As a seasoned cinephile with a penchant for the unconventional and the thought-provoking, I found myself drawn to Roger Ebert’s critique of Stanley Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange.” While his perspective may seem at odds with the critical consensus, I can appreciate where he’s coming from.
Roger Ebert, a renowned American film critic, is widely recognized as one of the greatest of all time. Famed for his numerous clever and enlightening film critiques in the Chicago Sun-Times, as well as co-hosting the TV show “At the Movies” with fellow Chicagoan Gene Siskel, Ebert captivated audiences for over four decades. Despite this enduring popularity, he wasn’t hesitant to voice his dissenting opinion if a film didn’t resonate with him, even when it went against the general consensus of other critics.
One of the most prominent examples of this was his review of Stanley Kubrick’s controversial sci-fi classic, A Clockwork Orange (1971), to which he only awarded two stars (out of a possible four). Specifically, Ebert took issue with what he felt were the film’s troubling political messaging and the empathetic portrayal of its disturbed protagonist, Alex (memorably played by Malcolm McDowell). But was Ebert correct in his condemnation of A Clockwork Orange? Or did the normally astute, Pulitzer Prize-winning critic miss the mark for once?
Roger Ebert Was Not Alone in His Discomfort with the Film
A Clockwork Orange represents an on-screen interpretation of Anthony Burgess’ 1962 novel bearing the same title, penned, directed, and produced by acclaimed filmmaker Stanley Kubrick. The movie chronicles the tale of Alex DeLarge (McDowell), a mischievous British teenager who, along with his gang of “droogs,” indulges in nightly exploits, which Alex labels as “extreme violence,” involving acts such as rape, aggression, and theft. However, when Alex is eventually apprehended by the police, he undergoes a questionable treatment program orchestrated by the British government, designed to deter him from any future wrongdoing.
The movie, titled “A Clockwork Orange,” was so disturbing when first released that it received an X rating in the U.S., and was actually banned outright in several other nations. In the UK, this film faced accusations of inspiring copycat violence. Due to the negative reactions, intense media scrutiny, and reported death threats against him and his family, director Stanley Kubrick chose to withdraw the film from British theaters. Critics and viewers were appalled by its graphic violence, which was relatively uncommon for audiences in 1971, prior to the “video nasty” era. The film’s unique approach of making viewers experience the actions of the sadistic protagonist Alex throughout its entire runtime only added to the controversy surrounding it, and likely played a significant role in Roger Ebert’s criticism of it.
What Did Ebert Say About ‘A Clockwork Orange?’
In the opening sentence of his review, Ebert describes A Clockwork Orange as “a paranoid right-wing fantasy masquerading as an Orwellian warning,” and he ends his review by dismissing it as “talky and boring.” He argues that, while the film presents itself as “oppos[ing] the police state and forced mind control,” all it ends up doing is “celebrat[ing] the nastiness of its hero, Alex.” As bold as this accusation is, Ebert backs it up by accurately pointing out that, aside from his criminality and his love of Beethoven, there are no other defining traits to Alex’s character. Furthermore, according to Ebert, “No effort is made to explain [Alex’s] inner workings or take apart his society.”
Instead of delving deeper into analyzing Alex’s sadistic nature, Ebert interprets the movie’s underlying message as “Alex resorts to violence because he has no other choices available,” a viewpoint he considers oversimplified and clichéd. Ebert also criticizes some technical aspects of the film as an attempt to soften Alex’s depravity and make him appear more relatable. For instance, Ebert mentions that director Kubrick often uses a wide-angle lens in various shots, which distorts objects at the edges while keeping Alex’s figure intact. Ebert suggests that this technique subtly persuades viewers to perceive the world as Alex does, making everything else seem warped and threatening, thus creating an impression that “Alex, and only Alex, is sane.
One way to rephrase the given text is: Ebert’s critique of A Clockwork Orange highlights that he views the movie’s portrayal of Alex as a contest where one side wins and the other loses. Since viewers are encouraged to sympathize with Alex when he experiences psychological torment by the government in the second part of the film, Ebert argues that the movie falls short in properly criticizing his reprehensible actions in the initial half. However, it could be suggested that Ebert might be overstating how much the film aligns the audience with Alex.
Although it’s accurate to say that the camera work in the movie makes viewers perceive society from Alex’s perspective, this doesn’t mean they feel any less repulsed by his violent actions. In fact, being so closely connected to such a monstrous character might only serve to increase their fear of him, not decrease it. This is similar to how some horror movies work, like ‘Angst’, ‘Maniac’, ‘American Psycho’, and the more recent ‘In a Violent Nature’.
Additionally, while attempting to control Alex’s aggressive tendencies, the police, government, and medical establishments in the movie are frequently depicted using violence for political advantage. It might be more accurate, therefore, to interpret the film as criticizing both Alex and the state equally, rather than portraying Alex negatively to blame the state, given that both entities infringe upon individuals’ physical freedom and security.
Is Roger Ebert Wrong About ‘A Clockwork Orange‘?
As a devoted admirer of Roger Ebert’s work, it’s intriguing when his perspective on a film like “A Clockwork Orange” differs from the general critical consensus. It might be easy to brush off his viewpoint as erroneous or misguided, but I believe that such a sweeping judgment is overly simplistic. Art, including films, is inherently subjective, and each of us interprets it through our unique lenses.
Indeed, Ebert’s courage to openly express his opinions, regardless of whether they aligned with popular opinion, was a key factor in his esteemed reputation as a critic. Similarly, just because a renowned film critic dislikes a movie doesn’t automatically mean that others should feel compelled to share the same sentiment – this is a viewpoint Ebert himself would likely endorse. Feel free to watch A Clockwork Orange for yourself by renting or purchasing it on digital platforms such as YouTube, Apple TV, Google Play, and Prime Video via the link provided below:
Watch A Clockwork Orange
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-12-20 03:02