Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is a film synonymous with controversy and the debate surrounding censorship. It was released into a time still reeling from the sociological developments of the 1960s, and a time when both the content of films being produced and the process of regulating them was changing in both Britain and America, was to become firmly entrenched within the discourse surrounding these changes and their implications. In a contemporary cinema where the boundaries of sex and violence were being steadily broken down, and fears of the effects that this permissiveness might have were escalating, A Clockwork Orange found itself subjected to various kinds of censorship. And in the end, the connotations that the treatment of the film carries echo beyond the 1970s, and are still relevant today.
The sixties had been a decade of enormous social and political change and upheaval in America and across the world. The post-war conformity of the fifties had been replaced with the voices of the disaffected and the dissenting, and as the civil rights and feminist movements, the politicization of the young and a general feeling of change and possibility began to change the political and social landscape of the country, the film industry of course began to change with it. In the so-called “Hollywood Renaissance” of the late sixties, films began to express the shift in the political climate, and the general feeling of change in America. They also pushed the boundaries of what was deemed acceptable to be shown on film through depictions of sex and violence. It became clear that the previous system of film regulation could not survive in the face of such dramatic upheaval. As Jack Valenti, who was to be central to changing ideas of film regulation, wrote: “It would have been foolish to believe that movies, that most creative of art forms, could have remained unaffected by the change and torment in our society”[1], and neither could the system of their regulation.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) had employed the restrictive Hays Production Code as a means of regulating film throughout Hollywood’s “classical” period, but when Valenti became president of the MPAA in 1966 he “decided to overhaul the increasingly moribund system”[2], and introduced a new rating system two years later. The regulatory body in Britain, the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) was also initiating change in its system around this time. It was clear that the transgressive nature of certain films that were being produced – the steady breakdown of taboos of content, violence and sexual activity – called for changes within any system that was going to be involved with their regulation, and A Clockwork Orange was to become part of the debate that surrounded these changes, and a film that would cause controversy and gain notoriety on both sides of the Atlantic, especially in the UK where it would ultimately be banned for almost thirty years, not at the behest of the censor but by the director, Stanley Kubrick, himself.
A Clockwork Orange was released in December 1971. The sixties, and all the important social changes that went with them, were over but the implications of these changes remained. Contemporary films were showing more and more graphic violence, but it was A Clockwork Orange that caused the most controversy and proved problematic for the film regulatory bodies. The film was never banned by either the MPAA or the BBFC, but nevertheless found itself heavily suppressed and ultimately removed.
The MPAA was now employing Valenti’s new system of ratings. This system was supposed to “offer to parents some advance information about movies so that parents can decide what movies they want their children to see or not to see”[3], and was based on a series of ratings informing audiences of what kind of content the film contained. In theory, the MPAA would “no longer ‘approve or disapprove’ the content of a film”[4], but merely offer information and allow them to make their own choice, while expanding creative freedom within film. However, problems with the system meant that this was not quite true.
A Clockwork Orange received an X certification – no admittance to under 17s. This certification by that time carried specific problems with it, and was stigmatized. The MPAA had failed to copyright the X symbol, therefore “anyone not submitting his or her film for rating could self apply the X”[5]. This meant that “it [the X symbol] was quickly hi-jacked by the pornography trade” and as a result “X-rated films were generally considered pornographic, which meant that major studios, cinema chains and mainstream publications refused to handle them – regardless of artistic merit”[6]. This negative association with the X category meant that films that carried it dramatically reduced their chances of any kind of commercial success. At the time, the MPAA officially denied “that X correlates with ‘pornography’”[7], but the stigma attached to the X rating meant that films would need to be re-cut to achieve a commercially acceptable R rating if they were to “achieve nationwide release and reach an intelligent and diversified audience”[8]. Kubrick did precisely this, withdrawing and re-cutting A Clockwork Orange in 1972. The MPAA rated this new version R.
In this way, the X rated A Clockwork Orange effectively banned itself. While the MPAA could maintain that artistic freedom was upheld by the rating system, awarding a film an X certificate was almost as good as banning it altogether. The system made it necessary for the film-makers to censor their films themselves, censorship with an economic motivation. In the film, the Ludovico technique that is inflicted on Alex effectively forces him to censor his own actions when presented with opportunities for violent behaviour, by triggering a crippling physical reaction within him. In a similar way, being presented with an X rating from the MPAA forced film-makers to censor their own material, this time because of economic and commercial pressures rather than because of physical pain. Therefore, while it was theoretically possible for A Clockwork Orange to exist in an X rated form, in practice it was suppressed because it would not be economically viable. While it might be presumptuous to suggest that the failure of the MPAA to successfully handle the X rating was a premeditated attempt to restrict film content, it certainly meant that film censorship was going on when it appeared not to be. “Whatever the MPAA’s Declaration of Principle had claimed about the rating system’s objective of encouraging ‘artistic expression by expanding creative freedom’, in practice the pressures to avoid an ‘X’ were as firm a constraint as the Production Code had been”[9].
