This page intentionally left blank
Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange Orange brings together new and critically Stanley Kubrick’s A Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange brings informed essays about one of the most powerful, important, and controversial films ever made. Following an introduction that provides an overview of the film and its production history, a suite of essays examine the literary origins of the work, the nature of cinematic violence, questions of gender and the film’s treatment of sexuality, and the difficulties of adapting an invented language (“nadsat”) for the screen. This volume also also incl includ udes es two two cont contem empo pora rary ry and and confl conflic ictin ting g revi review ewss by Roger Roger Hugh Hughes es and Pauline Kael, a detailed glossary of “nadsat,” and stills from the film. Stuart Y. McDougal is DeWitt Wallace Professor of English at Macalaster College in Minneapolis. Former president of the American Comparative Lite Litera ratu ture re Asso Associ ciat ation ion,, he is th thee auth author or of Made Made into Movies: From Literature to Film Film and Play it Again Sam: Retakes on Remakes, Remakes, amon and co-e co-edi ditor tor of Play among g othe otherr writings on film and literature.
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS FILM HANDBOOKS SERIES
Horton, University of Oklahoma General Editor: Andrew Horton, University Each CAMBRIDGE FILM HANDBOOK is intended to focus on a single film from a variety of theoretical, critical, and contextual perspectives. This “prism” prism” approach is designed to give students and general readers valuable background and insight into the cinematic, artistic, cultural, and sociop sociopoli olitic tical al import importanc ancee of indivi individua duall films lms by incl includ udin ing g essa essays ys by lead lead-ing fi ing film lm scholars and critics. Furthermore, these handbooks by their very nature are meant to help the reader better grasp the nature of the critical and theoretical discourse on cinema as an art form, as a visual medium, and as a cultural cultural product. product. Filmographies Filmographies and selected selected bibliographies bibliographies are added to help the reader go further on his or her own exploration of the film under consideration.
VOLUMES IN THE SERIES
Buster Keaton’s Keaton’s “Sherlock Jr.” Jr.” ed. ed. by Andrew Horton, Loyola University, New Orleans Spike Lee’s “Do the Right Thing,” ed. by Mark Reid, University of Florida Ozu’s “Tokyo Story,” ed. Story,” ed. by David Desser, University of Illinois, Urbana– Urbana–Champaign Trilogy,” ed. by Nick Browne, “The Godfather Trilogy,” Browne, University of California California,, Los Angeles Hitchcock’s “Rear Window, Window,” ed. by John Belton Godard’s “Pierrot le Fou,” Fou,” ed. by David Wills, Louisiana State University Bu˜ nuel’s “The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie,” ed. by Marcha Kinder, University of Southern California Bergman’s Bergman’s “Persona,” “Persona,” ed. by Lloyd Michaels, Allegheny College Clyde,” ed. by Lester Friedman, Syracuse University “ Bonnie and Clyde,”
Stanley Kubrick ’s A Clockwork Orange Orange
Edited by
STUART Y. MCDOUGAL Macalester College
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge Cambridge
, United Kingdom
Published in the United States by Cambridge University Press, New York www.ca www .cambr mbridg idge.o e.org rg Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521573764 © Cambridge University Press 2003 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2003 ISBN-13 ISBN-10
978-0-511-06574-3 978-0-511-06574-3 eBook (NetLibrary) 0-511-06574-4 0-511-06574-4 eBook (NetLibrary)
ISBN-13 978-0-521-57376-4 hardback ISBN-10 0-521-57376-9 hardback ISBN-13 978-0-521-57488-4 paperback ISBN-10 0-521-57488-9 paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of s for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
For Nora
Contents
page xi page xi
Acknowledgments List of Contributors
Introduction: ‘‘What’s it going to be then, eh?”: Questioning Kubrick’s Clockwork Stuart Y. McDougal
