Monday, June 26, 2017

The Sopranos (TV Series)



"Here he goes now with the nostalgia."

From its very first episode, "The Sopranos" confidently laid the groundwork for its major theme: nostalgia and idealization. Throughout the series, the characters are motivated by a glorified view of the past, whether it be family life, manhood, the mafia itself, or Italian culture. There is no bigger purveyor of nostalgia in the series than Tony Soprano. His thoughts and actions are motivated by and often times stunted by nostalgia. When Tony first met his psychiatrist, Dr. Jennifer Melfi, he described his general ennui with life by saying, "It's good to be in something from the ground floor. But lately, I'm getting the feeling that I came in at the end. The best is over." For Tony, the past was always a better time. It is no coincidence that Tony binge watches the history channel throughout the series; the past guides his life for better or worse as a Mafia leader and a father. At the end of the first episode, while sitting in a church built by his grandfather and great uncle, Tony used the past to move himself beyond his feeling of "coming in at the end." He told his daughter, Meadow, "They were stone and marble workers. They came over from Italy. They built this place...They were two guys in a crew of laborers. They didn't design it, but they knew how to build it." Ultimately, however, it is Tony's blinding nostalgia and its eventual failure that destroyed both of his families in the final season. If there is a lesson in "The Sopranos," it is that nostalgia and idealization is, at best, a doubled edged sword, or in Tony's case, a double barreled shotgun.  

"The Sopranos" has nostalgia for the Mafia's past, particularly as told through movies. In many ways, the show is the flowering of the gangster films of the twentieth century, each of which offered interesting but incomplete views of the Mafia. "The Godfather" centered around the boss of the family, for example, while "Goodfellas" focused on the low level soldiers on the street. "The Sopranos" gives audiences a complete view of the Mafia, covering the leaders, their underlings, their families and friends, and, in Tony's case, even their subconscious. The show continually references other works about the mob. Silvio Dante does a recurring Al Pacino impression from "The Godfather." The backroom of Satriale's is filled with mugshots of famous gangsters, even Frank Sinatra. These photos were accentuated in the first episode when Christopher killed a colleague. The gunshots were interspersed with pictures of Al Capone, Dean Martin, and other vestiges of mob history. Multiple people ask Tony what his favorite gangster film is and which ones are the most "real." Meadow's brief relationship with an African American college student began when they watched a James Cagney movie together. Tony watched "The Public Enemy" later in the episode, which caused him to be wistful about his mother. In Season 1, after Uncle Junior discovers that his girlfriend told others about his penchant for giving oral sex, he shoved a pie into her face, mirroring James Cagney in "The Public Enemy." When Tony felt that his neighbor, Dr. Cusamano, was exploiting his gangster status to impress his friends, Tony playfully asked him to hold a box for him, a scene which clearly harkened back to The Godfather Part II when Vito Corleone's neighbor asked him to hide a gun for him. Later in the series, a scene in The Godfather Part I is referenced both in the fact that the actual scene inspired A.J. to kill his Uncle Junior in retribution for his father's shooting (mimicking the actions of Michael Corleone in the film) and also in the final episode in which a man who some theorize killed Tony walked into a Men's room just as Michael Corleone did in The Godfather Part I. When A.J. told Tony that he wanted to kill Junior "just like Michael Corleone did" in his favorite scene, Tony reminded A.J. that it was "just a movie." Finally, many of A.J.'s friends asked him about his father with questions like "Why doesn't your dad have the Don Corleone money?" and compared Satriale's to Genco Olive Oil. As other recent groundbreaking shows, most notably "The Simpsons," "The Sopranos" is a postmodern work, cognizant of its own history.

The series also idealizes Italian culture and the ways of the "old country." When Tony first saw Dr. Melfi, he asked her "what part of the boot" she was from. He was delighted to hear that her ancestral town was right next to his, a fact that, in his mind, made them romantically compatible. Later in that episode, Paulie Gualtieri, Big Pussy visit a Starbucks and complain that their heritage was being exploited. Paulie said,

"Fuckin' expresso, cappuccino. We invented this shit and all these other cocksuckers are gettin' rich off it...And it's not just the money. It's a pride thing. All our food: pizza, calzone, buffalo moozarell', olive oil. These fucks had nothin'. They ate pootsie before we gave them the gift of our cuisine. But this, this is the worst. This expresso shit." 

Ironically, in a later episode entitled "Commendatore," Tony, Paulie, and Christopher travelled to Italy on business and were disappointed by the vast differences between Italy and Italian American culture. Perhaps the most extreme example of Italian nostalgia is in the episode, "Christopher," which depicted a Native American protest of Columbus day and how the Mafia looked to quash it. Tony and Carmella were angered by A.J.'s assertion that Columbus was a genocidal killer, an opinion provided to him by the revisionist historian, Howard Zinn, in "A People's History of the United States," a book he was assigned in school. Tony answered A.J. by saying "You finally read a book and it's bullshit" and "He was a brave Italian explorer. And in this house, Christopher Columbus is a hero." Tony's Mafia family took the revisionist version of Columbus even more to heart, as they tried to violently break up a Columbus Day protest and later tried to blackmail a Native American professor into cancelling another protest. Yet, the characters in "The Sopranos" also suffered from the nostalgic generalizations of Italian culture, one that propagates stereotypes about all Italians being criminals and one that commodifies the culture with mob films, cheap pizza, pasta, and coffee (as mentioned in the previous paragraph). One interesting aspect of the episode is how Italian women seem to be ahead of the curve in changing their image. At a meeting of Italian women, Carmella and the other wives attended a talk by a speaker who asserted, "Look how we've both preserved the tradition of our ancestors and managed to become new Italian-American women. Such flair we have added to our image. And yet, America still sees us as pizza makers and Mama Leones." In other words, Italian women had the awareness to change their image. Tony finally came to this realization at the end of the episode. After they tried to reach out to a Native American casino owner who has clout in the Native American community, Tony asked a car full of his colleagues: "Did you get all this 'cause you're Italian? No, you got it 'cause you're you, 'cause you're smart, 'cause you're whatever. Where the fuck is our self-esteem? That shit doesn't come from Columbus, or The Godfather, or Chef fucking Boyardee." They finally realize, that nostalgia has negative influences as well.


In the most enduring symbol of Tony's nostalgia and idealization of his family, a family of ducks made their home in his pool. When they left, he had a panic attack and fainted. As Dr. Melfi later explained, the anxiety about the ducks flying away centered on Tony's fear of losing control over his families. Keeping to his idealistic character, Tony accepted that the ducks may not return, but still kept duck feed in the back of the house---just in case. His idealization often occurs to his own peril and causes indecision. One of the most powerful emotional moments for Tony occured in the first season, when he placed his mother into a "retirement community" (not a nursing home!). Connecting to a generation of middle aged baby boomers, Tony emptied his childhood home and was overcome by emotion as he realizes that the past is fading, giving way to the sober reality of aging. Besides his mother, Tony's other object of idealization is his Uncle Junior, a man whom he forgives and supports almost implicitly. After his life was threatened, Tony went through a period of saying both his uncle and mother were "dead to him." Yet, when both desperately needed him, Tony came to their rescue. When Livia needed funding for her return home, Tony was there. When Uncle Junior broke his hip in the shower, Tony carried him to the emergency room. Tony's idealization backfired when Uncle Junior later became demented and shot him, mistaking him for Little Pussy Malanga. Even after the second shooting, Tony later visited Uncle Junior in a state mental facility. The other character on whom Tony places high expectations is Christopher. He considers Christopher his "nephew," a term of endearment and closeness, as Christopher is actually his cousin once removed. Tony attempted to groom Christopher to be his only contact during his retirement, saying that Christopher was going to "take this family into the 21st century." Tony's love and idealization continually blinded him to Christopher's addiction to heroin, which was a major liability. Christopher received several chances to get clean, but always managed to slip back into addiction. It took Tony the entire series to see both Uncle Junior and Christopher in their true light. His nostalgia finally gave way to practicality.

In the years before Christopher's death, Tony often had problems accepting that he had to kill people in his Mafia family. In the first two seasons, Tony had difficulty coming to terms with the fact that Big Pussy Bomponsiero was a government informant who needed to be eliminated. After realizing that Big Pussy was a rat, it took more than a year for him to act. Likewise, after it became clear that Tony had to kill his cousin, Tony Blundetto, as an appeasement to John Sacramoni after Blundetto killed two people in Sacrimoni's family, Tony hesitated past the point of pragmatism. Again, Tony had high hopes for Blundetto  after the latter's release from prison, citing his "balls and 158 IQ." Before killing both Big Pussy and Tony Blundetto, Tony had to plumb his subconscious to accept what he had to do. Those surreal episodes, some of the best of the series, are tremendously Jungian in nature, full of symbols and hidden desires. Still, in the end, Tony eventually did what he needed to do.

One important nostalgic concept that Tony obsesses about is a lost era of manhood. In particular, he idealizes Gary Cooper, "the strong and silent type." Tony had a clear idea of the male gender role: strength. Although therapy undoubtedly helped Tony reduce his panic attacks and grow as a person to at least a small degree, he continually complained about counseling, saying:

“Let me tell ya something. Nowadays, everybody's gotta go to shrinks, and counselors, and go on Sally Jessy Raphael and talk about their problems. What happened to Gary Cooper? The strong, silent type. That was an American. He wasn't in touch with his feelings. He just did what he had to do. See, what they didn't know was once they got Gary Cooper in touch with his feelings that they wouldn't be able to shut him up! And then it's dysfunction this, and dysfunction that, and dysfunction vaffancul!”

Tony referenced Gary Cooper many more times throughout the series. In the episode, "Christopher," in which Tony's respective families considered the heroism and Italian heritage of Columbus, Tony became frustrated with Silvio complaining about the defamation of Italians:

"What the fuck happened to Gary Cooper? That's what I'd like to know....Now there was an American. The strong, silent type. He did what he had to do. He faced down the Miller gang when none of those other assholes would lift a finger to help him. And did he complain? Did he say, "I come from this poor Texas-Irish "illiterate background or whatever, so leave me the fuck out of it "because my people got fucked over"? All right, even if he was a madigan around nowadays he'd be a member of some victims' group. The fundamentalist Christians, the abused cowboys, the gays, whatever."

Another telling example is when Meadow's boyfriend, Finn, paid for a family dinner at a restaurant in thanks to Tony for his previous generosity. Tony became infuriated because Finn's actions threatened his role as the male breadwinner. He says to Finn, "Let's get something straight: you eat, I pay." It is no wonder that Tony idealizes manhood; he is the patriarch of two families. "The Sopranos" takes men who idealize old world values and brings them into the modern world. Tony is a Mafia boss, but he also has to take his daughter to look at colleges. He kills people on contract, but he also has to argue with his semi-modern wife about finances. Much of the comedy in "The Sopranos" comes from a feeling of anachronism, a collection of old world men who are suddenly blasted into the future and must cope with modern problems.

