As a personal fan of the novel and its adaptation, I still always felt there were a few elements of Alex’s mentality and perception of his society discussed in the complete version of the book that weren’t as fully or explicitly translated into the film, though, overall, I do prefer the movie’s ending.
More specifically, following Alex’s first encounter with Mr. Deltoid, he expounds upon his sheer enjoyment of what his government has deemed performative “badness”. Alex’s revealed philosophy is exceptionally telling in this scene, as he seems to somewhat imply that the designation of his brand of turpitude as a punishable infraction is conceptually comparable to the repression of self or one’s individualism at the hands of those in control. According to him, morality is essentially decided by a corrupt, authoritarian leadership who allows certain people to act in pursuit of their own self-interest or desires as long as those behaviors are in adherence with the enumerated laws imposed by an innately oppressive, inequitable system of governance. In a sense, it appears Alex is questioning why these so called “good” individuals can choose to do what they like while he cannot. Thematically, this thought process certainly contributes to the overarching conversation on choice, personal freedom, and who has the right to determine the standards and enforcement of ethicality in a society. After all, authoritarianism unavoidably establishes regulations, definitions of criminality, and punishments for deviance that are injudicious and cruel, which lead to cycles of unrest, violence, prison overcrowding, and the further revocation of rights. The government proceeds to blame societal ills on some intangible, devilish source of “evil” and ignores its own culpability in breeding discord amongst its populace. From this perspective, Alex actually has a bit of veracity to his reasoning and justifications.
However, in consideration of the original ending whereby Alex essentially “grows out” of his years of insolence and assumes his future sons will follow the same trajectory towards eventual adulthood, it almost seems as though Anthony Burgess believes or hopes that youthful degeneracy and contumacious behaviors are natural, transient phases of growth that are independent of the general state of lawlessness in a society or its apathy towards the proper cultivation of young, malleable minds. All forms and gradations of criminality, through this lens of analysis, can therefore be redeemable purely through the passage of time. As a conclusion to a novel seemingly desirous of exploring the complexities and ambiguities integral to the discussion on the causes and treatment of violence and contravention, this scenario is arguably a little simplistic and thematically inconsistent with the narrative threads demonstrated earlier on.
Additionally, while there is some truth to this specific perception of crime and those who commit it, Alex’s characterization as a sadistic psychopath represents a distinctive exception. His intrinsic compulsion to inflict pain and draw blood categorizes him as someone who would likely pursue his sanguinary interests no matter how much he aged mentally and physically. Resultantly, Burgess’s final chapter appears quixotic and rather insensitive, as Alex’s particular crimes are ineffably severe, unforgivable, and inexcusable by simply referencing his lack of physiological development or even pointing to the shambles his current world is in. Therefore, though extremely dismal and pessimistic, Kubrick’s ending represents a more accurate depiction of a failing government’s attempt at rehabilitating a self-possessed, irredeemable, remorseless murderer through chemically induced and torturous means. To summarize, these various elements of commentary in the complete novel, which pertain to the intersection of criminality, personal freedom, youthful rebelliousness, and the morality of generating falsified “goodness” in a sadist, have slight issues in their underlying compatibility and cohesion.
However, despite the underlying consistency to the paramount themes and the interiority of Alex’s perverse conceptualization of his behaviors and treatment, the film also demonstrates a few notable faults which arguably dilute the clarity and severity of its mature subject matter. In particular, Kubrick occasionally employs sexually explicit imagery and exaggerated, bizarre directorial choices that tend to contrast and detract from the overall tone and significance of their encompassing scenes. The seeming needlessness and unexpectedly jarring nature of these moments are dominant in the visual medium of film, and consequently are more pronounced and memorable to the audience at the expense of the dialogue subtleties and the ancillary, purposeful imagery. To enumerate; the instance where Mr. Deltoid suddenly grabs Alex’s genitals during their first conversation about his deviant actions, Alex’s use of a phallic statue to kill the old woman, and the medical staff emerging half-nude from behind a curtain when Alex wakes from his coma. The pervasiveness of sexual profligacy in this fictional society is an intrinsic component serving to represent the virulent depravity and prioritization of self-gratification infecting its populace, however, the wanton or lawless exaction of one’s will could have been suggested through alternative means while still maintaining the overall striking aesthetic of the film.
To counterbalance my criticisms of a few stylistic decisions Kubrick made throughout A Clockwork Orange, there is a particular lens of analysis which lends credence to the adaptational and cinematographic quality of his dramatic choices. Essentially, the novel was able to capitalize off the natural propensity to identify and sympathize with the protagonist who narrates, and consequently portrays, the entirety of their experiences through the distorted filter of their personal biases and perceptions. In addition, Anthony Burgess intentionally implemented the rhythmic, slang language of Nadsat to euphemistically describe the execrable acts of violence Alex commits and effectively sanitize their sheer brutality through the whimsical, melodious phrasing and terminology Alex uses. A perfectly accurate adaptation depicting these same behaviors through the uncompromising realism captured in the language of film would be unbearably distressing to watch and would render Alex too unambiguously wicked to encourage any development of pity for what he endures in the latter portions of the film. Though Alex is undoubtedly a horrific, sadistic individual, and the film is still considered rather gratuitous even by the standards of today, Kubrick’s distinctive visuals and scene choreography can be seen as effective in their ability to somewhat mitigate the gravity of Alex’s deplorable proclivities. Though certain shots appear a bit inexplicable even from this particular interpretation, Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange remains a deferential adaptation and masterwork in the presentation and discussion of violence, criminality, and choice.