate in a new treatment process designed to render violent offenders harmless by conditioning them to be sickened by violent thoughts and acts. In what is a fairly famous scene in cinema, he is strapped in and forced to watch violent films while given drugs that induce feelings of nausea and despair. He emerges from treatment incapable of even contemplating violent acts without becoming acutely ill and is, thus, released as "Cured"- thereby freeing up a desperately needed bed in a terribly overcrowded prison system.

Just like Alex, we see the society in which he lives actuated by calculating selfishness. It does not care that Alex is not actually cured of his pathology- they only care that he seems safe enough to release from prison- thus forestalling the day when a new prison must be constructed and staffed. Unsurprisingly, the Film universe ends up being more swift and sure in justice than the real one. Soon after Alex is released, both Alex and his society are punished for their selfish deeds- Alex is badly hurt when he is attacked and unable to defend himself. Those who made him that way are forced to de-condition him, provide medical care, and leave him at large so to limit the political fallout of their failed experiment.

***********End Spoilers*************

The use of a Russian-inspired slang by Alex and his fellow hoodlums ("droogs") is incidental to the plot of the film. It was much more important in the original Anthony Burgess novel. I am not so sure what this slang achieved in the film. It certainly doesn't facilitate viewer efforts to follow the plot, however it's not much of an inhibition and DOES remind us that Alex is different from us and there's no reason to expect him to share our sensibilities. Though he's obviously an evildoer, his life experience is so different that we can't say that his personality was, inherently, evil or merely distorted by life experience in a cold and uncaring society. Of course, that sort of relativism won't do you any good if you stood between him and his next goal!

The film is, as is standard for a Stanly Kubrick film, well photographed and tightly edited. The film has a vitality that his later films lack and should be justly thought of a one of his greatest along with Doctor Strangelove. It is an excellent introduction to Kubrick and, simply put, good entertainment provided the viewer is not put off by the "'70's" influence in the music and settings. Malcom McDowell fans should see him put in one of his best performances ever as the lead character Alex. The ironic detachment common to Kubrick serves this film particularly well since it so accurately conveys the mindset of many of the film's chief characters- Alex as well as the bureaucrats who try to reshape him for their own convenience.

To me, the film is one of the greatest films I have ever seen (in the top 25) because it is so entertaining with it's well-photographed and well-edited action, witty and engaging dialogue, and, yet, it is an excellent and unsentimental study of the frightening consequences of a human society that is trying to live without morality or genuine compassion. Because of it's humor and detachment, the viewer is not emotionally overloaded by the terrible prospects set forth in the movie and can see plainly and without hysteria the similarities between the movie's fictional world and our own.

Clearly Marked Minor Spoiler

Nattvardsgästerna is dominated by Ingrid Thulin's virtuosic performance as Märta- the mistress of Pastor Tomas Eriksson who is played with superb control by Gunnar Björnstrand.It is not a difficult film to watch. It is not particularly gut-wrenching like "Viskningar och Rop" can be to some, and is much less ambiguous than works like "Persona" and "Tystnaden". Very tightly edited, the film moves with measured pace to a conclusion that, like those of Bergman's best films, offers hope for the characters- if they are willing to work for it.

As the film opens, Pastor Tomas Ericsson is mechanically performing his duties as Pastor to a shrinking congregation in remote Sweden. Like him, the Lutheran Church he serves is depicted as mechanically struggling to survive. Talk and action by Ericsson and other officials in the back rooms of the church are about collecting the offerings (donations), controlling costs and other mundane issues. The lack of concern over their missions or goals underscores how these men and their church have tumbled into the rut of existing for the sake of existing.

God is silent in this film. The silence envelopes and oppresses the main characters of the film because there is no voice of order or authority to drown out the incessant chatter of uncertainty and loneliness in their own hearts. What was mistook for the voice of God was only the echoes of their own pleas for comfort, rationality, and, more importantly, a sense of purpose. Since God is silent, a good deal of this film is about how individuals cope with that silence and, as two characters are able to show, this process of coping can bear valuable spiritual fruit.

Beautifully lit and photographed under the guidance of the famous Cenematographer Sven Nykvist, the film intersperses brief moments of simple beauty with long stretches of what I can only describe as magnificent unobtrusiveness. This unobtrusiveness is something one can appreciate in subsequent viewings when there is time and attention available for studying the film visually- it is the unobtrusiveness of near-perfection where scene after scene is believably and consistently lit so that the characters stand out in luminous clarity. We are, thus, able to forget that we are watching film and concentrate on the characters, their words, expressions, and actions.

While Björnstrand's Tomas Ericsson may be what one thinks of as the main character in this film, Ingrid Thulin's uninhibited performance as Märta is, by far, more gripping. The disciplined stiffness of the Ericsson character is very competently handled by Björnstrand- I can think of no better actor for the role because Björnstrand is so able to make Ericsson's mask of indifference ooze with the character's true inner pain. However, Märta, Ericsson's mistress, is far less inhibited than he is and her portrayal provided Ingrid Thulin with far more range which Thulin exploited in one of the greatest performances of her lifetime. Frustrated, hopeful, affectionate, and starving for affection, the Märta character injects the film with the human warmth and life that makes it work. Her pain and struggles are not those of the audience, but they are portrayed so believably by Thulin we cannot deny them.

About one-third of the way into the film we are treated to one of the great sequences in movie history- Märta's letter to Thomas. He starts to read the letter and the film cuts to Märta reciting her letter to us . In two long takes interspersed with a brief flashback, Ingrid Thulin addresses the camera so naturally and believably that she is clearly speaking to us. Add to this the before-mentioned magnificent unobtrusiveness of the cinematography and the sense that she really is speaking to us- the viewer- becomes eery. Furthermore, what she has to say is, at least, for mainstream media, thought-provoking- even touching.

Märta's hope and openness contrast to Ericsson's closed bitterness. His case seems hopeless since he seems, like another character, to have lost hope entirely. As unsympathetic a character as he is with his rudeness, whining, and selfishness, we still see a glimmer of hope for him in the end of the film. ((((((MINOR SPOILER)))))) He stands at the end of the film delivering a sermon to a church empty of all but Märta.((((((End Minor Spoiler))))))

Some viewers have expressed the opinion that the ending is distressingly pathological, that it represents Ericsson trapped in the empty and meaningless rituals of living. I see it as him being resolved to go on with life. The rut lies before him, if he chooses to remain in it. However, he could also chose to climb out and renew his quest for personal fulfillment. The choice is his and because he still has that choice, the film ends, for me, on a hopeful note. Of course, in a sequence just before the end of the movie, Ericsson has a conversation with the church Sexton- Algot Frövik- which does much to put Ericsson's suffering and unhappiness in context- we see that others live with far worse and still preserve themselves spiritually and morally.

Who should see this film? Bergman fans should. So should individuals who are not familiar with Bergman but who enjoy simple dialogue-driven stories that have their own statements about what could be called the Basic Questions of life- it's meaning and our role in it. Viewers who expect a definitively anti-God stance will be badly disappointed. While there are anti-religious elements- they are muted and set forth plainly in a manner that strikes not at religion so much as any institution that outlives its sense of purpose and direction. This is far more subtle than saying the story is anti-Christian- for it actually is not. Those expecting an exploration of God will be disappointed- this film is about human perceptions of God. Finally, some considerable appreciation can be had by those who enjoy watching beautifully shot and edited black-and-white films.