Legality of Using Violence against Violence in 'A Clockwork Orange'

‘A Clockwork Orange’ has created a debate over the legitimacy and the effectiveness of using violence to combat violence. Within the film, Kubrick depicts a socially and politically degenerate environment inhabited by fearful citizens, violent thugs and an authoritarian government. His dark and sensationalist scenes of rape, murder and violence from our young narrator Alex De Large and the violence imposed by the state through the Ludovico technique all assist in expanding the understanding over who is legitimate to use violence and if so, can it really be effective in reducing or ending violent acts. Using the free will defense and the effects the state’s use of violence had on Alex and the reaction from the other characters within the film, I aim to question the issues that using violence has on morality and choice. Additionally, I want to explore whether violence is a product of society and if the violence within the film assisted in combatting violence or encouraging it in modern society.

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the “intentional use of physical force or power against an individual… or a community which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, or deprivation”. Within the film this definition mostly refers to Alex. Thomas Elsasser argues this is the violence of the “individual… the anarchic physical violence of the hooligan”. The form of violence committed by Alex is disturbing, fueled on Milk Plus, a drink laced with drugs that would “sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence”, Alex and his gang of droogs seek pleasure from random acts of violence without any justification. When Alex is finally caught, the state uses the Ludovico Technique, a parody of aversion therapy, which is intended to cure Alex of his violent inclination, so he is no longer a threat to society. This could be perceived as a form of a defense for the greater good of society, and therefore the state may be legitimate in using violence in this way. However, the treatment requires Alex to be forced into watching scenes of horrific violence whilst being injected with nausea inducing drugs, against his will. The objective being the association with nausea every time he thinks or experiences violence, technically, mechanically rewiring his brain. Whilst it is successful as Alex is unable to perform any acts of a violent or sexual nature, he no longer has the ability to make his own decisions and is now, as the title of the book, suggests a ‘clockwork orange’, someone with “the appearance of an organism lovely with color and juice but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the Devil… or the Almighty State”. Some would view this action by the state as justifiable in the same way as a nation state has the right of to defend itself against an invading force. However, the point Kubrick makes within ‘A Clockwork Orange’ is the state is use of violence upon Alex, is depriving him of the choice to be good on his own volition. Whilst this might be effective in individual cases, the argument against this is similar in a sense to those against capital punishment where the state is also supposedly enacting violence against individuals in the greater good for society, however just like Alex is deprived of his free will to announce the death penalty on someone is depriving them of their right to live. If we assume that the states use of violence against Alex, has been sanctioned by law, then it is ‘legitimate’ yet we must also question to what extent is it ethical and effective?

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

Kubrick argues it is neither by using the free will defense as the main undertone within the film. The free will defense argues that free will is an essential part of humanity, without it we would be mere robots, even if we must risk evil. Kubrick demonstrates the free will defense through the personality of Alex. The audience finds themselves identifying with Alex on a subconscious level. Alex’s intelligence, and love of beauty, gives Alex undeniably human qualities. For example, through the music of Beethoven. Martin Amis notes that this choice of music betrays the “authorial insistence that the beast would be susceptible to beauty… he (Alex) now has been equipped with a soul, and even a suspicion of innocence”. By every logical and rational explanation, the audience should feel disgust towards Alex yet his substantial connection to Beethoven causes us to feel empathy for him when his love for music is lost as a consequence of the Ludovico technique. This unintentional side effect acts as a reminder of the unforeseen dangers that human beings face by trying to play God. It is a key moment when the audience realize that the humane qualities within Alex are being eradicated from him, although he has lost his ability to be violent, he has also lost fundamental qualities to allow him to be human. Kubrick demonstrates that it is far better for an induvial to possess free will, even if it is the will to sin, then for him to be made over into a clockwork paradigm of virtue. Alex’s treatment demonstrates it is wrong to turn even the most unforgivingly vicious criminals into vegetables, as in doing so we risk the loss of free will.

Additionally, the brutality displayed by the state becomes a commentary on how victims of violence and brutality can easily become victims. The state, in their attempt to cure Alex, made him defenseless against their psychological torture. When he is released back into society the other characters finally confront Alex and force him to acknowledge their presence and their behavior is equally as violent. For example, when Alex gives money to the same homeless man he beat up as an attempt of kindness, the older man reacts by getting other homeless men to assist him in beating up Alex. This raises the question over the effectiveness of the treatment combatting violence overall. Whilst it has eradicated violence from Alex it has not combatted further violence in society. To combat violence completely would require the state to subject the homeless man to the same treatment. This displaying the conflict between humanity and the control of the state. Using violence to make the state completely efficient means human frailty must be removed from the system.

