Because I really don't. He got more than he deserved.
shareWe are indeed supposed to sympathize with Alex, but it's okay if you don't.
"I will not go down in history as the greatest mass-murderer since Adolf Hitler!" - Merkin Muffley
I'm glad you posted this because it dawned on me today that this was very intentional. Alex was a terrible person who deserved no sympathy. But like many bad people do, he appeals to our good nature. You see this sort of thing everyday on the news, Kubrick was quite the prophet. It reminds me of the Malcolm X quote about the newspapers making you hate the oppressed and loving the oppressor. Only in this case you're forgetting the victim and sympathising with the criminal. We see this alot.
shareThe point was that Alex was both the oppressor and the victim in the course of the movie.
My real name is Jeff
Kubrick was quite the prophet
This isn't some piece of genius. It's been done tons of times. Protagonists aren't always good. A lot of films aim to make you see things from a 'bad' persons point of view.
-
"It hurts, doesn't it? Being in pain." - Daredevil, a lawyer, 2015
During some point of the movie I started sympathizing, which is of course wrong, he deserves more than this, but this is because of the mastery of the director and actor - the movies plays with the mind of the spectator.
share[deleted]
Yes, it plays with the mind of the viewer so much that one reviewer wrote that the movie should never have been made for that reason.
My real name is Jeff
No. You're simply supposed to understand where Alex is coming from. And to that, there are situations specifically designed to help you empathize with him. He is very real and human in a lot of scenes. And a devil in others.
shareAnti hero is perhaps a description overused, but rather suitable when it comes to Alex.
The somewhat socialist view of being a product seeps through the pages of Burgess' novel, indeed the idea that Alex could return to normal life after committing such horrible crimes was so disgusting to the American publisher that they cut it!
It seems Kubrick didn't get the premise either...
I don't think Alex is supposed to be sympathetic. What I took away from the film was a larger commentary on human nature itself.
When Alex is powerful and ruthless, everybody is scared of him and he takes what he wants. He and his gang are shown to be vicious animals at odds with society. But once he is rendered helpless, the same "civilized" people become just as ruthless.
It's a very cynical illustration of survival of the fittest. The strong prey upon the weak.
It's the opposite of cynical - it is idealistic to show the wrongs being committed by the very people who are outraged by Alex's behavior early in the film. We are supposed to feel sympathy for Alex so we can see the hypocrisy of society and the moral problem with the treatment Alex receives to "cure" his behavior.
My real name is Jeff
We are supposed to feel sympathy for Alex so we can see the hypocrisy of society and the moral problem with the treatment Alex receives to "cure" his behavior.
How does that refute what I said? Are you suggesting that Burgess and Kubrick thought there was no moral problem with the writer's behavior?
My real name is Jeff
Because it's easy to talk about how wrong the treatment is and defend the subjects until you realize one of them raped and murdered your wife. I think Burgess realized that, considering he made the guy a writer of a book called A Clockwork Orange.
Are you suggesting that Burgess and Kubrick thought there was no moral problem with the writer's behavior?
That doesn't contradict what I said. And it doesn't in any way demonstrate that the filmmakers approved of the writer's behavior in tormenting Alex.
My real name is Jeff
The filmmakers can't really say "The treatment is 100% wrong" and "Even people sympathetic to the subjects and against the treatment would change sides if the subjects did something to THEM" at the same time. Making the book's only opponent to the cure (who actually bares a resemblance to Burgess himself, considering they're both writers of books about free will called "A Clockwork Orange") a hypocrite blurs the line somewhat. It'd be like taking you, Jeff/Bobby, and having you torment Alex at the end. Both characters for and against the treatment are portrayed negatively. It creates an ambiguity.
FYC: Keanu Reeves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvaCWTkSXdE
The prison chaplain also objected to the cure.
shareThe filmmakers can't really say "The treatment is 100% wrong" and "Even people sympathetic to the subjects and against the treatment would change sides if the subjects did something to THEM" at the same time. Making the book's only opponent to the cure (who actually bares a resemblance to Burgess himself, considering they're both writers of books about free will called "A Clockwork Orange") a hypocrite blurs the line somewhat. It'd be like taking you, Jeff/Bobby, and having you torment Alex at the end. Both characters for and against the treatment are portrayed negatively. It creates an ambiguity.
So if we both agree the movie is ambiguous, then why are we debating the fact that I said it's subjective and up to the audience to draw their own moral conclusions? If we both agree everyone in it is a hypocrite, then why can't the audience choose to root against Alex and support the treatment? Or, as you said, sympathize with Alex and oppose the treatment? Or any other viewpoint that would fall under their subjective outlook?
FYC: Keanu Reeves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvaCWTkSXdE
So if we both agree the movie is ambiguous, then why are we debating the fact that I said it's subjective and up to the audience to draw their own moral conclusions? If we both agree everyone in it is a hypocrite, then why can't the audience choose to root against Alex and support the treatment?
The thing is, it is indeed somewhat interesting that in this movie, we ARE indeed sort of supposed to feel at least SOME degree of sympathy and empathy for a young man who is essentially a rapist AND a murderer.
Whereas in plenty of films, not to mention serious discussions in real life, we have seen and cheered upon plenty of films where rapists (who may or even may not also be murderers) get their violent comeuppance, as in - we believe even prison or simple death may be too good for them.
Not that I or hopefully ANY normal person should believe this crime should not be punished.
But think of nearly ALL the rape and revenge genred films, be it I Spit on Your Grave, Freezer, Ms .45 and others of the ilk, I don't remember any of those films ever encouraging that we should feel sympathy or empathy for any of the offending parties.
And look at what people debate should be done to all those guilty parties in real life even AFTER they serve their prison sentence.
Yet in ACO, we are somewhat forgiving of the main perpetrator and realize - Yeah, justice should be done - but dear God people, let's draw SOME lines, OK?
I never got the impression that the treatment was anything but a failure. Whether or not someone finds Alex sympathetic, the treatment isn't shown in a favorable light. He can now be abused by anyone and everyone, but on top of that, he can no longer have a healthy sex life (the very act of touching a pair of breasts when a woman is willing makes him ill) and he can't even enjoy his favorite musical artist. In the end, it results in him reverting back to his old ways. Both the book and the movie seem to favor free will.
As to the question of this thread, I do not feel sympathy for Alex, although I do find Alex curiously charming in several scenes.
Well said
share[deleted]
Are we supposed to sympathize with this character?