Another way that "The Sopranos" demonstrates nostalgia is when older characters return to the streets after being incarcerated for 10 or 20 years. Two characters, in particular, Richie Aprile and Feech La Manna annoyingly complained about how things were "in their day" and how they had things coming to them. Richie Aprile wasted no time in reestablishing his old power when he crippled "Beansie," a pizzeria owner who formally paid him. In a comical example, Richie gave Tony an old jacket from the 1970's, a jacket that Richie "took off the Rocco DiMeo---the cocksucker with the toughest reputation in Essex County." Characters like Richie Aprile as well as Feech la Manna and Tony Blundetto, are products of stunted growth and are permanently trapped in the past before they were incarcerated. Both Aprile and Blundetto demonstrated a lag in time, especially in their fashion sense. Tony Blundetto wore a Miami Vice era suit upon release while Richie Aprile wore a 1970's era leisure suit. Both Richie Aprile and Feech La Manna made so many waves demanding their past position, that they conjured significant trouble. After La Manna complained about how his affairs were being handled, Tony yelled, "I don't want to hear anymore how it was in your day. From now on, keep your antidotes to local color, like Dinoflow or the Maguire sisters. Otherwise, shut the fuck up!" Both Aprile's La Manna's obsession with the past led to their death or removal. In the world of "The Sopranos," nostalgia could even get you killed.


Other characters try to escape their past only to find that they cannot. Christopher sentimentalized Hollywood and dreamt of becoming a screenwriter. His experiences, however, including Jon Favreau stealing his Mafia stories, his failure to navigate Hollywood with Little Carmine, and his inability to fully realize his full vision with "Cleaver" without Mafia retribution, further demonstrated his entrapment in the world of organized crime, a life for which he was born and bred. Likewise, Tony Blundetto exited prison with the intent of being a massage therapist and staying off the street. After he realized that it's "tough to do business with strangers," he pulled out of his dream project and returned to the Mafia. Artie Bucco is a perpetual gawker of his Mafia friends, and often tried to enter to world by having small business agreements with Tony. Artie even borrowed money from Tony to fund an Armagnac venture that fails. Artie's wife, Charmaine, always brought him back down to earth as he dreams of being as rich and powerful as a gangster. He is an honest working class man and he can't escape it. Finally, more than anyone, Carmela is stuck in the life she made with Tony. She sought advice from Father Intintola and a therapist, both of whom made her confront the fact that her lifestyle and children's lives are tied to serious crimes. Yet, despite her doubts and moral ruminations, Carmela stayed in her life because of her financial dependence on Tony. When Carmela sought a divorce, her attorney refused to go forward given her husband's criminal reputation. In the end, Carmela remained in her marriage out of practicality and sidesteps moral responsibility. Once you marry a Mafioso, there is no getting out.

Tony's penchant for idealization and nostalgia meets its apex when it comes to women. His relationship with his mother, his wife, his mistresses, and even his psychiatrist are guided by his high expectations and specific roles that he expects them to obey. Tony's female universe revolves around his mother, Livia, an unbalanced and manipulative woman who suffers from a severe personality disorder. His mother is perpetually unfulfilled and unhappy, a "black hole" as he later recalled, that makes him feel grossly inadequate. Nothing Tony did was ever enough to satisfy Livia, a fact that gave rise to his constant anxiety and depression. She cried on command and repeated her catch phrase, "I gave my life to my children on a silver platter," an assertion meant to instill guilt and sympathy with the goal of controlling emotions and action. When Livia's emotional manipulation failed, and she is forced into a retirement community, she changed tactics and instead manipulated her brother-in-law, Junior, into murdering Tony because of his rising power. The failed attempt on Tony's life and the subsequent realization that his mother and uncle conspired to kill him was the most significant emotional blow to him in the entire series. As he asked Dr. Melfi, "What kind of person can I be, where his own mother wants him dead?" Despite the fact that Tony slowly realized that his mother is emotionally manipulative and joyless, he still propagated his idealized version of her---calling her a "sweetie pie," getting her flowers and gifts, and even taking care of her after she conspired to have him killed. At one point, Tony became violent with Dr. Melfi when confronted with the truth about his mother. He intensely yelled, “What do you think, my mother tried to have me whacked ‘cuz I put her in a nursing home?” He flipped over Melfi's table in the office and abruptly left. Finally, after his mother's death and funeral, at which he discovered that his mother was almost universally hated, Tony made peace with his mother's nature and its effect on him. Tony told Dr. Melfi, “This is gonna sound stupid, but I saw at one point that our mothers are… bus drivers. No, they are the bus. See, they’re the vehicle that gets us here. They drop us off and go on their way. They continue on their journey. And the problem is that we keep tryin’ to get back on the bus, instead of just lettin’ it go.”


While Tony let go of his mother's emotional abuse, she still persisted in his relationships. The women in his life existed on a spectrum between desperate or independent, both to a fault, with his wife in the proverbial sweet spot. In essence, Tony is attracted to aspects of his mother or her polar opposite. On the side of neediness was his Russian girlfriend, Irina, who desperately needed his financial and emotional support, a reality which caused Tony to refer to her many times as the "poor girl." When Tony finally left her, she desperately schemed to see and talk with him, going to the point of even calling his house to ruin his family life. On the side of independence is Dr. Melfi, the attractive, self-sufficient doctor who "wears a business suit." Interestingly, Tony only got to see Dr. Melfi's professional side. He never saw her weaknesses or personal tragedies including her rape and alcoholism. Tony idealized Dr. Melfi and was attracted to her inaccessibility and self-control. She is one of the only women in the series whom he is unable seduce romantically (though he does charm and seduce her interest). He admired her so much that Tony had high hopes that his daughter, Meadow, would be an independent professional woman like her, a lawyer or a pediatrician. Tony's array of other girlfriends fit into one of these characterizations: he dated a professional art dealer and a realtor, both dressed as businesswomen, but also had flings with underlings like strippers and employees. Two of his girlfriends were notable for their inconsistencies. Svetlana, who is both Irina's cousin and Tony's employee, was extremely independent despite her lower position. She worked hard, was mobile despite having one leg, and had emotional stability. And then there's Gloria Trillo, the businesswoman at the Mercedes dealership who rivaled Tony's mother for emotional manipulation and blackmail. With Gloria, Tony rediscovered his mother. After a fight, he told Gloria "I didn't just meet you. I've known you my whole life." In the middle is Carmela, who is, in many ways, perfect for Tony. She is financially dependent on him but is modern enough to not always depend on his emotional support. She took care of her family and made emotional sacrifices for them by ignoring Tony's many infidelities. She managed to be independent and dependent concurrently, a balance which makes her suitable to be a modern Mafia wife. Modern is the key word. Finally, in an episode called "I Dream of Jeanie Cusumano," Tony overdosed on an antipsychotic drug and had hallucinations of an Italian exchange student named Isabella who was staying with his neighbor. She is the perfect old world Italian woman: beautiful, buxom, innocent, and motherly. For Tony, Isabella was a product of nostalgia both for Italy and a better mother figure. Isabella is Tony's perfect woman, but she doesn't exist. In reality, as Dr. Melfi commented, Carmela was his best choice.

The final season of "The Sopranos" polarized audiences because it unravelled the seduction of the entire series and revealed to audiences that they had been conned by a sociopath for five seasons. It essentially strips all the nostalgia and sentimentality away from the series and shows the reality of the Mafia. Fans of the show spent time watching the inner workings of the Mafia intertwined with the family life of the members, a juxtaposition which had a normalizing effects on the events. Additionally, none of the main Mafia characters faced severe consequences for their actions, with the sole exception of Big Pussy. Interestingly, all of the murders and prison sentences were suffered by newly introduced characters, including Richie Aprile, Feech la Manna, Tony Blundetto, Sal Bonpensiero, Ralphie Ciafareto, all of whom die within a season of their original introduction.  In season six, we finally saw the death of main Mafia characters like Silvio Dante and Bobby Baccalieri. Additionally, John Sacrimoni was arrested in the final episode of Season 5, received a sizable jail sentence and asset seizure, and then died of cancer while in jail. Finally, Tony is not only threatened by the excavation of a person he killed earlier in his life, but he developed a significant losing streak in his gambling, a negative change that still does not stop him from chasing high adrenaline wins, a mainstay of the wise guy lifestyle. Tony's risks with gambling, his continued position as boss, and John Sacrimoni's incarceration point to a reality best articulated by Carmela: "You eat, you play, and you pretend there isn't a giant piano hanging by a rope just over the top of your head every minute of every day." That is Tony's true reality.

The first few episodes of the sixth season explored the spiritual and moral aspect of Tony's life. After Tony was shot, he had a coma dream that suggested an identity crisis. Tony was at a business convention and picked up the wrong briefcase, which belonged to a man named Kevin Finnerty. In his dream, Tony was not in the mafia, but was a normal salesman, a job that alluded to a quote Tony said to Dr. Melfi concerning his Mafia background: "In my family, rebelling would have been selling patio furniture." Tony's alter ego noticeably lacked his usual Newark accent. Additionally, he talked to his wife on the phone, a woman who sounded nothing like Carmela. He also had a different personality: patient, law abiding, and faithful---he refused to sleep with a woman he met on the trip. Tony lost his identification and credit card and instead had those of Kevin Finnerty, which he used to get a hotel room. In a later episode, after Tony fell down some stairs, we also discovered that he had early onset Alzheimer's disease and that he will eventually forget who he is. Finally, a group of Buddhist monks insisted that Tony is, in fact, Kevin Finnerty, and that he cheated them on a heating unit and refused  to answer their calls and letters. The monks eventually served him with a lawsuit. At one point, Tony awakened from his coma and whispers, "Who am I? Where am I going?

Tony's case of mistaken identity points to two truths about his life: first, that he was living a double life, one in which he was a violent sociopath and another in which he posed as a normal businessman, father, and husband. Finnerty sold "Precision Optics," an allusion to the fact that Tony's alter ego saw the world more clearly and focused on his family. The worlds collided in the dream and Tony wasforced to ask if he was, in fact, Kevin Finnerty. In reality, Tony was the man who cheated the Buddhist monks, all of whom represent karma and the possibility of arrest Tony faced as he continued his life of crime. The monks asked him to take responsibility or they would continue their lawsuit.  Karma will catch up with Tony if he stayed in his current life. Second, the alter-ego of Kevin Finnerty also represents the life Tony had the choice to live, or perhaps the life he subconsciously wanted to live. Tony is confronted with an identity crisis and a search for his true self which drove the rest of the season. Tony was given the opportunity to change. As the doctor said of his Alzheimer's diagnosis, which represents his identity crisis, "it is not as bleak as it would have been a while back" and that Tony should "talk to his doctors back home," an obvious allusion that he should seek counsel with Dr. Melfi.