Furthermore, we can view Alex’s violent nature as a by-product of the society he lives in or a predestined part of human nature, then using violence to combat violence seems an ineffective method. The dystopian society in which ‘A Clockwork Orange’ is set in seems to facilitate the various forms of brutality. For example, the drugs served up at the popular night clubs help motivate brutal gangs of young men to engage in acts of violence and rape and the constant referrals to erotic images of women reinforce the social conception that women are purely there to gratify the sexual urges of young men. If the way Alex behaves is consequence of the society that surrounds him why should the state be punishing him? It is the dire and dystopian feel of the film that allows Kubrick to convince us of the government’s equally great evil beyond the dichotomy of seemingly spontaneous violence. Heller and Kiraly argue the reason for Alex committing these crimes is because it is all that allows him to feel emotion in an increasingly robotic and dystopian society. They further note: “… ‘A Clockwork Orange’ portrays a detached and uncaring society where ultraviolence is the only method of saying, ‘I am alive’” (Heller and Kiraly, Jr., 199). This explores the argument that we are a product of our society and therefore the government cannot be legitimate in using violence and punishing someone who is a product society’s own making.

Ironically, when the film was released in 1972 much attention was drawn over whether the relatable nature of Alex’s character and his love for violence encouraged further aggression amongst the public. For example, in 1972 the judge of a court case of a 14-year-old male, accused of the manslaughter of his classmate, said that the case has a ‘macabre relevance’ to ‘A Clockwork Orange’. Similarly, the judge who sentenced a 16-year-old boy, who had beaten a younger child whilst wearing an outfit like Alex’s spoke of the ‘horrible trend’ which has been inspired by this wretched film. This belief shared by what Kubrick calls ‘well intentioned members of society’ is that the violence within ‘A Clockwork Orange’ incited copycat violence. If we refer to the past point on violence being a product of society then it raises the obvious question of whether these so-called copy-cat crimes were a cause of the film or a symptom of the weaknesses within modern society itself. Kubrick takes the view that films, such as ‘A Clockwork Orange’ “are merely convenient whipping boys for politicians because they allow them to look away from social and economic causes of crime, about which they are unwilling or unable to do anything”. On the other hand, Miriam Karlin, the actress who plays the cat lady who Alex bludgeons to death, suggests that no normal human beings would be influenced by it, demonstrating that that the propensity of violence is intrinsic to individuals and violent crime is committed by people with a long record of anti- social behavior or by the unexpected blossoming of a psychopath. It is interesting to speculate as to whether the impact of this copy-cat violence might have provoked the state to enact a form of violence against artistic freedom by banning the film to prevent further violent behavior. This would have been an interesting parallel with the film, just as Alex was prevented by the state by exercising his own free will, such a ban would have prevented society from making their own decisions about the nature of ‘A Clockwork Orange’. The film itself became a subject of its own debate, would it have been effective to ban the film, and would the state have been legitimated in doing so?

To conclude, through ‘A Clockwork Orange’ Kubrick addresses the consequences and implications of state-imposed violence against the violence of an individual. Whilst, in theory the state may be legally legitimate in their attempt to protect society against violence, the restriction of Alex’s free will and the removal of qualities that undoubtedly made him human establishes questions over the ethics of using violence in this way. Additionally, the acts of violence from other characters against Alex suggests that for their use of imposed violence to work we must all be subjected to the same treatment and if we view Alex’s violent nature as a product of society then using violence to combat violence is not only counterproductive, ineffective and immoral.

References

1. A Clockwork Orange: The First 25 years, (n.d). https://uwaterloo.ca/arts/?id=317&feature (Accessed 22/12/2018).
2. A. Burgess. A Clockwork Orange (New York: Ballantine, 1965).
3. A. Travis. ‘Retake on Kubrick film ban’. In The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/sep/11/alantravis (Accessed 8/01/2019).
4. G. Scorzo. ‘Alex’s Violence: Re-Interpreting A Clockwork Orange’. Culture on the Offensive, https://www.cultureontheoffensive.com/a-clockwork-orange (Accessed 11/01/2019).
5. J.Sperb. ‘The Kubrick Façade: Faces and Voices in the Films of Stanley Kubrick’. Oxford, The Scarecrow Press, 2006, p.114.
6. M. Ciment, Kubrick. On a Clockwork Orange. The Kubrick Site (1981) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.aco.html (Accessed 8/12/2019).
7. M. Yasar. ‘A Clockwork Orange and the Consequences of Maternal Unconcern’. Birth, Movies, Death, https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/07/27/a-clockwork-orange-and-the-consequences-of-maternal-unconcern (Accessed 11/01/2019).
8. T.Elsaesser, ‘Screen Violence: Emotional Structure and Ideological Function in A Clockwork Orange’. In C.Bigsby, (ed) Approaches to Popular Culture (London, Arnold, 1976), p.24.
9. The International Anthony Burgess Foundation. Music of a Clockwork Orange, (n.d). https://www.anthonyburgess.org/a-clockwork-orange/the-music-of-a-clockwork-orange (Accessed 09/01/2019).
10. The Times. ‘Serious Pockets of Violence at London School, QC say’ (1972).
11. World Health Organisation, World Report on Violence and Health (2015) https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/ (Accessed 12/01/19).