xiii 1
1
A Clockwork Clockwork Orange ...Ticking Robert P. Kolker
19
2
The The Cu Cult ltura urall Prod Produc ucti tion onss of A A Clockwork Orange Janet Staiger
37
3
An Erot Erotic icss of of Vio Viole lenc nce: e: Masc Masculi ulini nity ty and and (Homo)Sexuality in Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange Margaret DeRosia
4
Stan Stanle ley y Kubri Kubrick ck and and the the Art Cine Cinema ma Krin Gabbard and Shailja Sharma
5
‘‘A Bird of Like Like Rare Rarest st Spun Spun Hea Heave venm nmet etal” al”:: Music in A Clockwork Orange Peter J. Rabinowitz A REVIEWS OF A
61
85
109
CLOCKWORK ORANGE, 1972
Robert Hughes, “ Hughes, “The The D´ Decor e´ cor of Tomorrow’ Tomorrow’s Hell” Hell”
131
A Clockwork Orange: Orange: Stanley Strangelove” Pauline Kael, “ Kael, “ A Strangelove”
134 ix
x
CONTENTS
A Glossary of Nadsat
141
Filmography
151
Select Bibliography
163
Index
167
Acknowledgments
My thanks to Andy Horton for stimulating discussions of this series when it was first being conceived and then to his extreme patience as this volume came to fruition. Jeff Middents, my research assistant at the University of Michigan, deftly and cheerfully locating stills and early reviews and essays on the film. Nora Gunnerg provided invaluable editorial support throughout. Gitta Hammarberg was extrem tremel ely y he help lpfu full in un unra rave veli ling ng some some of th thee dif dif ficult cultie iess of “ of “nadsat” nadsat” and in providing transliterations of the Russian etymologies. The commissioned essays were for the most part finished before Kubrick’ Kubrick’s death in 1999. I held up the completion of the volume until the appearance of Eyes of Eyes Wide Shut and and then a professional move further delayed the publication of these essays. My apologies to the contributors for what became a long wait for the appearance of their work. Thanks, too, to Beatrice Rehl for her patience and helpful suggestions.
xi
Contributors Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange
STUA STUART RT Y. MCDOUGAL editor editor,, is DeWitt DeWitt Wallace allace Profes Professor sor of Eng Englis lish h and
Chair of the Department of English at Macalester College and the author of numerous works on film and modern literature, including Made including Made Into Movies: From Literature to Film (Sixth (Sixth printi printing, ng, Harcou Harcourt rt Brace Brace Jovano Jovanovic vich, h, Moderns (University of North Carolina Inc.); editor of Dante of Dante Among the Moderns (University Play It Again, Sam: Retakes Press); and co-editor, with Andrew Horton, of Play on Remakes (University Remakes (University of California Press). He is past president of the American Comparative Literature Association. ROBERT ROBERT KOLKER KOLKER is now now th thee Ch Chai airr of th thee Scho School ol of Comm Commun unic icat atio ion n and and
Culture at Georgia Institute of Technology after teaching cinema studies for over twenty years at the University of Maryland, College Park. His publications include A include A Cinema of Loneliness: Penn, Stone, Kubrick, Scorsese, Spielberg, Altman (now Altman (now in its 3rd edition); The Altering Eye: Contemporary International Cinema; Cinema; and Bernardo Bertolucci, all for Oxford University and Bernardo Bertolucci, Press. Most recently he coauthored Wim Wenders with Peter Beicken, Film, published by Cambridge University Press. He is also the author of Film, Form and Culture: Text and CD-Rom, CD-Rom, publ publis ishe hed d by McGr McGraw aw-H -Hil ill. l. He is past past president president of the Society for Cinema Cinema Studies. Studies. KRIN GABBARD is Professor of Comparative Literature at the State Uni-
Jammin’ at at versity of New York at Stony Brook. His most recent books are Jammin’ the Margins: Jazz and the American Cinema (University Cinema (University of Chicago Press), Jazz Among the Discourses (editor, Discourses (editor, Duke University Press), and Representand Representing Jazz (editor, Jazz (editor, Duke University Press). He is currently writing a book on masculinity and the movies.
