A Clockwork Orange (1971).

I could lodge it in the [Most Boring Movie Thread] without a second thought.

The novel's final chapter had Alex meeting one of his former delinquent buddies (Pete, IIRC), who's now married, employed, and either has a child or one on the way. The guy's clearly outgrown all the teenage hell-raising he and Alex used to get into together. The encounter gets Alex reflecting that those things really don't appeal to him anymore, and while the book doesn't go further, it's clear that Little Alex is headed out of adolescence into a responsible maturity.

The book was originally published two ways. In the UK, intact with all 21 chapters. In the US, the publisher would only print it with the final chapter removed. Kubrick's movie is basically faithful to the US version.

There are a lot of people who prefer the novel's ending, but don't count me among them. Kubrick's movie presents you with a choice -- (a) Alex, law abiding but robbed of his free will; or (b) Alex, with his free will intact but violent and evil. Which is better; a good creature who can hardly be called human, or an evil but fully human man? Is the cure worse than the disease? Or is the treatment Alex got, if not an ideal cure, perhaps still a fitting punishment for his sins?

Some serious questions to ponder. But in the book ... oh, it turns out it was just a phase Alex was going through. He just grew out of it. Boys will be boys. And Burgess acknowledged in his foreward to the "restored" version of his book (US version with all 21 chapters) that (a) Alex's transition into maturity had absolutely nothing to do with any of his prior experiences; and (b) he wrote the book with 21 chapters, as much as any other reason, so that it would have 3 parts of 7 chapters each. Numerology trumps good storytelling for some, I guess. But frankly, I think the US publisher made the right call. Burgess was too in love with his story to see that the final chapter damaged it, and it's part of an editor's job to give impartial and objective feedback.

In his novel , Burgess had a different ending - Alex does revert to his old ways , but he comes across one of his old " droogs" who has reformed , married and had children . Alex loses his desire and enjoyment of violence and he decides to reform and turn his life around..

Sadly , American audiences , even way back then preferred the " darker " ending - and , of course, Kubrick went that direction.
I agree with Anthony Burgess

Anyone want to reply to my last question?

> [D]oes anyone want to DEBUNK the idea that the movie encourages us to sympathize with its lead character Alex

On the contrary, I'd view as highly questionable any attempt at an argument that the movie does not encourage it. Of course it does! The very essence of fiction is to invite the audience to sympathize with the protagonist; to experience the same emotional reactions the POV character does as events happen.

Otherwise, what's the point of doing it *as fiction* -- of writing a story about character X, exploring X's experiences, relationships with others, beliefs, etc -- while never expecting or desiring that one's audience should mentally put themselves in X's shoes? The result of such an attempt would be bizarre at best, amusing for all the wrong reasons; and at worst dull and didactic moralizing (certain episodes of Rod Serling's "Twilight Zone" come to mind).

I'll add that there's nothing at all wrong with any of this. To quote Anthony Burgess, since we're talking about A Clockwork Orange, "it is as inhuman to be totally good as it is to be totally evil." Of course a fictional protagonist should have some sympathetic or even admirable features. And this does not mean that an author must endorse evil if the protagonist does evil things. Want to instruct your audience? (Always a risky move -- writers are nowhere near as morally wise as some believe themselves to be, and audiences have an irritating tendency to see through such pretensions.) Have X make a wrong decision for reasons that seem good at the time, then later after some personal growth, reflect back on that decision and understand it was a bad idea -- and have the audience sympathize with X both times. There's some excellent fiction that's gone that route.

And if anyone's wondering, I'll acknowledge that I like seeing Michael Corleone triumph over his enemies. Etc. I also don't associate with Mafia types or do the things they do, etc. And this only means that I'm a sane, moral adult, that's all.