I have to admit: Stanley Kubrick's films are head-scratchers. Some of them may be classics, some stupefying, others plain greats but the rest are like numbness to the cerebral cortex. Despite of that, odd and eccentric Kubrick may be, I still adore his craft which heightens into the order of uniqueness and individuality. He has his own style, and when you see a film, you will surely know it's in the "Kubrickian" stratosphere.

However, after "viddying" A Clockwork Orange, pardon my jargon, but bet my droogs and guzzballs, it's no 2001. Although brilliantly portrayed, Kubrick dives into the Orwellian prescience that society in the near future will be encroached by a severe hold of the government, that ultra-violence will be wiped out of the streets and that new rehabilitation treatment will be imposed forcing violent individuals to be cured. This is in fact an ideology, and while the film's message is a bit messy, it's visuals and imagery haunts truly.

It starts off in a weird milk bar (probably Kubrick's vision of the future clubs and nightbars where women strips and alcohol is drunk instead of the milk) with mannequins of naked women all fours in the floor. Alex, the head of a demonic gang, sits comfortably staring at the camera holding a glass of milk against his mouth. This iconic scene, must have been imprinted in almost all kinds of mediums like handbags, shirts, badges and else, although shown very early in the film, is an important one. Alex's gang rests in the bar, taking a break from roaming the streets, and drinking milk. After that, they roam again and continue their spree of violence, rape, murder (even beating a helpless old man in the alleyway). But they weren't drunk, the only thing they drunk was milk. This was where we know that their violence wasn't caused (they don't have any boozed intake) but rather exists naturally in their nature.

They kill people, harass women especially in front of their husbands, break into houses and fulfill the oath of the "old in-and-out". We might ask ourselves, what were the reasons why these pack of droogs were doing such abominable things? This was where Kubrick fails, he never explains, and all he wanted to portray was that these droogs find pleasure in the attempt of violence towards other people - which is downrightly inhumane and almost shamelessly pitiful.

We are also introduced to Alex's home in the hope that Kubrick might shed some light on the cause of such violence. Was it childhood, or maybe parenthood? Alex's parents, although a tad careless, give everything to their son. But teen rebellion succeeds more. Alex had also an intense liking to Beethoven music, and Kubrick again never explained why. It must be the fact that Kubrick just wanted to stylize his film with classical music, and he felt like he blames the character for liking it.

Then we are thrown to the second act of Orange. Alex was betrayed by his droogs after betraying them first, and was caught by the police then putting him into prison, under government surveillance. Kubrick's government is severe, brutal and almost scientifically-ruthless. It strives to wipe all ultra-violence out of the streets that it obviously wanted to impose the same kind of violence but in different form on these criminals to cure them, to make them reformed. In one of the most horrifying scenes of the film, one that makes your eyes squint, was when Alex was forced to viddy or watch films with his eyes forced open with metallic equipments with the doctor dropping medicinal liquid in his eyeballs.

While the first act of the film undoubtedly stuns, or even gobsmacks, innocent-movie watchers, it has a potential of a great artistic film with lots of sexual imagery and violence. Never has a film become so controversial that possibly, even your grandmother wouldn't want to see it again. The scenes itself rattles nerves and terrifies, as though Kubrick has stage a real creepshow full of killings and rape serenaded with Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. But the second act drags, filled with political questions and ridiculous innuendos by Kubrick. This film is basically a suggestion that violence is not to be forced down. It's supposed to be a choice between what is moral and immoral, therefore letting a person of free will stand whichever side. So what did Kubrick mean when he shows the government imposing violence to this rapist, murderers and criminals that at the end of it all - violence is also the solution? And that if a person choose violence over education, it still makes him human or rational?

At the end of the film, which is also a head-scratcher actually, it shows Alex seemingly cured from the treatment he went through but imagines of a rough rape-act in his brain. Kubrick then initially tells us that Alex is not cured, and that he's implying that violence cannot be cured. I will go bonkers first if this film doesn't promote violence as a good thing.

Many call this a masterpiece, some call this a holy mess - I call A Clockwork Orange an artistic mess. It's like looking into a painting with full of brilliant colors in it, but you can't decipher or understand its potent message because of the many strokes, lines and misgiving brushes all over it. It is a good film, in fact. Unforgettable, riveting imagery, seminal filmmaking, haunting score that startles, and innovative script and language, but what good is a film that has the artist himself confused on what his portrait portends. Or if he understood his message, well it must have been absurd.


Rating: B-