xiii
xiv CONTRIBUTORS SHAILJA SHARMA is
an assistant professor professor of English English at DePaul DePaul UniverUniversity, Chicago, where she teaches modern British literature and postcolonial studies. She is working working on a manuscript manuscript titled “ titled “Culture Culture and Citizenship.” ship.” MARGARET DeROSIA graduated from the University of Michigan with
highest honors in comparative literature. She is a Ph.D. student in the History of Consciousness Department at the University of California, Santa Santa Cruz. Cruz. Her disser dissertat tation ion,, ent entitl itled ed “Det Detect ecting ing Des Desire ire:: Women omen and Film Film Noir,” Noir,” examines women’ women’s role in shaping film noir on screen and in audiences. JANET STAIGER STAIGER is
William P. Hobby Centennial Professor in Communication at the University of Texas – Austin and past president of the Society for Cinema Studies. Her recent work has focused on cultural and gender studies: Interpreting Films: Studies in the Historical Reception of American Cinema (Princeton Cinema (Princeton University Press), Bad Press), Bad Women: Regulating Sexuality Sexuality in Early American Cinema (Universi Cinema (University ty of Minnesota Minnesota Press), and, most recently recently,, Perverse Spectators: The Practices of Film Reception (New (New York University Press) and Blockbuster and Blockbuster TV: Must-See Sitcoms in the Network Era (New York University Press). PETER J. RABINOWITZ author
Before Reading: Narrative Conventions of Before and the Politics of Interpretation and and coed coedit itor or,, with with Jame Jamess Ph Phel elan an,, of Underof Understanding Narrative, Narrative, divides divides his time between music and narrative theory. theory. His published articles cover a wide range of subjects, from Dostoyevsky to Mrs. E.D.E.N. Southworth, from detective fiction to the ideology of musical structure, and from Mahler to Scott Joplin. A professor of comparative literature at Hamilton College, he is also an active music critic Fanfare. and a contributing editor of Fanfare.
WHAT’ S IT GOING TO BE THEN, EH? ” “ WHAT
Anthony Burgess’ Burgess’s novel reads like the report of a time-traveler who has landed on once-familiar terrain to find everything irrevocably changed. So must Anthony Burgess have felt when he moved back to London in 1960, after living abroad for a number of years in Singapore. With the Teddyboys in decline, Mods and Rockers were begi beginn nnin ing g to batt battle le over over tu turf rf and and colo coloni nize zers rs and and su suba balt lter erns ns alik alikee were were pouring into what had once been the capital of the empire, producing signs of the strains of immigration. Burgess had been diagnosed (incorrectly) by doctors as terminally ill and so – so – faced faced with what he thou th ough ghtt was was his his immi immine nent nt deat death h and and conf confro ront nted ed by soci social al deca decay y and and cataclysmic change – he wrote up a storm. By the time of his death thirty-fi thirty-five years later, he had authored over fifty books, including Orange (1962) is set in the several studies of language. A Clockwork Orange (1962) Britain of the near-future and the work refl re flects the troubled state of England England to which which Burgess Burgess had returned. Thee nove Th novell appe appear ared ed to cons consid ider erab able le crit critic ical al accl acclai aim, m, and and th thee work work’’s cinematic potential was readily apparent to many. Terry Southern, one one of th thee scre screen enwr writ iter erss on Dr. perso rsonal nally ly optio optioned ned Dr. Strangelov Strangelovee, pe A Clockwork Orange Orange for around $1,000 for a six-month period. He showed the novel to Stanley Kubrick who, according to Southern, was initially put off by the strange language. Southern renewed his option for another six months, wrote a screenplay with photographer Michael Cooper, and shopped it around. But he encountered problems with the British film censor, who returned the screenplay unre un read ad,, with with th thee comm commen entt th that at “th ther eree is no poin pointt