When Tony drives to the Inn at the Oaks with the bright beacon, he had two choices. The first choice was a very real one: death or life. Tony could have relinquished his briefcase (leave his physical body) and join the people on the inside and fall into eternity, or he could have moved toward the pleas of his daughter and live. The second choice Tony confronted was whether to move toward his familial history of crime, represented by his family members inside the inn, or toward his biological family, symbolized by Meadow's voice. This choice was foreshadowed in a previous season when Tony tried to convince Little Carmine Luppertazi to become boss of a New York family after John Sacramoni went to jail. Carmine, who usually is comically oblivious, gave Tony the best advice he probably ever received in his life by relaying a dream he had about his father giving him an empty box:

"We have this ritual at my house for years. Our kids are in boarding school. Every night, I come from work strip down, and jump naked in the pool, Nicole brings me a scotch and water. We sit, relax a little, talk, and  then I go up to bed in the air conditioning. She brings me a light dinner on a tray. One night during all that fighting with John, I come home, I'm exhausted, so tired, so tense, I skip the pool, I go right upstairs flop on the bed, Nicole comes up with the drink and she says, "Darling, I think it's time you took a rest." I say '"Yeah I'm gonna. We'll take a vacation." She says "That's not what I what I meant. I don't want to be the wealthiest widow on Long Island. I want you to quit now", I'm not ashamed to say this, but she made me cry---that wonderful, loving woman. That dream with my father with the empty box, it wasn't about being boss, it was about being happy. 

Carmine's story was the epiphany Tony wrestles with after he was shot. In the first section of the sixth season, Tony noticeably improved as a husband and father, showing more loyalty, understanding, and perspective. He lived by the principle that "everyday is a gift" and advised others to live in the same manner. He seemed somewhat receptive to a preacher trying to explain the universe to him in biblical and religious terms, and also considered the quantum theories of a physicist in the next room. In total, Tony seemed determined to change his life and focus on happiness and family.   

This epiphany does not last into the second part of the season when Tony became more violent and put himself and his family at greater risk. In the last few episodes of the final season, we were shown the Mafia lifestyle unveiled without nostalgia----a life of addictive risk, cold pragmatism, rigid traditions, and the personal destruction of nearly everyone involved. Pitting modernity against old world traditions, season six showed the inflexibility that the Mafia has with both homosexuality and addiction. The show explored the plight of Vito Spatafore, a top earner for Tony, who was also described by his own wife as being "a good father." When Vito's secret homosexuality is made public, his life was threatened and he fled to New Hampshire (the "live free or die" state), where he encountered a much more kind, accepting culture. Eventually, as Vito was drawn back into the gangster lifestyle, he returned to New Jersey and was killed. Tony and the family discussed the relative importance and impact of having a "finook" in the crew. While some like Paulie demonstrated an absolute hatred for homosexuality, others, such as Tony and Silvio tried to emphasize Vito's earning power, the recent change in culture, and the fact that Vito "wasn't the first," suggesting that past Mafia men had been highly suspected of being gay but still continued their work. Echoing Tony's newfound view on life after the shooting, he asked, "I had a second chance, why can't he?" Vito's death pointed to the old world, even backward underpinnings of the Mafia that belie the assertion that Cosa Nostra is only concerned with "putting food in the children's mouths." By not conforming to cultural norms, Vito destroyed his own position of power and dishonored both his biological and Mafia family. In the end, a tightly held culture of honor and power ensconced in the past outweighed economic gain. Likewise, Christopher's bout with addiction garnered almost no sympathy from Tony or the rest of the family. Christopher describes Tony as "the worst type of enabler---pours you a drink with one hand and judges you with the other." While other characters insult Christopher for his inability to drink and socialize---Paulie chastised him for not being able to act "normal"---Tony is the hardest on him, expecting Christopher to remain in control, yet party with the crew to keep abreast of business dealings. In the world of the Mafia, one cannot escape doing business surrounded by a lifestyle that encourages instant gratification and excess. 

Despite Tony's disdain for Christopher's battle with addiction, he continually fights his own vice: a penchant for risk. Eventually, his gangster lifestyle overcame his newfound perspective on life. As Tony told Dr. Melfi, "Every day is a gift but does it have to be a pair of socks?" Much like Vito who became bored with a "normal" life in New Hampshire, Tony decompensated and returned to a life based on risking his own life and the lives of both his families. Tony's gambling escalated in the sixth season and even becomes a life philosophy. When talking to Bobby, Tony identified two possible outcomes for himself as a mafia boss: murder or jail. Yet, he followed that realization with "No risk, no reward." Likewise, when talking to Dr. Melfi about his life, Tony said, “If you couldn’t lose, what’s the fucking point? You need the risk." Dr. Melfi then responded “What are you chasing, the money or the high from winning?" More than anything, even money, Tony was attracted to the adrenaline rush provided by risk. Tony eventually replaced his "everyday is a gift" notion with a new understanding of life: "I survived a gunshot wound. What are the odds on that? Big picture wise, I am up, way up.” In the episode, "Kennedy and Heidi," Tony solidified his now philosophical addiction to gambling after he took peyote, entered a casino, and saw life as a large game of chance. As he won at roulette, he also gleefully realized that Christopher's death was a risk that turned in his favor. For Tony, his whole life had been one big risk, and to this point, he reaped mostly rewards. 


Yet, as Tony descended deeper into his view of life as gambling, it continually affected his family and business. In the beginning of the season, Tony vindictively ordered his brother-in-law Bobby to commit his first murder, after hearing that he "never popped his cherry in that department." Earlier in the episode, Tony and Bobby had a physical altercation in which Tony was defeated. As retribution, Tony used his power hedge his own bets and put Bobby at risk. Tony's gambling also affected the Spatafore family, as Tony gambled away the money he was going to give the widowed Marie Spatafore to relocate and help her troubled son, Vito Jr. Furthermore, Tony's continued leadership directly led to the war between Phil Leotardo and North Jersey, which, in turn, led to the death of Bobby Baccalieri, Silvio Dante, and probably Tony himself (as will be explained later). Finally, and most egregiously, Tony's position in the Mafia continually put his nuclear family at risk of violence, both externally and, in the case of A.J., internally. In a subtle reference, when Tony erratically gambled in Las Vegas while on peyote, he continually bet on the numbers 20 and 24, which were the ages of A.J. and Meadow, respectively. In the sixth season, A.J. came to terms with living as Anthony Soprano's spoiled child. As he vacillated between college, minimum wage jobs, and night clubs, he confronted the fact that he has no accomplishments and that everything he had, including his social standing in his group of friends, was totally dependent on his father's infamy. Surrounded by violence and feeling worthless to his family, A.J. attempted to kill his Uncle Junior for his father, jeopardizing his entire future. Later, as he continued to confront the harsh realities of the world, A.J. attempted suicide to escape. 

The most important development in the sixth season was Tony's growing numbness towards his family, and even his own fate, which culminated in the final episode. As discussed, a defining characteristic of Tony Soprano throughout the series is the nostalgia he has for his family, even to a fault. Tony finally lost his affection for Uncle Junior after the latter attempted to kill him a second time. Upon discovering that Christopher was still battling with drug addiction during a car crash, Tony suffocated him and leaves behind the dream that Christopher would be his trusted voice in the family. When Bobby and Silvio died, he expressed little emotion and instead focused on pragmatic considerations. He was practically unseen at Bobby's funeral and did not visit Silvio in the hospital until well after the event. After A.J. attempted suicide, Tony admitted to Dr. Melfi that he was deeply ashamed of his son and how he turned out: weak and feckless. Tony's relationship with Carmela suffered continued strain since their prior separation. While Carmela still showed Tony devotion, their relationship morphed into a business arrangement in which he funded her real estate ventures in return for her turning her eyes from his lifestyle. Tony even expressed disappointment when Meadow announced that she wanted to be a lawyer instead of a doctor, the latter being his dream for her. It is no coincidence that Tony hummed Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb"in a later episode and that the song played on the radio in Christopher's car before Tony killed him. Tony became numb to his previous nostalgia over his family.   

The last scene of the series, which abruptly faded to black unexpectedly, has stirred, even angered fans, who feel that there is no closure to the story. In contrast, one theory persuasively explains the scene as a flash of Tony's life before his death. After Tony entered the diner, he looked at a jukebox with songs that had conspicuous meanings for Tony, particularly on the subjects of nostalgia, depression, lost love, and a life of instant gratification: 

Those Were the Days
Turn, Turn, Turn
Only the Strong Survive
Somewhere in the Night
My Baby Drives a Buick
Who Will You Run To?
Magic Man
Victim of Love
I've Gotta Be Me
A Lonely Place
This Magic Moment
Since I Don't Have You
I'm Alive
June Night
Don't Stop Believin'
Anyway You Want It

The shots also alternated between tables of cub scouts, a romantic couple, and an old man---symbolizing generally different stages of life. The key to understanding the final sequence is to notice how the director used Pavlovian cues with a bell and subsequent point of view (POV) shots. Every time someone walked in the door and rung the bell, Tony looked up and we saw things from his point of view---people entering the diner. The most conspicuous person who entered the diner was a man wearing a tan Member's Only jacket who eventually sat at the bar. The director chose to focus on this man several more times, including when the man got up, passed Tony, and went to the Men's room. In the last few seconds, a bell rang, Tony looked up, and we saw his point of view: darkness, implying that he had been killed. This theory is bolstered by the fact that the man in the jacket went to the Men's room before returning to shoot Tony, which would echo the scene in "The Godfather" in which Michael goes to the Men's room to get a hidden gun before coming out to avenge his father. Additionally, the theory would explain the show's previous emphasis on victims being shot without first seeing the gunman. In an earlier episode, Bobby Baccalieri remarked about murder: "You probably don't even hear it when it happens." An earlier episode in the season depicted Silvio not realizing someone was shot next to him until blood splattered on his face. If one goes with a more generalized interpretation, Tony will be nervously looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life, anticipating jail or murder. The piano hanging over his head will fall for one reason or another.


As a series, The Sopranos examined how one man, among others, balanced life between two different types of families. In the first episode, Tony sought psychiatric help for panic attacks that stemmed from a fear of losing control, particularly over his families, which was symbolized by a family of ducks flying away from his swimming pool. He did not want to lose that nostalgia of Italian family life or of the Mafia. By the end of the series, Tony had almost no panic attacks, as much of his nostalgia and fears of loss faded. Perhaps that's why he was not able to see the gunman in the diner. Ironically, Tony's need for control and his fear of loss was what destroyed both of his families. After the war with New York, a war largely caused by him and his need to protect his cousin, Tony Blundetto, and his daughter, Meadow, his North Jersey family was destroyed with the loss of several people, including himself. The end of the family was foreshadowed by Tony's last conversation with Junior, in which he reminded him that he and his brother, Johnny, ran North Jersey in the past. Tony is disillusioned when Junior does not recall his former kingdom, a reminder that glory fades. If Tony were gunned down, it would have certainly destroyed his own family, who would have witnessed a traumatic act of violence. In any case, whether Tony was killed or will be jailed, he will have destroyed what he built. Fittingly, the tag line for the final season is "Everything comes to an end."

