A droog from hell: Decoding Alex from ‘A Clockwork Orange’
Alex is a fictional character created by Anthony Burgess and features as the primary protagonist of his novel A Clockwork Orange. However, above that, he operates as the very twisted centre of humanity’s most base desires.
Director Stanley Kubrick adapted Burgess’s novel for the big screen in 1971, with Malcolm McDowell portraying Alex. In the film, Kubrick reveals Alex’s surname as DeLarge, a reference to Alex calling himself ‘The Large’ in the novel. In the film, however, two newspaper articles print his name as “Alex Burgess”, a reference to Anthony Burgess. these two moments provide us with both a reflection of the illusions we put on ourselves in an attempt to disguise our worst experiences and the reality with which we must, in the end, comprehend life as we know it.
Due to its presentation of the taboo subject matter, Kubrick’s film received polarised reviews from critics. The graphic violence made the movie controversial at the time of its release, and it has rarely been regarded as anything but pioneering ever since. Even Kubrick himself was aware of the turbulent themes in the production and sought to have the film banned.
The first thing to know about Alex’s character is that he is a sociopath. He engages in assaults and robberies purely for his own amusement. He also loves classical music, his only normal and acceptable interest and outlet, even if he seemingly uses it as a mantle from which to condemn. Due to his sociopathic nature, Alex knows that such violent behaviour is morally wrong: “You can’t have a society with everybody behaving in my manner of the night”.
As the film is set in a dystopian world of crime, Alex is the leader of a gang of “droogs” where he leads Georgie, Dim and Pete to engage in his sociopathic ways with him. He speaks the fictional language of Nadsat, based on largely English and Russian words with elements of Cockney rhyming slang, Romani speech, and schoolboy colloquialisms. It only adds further layering upon the complexities of Alex’s confusing demeanour. He is both erudite and eruptive, eloquent and entirely maniacal.
Kubrick’s representation of the character aligns with his own definition of his adaptation of Burgess’ story: “A social satire dealing with the question of whether behavioural psychology and psychological conditioning are dangerous new weapons for a totalitarian government to use to impose vast controls on its citizens and turn them into little more than robots”.
Building from this, Alex’s intense character represents violence and disturbance. He exemplifies psychiatry and juvenile delinquency, as evident in his association with youth gangs which bleed into social and economic issues. These examples are combined to create what the character symbolises; a figure of wickedness. However, these unwelcomed attributes are negotiated by governmental force, and an intense psychotherapy process solidifies the thematic value of morality.
This characterisation carries through the film’s plot, showcasing Alex’s journey. We are introduced to the character sitting on human furniture and drinking something called ‘Milk Plus’, a drink he likes because it “sharpens you up and gets you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence“, immediately establishing Alex’s taste for destructive damage.
Kubrick presents these violent acts Alex has prepared himself for; a brutal fight with a rival gang, savagely beating a man and then raping his wife in their own home, and lastly, breaking into the home of a woman to bludgeon her to death with a phallic sculpture, in a rather chaotic manner. The camera rushes from the husband to the wife in a way that suggests it can’t get enough of either of their suffering, similar to Alex’s attitude. Furthermore, he and his Droogs take up the entire set of every space by running around, showing how they infiltrate and infect spaces without hesitation and assault our vision and hearing. As one of the film’s most infamous elements, Alex sings and dances to Singing in the Rain as he rapes a screaming victim, something that Kubrick came up with the combat the scene’s stiffness, in turn illustrating just how entertaining Alex finds these immoral acts with no consideration to the victim’s pain.
In this journey segment, Kubrick represents Alex as the utmost example of uncivilised corruption.
After Alex is betrayed by his gang members, who leave him to be arrested following the final act of beating a wealthy lady, he is convicted of murder and sentenced to 14 years in prison. During his sentence, the Minister of the Interior offers Alex the Ludovico technique – an experiment of aversion therapy for rehabilitating criminals within two weeks. After being strapped down with his eyes pried open and drugged (possibly the film’s most iconic scene), he is forced to watch films about sex and violence, some of which feature Ludwig van Beethoven’s music. He becomes nauseated by the films and cries for a stop to the treatment, fearing the technique will make him sick once he hears Beethoven – stealing his one innocent love from him.
Two weeks later, an official gathering is held, and the Minister demonstrates Alex’s rehabilitation. In the face of taunts and attacks from an actor, Alex is unable to fight back, becomes ill and wants to have sex with a topless woman. This inability to resort to violence showcases Alex’s psychological transformation. A prison chaplain complains that Alex’s free will has been violated; the Minister asserts that the Ludovico technique will reduce crime and prison overcrowding by doing this. After his release, Alex maintains the Minister’s goal of being organic on the outside yet mechanical on the inside. Essentially, he has become the official clockwork orange.
This part of Alex’s journey exemplifies his change from uncivilised corruption to civilised purity. He now symbolises Kubrick’s exploration of morality and how to obtain it in individuals. This aligns with the film’s central hook being what defines “goodness” and whether it is morally right to use aversion therapy to stop immoral behaviour. Are therapists just as bad as the immoral? Is force the only way to ensure peace?
After his release, Alex appears to abide by moral codes, stating he feels no need to be violent or sexually aggressive. However, this is not his choice but a result of borderline torture exerted by trusted professionals. Kubrick invites his audience to ask whether the action even matters, given the outcome’s benefits. Alex won’t ever harm again in the long run, so should we care what temporary processes has to happen for this to be the case? Is Alex now a victim of abuse? Should we even feel sorry for him, knowing what he has done?
Interestingly, Alex soon implies these philosophical debates may be unneeded. At the film’s conclusion, the Minister visits Alex in the hospital following a suicide attempt and plays Beethoven’s Ninth, which has become Alex’s trigger, as a swarm of journalists come to see the new symbol of delinquency conversion. We see Alex contemplate violence with vivid thoughts of having sex with a woman in front of an approving crowd. Alex thinks to himself but also tells the audience, “I was cured, all right!”.
This ending echoes the opening in a juxtaposition to bring Alex’s journey a full cycle. Likewise to his opening shot, Alex smiles at the cameras, but then he averts his eyes, implying this is all an act for the wealthy socialites and press inspecting him. This theory is elevated when we see the images of violence in his mind, implying his true identity will remain below the surface.
Overall, Alex is both a symbol of immorality and, later, a false illusion of morality to maintain social acceptance, which can be even more disturbing than the former.