read readin ing g th this is scri script pt,, because it involves youthful defi defiance of authority, and we’ we’re not doing that.” that.”4 When his option lapsed a second time, Southern didn’ didn’t have the money to renew, so his lawyer, Si Litvinoff, picked it up and commissioned a new screenplay by Anthony Burgess. Litvinoff attempted to interest the Rolling Stones in the project, with the idea of Mick Jagger playing Alex and the Stones playing his sidekicks, the droogs. But the Stones were too busy to make a film and the project died, although Litvinoff and his partner, Max Raab, retained the rights to the novel. At the time, however, Kubrick himself was occupied with other projects. After Paths of Glory , he turned to a book as controversial Orange, Vladimir Nabokov’ Lolita. This was followed as A as A Clockwork Orange, Nabokov’s Lolita. Strangelove and then 2001 by Dr. by Dr. Strangelove and then 2001.. Each of Kubrick’ Kubrick’s subsequent fi subsequent films lms
7
2
STUART Y. McDOUGAL
in literature and drama. An immersion in films at the Museum of Modern Art inspired Kubrick to shift his focus from still photography to moving pictures. After making several documentaries and a low-budget feature fi feature financed nanced by his family, Kubrick began to achieve Killer’ss Kiss (195 reco recogn gnit itio ion n with with his his se seco cond nd feat featur ure, e, Killer’ (1955) 5),, and and his his th thir ird, d, The Killing (1956). (1956). With Paths With Paths of Glory (1957), (1957), starring Kirk Douglas, he en ente tere red d th thee rank rankss of Amer Americ ica a ’s most most prom promis isin ing g youn young g filmmakers. Glory wass to prov His His asso associ ciat atio ion n with with Kirk Kirk Doug Dougla lass on Paths on Paths of Glory wa provee frui fruittful, for two years later, Kirk Douglas, by then the star and executive producer of the epic film Spartacus lm Spartacus,, hired Kubrick to replace Stanley Mann as director. This paved the way for an extraordinary outburst Lolita (1962). Kubrick moved into of creative work beginning with Lolita (1962). Strangelove (1964), 2001 2001 (1968), high gear with Dr. with Dr. Strangelove (1964), (1968), and A and A Clockwork Orange Orange (1971), three films later listed by the American Film Institute as among the top one hundred American films fi lms of cinema’ cinema’s first fi rst century. Each of these fi these films lms provoked heated debate and each was a box-of fice success. At the time of Kubrick’ Kubrick’s death, the most controversial of these A Clockwork Orange (1971) Orange (1971) – films – lms – A – was was still unavailable in England, having been withdrawn from distribution by Kubrick in 1974. The nove novel, l, by Anth Anthon ony y Bu Burg rges ess, s, on whic which h it was was base based, d, rema remain ined ed in prin printt and in wide circulation. For Anthony Burgess, it seems in retrospect, Kubrick’ Kubrick’s movie was only the beginning of his obsession with this project. Unlike many novelists, who cash their checks and cease to ponder the fate of their work once it reaches the screen, Burgess continued to discuss his novel endlessly in essays, interviews, and letters to editors before reworking the material for two distinctly different musical dramatizations. The first of these, published in 1987 as A as A Clockwork Orange: A Play With Music , concludes with a character dressed like Stanley Kubrick coming out onto the stage with a trumpet, playing “Singin’ Singin’ in the Rain” Rain” until he is “kicked off the stage.” stage. ” A few years later, Burgess brought out yet another musical version, A Clockwork Orange 2004, 2004, this one produced by the Royal Shakespeare Comp Compan any y in Lond London on at th thee Barb Barbic ican an Th Thea eatr tree and and feat featur urin ing g th thee musi musicc of Bono and the Edge. It too received very mixed reviews. For over a quarter of a century, then, Anthony Burgess reworked A Clockwork Orange, Orange, an obsession matched by few creative artists in this century. During this same period, audiences were unable to view the film in the country where it had been made. Why?