For almost seven years, audiences watched a show that attempted to normalize the lives of gangsters who were previously foreign to them. We never saw Michael Corleone take his daughter to see colleges or Henry Hill deal with a borderline mother. Nor did we see Edward G. Robinson or James Cagney suffer in their subconscious before they killed someone. That normalization was the genius gift of "The Sopranos:" our ability, like Dr. Melfi, to delve into the personal lives and thoughts of these interesting characters. The final season of "The Sopranos" sought to undo any future normalization caused by this voyeurism. All of the Mafia characters, however likable and emphatic, were, in the end, violent sociopaths who deserved no admiration. As in the case of Dr. Melfi, we were confronted with the harsh realties of a world that seduced us and had to accept that we were seeking sensationalism rather than enlightenment. With nostalgia lifted, we were forced to close the door on Tony Soprano just as Dr. Melfi had to. Perhaps that is why the ending was so vexing: it ripped us away too quickly from the instant gratification and nostalgia that Tony and his audiences grew accustomed to. Ah, Tony. Ah, humanity. 

Monday, April 3, 2017

The Lobster




"It’s no coincidence that the targets are always shaped like a single person and not a couple.
  Kill the loner. Shoot him through the heart."

Yorgos Lanthimos' film, "The Lobster" artistically grapples with our current dating environment, one that is largely dependent on internet sites and phone applications like match.com, Tinder, Bumble, eHarmony, and OkCupid. Armed with technology, single people have infinite choices and possibilities. "The Lobster" presents an allegory to explore the consequences and realities created by our new tools of romance. Singles are sent to a hotel in which they must find a mate within 45 days or they are turned into an animal of their choosing. This setting provides a springboard for several key questions:  How do people initially meet? How do they get to know each other? What attributes do they seek? What constitutes a good match? Why do they stay together? How does society place pressure on companionship? The film sets up a stark dichotomy between relationships and being single and how each group creates a system of rules to propagate itself against the other. Those in relationships and those who remain single look at each other with both envy and disdain. Set in the near future and vaguely reminiscent of our times, "The Lobster" not only makes audiences ponder the whole purpose and artificial construct of relationships, but it also warns how efficient matchmaking algorithms can obsess over the practicality and desperation of companionship rather than the unique and random circumstances that create true love between two distinct people. 

The society created by the film is one in which relationships are not only encouraged, but mandated. To enforce this edict, newly single people are sent to a hotel that operates under a very strict set of draconian rules that govern and encourage courtship while punishing single life. Single people cannot play team sports like basketball, for example, but are allowed to play solitary ones like racquetball and golf. Guests are not allowed to masturbate, a rule enforced by tying one of the guest's hands behind their back and having their belt locked. Having only one free hand also makes for a good metaphor concerning the difficulties of being alone. When discovered, masturbation is punished with physical pain---in one scene, a man was punished by having his hand forced inside a hot toaster. The sexual frustration of male guests are compounded by hotel maids who give lap dances to them without allowing climax, again demonstrating the necessity of having a sexual partner. Weirdly, the hotel staff performs parable skits in which relationships are glorified by showing how companionship can prevent a man from choking and a woman from being raped. When people do pair together, they are given special privileges at the resort such as living on a yacht for a time before returning to society.

The most noticeable attributes of the world created by the film is its absolute practicality, directness, superficiality, and total lack of nuance. This is a social world painted in black and white with no toleration of gray areas. A great example is one of the first exchanges that the main character, David, has with the hotel. In his introductory meeting, the interviewer asks him whether he wants to be considered homosexual or heterosexual. Recalling a brief homosexual event in his past, David asks if he can register as bisexual. The staffer answers, "No sir, this option is no longer available since last summer due to several operational problems. I'm afraid you have yo decide right now if you want to be registered as homosexual or heterosexual." Bisexuality opens the floodgates of relationship possibilities and temptations, things that this society seeks to control. In another example, the hotel provides clothes for the guests but regretfully explains that they don't allow half sizes for shoes; only full sizes. The cadence and content of verbal interaction is also very direct. Although the guests can manipulate others when necessary through deception, their interactions lack social grace and even empathy. Hurt feelings are not a priority.

To make new matches, the hotel encourages people to identify one defining characteristic of themselves and then to find that same trait in another person. Consequently, besides David, all of the other characters in the film are named by their defining characteristic: limping man, shortsighted girl, biscuit girl, coldhearted woman, lisping man, nosebleed woman, and woman with a nice smile. Each person has only one defining trait for which they can be matched. Attraction and pairing based on a single trait brings to mind our current world of dating, particularly internet dating. On dating sites, users are paired according to preformed lists of preferences. They are deemed to be compatible based on their shared affinity for general interests in books, films, exercising, sports, coffee, traveling, pets, etc. For Tinder, the attributes are even simpler: do you find each other physically attractive? There are even dating sites based on even narrower attributes: income level, religious beliefs, and whether or not you are a farmer. Sites like eHarmony claim to find deeper connections by asking questions about values and habits, but it still uses an algorithm to sort matches. Additionally, again emphasizing the cookie cutter method of matching, the guests at the hotel in the film attend a dance in which the males and females all dress the same according to their gender, feeding the illusion that people are distinct despite the fact that they are presented in the exact same way. Likewise, internet dating provides users with independent and creative people presented in the same format: picture, profile, list of preferences, interests, and spirituality. Admittedly, superficiality may be necessary in the beginning to spark interest, but multiple dates and time spent together are crucial to assess long term compatibility. The difference in the film is that people pair for life (or as long as possible) based on an initial commonality. The world in "The Lobster" forces audiences to ponder the seduction and easy nature of internet dating. Users have an almost infinite stream of matches based on superficial traits, a fact that makes commitment less appealing. The film presents a hyper reality in which all relationships, even long term ones, are formed by the frivolous commonalities used by internet dating sites. Could we be heading toward a world in which a swipe right is a binding marriage proposal?


Tellingly, some of the defining qualities actually have deeper meanings, which unfortunately still take a back seat to the superficial quality itself. At one of the hotel events, limping man tells a story of his defining characteristic:

"Hello everyone. My mother was left on her own when my father fell in love with a woman who was better at math than she was. She had a post graduate degree I think, where as my mother was only a graduate. I was nineteen at the time. My mother entered the hotel, but didn't make it and was turned into a wolf. I really missed her. I found out she had been moved to a zoo. I often went there to see her. I'd give her raw meat. I knew that wolves liked raw meat, but I couldn't figure out which of the wolves was my mother so I used to give a little bit to each of them. One day I decided to enter the enclosure. I really missed her and I wanted a hug. I climbed the fence and jumped in. All the wolves charged at once and attacked me; all but two who stood motionless. My guess is that one of those two must have been my mother. The zoo guards got to me quite quickly and took me to the hospital. Thankfully I didn't lose my leg. I just have this limp, which is also my defining characteristic. My wife died six days ago. She was very beautiful and I loved her very much. She had a limp too."
   
For those in the hotel, this harrowing story behind the limp is not nearly as important as the limp itself. In reality, limping man has depth that is totally overlooked by others and even himself. Why isn't his defining characteristic the loss of his mother or wife, or his great love for both of them? Also, it's worth noting that limping man still loves his mother despite the fact that she became a wolf, a fact that demonstrates the important relationship characteristic of loyalty. In this world, familial relationships are based on loyalty and deeper love while romantic ones remain on the surface. Likewise, David's attachment to his brother, who is now a dog, is very close, even though they are different species. Finally, near the end of the film, when shortsighted woman is blinded to end her connection with David, that trait alone is enough for him to question his love for her. Despite the fact that they fell in love outside the typical framework of the hotel and have many personal connections, her blindness is practically a deal breaker. David desperately tries to find another overt trait or interest to bind them but to no avail. Despite his love, David is still influenced by social norms to seek one trait, so much so, that he considers blinding himself at the end of the film to create a new common trait. It seems that love can only be real if the couple can point to something socially obvious that binds them. 

One of the issues with matching people based on superficial traits is that they can easily fake common traits to get into a relationship. Limping man desires to pair with nosebleed woman and, thus, fakes nosebleeds by hitting his head on a table and even cutting the inside of his nose. He is successful and forms a relationship based on a lie. When David discovers limping man's ruse, the latter asks, "What’s worse, to die of cold and hunger in the woods, to become an animal that will be killed and eaten by some bigger animal, or to have a nosebleed from time to time?" Even further, the biscuit woman desperately offers men physical gratification. She asks David at one point, "Can I come to your room sometime for a chat? I could give you a blowjob. Or you could just fuck me. I always swallow after fellatio and I've got absolutely no problem with anal sex if that's your thing. My ex-husband always used to say I had the most beautiful thighs he'd ever seen, but let's not talk about him." In a way, her direct offer is also a way of finding out if they have something in common. Do they both share an affinity for certain sexual acts? Still, it seems that biscuit woman, who ends up killing herself later, is desperately trying to ensnare a man with anything she can offer. Essentially, this tactic is a form of desperate lying---she'll pretend to like anal sex as long as it gets her a man. Finally, David decides that he is going to pursue coldhearted woman because he likes her short hair and believes he can easily manipulate her by acting coldly. In a series of darkly humorous events, David feigns sociopathic behavior to impress her. When biscuit woman jumps from a window and slowly dies, David disingenuously says to the coldhearted woman: "I hope she dies right away. On second thought, I hope she suffers quite a bit before she dies. I just hope her pathetic screams can’t be heard from my room because I’m thinking about having a lie down and I need peace and quiet. I was playing golf and I’m quite tired and the last thing I need is a women dying slowly and loudly." The woman then tests David's alleged heartlessness by pretending to choke on an olive. David watches her choke and does nothing, prompting the woman to say "I think we are a match." Finally, when David and his evil mate meet limping man, his wife, and their new daughter, he refuses a kiss from the child saying, "The last thing I want right now is a kiss from a silly little girl." He then knees the girl in the stomach and says, "Don’t cry, Elizabeth. You should thank me, now you’ll have a limp and be more like your father." Eventually, David's lie is unmasked when coldhearted woman kills David's brother in the form of a dog, prompting David to show emotion. As the narrator reflects, "One day, as he was playing golf, David thought that it is more difficult to pretend that you do have feelings when you don't than to pretend you don't have feelings when you do."

The hotel seems to know that lying about traits is a problem and, thus, creates punishments to regulate couples. If a person lies about their trait, they are reprimanded and turned into an animal that "no one wants to be," the details of which are left to one's imagination. After limping man and nosebleed woman match, the manager explains another method by which teetering relationships can be helped: "Congratulations! If you encounter any problems, any tensions, any arguing, that you cannot resolve yourselves, you will be assigned children. That usually helps, a lot." Thus, there is recognition that the hotel's mechanism of matching people has flaws that are both human and intrinsic to the system. People can lie when first meeting. Even more devastating, couples will eventually face deep differences, perhaps irreconcilable, once the superficial connections wear off. 

When guests arrive at the hotel, they are told that they must find a mate in 45 days or they will be turned into an animal of their choosing. The mechanism by which this happens is unclear and is only subject to rumor in the film. While the initial thought is that this transition is a punishment or a downgrade of existence, it is more complicated. Near the beginning of the film, the hotel manger explains to David:
"Now the fact that you will turn into an animal if you fail to fall in love with someone during your stay here is not something that should upset you or get you down. Just think, as an animal you'll have a second chance to find a companion. But, even then, you must be careful; you need to choose a companion that is a similar type of animal to you. A wolf and a penguin could never live together, nor could a camel and a hippopotamus. That would be absurd."

