Who Is Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange?

Spanning contentious themes of morality and psychology, Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange sparked polarizing reception among critics upon its 1941 release. The film, based on the novel by Anthony Burgess, follows the exuberant amoral acts of Alex, a thug in a dystopian city, until his gang betrays him to the authorities and, rather than be taught right from wrong, is brainwashed to detest sex and violence through inhumane techniques. While some critics, such as Vincent Canby of The New York Times, applaud the movie for its deliberate obscenity as a means to challenge the audience, other film critics, namely Pulitzer Prize winner Roger Ebert, reviewed the film with disdain for its iconoclastic intent and graphic nature. Critics continue
Canby views the “aimless violence” as “formally structured” and “an exercise of aimless choices,” whereas Ebert slams the film as “an ideological mess” as it seems to “celebrate the nastiness of its hero” in “a paranoid right-wing fantasy.” Furthermore, while Canby finds the film “dazzles the senses and the mind,” Ebert expresses it as “just plain talky and boring.” These vividly clashing sentiments stem from the reviewers’ expectation and perception of violence in the film. Canby wrote his review for The New York Times one day after the film opened at the cinema, heralding it as “a great deal more than merely horror show.” He endorsed the meaning the violence represented, as well as applauding the artistic techniques Kubrick utilized to convert them. Nevertheless, Ebert, whose review was published over seven weeks later, directly criticized the “New York critical establishment” for having “really hyped” the film “for more than it's worth.” This indicates Ebert had some level of expectancy prior to seeing the film, suggesting that he was aware of Canby’s review, or another New Yorker review. This offers some explanation as to why Ebert’s diction is considerably harsh and subjective––to the point of disappointment, causing Canby’s remarks appear more objective when juxtaposed. However, Jeremiah Kipp offers a larger elucidation: A Clockwork Orange is a “game [that] Kubrick is playing with [the audience].” Kipp expands further, claiming the film is “an avenue into understanding a corrosion of society” and––depending on whether the viewer subscribes to that notion, “the film may be appreciated as his finest masterwork” or the viewer “might throw up their hands and accuse Kubrick of being immoral.” Kipp’s perspective encompasses both Canby and Ebert’s reviews, being written six decades after them. This doubtlessly lends him an