WHAT’ S IT GOING TO BE THEN, EH? ” “ WHAT
A Clockwork Orange, Orange, Kubr In th thee open openin ing g fiftee fteen n minu minute tess of A Kubric ick k conconfronts the viewer with a series of violent and sexually explicit scenes. In this respect, the film resembles the novel. But in the novel this material is narrated in a language of Burgess’ Burgess ’s invention. This language proves baf fling to most readers and shields them somewhat from the sex and violence. No such distance is available to the film viewer. Although the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) had rejected an earlier version of the script written by Terry Southern and Michae Michaell Cooper Cooper,, the they y approv approved ed Kubric Kubrick k’s film and gave it an X rating on the grounds that the controversial materials were justifi justi fied by the story. The film had already received this rating by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) prior to its New York premier on December 20, 1971. Controversy did not end with the rating, however. In both England and America, conservative forces protested the showing of the film. A number of newspapers in America refused to take advertising for the film, prompting Stanley Kubrick to write Detroit News a News a letter protesting the action and stating that “for the Detroit the any newspaper to deliberately attempt to suppress another equally import important ant commun communica icatio tions ns medium medium see seems ms espec especial ially ly ugly ugly and shortshortsighted.” sighted.”2 In Britain, the Festival of Light, a conservative group promoting film ce cens nsor orsh ship ip,, orga organi nize zed d a camp campai aign gn to prev preven entt A Clockwork Orange from from bein being g sh show own. n. Th Thee BB BBFC FC was was for force ced d to defe defend nd its its deci decisi sion on to allow the fi the film lm to be screened. The tabloids responded with attacks Orange was receivon the movie. In spite of the fact that A that A Clockwork Orange was ing awards at festivals in Europe and America (Best Foreign Film at the Venice Film Festival, Best Film and Best Director by the New York Film Critics, and nominations for Best Film, Direction, Writing, and Editing at the Academy Awards), its distribution remained limited Orange was shown in both countries. Throughout 1972, A 1972, A Clockwork Orange was at only one theater in London. In the United States, the X rating restricted distribution as well. Kubrick regrouped and took stock of the situation like a general planning for a long campaign. In August 1972, he announced that he was withdrawing the film in America for 60 days in order to reedit the work before resubmitting it to the MPAA. In October, Kubrick declared that he had replaced thirty seconds of film with less explicit material from the same scenes. His efforts resulted in a new rating (R) from the MPAA for this version. Both the R and X rated versions of the fi the film lm continued to circulate in America as the controversy died down. In Great Britain the debates
3
4
STUART Y. McDOUGAL
over the effects of film film violence on viewers continued to rage. A rash of youth crimes was blamed on the malefi maleficent infl influence of A A Clockwork Orange. Orange. Kubrick was outraged. With little fanfare, he arranged – as owner of the British distribution right – to have A have A Clockwork Orange withdrawn ange withdrawn from distribution in England. Although it remained widely available in America – America – in in theaters and on video, laserdisc, and DVD – the film was not shown in England after its initial release. It was not until a year after the death of Kubrick that A Clockwork Orange received Orange received a major 250-print rerelease in Great Britain. What did the forces of censorship object to in Kubrick’ Kubrick ’s film? film? Even thirty years after its initial release, A Clockwork Orange continues to shock viewers, especially in its opening sequences. The film begins with the striking image of Alex de Large (Malcolm McDowell) seated on a banquette in the Korova Milkbar surrounded by his three “droogs” droogs” and enjoying some “ some “moloko moloko” ” spiked with “ with “vellocet vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom” drencrom” (milk mixed with drugs). The camera pulls back to reveal the Milkbar in all its splendor [Fig. 1]. This is one of the few sets created for the fi the film lm (the others were found through a deta detail iled ed study study of rece recent nt issu issues es of Brit Britis ish h arch archit itec ectu tura rall maga magazi zine nes) s) and and the sculptures of nude women forming tables and milk dispensers
1. The
Korova Milkbar in all its splendor.
WHAT’ S IT GOING TO BE THEN, EH? ” “ WHAT