Does that not sound like better philosophy for matching people than what is propagated by the  hotel? It seems better to match as an animal than as a desperate human being. A wolf and penguin cannot live together because they are fundamentally different at their core despite any small common traits they share like eating fish or living in groups. This advice would have been useful for David who tried to pair himself with coldhearted woman, a sociopath with a different nature. In a way, turning into an animal may help singles realize their true nature so they can mate accordingly. To illustrate: the website for the film featured some of the animals one could choose to become. David chooses a lobster citing that,"lobsters live for over one hundred years, are blue-blooded like aristocrats, and stay fertile all their lives. I also like the sea very much." To that, the manager replies, "I must congratulate you. Usually the first thing people think of is a dog and that’s why the world is full of dogs. Very few choose to become unusual animals, which is why they are endangered. A lobster is an excellent choice." That short explanation says infinitely more about David than his nearsightedness, which paired him with his ex-wife. Is becoming an animal then a journey of positive self-discovery? How much will we change or hide our nature just to match with someone? Perhaps becoming an "animal" is growing past the idea that true love is based on the superficialities coveted by much of the dating world. For internet dating, perhaps this means reading a person's profile or talking on the phone as opposed to staring at pictures or interests. Still, it's worth noting that the punishment for lying about a match is being transformed into "the animal no one wants to be," a vague statement that allows the beholder to ponder over the worst existence. Like David, our choice of animal, whether it be the best or worst, can reveal much about our personality. 






One aspect of the film that is left largely unexplained is the relationship between those who have been turned into animals and those who remain human. We know that David's brother was turned into a dog, an animal who is described as "loyal and codependent," which would explain why both travel together. In another scene, the hotel maid lies to a colleague about hunting truffles so she can enter the woods and give supplies to the loners. While she is waiting, she seems to have a connection to a nearby peacock. Is this a lost love? There are many other questions surrounding the maid including why she helped David hide the body of coldhearted woman after he shot her with a tranquilizer dart and why she helps the loners obtain supplies. She alludes to the fact that she is married to a dentist and is tremendously unhappy, a possible reason that she has empathy for the loners. Finally, in the first scene of the film, a woman drives her car into a field with two donkeys and shoots one of them dead. The donkeys were a couple, as evidenced by the other running with concern over to the victim. What can we assume about the relationship between this woman and the donkey? Are one of the donkeys an old love that found a new partner and the woman became jealous? Was the donkey coldhearted woman who killed David's brother? We don't know, which may be the point. Unlike the obvious superficial traits that bind many others, we are not able to see the deeper connections between people and animals. 

The single woman who killed the donkey with a mate speaks to the other main theme of the film, which is the underlying mixture of envy and hatred between the loner community and those who desire relationships. After David escapes from the hotel, he comes upon a community of loners in the forest who do not wish to live in a relationship-obsessed society. Not only does normal society police those who are not paired (as seen when David is questioned while waiting alone at a mall), the hotel, itself, increases the desire for relationships by forcing guests to hunt and kill loners found in the woods. Just as the governing social structure has a set of rules governing relationships, the loners do as well. The lead loner explains to David: "By the way, any romantic or sexual relations between loners are not permitted and any such acts are punished. Is that clear?" The loners are to avoid romance and lust and are prohibited from engaging in activities that would create such feelings. In a humorous example, the loners can only dance alone to electronic music, which encourages enjoyable movements without emotions. Breaking these rules is punished by a list of brutal measures. As a loner explains: "Some punishments are worse than other punishments. Having your thumb cut is worse than having your head shaved. And having a hot boiled egg under your armpit is worse than having your leg kicked. The punishment I am afraid of isn't the Red Kiss but another one, that is called the Red Intercourse." There are benefits and pitfalls to the systems encouraging relationship and single life, but both are maintained by rules and held together by animosity toward the other. 


Although the loner world still has rules, the overall individualism allows for more nuance and subtlety, a stark difference to the directness and unequivocal world of typical society. For one, rules cannot be enforced as efficiently when less people are around. David and shortsighted woman gradually become friends and form a relationship without the mandate that they must pair up. Eventually, their connection grows past any superficial interests or traits and becomes true love. They create their own world outside any other. As shortsighted woman explains, she and David develop a language to secretly express themselves:    

"We developed a code so that we can communicate with each other even in front of the others without them knowing what we are saying. When we turn our heads to the left it means "I love you more than anything in the world" and when we turn our heads to the right it means "watch out, we're in danger". We had to be very careful in the beginning not to mix up "I love you more than anything in the world" with "watch out, we're in danger". When we raise our left arm it means "I want to dance in your arms", when we make a fist and put it behind our backs it means "let's fuck". The code grew and grew as time went by and within a few weeks we could talk about almost anything without even opening our mouths."

Their relationship goes beyond mere language and includes kind gestures. Two examples: shortsighted woman incapacitates the lisping man who discovered David in the forest which prevents him from getting shot and David hunting for rabbits (her favorite food) for shortsighted woman. They begin to imagine their lives together as evidenced by David's words: "Even if it was just the two of us, on our own, we’d go on trips, we’d go to Portofino in Italy or to a Greek island for the summer and so our relationship would be as intense as it was at the start. I love her so much I could die for her. That’s how much I love her," and also by shortsighted woman's words: "And we’ll do lots of different things together, serious things not silly ones, like go for walks in the park or play the guitar together.” In another context, like in the hotel, these words would mean nothing---just rhetoric supporting the superficial match. Because they found each other with no official mandate declaring that they must be together, those words take a true, heartfelt meaning. It is within the loner world and its freedom from expectation that two people truly fall in love. 

Why do the loners choose to be single in the forest? For David, his choice was contingent on his running away from the consequences of lying to the coldhearted woman and then changing her into an animal. For others, it seems like they either desire an independent life or were unable to find a mate before their 45 days were up and did not desire to become an animal. Given that rules are needed to prevent romantic entanglements, we can assume that only some, if any, desire to be completely alone. The intrigue surrounding the loner leader best exemplifies that the chronically single are envious and hateful of those who find relationships. The leader enforces the harsh rules against the group, has members dig graves for themselves as a reminder that they are going to their graves alone, provides paramilitary training to defend the group, obtains back-channel supplies from the hotel maid, and periodically sneaks into regular society to visit her parents and procure other supplies.

Not only does the leader hate relationships, she actively sabotages them. In fact, the loners even go on missions on the behest of the leader to expose the phony relationships encouraged by the hotel. David breaks onto a yacht and uncovers the fact that the limping man is faking his nosebleeds to the horror of his new wife and child. In a much more dramatic manner, the loner leader questions a couple if they really love each other and lets them choose who will use a gun to kill the other. When the husband says that he is stronger and could live more easily without a wife, he fires a gun only to find that it wasn't loaded. Relationship destroyed. In another example, on a trip to the city, David and shortsighted girl begin showing affection to each other when visiting the leader's parents. Take note that it is romantic, Spanish flamenco music played by actual people that stirs up the frenzy as opposed to electronic music. When it becomes clear that David and shortsighted woman are not simply acting, but genuinely in love, the leader gives a look of intense disdain and breaks up the affection. Later, the leader finds a notebook detailing their romance and ends their connection by blinding shortsighted woman at a doctor's office. It is crucial that the leader does not simply correct shortsighted woman's ocular irregularity through the proposed laser surgery, which would have ruined her common attribute with David; she instead totally blinds her, suggesting that the action was a cruel punishment rather than a practicality. But why was shortsighted woman the one who was punished and not David? The leader does not necessarily care about the independence of others as much as she does herself. She wants to maintain the loner world to help her cope with her own isolation. Of all the loners, she is the only one to visit her parents, as if she has something to prove. She presents herself as working for the "best company" and having a plethora of married friends. Ironically, like the people in the hotel, she desperately tries to prove that she lives a normal life outlined by society. While her reason for being single is not revealed, the trips to her parents' house are intended to demonstrate  that the leader is normal and successful.

The end of the film provides an uncomfortable choice for David and for the audience. Wanting to find a common trait with shortsighted girl again, David gets a steak knife and goes into a bathroom to blind himself. Although both are clearly in love, they are still confined by social norms demanding the presence of an overt common trait for them to be together. The film ends on shortsighted woman waiting uncomfortably for David to reemerge before ending abruptly. While there is no definite answer to what happened, we can deduce three possibilities. Ingeniously, each viewer can choose an ending based on their own personality and view of the world. For the romantic, David cuts out his eyes and blinds himself to be remain with his new love. For the coldly rational, David simply leaves the bathroom and runs away, leaving shortsighted girl in the dust. For the pragmatic, David comes back and lies about blinding himself so that his partner thinks they now have a common trait. He would still have the knowledge, however, that they do not actually have blindness in common. Could David cope with that? A possible clue could be the fact that the narrator is shortsighted woman. Why is she telling this story? And why did she stop at the most crucial and romantic part if this were a love story? Perhaps the title of the film, "The Lobster" can provide a clue. If David is. in fact, the lobster in the title, could it be that he runs away and is eventually turned into his animal? Again, the answer depends on the perspective and traits of the viewer.


"The Lobster" challenges us to see the artificial construction and social pressure inherent in relationships. It also shows us the ongoing battle between the single and dating world for converts. In a way, longing and compromise are the only absolutes. Single people enjoy their independence but ironically are pressured by society to be in relationships. Those in relationships have their companionship and social capital, but they secretly desire independence. The key lesson is that people need to grow beyond superficial attraction and artificial relationship expectations to find out who they are and what they want. By becoming "animals" cognizant of our fundamental nature, we can overcome the need for deception, see our own true selves, and search for the same in others. Those relationships will outlast the shallow ones propped up by social pressure, materialism, children, and unimportant hobbies. Internet sites and apps may tantalize us with the generalized superficial qualities of users, but it takes the longer courtship process to discover who people really are. In the end, we cannot make falling in love more efficient because that defeats the entire purpose. 

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

A Clockwork Orange


"A Clockwork Orange warns against the new psychedelic fascism -- the eye-popping, multimedia, quadrasonic, drug-orienting conditioning of human beings by other beings -- which many believe will usher in the forfeiture of human citizenship and the beginning of zombiedom."  -Stanley Kubrick

Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" is the most controversial film ever made. In the year of its release, it caused so much copycat mayhem from its stylized depictions of dystopian violence, sexual assault, and human conditioning in the name of social order, that Kubrick personally pulled the film from circulation, an unprecedented action for a filmmaker even to this day. It was banned in many countries, particularly Britain, until the 1990's, a sign that its impact was far-reaching and continually relevant. Yet, despite its infamous reputation, "A Clockwork Orange" is still a profoundly misunderstood work, one that has a meaning diametrically opposed to its unfortunate misinterpretations that caused real violence and critical scorn. The film does not glorify violence; it dissects brutality by examining it from the eyes of the evil beholder. Furthermore, Kubrick finds forms of brutality at the center of human nature, political structure, and "high culture." Whether a society embraces a conservative or liberal social structure, it cannot escape the intrinsic brutality that underlies civilization and its correlative methods of forced assimilation. Violence can stem from both radical liberalism, which values unfettered freedom of expression which leads to a totalitarianism of impulses, and radical conservatism, which values total social control by the state. The ultimate irony is that in human civilization, the social cure for brutality seems to be more brutality. In the case of the film's main character, Alex Delarge, the ultimate act of conservative brutality is the removal of individual moral choice in the name of curbing undesirable social actions.  

