Stanley Kubrick wrote the screenplay and directed the film A Clockwork Orange based on the Anthony Burgess book of the same title. The particularity of the book is the language used by the narrator, Alexander DeLarge: Nadsat, a kind of invented Russian slang. In the novel, Nadsat exists to distance the reader from Alex's violence. Although Kubrick also uses Nadsat in the film, it does not have the same effect as in the novel, as Alex's violence at the beginning of the film is easily seen on screen and is clearly the worst in the film (McDougal) . However, to say that the scenes at the beginning of Kubrick's film are the most violent, as McDougal points out, is very arbitrary and subjective. This definition of violence fits only in the context of our society's understanding of it rather than in the context of the film's representation of it. Kubrick allows the audience to see and understand the problems associated with the definition of violence. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"? Get the original essay Stanley Kubrick's first task as director of A Clockwork Orange was, as the author of that work, to distance the viewer from the violence, as was done in the book. As Peter J. Rabinowitz points out, "the fact that the violence in the film is visual and therefore more immediate only puts additional pressure on Kubrick to find a way to rebalance our relationship with Alex" (Rabinowitz) . Yet Kubrick is up to the task. One way for him to distance the audience from the horror of Alex's crimes is to change the nature of his victims as they are portrayed in the book (McDougal). Kubrick also uses clever staging, editing and background music to provide this necessary distance. For example, the scene with Billy-boy's gang, the attempted rape and the ensuing fight feels more like a well-choreographed ballet showdown than pure violence. Rossini's The Thieving Magpie plays in the background, seemingly mirroring the heights of the fight with its crescendos. The effect is more amusing than horrifying. A good example of Kubrick's use of montage for distancing effect is in the scene where Alex defeats his own gang to ensure his supreme authority over the group. Alex and his "droogs" are walking in slow motion near a pier when suddenly Alex hears classical music through an open window. He turns around and punches one of his droogs in the fly then throws him into the water. Alex then throws another of his droogs into the water, also cutting his hand with a knife. Since we hear nothing but this soft music and we only see the violence in slow motion, the horror of the moment is almost completely eradicated. The distance that Kubrick creates between Alex's violence and the audience has the primary function of allowing the director to make himself loved. Alex to us. This effect is clearly visible in an excerpt from a review of the film: Despite what Alex does at the beginning, McDowell pushes you to support his cunning character, his malfeasance. For most of the film we see him tortured, beaten, and humiliated, so when his bold, aggressive punk nature is restored to him, it doesn't seem like a joke to all of us but rather a victory in which we share, and Kubrick takes” an exultant tone (Kael). Film critics believed that it was actually Kubrick's direction and intention to portray Alex through the film, or really the film through Alex, in such a way that he endears us and makes us root for him. his side (Staiger). The way Kubrick describes the film through Alex adds to our emotional attachment to the narrator. Kubrick surroundsAlex of a very boring world and vision of the future. Alex is naturally and inherently interesting and lively. He's human in a world of mostly rigid and generally boring characters and a society that only cares about crime control. Alex is also young, innocent and exuberant at the same time. Kubrick films the film through Alex's eyes so that we can experience his world as he did. Naturally, the audience loves Alex because he is the king of his own world. However, once his life takes a turn for the worse following his arrest and incarceration, he is still able to maintain the same outlook as before, at least for a while. We think he'll eventually break out of prison and return to his old ways, as evidenced by the fantastic prison scene in the library. However, his journey to freedom faces a huge obstacle: the Ludovico treatment. Even if he is released from prison, his ability to act on his violent desires is completely limited. Since this is somewhat unexpected from the audience's perspective, and it is in our nature to think that things will "work out" in films, we begin to feel great sympathy for Alex. The turning point of the film occurs when Alex undergoes Ludovico's treatment. because it forces the audience to ask questions about their relationship with Alex's character. Compared to all the violence presented in A Clockwork Orange, the worst violence in the film is that inflicted on Alex when he undergoes Ludovico's treatment and feels its effects (McDougal). The harm caused to Alex makes viewers feel sympathy for him. This is to be expected, as Kubrick takes many steps to try to elicit this feeling of sympathy. However, doesn't that seem terribly wrong? Isn't Alex the incarnation of wicked, violent and corrupt youth? While the answers to these questions are yes and yes, it is more important to examine what Kubrick's intentions were, as he is clearly trying to direct our emotions with a guiding hand. Ludovico's scene also questions the audience's own nature and its inclination towards evil. because it juxtaposes the reactions we have to two different types of violence and what they represent. As one scholar notes: “The film is an ambiguity in itself and a provocation for the viewer who must understand how “evil” can be understood or misunderstood” (Kolker). The truly critical element in understanding the understanding of "evil" is the audience's reaction to Alex's experiences at the Ludovico Theater while he undergoes the treatment. Alex sees images of violence on screen mirroring the crimes we see him participating in at the beginning of the film. However, unlike us, desensitized and distant from this violence that we see on the screen, he is horrified by it. What is the significance of the fact that he, and not us, is horrified by comparable violence? Are we as bad or worse than Alex? Not only do we not react to such violence with Alex's horror, but we also prefer to see Alex engage in his violent behavior rather than see him suffer punishment for his evil actions. The paradox that Kubrick attempts to create in the audience's reactions to the violence committed by Alex. and done to Alex demonstrates that society's view of evil is arbitrary. It is unrealistic to say that Kubrick is suggesting that the viewer of this film is inherently evil and violent, even though he seems to imply that we have the same propensity for violence and evil as Alex. In fact, this idea could be dispelled immediately because Kubrick clearly needs to desensitize the viewer to Alex's actions. Kubrick constructs a paradox in public reactions.