establ esta blis ish h an ex extr trem emel ely y dist distur urbi bing ng tone tone for for th thee film. lm. Afte Afterr a few few drin drinks ks,, Alex and his droogs are ready for a “bit of the ultraviolence.” ultraviolence.” What occurs in rapid succession is the brutal beating of a homeless man, an attempted gang rape that Alex and his droogs interrupt, and the pitched battle with the rival gang that follows. The sounds of a police siren bring this to an end, and Alex and his droogs quickly leave the scene, steal a car, and rush out of town, forcing other cars off the road as they race through the night. An illuminated sign, “HOME,” HOME,” catches Alex’ Alex’s eye and they stop before a modern structure. Once inside, Alex and his droogs brutally beat the aging writer and rape his wife while he looks helplessly on. Then it ’s back to the Milkbar for a nightcap before calling it a night. After returning to the bleak apartment block where he shares a flat with his parents, Alex calms his nerves by masturbating to “a bit of the old Ludwig van,” van,” a tape of the Ninth Symphony played at top volume in his small bedroom. The next morning Alex skips school and is visited by his “postcor “ postcorrective rective advisor advisor,” P. R. De Delt ltoi oid d (Aub (Aubre rey y Morr Morris is), ), who who make makess un unsu succ cces esssful homosexual advances while Alex is getting dressed. Later, after a sexual interlude with two “little sisters” sisters” he meets at a music store, Alex joins his droogs at the Milkbar for another evening of fun. But thee fun th fun tu turn rnss sou sour for for Alex, lex, as his auth autho ority rity is chall halleeng ngeed by th thee gang gang,, and he viciously attacks the three of them. Having reasserted his authority, Alex leads his droogs to another milkbar to prepare for what will be their last “ last “bit bit of the ultraviolence ultraviolence” ” as a group. At Georgie’ Georgie’s suggestion, they drop in on “a very rich ptitsa” ptitsa” who lives alone at a “Health Farm” Farm” with her cats. Alex enters through a window and finds the middle-aged woman dressed in a leotard standing defi defiantly before him in a large room with sexually explicit paintings on the walls and a large sculpture of a phallus on the table. A battle ensues and Alex knocks her unconscious. (She dies later in the hospital.) The sounds of a police siren alert him to danger. As he leaves the house, he is confronted by his rebellious droogs. Dim smashes a bottle of milk on Alex’ Alex’s nose, and Alex falls to the ground screaming, “I’m blind, you bastards! I’ I’m blind!!!” blind!!!” His companions flee and Alex is captured by the police. I have described the first act of Kubrick’ Kubrick’s film (Chapters 1– 1–7 in the novel) in some detail because the depiction of sex and violence
5
6
STUART Y. McDOUGAL
here is responsible for most of the controversy surrounding the film. film. Critics have noted that Kubrick has changed the victims of Alex’ Alex ’s crimes from Burgess’ Burgess ’s depictions, so that the crimes are somewhat less offensive to the viewer. Thus, while the violence directed against the homeless beggar in the fi the film lm remains horrifying, it is less so than the encounter with the “doddery starry schoolmaster type veck” veck ” of Burgess’ Burgess’s novel, a character who is encountered carrying “ carrying “books books under his arm” arm” and “ and “coming coming round the corner from the Public Biblio.” Biblio. ” Similarly, the intended victim of Billyboy and his droogs – “a weepy young young devotc devotchka hka.. . . not more more than than ten” ten” – has – has been transformed into a youn young g wom woman in he herr late late tee teens or ear early twen twenti ties es.. Th Thee two two teen teenag ageers who willingly frolic with Alex after meeting him at the record store are – are – in in the novel – novel – younger younger girls whom he intoxicates and drugs before fore rapi raping ng.. And And final nally, ly, th thee cat cat lady lady of th thee nove novell is an elder lderly ly woman oman “very gray in the voloss,” voloss,” living alone in a decaying house with her pets. In each instance, Kubrick has muted the horror by changing the nature of Alex’ Alex’s victims. More signifi significant, however, are the ways Kubrick manages to distance the viewer from these horrendous crimes by choreographing many of these acts using music and/or slow motion photography. The effect of these techniques is to make thee viol th violen ence ce less less rea real and and easie asierr for for th thee vie viewer to fol follow low on th thee scre screeen. The second and third acts of the fi the film lm deal respectively with Alex’ Alex ’s incarceration, treatment, release, suicide attempt, and “cure. “ cure.” ” There is relatively little sex and violence in these parts of the fi the film lm and it occurs either in Alex’ Alex’s fantasies or in the movies he is forced to watch as part of his treatment. For many viewers, the incarceration and treatment of Alex by the state constitute the most dangerous violence in the fi the film. lm. In Kubrick’ Kubrick’s film, film, the Ludovico treatment becomes a metafi metafictional moment that forces us to refl re flect on our own activity as film view viewer ers. s. (Thi (Thiss is not not true true of th thee nove novel, l, of cour course se.) .) Alex Alex too too must must become a fi a film lm viewer, as part of his treatment, without the aestheticizing effects that Kubrick provides for his viewers in the first first part of the fi the film. lm. In the fascistic world Alex has entered, he is forced to watch films as a way of programming him to find sex and violence nauseating in the extreme. The Ludovico treatment deprives him of any choice. This treatment, however, is presented in a cerebral manner, unlike the sex and violence that confront the viewer in the opening of the fi the film. lm.3