"A Clockwork Orange" has one of the best, if not the best, opening scene of any film. It is poetic, visually arresting, and sets the themes for the entire movie. We are introduced to Alex Delarge, one of cinema's first antiheroes, intensely and confidently gazing at the audience, teeming with impulses and barely containing his delightful thoughts of drug-induced "ultra violence." As the camera moves backward, we see that Alex is in a "milkbar" surrounded by similarly dressed gang members, other customers wearing various outfits, and bouncers standing near the entrance. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the bar is the presence of tables and milk dispensers shaped like naked, submissive women. The bar acts as a microcosm of society and its social and political underpinnings. As we will see, Alex and his droogs represent unchecked brutality and sit atop a pyramidal visual structure in the scene. This pyramid formation shows the factions on the political spectrum. They sit across from each other in opposition as they vie for their visions of society. With brutality at the apex, hippies sit on the left and Nazis on the right. Additionally, at the bottom of the formation, two bouncers of different races stand in opposition, whites on the right and blacks on the left. Finally, caught in the middle of these warring groups are women, who exist as inert sexual objects and milk dispensers. With Alex staring at the audience and we staring at Alex, the scene acts as a mirror in which we can see the true foundation of society: radical political ideologies of power and control that cause perpetual social violence. Throughout the film, Alex will be the leader of and pass through several hierarchies, eventually becoming a pawn in a societal battle for a governing ideology.


The physical and cultural setting of "A Clockwork Orange" is crucial to understanding its main themes. The film takes place in the "near future" and seems to have fallen into decay. Alex walks through littered streets and buildings that have been laid to squalor. Garbage is strewn in the streets. Doors are ineffective. Elevators are not operational. Buildings are graffitied. In general, public space is desolate and dangerous. It is also a degenerate world in which gangs are free to roam and wreak havoc. The first few scenes of the film depict Alex and his droogs assaulting other gang members, beating a homeless man for being old, joyriding in a stolen car, and entering homes in order to pillage and sexually assault unwitting victims.


What kind of society produces these deplorable conditions and high rates of violent crime? The answer, which can be gleaned from the physical surroundings and artistic culture within the film, is surprisingly a liberal society in which freedom of expression seems to have no limit---an uber version of the counterculture movement in the 1960's. Throughout the movie, we are shown people who adorn themselves and their homes with loud, hyper-stylish accoutrements. Young people in gangs wear costumes with accessories including fake eyelashes, cod pieces, and bowler hats. Likewise, even some older people like Alex's parents and the droog's victims wear bright wigs and live in homes with modern, flashy decor. In the opening scene, the milkbar is very colorful, chic, and overdone. Alex tells us that he and his friends are drinking "milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom," a signal that drugs have been legalized in this society. Finally, the background is full of hypersexual artwork like graffiti, ceramics, and even furniture that depict sexual organs. A clear example is that tables and milk dispensers shaped like naked women in the milkbar. Additionally, Alex's room is filled with sexual imagery including a poster of a nude woman and a snake, which acts as a convenient phallic symbol when it approaches the poster. Alex's last victim, the cat lady (a women in a house surrounded by cats, which is itself sexually suggestive in its symbolism), has a house adorned with many pieces of sexual art, including erotic paintings like a ceramic in the shape of a penis. Finally, on the walls of Alex's apartment building, vandals drew penises on a wall containing nude paintings of men. Thus, judging from the liberal culture depicted in the film, it is the increased freedom of expression that has lead to society's moral and physical decay.




An interesting juxtaposition in the film is the pairing of brutality and hypersexuality with the high art of a decadent liberal society. In Kubrick's view, as in "2001: A Space Odyssey," both civilization and barbarism can coexist, even foster one another. When Alex and his droogs fight a rival gang led by Billy Boy, the brawl is set to classical music, Rossini's "The Thieving Magpie," and becomes a cartoonish display, almost like an artistic performance. At the milkbar, when Dim, one of the droogs, rudely interrupts a woman elegantly singing Beethoven's "Ode to Joy," Alex hits him with his cane and raises a drink to the woman, showing deference and respect to high art. For Alex, Beethoven's music, particularly the ninth symphony, is both violent and sexual, a reflection of his impulses. It is fitting that Alex loves Beethoven because the composer's music is a reflection of his own anger and frustration at his progressing deafness. Moreover, German composers like Beethoven and Wagner were a favorite of the Nazis, who played both at state affairs like Hitler's birthday and even in concentration camps. Alex explicitly describes the ninth symphony in sexual and violent terms: "Oh bliss! Bliss and heaven! Oh, it was gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh. It was like a bird of rarest-spun heaven metal or like silvery wine flowing in a spaceship, gravity all nonsense now. As I slooshied, I knew such lovely pictures!" As Alex listens to the ninth symphony, a montage of images involving violence, Jesus's crucifixion, and explosions are shown along with Alex dawning bloody fangs. Likewise, in a later scene, we see Alex having a menage-a-trois with two women to an accelerated version of the William Tell Overture, again mixing art and pleasure.


In the more graphic examples, Alex breaks into a house with his droogs and rapes a woman in front of her husband while performing an exuberant rendition of "Singing in the Rain." Later, when Alex breaks into the cat lady's house, he exhibits a rush during the crime and frolics to classical music before he bludgeons the woman to death with a giant ceramic penis. It is worth noting that the cat lady defends herself with a bust of Beethoven, creating a battle involving all of Alex's favorite pleasures: violence, sex, and art. Finally, during the Ludivico treatment, Alex is shown violent films and sees the barbarity and sees them as beautiful. He exclaims,"The sounds were real horrorshow. You could slooshy the screams and moans very realistic, and you could even get the heavy breathing and panting of the tolchocking malchicks at the same time. And then, what do you know, soon our dear old friend, the red, red vino on tap, the same in all places like it's put out by the same big firm, began to flow. It was beautiful. It's funny how the colours of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen." For Alex, violence, sex, and art are all intertwined because they represent unbridled pleasure and pure artistic beauty.


It is a liberal society with few limits on expression and pleasure that increases crime and disorder, a society in which someone like Alex thrives. The distractions and consequences created by liberalism's freedoms and subsequent opulence undermine a society's ability to control its populace. As the old transient tells Alex before he is beaten mercilessly by the gang: "It's a stinking world because there's no law and order anymore...What sort of a world is it at all? Men on the moon, and men spinning around the earth, and there's not no attention paid to earthly law and order no more."Alex's life of almost total freedom will be contrasted later when he enters the penal system for reformation and imprisonment arising from the Ludivico treatment. As Kubrick demonstrates later in the film, it is a decadent liberal society that gives rise to totalitarian solutions.  

One of the main conundrums in "A Clockwork Orange" is how to keep society safe from a sociopath like Alex. How do you even understand the depth of his evil tendencies? Where do his impulses come from and why can't he control them? When Alex feigns sickness to avoid school, a correctional officer visits him and asks this very question:"We studied the problem. We've been studying it for damn well near a century, yes, but we get no further with our studies. You got a good home here. Good, loving parents. You've got not too bad of a brain. Is it some devil that crawls inside of you?" In the film, Kubrick dissects Alex's penchant for evil and forces the audience to see the world from his perspective. In fact, the entire movie is from Alex's point of view as the "humble narrator." We see Alex's exhilaration of perverted sex, theft, violence, sexual assault, and dominance. Thanks to his charm and talents for manipulation, Alex is a likable character. Although he commits atrocities, he does so with great elegance and finesse, making them high art. During the infamous scene in which Alex and the droogs terrorize a couple by beating a man and raping his wife in their home, we can see the experience through Alex's eyes. The horror is juxtaposed with giddiness and dancing (hence, "Singing in the Rain"), a combination that creates a sublime balance of revulsion and beauty. For Alex, his assault becomes daring high art in a society that obsesses about free expression. Not only does this scene help the audience see the world as Alex does, it manipulates their emotions by making them feel guilty for sharing Alex's perverted view. Could there possibly be a little bit of Alex in all of us? Much of "A Clockwork Orange's" controversy came from commentators who accused the movie of stylizing, even glorifying violence. This view, however, misses the above intention to dissect Alex from his perspective and to demonstrate the Alex lurking within the audience.


The question of how to protect society from people like Alex reveals hierarchies within society and the brutality needed to maintain them. In the film, we are shown hierarchies on a small scale like Alex's dominion over his droogs and then the larger hierarchies that underlie the power of the state over its citizens. As the movie progresses, we see hierarchies which differ in size, sophistication, and language (Alex and his compatriots talk in a fictional dialect called "Nadstat") but they all share brutality as a method of control. Additionally, there is a competition in the film between the violence in youth culture and the violence systematized by the older generation who run the state and seek to protect the older population. When Alex approaches a drunken old man living on the street, he asserts, "One thing I could never stand was to see a filthy, dirty old drunkie, howling away at the filthy songs of his fathers and going blurp blurp in between as it might be a filthy old orchestra in his stinking, rotten guts. I could never stand to see anyone like that, whatever his age might be, but more especially when he was real old like this one was." When the elderly man is asked about the current state of the world, he replies, "It's a stinking world because it lets the young get on to the old, like you done. Oh, it's no world for an old man any longer." Later in the film, when Alex is "cured" by the state and is attacked by several old homeless people (including the very same transient that he assaulted earlier), he says "It was old age having a go at youth, and I daren't do a single, solitary thing, O my brothers, it being better to be hit at like that than want to sick and feel that horrible pain." Alex understood that the tables had turned and was unable to resist his reckoning with the older generation. Within Alex's hierarchy, he and his droogs beat the old man because they had power, particularly in numbers. Alex, who is representative of the youth culture, was incarcerated and cured, only to find himself under the power of the older generation and establishment hierarchy. Additionally, it is worth noting that Alex's youthful aggression is punished by the state with "sanctioned" methods of conditioning and violence, while the heinous crimes against Alex perpetrated by the state go unpunished except by a dip in public opinion. Thus, one could argue that Alex's assault on older people is a way of balancing the unchecked aggression of the state on its citizens. In the end, despite the alleged differences, both hierarchies of the young and old utilize the same violent methods of control.