A Clockwork Orange caused huge controversy upon its release in December 1971, and it is not difficult to see why. Not only does the film contain scenes of graphic sexual violence and carries a somewhat problematic message about the importance of free will, it also deals with juvenile delinquency and crime, an issue that had been at the center of the censorship debate since the start, “a subject that greatly worried censors and moral guardians on both sides of the Atlantic”[10], and a subject that was disturbingly relevant to the time. The film was “attacked as an unmediated celebration of the violent young self, as a provocation to youthful viewers to imitate what they on the screen”[11], and caused moral outrage both in Britain and America. However, after Kubrick submitted a re-cut version with an R rating in America, the controversy there began to die down. It continued to rage in Britain however and ultimately it would be withdrawn from British screens for almost thirty years.
The novel on which the film is based was written by Anthony Burgess and published in 1962. It is Burgess’ dystopian vision of a future England, influenced by teenage hooliganism that he had experienced in both Russia and in the changing landscape of England in the sixties. In the novel, the characters speak “Nadsat”, the product of Burgess wanting “to create a new language so that it wouldn’t appear dated”[12]. He knew that the themes of the book would always be relevant in society, and the film itself acts in the same way. As any vision of the future is related to contemporary issues and anxieties, the film “reworks the current scene [of the seventies] through the future”[13], and this is what gives it its power. While Kubrick’s future England is placed to some extent in science fiction territory, through the unfamiliar language and locations such as the highly stylized Korova milk bar where the characters drink amphetamine laced milk, and Kubrick establishes a mood of “futuristic nihilism”[14], the film at times feels disturbingly familiar. The policemen wear the uniform of English “bobbies”, and the Ludovico Institute could easily have existed in any government building of the seventies, and still could today. Much of the film has a “strange, semi-realist”[15] setting, and A Clockwork Orange is too close to reality to be dismissed as science fiction fantasy.
Therefore, alongside the film’s graphic violence, was the concern that Britain of the seventies might actually be heading the way of A Clockwork Orange, a society in decline, populated with rampantly violent youth. Much of the British press and certain “moral watchdog” groups such as the Festival of Light, viewed certain films, A Clockwork Orange being one of them, as contributing to this decline, especially as the boundaries of acceptability were being broken down in the increasingly violent and sexual cinema of the late sixties and early seventies. It seemed to some that morality in society was collapsing, and that the influence of films were partly to blame.
The BBFC passed A Clockwork Orange uncut with an X rating. In Britain, the rating did not carry the same connotations of pornography that affected it in America, but it too had been subject to recent change: “the raising of the age limit for the ‘X’ category in 1970 from sixteen to eighteen”[16]. As in America, this was a reaction to the changing nature of cinema at the time, and the upgrading of the classification enabled the BBFC to pass “with only minor cuts…films which would have previously been refused”[17]. However, the passing of A Clockwork Orange led to a backlash in the press and beyond that would eventually lead to the film being withdrawn by its director.
Because A Clockwork Orange was initially passed uncut, the press and other pressure groups targeted the BBFC as well as the film itself, and a tirade against both was unleashed. The Sunday Telegraph called it “muck in the name of art”[18], the Daily Mail asked “What on earth induced our censors to pass these startling scenes of rape and violence?”[19] and the Evening Standard claimed “from it, one brings away the fear that our children will kill us all”[20]. Lord Longford of the Festival of Light pressure group described it as “corrupting, degrading and likely to lead to crimes against persons and society”[21]. It was clear that anxieties over the film stemmed from the possible “damage” that it could do to members of society, especially the young. Adding to this were several reports of “copycat” violence in the press – youth gangs wearing bowler hats and cod pieces beating vagrants, a young man committing rape while singing “Singing in the Rain”[22]. These incidents were instantly latched onto by the film’s opponents, as conclusive proof of its inherent “evil”, and also of the BBFC’s growing permissiveness and “irresponsibility”[23] in not censoring it.
