As a true film buff, I can accept the fact that some of the greatest movies ever made can also be extremely difficult to watch -- whether from its content and/or the emotional response it generates. Most movies like this usually receive my adolation and praise, even if it may take me time to recover from the first viewing<br /><br />But in my opinion, A Clockwork Orange takes the grand prize as the most disturbing movie I've ever seen, and it does not get much easier with repeat viewing. The movie's brilliance in directing and storytelling makes it impossible to dismiss critically, yet the film disturbs me to the core. I would almost hope that I am not alone in this opinion -- to truly 'enjoy' this movie you'd have to be pretty damn callous to hideous imagery, especially when it comes to rape and excessive exploitation of the female body.<br /><br />If there's one very big dislike I have against Stanley Kubrick, it is way in which he treats the naked female body onscreen. It becomes impersonal, cold, devalued -- cheapened and readily exploitable. Think of these examples -- A Clockwork Orange: 5 gangsters rip the clothes off and rape a young woman to a classical waltz; the milk bar with naked women statues and dispensers; Alex's daydream of being in Roman times; the high-speed menage-a-trois; the naked, stoic 'temptress' onstage approaching Alex; and the 'humorous' winter-wonderland end-scene slow-motion daydream of public exhibitionism. That's just A Clockwork Orange. Throw in the naked woman in the tub in The Shining, along with scenes totalling a full one-third of the running time of Eyes Wide Shut and you should have a pretty good idea of the devaluation of the female body I'm referring to.<br /><br />I think of Spartacus, Full Metal Jacket, 2001, Dr. Strangelove, even Barry Lyndon, and I just want to praise Kubrick forever. The man is a cinematic genius. But, because of how adversely A Clockwork Orange affects me, I must dismiss it and can't recommend it to anyone. The more sensitive you are to what you see onscreen, the more this movie will deeply, deeply disturb you. I've seen it three times now, my first time being over 12 years ago, and it's no easier to watch now than then. And sadly, because it is so disturbing, I am deprived of enjoying the greatness that the movie really does contain.<br /><br />I read the book by Anthony Burgess because the story is truly brilliant. I was surprised to find out that the book's final chapter was purposely left out of the film. Also, I was surprised to find that the author disliked the film, as he alludes in the book's introduction. He feels that "A Clockwork Orange" has become to him what "The Nutcracker" was to Tchaikovsky -- what he considers as one of his least important works has become his most famous and recognized.<br /><br />Ever wonder what is meant by "a clockwork orange"? Mr. Burgess explains the metaphor in the book's introduction. An orange is sweet, refreshing, and juicy -- fulfilling and delicious. But it is organic and cannot provide this sweetness forever -- it will eventually expire and rot. Man cannot make an organic object function like an inorganic object, or something man-made, or 'clockwork'. The term 'clockwork orange' is therefore an oxymoron and a paradox -- it infers that man has converted something organic into a controllable, inorganic process. The experiment Alex goes through, by robbing him of free-will, effectively creates 'clockwork oranges' out of human beings -- he is forced to be sweet, gentle, and moral all the time.<br /><br />Final thoughts: I am LDS (or 'Mormon'), and it's noteworthy to mention something about the beliefs of the LDS religion as it pertains to this concept... It is believed that in pre-earth life, Lucifer proposed that everyone who comes to earth be forced to do good, so that everyone will be worthy to return to God's presence after death, therefore 'no souls will be lost' -- however, he wanted the credit for this plan. Jesus wanted each person to have complete free-agency in order to learn from their own decisions, and he voluteered himself to be the one who must live a perfect life as THE example as well as be the atoning sacrifice -- and all glory go to God, not to himself. To have mankind robbed of its free-agency is the Devil's original plan and ultimate goal. So, the movie and the book asks this supreme question: What's more evil -- a person who focusses all his thoughts and energy and actions on doing bad, or forcing this person to only think and feel and do good?<br /><br />My answer: Skip the movie and read the book -- it's a far more edifying experience. And you also get to know what happens in the final chapter!