The film opens on Alex's territory and power structure. He is the clear leader of his droogs. They battle with other gangs for power and take what they want by force, whether it be material objects like cars and jewelry or sexual dominance (as in the rape scene). As Alex explains when his droogs later challenge him: "Haven't you everything you need. If you need a motor-car, you pluck it from the trees. If you need pretty polly, you take it." Notice the dehumanizing pronoun "it" that he gives a woman. The full expression of Alex's personality and his gang hierarchy is to follow base impulses. Throughout the film, Alex shows his dominance and preserves his hierarchy with pure violence or violence with sexual overtones. In the first example, taking advantage of his greater numbers (a boon that will be reversed later), Alex and his droogs beat up a homeless man. Afterwards, Alex and company interrupt a rival gang while they are attempting to rape a young girl. Alex taunted the gang's leader, Billy Boy, by questioning his masculinity and power. Alex says, "Ho, ho, ho! Well, if it isn't fat stinking billy goat Billy Boy in poison! How art thou, thou globby bottle of cheap, stinking chip oil? Come and get one in the yarbles, if ya have any yarbles, you eunuch jelly thou!"Alex and his droogs then fight the rival gang and, as we learn later, put their competitors in the hospital. Soon after, they steal a sports car and drive erratically, dominantly running others off the road. The gang drives to a private home and again uses their numbers to overwhelm the couple inside. When the group returns to the milkbar, Alex chastises Dim by hitting him with a cane after he rudely interrupted a woman singing Beethoven's ninth symphony. When Dim protested, Alex answers, "For being a bastard with no manners, and not a dook of an idea how to comport yourself public-wise, O my brother." Again, while Alex has his barbarous tendencies, he balances that with an appreciation of high art. He essentially uses violence to preserve  his "civilization" and way of life. He follows up his rebuke of Dim by adding,"Watch that... Do watch that, O Dim, if to continue to be on live thou dost wish." Finally, Alex's dominion can also be seen as he saunters around a local record store, surveying his territory dressed in elegant regal attire. The camera moves out of Alex's way as he walks forward, as if respecting his authority. The music in the background is Beethoven's ninth symphony remade using a moog synthesizer and further adds to Alex's kingly presence. He confidently approaches two women, both of whom are suggestively licking a lollipop, and talks them into a manage-a-trois. Alex does not deny any of his impulses and he wants to keep it that way.


Alex's most significant demonstration of power comes when the rest of the group rebels from Alex's authority and tries to instill "a new way." The droogs approach Alex in his building and air their grievances to him, which include Alex constantly chastizing Dim, the desire to commit crimes with higher monetary pay outs, and accusations that Alex "thinks and acts "like a child." In effect, the droogs differ with Alex on his whole hierarchical philosophy, preferring a democracy to run their group rather than an authoritarian at the top. Moreover, they are more interested in long term monetary benefits than Alex's impulsive delights. Alex answers his droogs with his philosophy of instant gratification: "And what will you do with the big, big, money? Have you not everything you need? If you need a motor-car, you pluck it from the trees. If you need pretty Polly, you take it." For Alex, the pleasure is the crime and mayhem itself and not the monetary benefits.

Alex temporarily goes along with the "new way," but quickly reasserts his power by using violence against his droogs. As the group walks menacingly by a marina, Alex explains to the audience, "As we walked along the flatblock marina, I was calm on the outside, but thinking all the time. So now it was to be Georgie the general, saying what we should do and what not to do, and Dim as his mindless greeding bulldog. But suddenly I viddied that thinking was for the gloopy ones and that the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends. For now it was lovely music that came to my aid. There was a window open with the stereo on and I viddied right at once what to do." Suddenly, Alex assaults his fellow droogs by hitting them with his cane, throwing them in the marina, and causing pain with a knife. Alex's violence restored his power. His followers fall back into line in a very uncomfortable scene in which Alex thinks to himself: "Now they knew who was Master and Leader. Sheep, thought I, but a real leader knows always when like to give and show generous to his unders." Alex follows his thoughts with a question to his droogs: "Well, now we're back to where we were. Yes? Just like before and all forgotten? Right, right, right." As we find out, the droogs continue their mutiny by sabotaging Alex at the cat lady's house by breaking a milk bottle over his head during their escape, causing Alex to get caught at the scene.


When Alex is caught by the police, he enters the more sophisticated hierarchy of state power. Previously, he had been under supervision of the school system and the corrective officer who visited his home when he feigned illness. This supervision was light and ineffective as Alex easily committed crimes without facing consequences. Alex's supervisor, who is clearly frustrated at his inability to control the teenager warns him that his next stop would be jail: "If you've no respect for your horrible self, you at least might have some for me whose sweated over you. A big black mark I tell you for every one we don't reclaim. A confession of failure for every one of you who ends up in the stripy hole." While at Alex's home, the corrective officer identifies himself to Alex as "the one man in this sore and sick community who wants to save you from yourself." As he says those words, the officer forcibly grabs Alex's genitals as if he is pretending to castrate him. Later, when Alex is in custody, the corrective officer visits Alex and seems gleeful that he will be incarcerated and move up the correctional hierarchy into the criminal justice system. He says, "Well, it's happened, Alex boy, yes. Just as I thought it would, yes. Dear, dear, dear. Well, this is the end of the line for me... the end of the line, yes." After informing Alex that his victim had died, the correctiion officer hands him over to the next level in the chain and spits in Alex's face with contempt.

Alex enters a new level of state hierarchy, one in which the control and level of violence has increased. Even during his interrogation, Alex is assaulted by the inspectors when he resists control. Additionally, later in the film, Alex is beaten mercilessly and almost drowned by his former droogs who have now ironically become part of the state hierarchy as policemen. The same violence that Alex and his droogs used in their youthful power structure was now institutionalized into state power. When Alex looks at his former droogs who are now police in disbelief, Georgie says "A job for two, who are now of job age. The police," while Dim answers "Don't call me Dim no more, either. Officer, call me." In a scene that shows Alex's reversal of fortune, he is attacked by a number of old homeless men who now outnumber him, including the old man who Alex and the droogs attacked in the beginning of the film. The establishment hierarchy, represented by old men, now had control of Alex. After he enters the criminal justice system, he is immediately stripped of his identity and forms of expression. He gives up his clothes, privacy, possessions and is given a prisoner number (655321) as a new identity. Alex must answer personal questions about venereal diseases, his sexuality, body lice, and is even stripped naked for an inspection of his rectum. It is also suggested that Alex may have been raped in prison, as his youth makes him desirable both sexually and for dominance. In total, notice the rigidity and the obsession with exaggerated protocol exhibited by the prison guards. The prison has draconian procedures to control the actions of the incarcerated---they must follow painted lines on the floor, answer superiors using the word "sir," and march in formation outside and dress in uniforms. Contrary to the liberal society Alex thrived within, prison represents the annihilation of personal freedom and expression.  


Yet, there is also a reformative element in the criminal justice system. While in jail, Alex befriends a priest (or at least pretends to befriend him) who tries to guide him to better moral choices. In a sermon to his imprisoned congregation, the priest asks:

"What's it going to be, eh? Is it going to be in and out of institutions like this? Well, more in and out for most of ya! Or are you going to attend to the Divine Word and realise the punishments that await unrepentant sinners in the next world as well as this? A lot of idiots you are, selling your own birthright for a saucer of cold porridge! The thrill of theft! Of violence! The urge to live easy! Well, I ask you what is it worth when we have undeniable truth - yes! Incontrovertible evidence that Hell exists! I know! I know my friends! I have been informed in visions that there is a place darker than any prison, hotter than any flame of human fire, where souls of unrepentant criminal sinners like yourselves...!"

According to the priest, every man has a choice between good and evil. Still, the priest evokes hell as a punishment saying, "Don't you laugh, damn you, don't you laugh. I say like yourselves--scream in endless and unendurable agony. Their nostrils choked with the smell of filth, their mouths crammed with burning ordure. Their skins rotting and peeling. A fireball spinning in their screaming guts." The priests uses fear to control the wayward prisoners. The priest tries to indoctrinate the prisoners with acceptable morality with biblical texts and hymns like the following:

I was a wandering sheep.
I did not love the fold.
I did not love my shepherd's voice.
I would not be controlled.
I was a wayward child
I did not love my home
I did not love my father's voice
I loved afar to roam.

When Alex inquires about the Ludivico treatment, a conditioning process that forces one to be good, the priest replies with one of the central themes of the film: "The question is whether or not this technique really makes a man good. Goodness comes from within. Goodness is chosen. When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man." While I believe Kubrick sides with the priest on that point, the film makes it clear that there is no goodness within Alex from which he can make a choice. In fact, impulse and pleasure is Alex's inspiration for action. Not only does he indulge in evil acts, he perverts seemingly good or innocuous things and extracts the evil from them. As discussed earlier, Alex listens to Beethoven's ninth symphony and has fantasies of pain, death, and the destruction of others. While in jail, he assures the priest that he's reading the bible daily, yet, ironically, he is most interested in the sex and violence in the bible:

"I read all about the scourging and the crowning with thorns and I could viddy myself helping in and even taking charge of the tolchocking and the nailing in, being dressed in the height of Roman fashion. I didn't so much like the latter part of the book, which is more like all preachy talking than fighting and the old in-out. I liked the parts where these old yahoodies tolchock each other and then drink their Hebrew vino, and getting onto the bed with their wives' handmaidens. That kept me going."

The problem with the priest's view that humans can choose goodness is that some people, like Alex, seem to lack it completely. How then can he be truly reformed when his natural state is evil? Moreover, how far can a state go to preserve order over its citizenry? The state's answer is the Ludivico treatment, a process by which a person is given a nausea-inducing medication while he watches films of violent and sexual activities. The goal is Pavlovian: when the criminal attempts to engage in violence or deviant sexual action, he becomes deathly sick, preventing any unlawful event. The treatment itself is purposely traumatic and a form of torture. Not only does Alex get sick while watching subversive films, but he is strapped down in a chair with his eyes forcibly held open by an apparatus so he can't look away. Interestingly, Alex also comments that even the people acting in the films are subjected to violence at the hands of the state. He says, "This seemed real, very real, though if you thought about it properly you couldn't imagine lewdies actually agreeing to having all this done to them in a film, and if these films were made by the good, or the State, you couldn't imagine them being allowed to take these films, without like interfering with what was going on." Similiar to Alex's simple hierarchy of power before his incarceration, the state has also systemized violence and torture though with a higher level of sophistication for what they deem is a higher purpose.


After his treatment, Alex is paraded before a crowd by the minister of the interior who wishes to show how he and his political party will stop crime. The minister comments, "Prison taught him the false smile, the rubbed hand of hypocrisy, the fawning, greased obsequious leer. Other vices it taught him, as well as confirming in those he had long practiced before. Our party promised to restore law and order and to make the streets safe again for the ordinary peace-loving citizen." At the demonstration, Alex is subjected to both violence (a man hitting him) and sex (a beautiful, topless woman) and becomes ill and helpless upon exposure. In effect, to control his impulsive actions, Alex is completely stripped of his natural human drives to defend himself and to procreate. This reality is partly what the priest was referencing when he said "When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man." Man's evolution has been a balance between civilization and barbarism, a teetering scale of primitive drives for sex and violence and the need for order and control. Ironically, the state in "A Clockwork Orange" perpetuates what it seeks to eradicate. Violence is needed to end violence and Alex suffers at the hand of the Ludovico treatment and is even punished by it. When he begins to suffer at the thought of Beethoven being included in his collection of images and sounds meant to make him sick, Dr. Brodsky comments how this rehabilitation had turned to punishment: "It can't be helped. Here's your punishment element perhaps. The Governor [who commented that morality should be "an eye for an eye" instead of rehabilitation] ought to be pleased. I'm sorry, Alex, this is for your own good, you'll have to bear with us for a while." Likewise, Dr. Branom answers Alex's complaints about feeling ill by saying, You felt ill this afternoon because you're getting better. You see, when we're healthy we respond to the presence of the hateful with fear and nausea. You're becoming healthy that's all. By this time tomorrow you'll be healthier still." Healthy and more stable through violence. Branom also rebukes Alex's complaints because the treatment was "his choice"---an untrue assertion given the fact that the procedures of the treatment were never fully explained to Alex. Tyranny by controlling information.