The reaction provoked by the film in the press led Reginald Maudling, the home secretary of the time, to request a personal viewing of the film due to “personal concern”, even before it had been released, the minister having previously commented that he believed there was a link between violence on film and rising crime levels[24]. Because the BBFC was a self regulatory branch of the film industry, for such a prominent politician to get involved was unheard of. His action pre-judged the film and also gave the film’s detractors “the stamp of political respectability”[25]. It appeared that the British government were trying to involve themselves in the censoring of films, and the political legitimization of complaints against the film was undoubtedly a factor that would help lead to its withdrawal. In the film, after subjection to the Ludovico technique, Alex expresses (ultimately false) gratitude to the government for seemingly making him a “better” person through removing his capacity for choice. Presumably, there was similar gratitude amongst the opponents of the film after the government’s involvement. After Maudling’s comments, several British local councils banned the film. Through a form of governmental suppression and censorship (albeit an implicit one), the British public were being “protected” from the evil of the film and through the removal of choice, the greater good was being served. “Stop it, I beg you! It’s a sin!” Alex shrieks as his eyes are clamped open and his free will slowly eroded. “It’s for your own good,” replies the Doctor. Eventually, after Alex thanks his captors for “curing” him, they are satisfied they have done a good deed. This is a moment in the film that crystallizes the attitude of the moral watchdogs of the time – through their hard work A Clockwork Orange (like the violent Alex in the film) was being suppressed and the public were being protected. Two years later, the film would disappear completely.
Stanley Kubrick withdrew his own film from its highly limited circulation in Britain in 1973. As he owned the rights to the film he outlawed it completely. Films banned by the BBFC were still allowed to been shown in certain situations, such as within a film course at a university, but Kubrick’s legal position allowed him to deny even this: “therefore the most effective banning in British film censorship”[26] (the film was only re-released in Britain after Kubrick’s death in 1999).
Much has been made of the reasoning behind Kubrick’s decision. It has been suggested that he was horrified that the film may have sparked copycat violence in Britain and withdrew it for the “safety” of the public (this would mean that Kubrick could be seen as the “most notorious and autocratic perpetrator” of censorship, which seems unlikely), and that his family suffered death threats if the film were not withdrawn[27]. Neither of these claims have been substantiated however, and a more likely reason seems to be Kubrick’s outrage at the treatment the film received on its British release, and its being made a scapegoat for the violence of society, while trying to comment upon it – “the misrepresentation of a serious work of art”[28]. It may have been that Kubrick interpreted the reaction to film as an indicator that the British audience of the time was not ready for what it had to say – and therefore his withdrawal was ultimately censorship motivated by an idea of artistic integrity. Perhaps making the film available would actually irrevocably damage it as a piece of art, and dilute its substance, because it clearly seemed that the British had missed the point entirely, and could not look beyond the film’s controversial nature at what it was really trying to say. Could Kubrick have decided that his film could only serve its artistic purpose if no-one in Britain was able to watch it?
In the end, the reasons behind Kubrick’s withdrawal of A Clockwork Orange in Britain died with him. The film was re-released in 2000, and still remains highly controversial. It seems ironic that a film concerned so much with the importance of free will should have become so deeply involved in various elements of censorship, but perhaps not surprising. On its release into the climate of the early 1970s, when the vast social changes of the sixties still echoed, not least in the cinema, it suffered from various types of censorship. It became affected by consequences of changes within the regulation of the film industry at the time, and found itself at the center of ideas around the negative influence of cinema Whether it was through a form of enforced self-censorship in America, or through censorship in the name of protecting a society from decline into a violent future in Britain, or through censorship in the name of art at the hands of the film’s own director, A Clockwork Orange was heavily suppressed. Ultimately however, the banning of the film brought it into the midst of the censorship debate, where it remains today, and the nature of its suppression helps the film to achieve what it had set out to do – to raise questions about censorship and about free will itself.
[1] Jack Valenti, The Voluntary Movie Rating System (1997) <http://www.mpaa.org/ratings> p. 2
[2] Richard Maltby, Hollywood Cinema, 2nd edn (Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, 2003), p. 177.
[3] Valenti, p. 3
[4] Valenti, p. 3
[5] Valenti, p. 2
[6] Michael Brooke, The US Ratings System (2004) <http://www.screenonline.org.uk>
[7] Guy Phelps, Film Censorship (Victor Gollancz Ltd, London, 1975), p. 237
[8] Maltby, p. 178
[9] Maltby, p. 178
[10] Philip French, You Looking At Me?, The Observer, 27th February 2000
[11] Stuart Y. McDougal, ed., Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003), p. 19
[12] McDougal, ed., p. 9
[13] McDougal, ed., p. 15
[14] McDougal, ed., p. 170
[15] Peter Bradshaw, The Old Ultra-Violence, The Guardian, 3rd March 2000
[16] Tom Dewe Mathews, Censored (Chatto & Windus Ltd, London, 1994), p. 189
[17] Dewe Mathews, p. 190
[18] Dewe Mathews, p. 205
[19] Bradshaw, The Guardian
[20] Bradshaw, The Guardian
[21] Phelps, Film Censorship, p. 81
[22] David Kerekes & David Slater, See No Evil: Banned Films and Video Controversy (Headpress, Manchester, 2000), p. 317
[23] Phelps, p. 80
[24] Dewe Mathews, p. 206
[25] Dewe Mathews, p. 206
[26] Dewe Mathews, p. 209
[27] Bradshaw, The Guardian
No comments:
Post a Comment