In what is clearly a form of totalitarianism, the state has taken total control over a citizen's free human expression because he could not control those very expressions himself with choice. Ironically, the Ludivico treatment pits Alex's natural urges against each other: pain and self-preservation in opposition to violence and sex. Still, Alex's savage thoughts and drives are not really diminished as much as his externalization of those thoughts are controlled. A telling example is when he is approached by a topless woman and has the following thought: "And the first thing that flashed into my gulliver was that I'd like to have her right down there on the floor with the old in-out, real savage. The thoughts of rape remained but acting on the thought was prevented. Likewise, during the treatment, Alex breaks down during his torture and yells, "You needn't take it any further, sir. You've proved to me that all this ultra-violence and killing is wrong and terribly wrong. I've learned my lesson, sir. I see now what I've never seen before I'm cured, praise God! I see that it's wrong! It's wrong because it's like against like society. It's wrong because everybody has the right to live and be happy without being tolchocked and knifed." Alex was not yelling because of a moral epiphany or change in thoughts; he was yelling to escape torture. The ethical quandary between actions versus thoughts is best exemplified in an interchange between the priest and minister:

Prison Chaplain: The boy has not a real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement. The insincerity was clear to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice.

Minister: We are not concerned with motives, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime and with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons. He will be your true Christian, ready to turn the other cheek, ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the heart at the thought of killing a fly. Reclamation! Joy before the angels of God! The point is that it works."

In the film, there is a binary between the possibility of redemption and the necessity of total control. Ironically, the same free will that gave rise to unfettered impulses in an overly liberal society was also the priest's mechanism of reformation. Not wanting to wait, the state stepped in and neutered Alex's ability to act.

Despite the fact that the Ludivico treatment seemed successful, there are a few reasons to suspect that Alex's nausea reaction might be fake, a possibility that would add another wrinkle to the film.  First, he is tremendously manipulative and deceitful, a character with a history of feigning a horrific car accident to gain entry into people's houses, fooling a priest into believing that he was reforming by reading the bible, and instilling guilt in his parents when they rented his room during his absence. In the scene involving Alex's parents and their new renter named Joe, notice the exaggerated violins playing in the background and the excessive crying as Alex says that his homelessness "will lie on their consciences." Joe says in return, "Look, he's weeping now. But that's all his craft and artfulness." Overall, Alex is so manipulative that one can even question whether he is manipulating the audience through his narration to paint himself as sympathetic. Second, earlier in the film, Alex forcibly belches in the face of an inspector at will. Is it possible that his belching during his alleged nauseous attacks is an act? Third, there are many instances when Alex is exposed to something sexual or violent and does not become sick. He seems to become ill only at opportune moments like during the minister's demonstration, when he was pummeled by a crowd of homeless men, and when he wanted to manipulate his parents. When Alex returns home, he sees erotic art on his parent's home and even gives his father a "love tap," both of which do not cause him to become ill. Likewise, when Alex becomes angry at Joe, he switches to a fighting stance with his fish clenched and body turned ready to strike. Yet, he only gets sick when he attempts the actual punch. Wouldn't the sustained thought of violence make him nauseous? Moreover, when Alex stumbles upon the home of the writer whom he attacked earlier in the film, he is strangely unaffected by the home and when he gives a reprisal of "Singing in the the Rain," the song that emboldened his most heinous violent and sexual acts of the film. The song profoundly disturbs the writer when he recognizes Alex and the associated disturbing images of the past, but Alex, who is nauseated by Beethoven's ninth, fails to have any reaction to the other music associated with his actions. Furthermore, when Alex is taking a bath in the home and singing, his face and crotch are covered with a washcloth and sponge respectively, conjuring images of his crime when he worse a mask and a cod piece. Was that symbolism that he was still the same droog?


A counterargument to the idea that Alex is faking is that the action is what creates the sickness and not the thought or intent. After all, when the minister discussed the treatment, he empathized that stopping crime was more important than changing motives. Furthermore, if Alex is faking, why did he actually try to commit suicide later in the film when hearing Beethoven's ninth symphony? When Alex speaks up in the prison line and gets chosen by the minister for the Ludivico treatment, the latter uses interesting words that suggest he knew Alex would play along with the experiment if necessary. The minister says of Alex, "He's enterprising, aggressive, outgoing, young, bold, vicious. He'll do...This vicious young hoodlum will be transformed out of all recognition." Describing Alex as "enterprising and bold," seems to be an odd choice for someone chosen to be on a trial run for conditioning, especially one that has so much political importance. In any case, whether Alex is faking or not, Kubrick's point is that controlling action, either through conditioning or creating an interest to do so, is made possible by totalitarianism. As long as Alex appeared to control his actions, the experiment would be a political success for the minister and a way out of prison for Alex.

When Alex shows up at the home where he committed his crimes against the husband and wife, his violent indoctrination inspires the liberal writer and unknowing victim, Mr. Alexander, to use Alex's story as fodder against the conservatives in power. Mr. Alexander expounds his belief that the country was headed in a totalitarian direction:

"I tell you, sir, they have turned this young man into something other than a human being. He has no power of choice any more. He's committed to socially acceptable acts, a little machine capable only of good... He can be the most potent weapon imaginable to ensure that the Government is not returned at the next election. The Government's great boast, as you know sir, is the way they have dealt with crime in the last few months. Recruiting brutal young roughs into the police, proposing debilitation and will-sapping techniques of conditioning. Oh, we've seen it all before in other countries. The thin end of the wedge. Before we know where we are we shall have the full apparatus of totalitarianism. This young boy is a living witness to these diabolical proposals. The people, the common people must know... must see! There are rare traditions of liberty to defend. The tradition of liberty means all. The common people will let it go! Oh, yes รณ they will sell liberty for a quieter life. That is why they must be led, sir, driven... pushed!!!"

There is a twinge of irony in the liberal writer's tirade that conservatism was leading to totalitarianism. Tellingly, he also said that people must be "led, driven, and pushed" into accepting more liberal policies of free expression. Likewise, he also supports weaponizing people for political ends. The ultimate irony comes when the writer realizes that Alex was the hoodlum who attacked him and his wife and then plots revenge against him. Alex's rendition of "Singing in the Rain" conjures up pure terror for the writer. In this case, the victim was conditioned by Alex's violence and had his own Ludovico-like reaction. The maxim that violence begets violence once again manifests as the writer hatches a scheme to both kill Alex and use him as a political martyr for liberalism. Sitting at a table, Alex is surrounded by liberals in a ratio of 4:1, a common theme when one hierarchy has power in the film, and drugged. He is locked in the attic and forced to listen to Beethoven's ninth symphony to both make him suffer and commit suicide to help the political cause. Alex jumps out of the window, but, as we quickly learn, does not die. In the end, even liberalism, which wanted to overthrow the conservative criminal justice system based on violence and control, used the very same violence to further its end. Despite being liberal, Mr. Alexander could not contain his bloodlust to punish the criminal that hurt him personally. For Kubrick, these different political ethos have the same ends.


The ending of "A Clockwork Orange" is the most beguiling part of the film, particularly for many critics who called the finale confusing and disjointed from the rest of the story. However, if one espouses that the film is largely about state power and individual expression, the ending is a strong affirmation of the general theme. First, as Alex awakes and the nearby doctor emerges from a curtain with a naked woman, it reminds us that all humans, however civilized, have drives towards sexuality and indecency. Second, a psychiatrist gives Alex psychoanalytic tests that demonstrate his return to sexual and violent impulses without nausea. Third, when the minister of the interior visits Alex, he literally and figuratively spoonfeeds him. Besides his dinner, Alex is fed his expected cooperation with the state to be a lead part in their political theater. Because of a shift in public opinion, the Ludivico treatment became extremely unpopular and cost the conservatives votes. Just as the state used Alex to support their conditioning treatment when political opinion called for a reduction in crime, the state uses him again but for the opposite purpose, to demonstrate the kindness of the state to someone they have wronged. In return, Alex gets a government job and salary, freeing him to sell the conservative brand as safe again. In a quote that the minister could have made before or after Alex had the Ludivico treatment, he says, "Alex, you can be instrumental in changing the public verdict. Do you understand, Alex? Do I make myself clear?"

Not only is it horrifying that state methods of power can fluctuate according to public opinion (torture and mind control were morally acceptable until the public changed its opinion), the end of the film questions if any methods, besides maybe the priest's fruitless attempt at reformation, can be called "moral." At three points in the film, the leaders of hierarchies like Alex, the governor, and the minister combatted changes in their power structures referred to as "the new way," "a new view," or "the new understanding," respectively. Alex fought the new way by pummeling his droogs into accepting his power. The governor overseeing the prison complained that society was moving from "an eye from an eye" to the reformation of criminals. He says, "If someone hits you, you hit back, do you not? Why then should not the State very severely hit by you brutal offenders not hit back also? But the new view is to say no. The new view is that we turn the bad into good." Finally, after public opinion dictates, the minister creates a new understanding with Alex to change the political opinion of his party. In the film, there is no unquestionable morality or structure that is immutable and not subject to change for the purpose of political opinion. The freedom of expression of the populace gives rise to changing methods of control. As an adviser tells the minister when discussing the Ludivico treatment: "If the polls are right, then we have nothing to lose."



When a totalitarian society arises from either an excessively liberal or brutally conservative state, they use violence and fear to create citizens into "A Clockwork Orange," a natural organism that has been made unnatural on the inside by excessive tampering and added mechanisms of control. Kubrick's film gives audiences an overview of how both individual human beings and their civilizations use violence to retain power. This film is very ahead of its time, even predictive of our current political environment, one in which hyperpolarized political factions battle for supremacy and seek to win at any cost, even at the peril of their own citizenry. "A Clockwork Orange" is not only a movie about the nature of a sadistic man named Alex Delarge; it is about how a society with teetering political interests (freedom of expression vs. total control) creates and then destroys their citizens. In the very last frames of the film, we see Alex and a willing girl having monogamous sex while victorian onlookers stare quietly in approval. Perhaps this is the middle ground for Alex or his true "cure:" acting out his natural impulses in the socially acceptable ways of the time, a balance between expression and control. When Alex says his last words, "I was cured alright," he sarcastically admits that any "cure" is temporary depending on the circumstances and who is in power. Alex ended up in the same place where he started: teeming with impulses. The difference, however, is that now his behavior was a sign of government success rather than failure, a switch from government control to sanctioned expression. Alex was considered human again, but for how long? I guess it depends on the next election.