During the treatment scene , how is the spectator punished? in this scene both Alex and the spectator are denied the pleasure of the images as they flash up onto the screen, instead the spectator is punished for the participation of the violence on women as throughout the film we have always been a bystander to these attacks as we have stayed to watch the film and not walked out and denied this, almost as if we were standing there in the same room as Alex observing the attacks. By now we have already aligned with our main character Alex through the opening scene through the use of close ups, voice overs and character emotions such as when Alex is looking down the camera as his 'droogs' are looking away from the camera, due to being aligned to him this 'torture' he is going through also affects us as we have been a spectator to these attacks but also we sympathise with Alex and we clearly see he is in pain with the close ups of him screaming and looking clearly distressed.
During the treatment scene, how is the spectator punished? By this point of the film, it is believed by many that since the audience is still here with Alex (as oppose to choosing to just not watch the film at all), then they too are in need of punishment due to their involvement of the previous crimes. Alex introduces the scene via his narration, and refers to the audience once again as his 'brothers'. The audience, who have now been directly identified, are invited in to the scene. During the punishment of Alex, the audience are given an Extreme Close-Up of Alex's right eye (which has been identified earlier in the film as symbolic of the evil side of Alex's persona, due to the make-up in his costume. This connotes his evil persona is being punished) which has been cramped open by metal prongs. The audience are forced to watch this which in turn will distress and disturb some audiences. The Close-Up of Alex's face as he is being tortured also tells the audience of the terror and pain Alex is going through. His excessive screaming and begging to stop can also distress some audiences. It is thought that while Alex may be being punished for violent crimes through the Ludvigo Technique, the audience are being punished for their involvement in the crimes by being shown these distressing images. With the Audience and Alex both being punished for their crimes, it enhances their growing relationship, showing a sort of solidarity and unity between the two. The audience will also sympathise with Alex more through this scene, thus aligning with him more.
Home Invasion! During the home invasion attack scene i feel involved with in the attack through the use of the camera because there are many POV shots from Alex so we see the attack through his eyes so it feels like we are apart of the attack. This scene is very male orieentated because at the begining of this scene the female is taking orders from the male, when she opens the door she is wary of Alex and wont let him in but then her husband suggests that she should let him in so she is easily persuaded and this leads to her being capturedand dominated by Alex's droogs. Alex is singing 'singing in the rain' so this withdraws the spectators how shocking this scene actually is. as a spectator kubrick never allows us to see how it feels to be sexually assaulted, but rather how it feels to commit the assault.
In the 'Home Invasion' scene the audience are implicit to the scene because we are essentially part of alex's gang because he said so, he called us 'brother' through narration because we made it through the initiation with the beating of the old man and the fight with the other group. We also do not see how the event is from the woman's point of view just from alex's who is a male. Kubrick only lets us see how its like to be the attacker and not the attacked so we dont identify with the woman and inevitably empathise with her.
Maybe if we saw from the POV of the woman and we didn't see a shot of them approaching we'd be shocked and probably feel like being attacked too. This scene supports Mulvey's theory of 'The Male Gaze' because the me are in control and we see from the eyes of men and the woman is also desirable.
Alex's Treatment The spectator is punished during the treatment scene beause we have gone along with the violence that Alex has carried out during the film, and we have had the decision to turn the film off or continue to watch it and we have chosen to cary on watching it, because we have alligned with Alex through the use of narration e.g.' your humble narator...my brothers' we are punished by watching him being punished because we dont believe that he should be punished for the brutal violence that he has carried out because of the wording of the narration and use of camera, he gives us a reason why he has commited the violence so we see his pov through out the film. Also we only ever see Alex's pov throughout this wierd, strange world so we have no choice but to adapt his view of this world.
During 'Home invasion' how is the spectator implicit in the attack? In this scene we are positioned as a spectator of this attack almost as if we were there in the room as the attack was happening, as we do not see any POV shots and often the shots are detached from the characters as if we were there. As we do not turn the film off or leave the cinema we not doing anything against the violence or denying it, we are not condoning the actions but we are witnessing it and by not turning it off we go along with the violence and are later in the film punished for this as Alex is during the treatment scene. In this scene Kubrick never shows us how it is to be assaulted but does show us how it is to commit it through the lack of POV shots from the women and as we are positioned away from the characters and also the alignment with Alex, this almost softens us up for the attack.
Home Invasion During the home invasion scene, the spectator is firstly positioned close to the initial violence as the camera is explicitly involved in the attack because it is almost panning around the house in the first opening shots of when Alex and his droogs come in. The spectator is then positioned even closer to the violence as Alex subdues his victim. The mask that he wears implies that the spectator is taking part in the act because we can disassociate from Alex because of this, which makes us even more involved in the attack whilst we watch it on screen. Also the fact that the camera's wide shots last for so long, makes the spectator more involved as with this attack we don't see Alex's point of view, which again disassociates the spectator from the violence taking place.
During the finale, how are both Alex and the spectator rewarded? At the end of the film, Frederick tells Alex of his wrong-doing to put him through the treatment and offers an apology. Just as he does so, an uplifting score gradually rises and the audience are shown a POV shot of Alex. Now that the audience are in Alex's eyes, they can identify with them too be being rewarded. The flowers, the speakers hurling the uplifting score and the press taking photographs at the audience are all for the audience as well as Alex. It could even be a way of Kubrick making his apology for making the audience go through their punishment also. For Alex, the score is the main piece of reward in my opinion as it triggers a response to his former self. Alex then tells the audience after a short dream sequence via narration "Oh, I was cured alright". The 'was' implies that the cure is now past tense, and that Alex is now back to himself. Because the audience have identified and sympathised with Alex all the way through the film, the return to his former self is welcomed. The uplifting score also leads to the connotation that this return to former-Alex is a victory, and it should be celebrated.
During ‘Home Invasion’ how is the spectator implicit in the attack?
During this scene the male gaze is established when the man’s wife is introduced, this is applied as she is much younger than her husband also the colour of her clothing distinguishes her from Alex, his drouges and her husband. The mid shot of the woman highlights the use of the male gaze in this scene as Alex has cut of sections of her clothes to expose her breasts.
The spectator is implicit in this scene as they may be aligned with Alex, if the spectator hasn’t aligned with Alex they may find this scene much more disturbing than the spectators who have aligned with him. However the alignment in this scene is far less prominent than in other scenes, this is due to the fact that there are not many close ups of Alex and when there is his face cannot be seen because of the mask he wears during the attacks.
Home Invasion: How the spectator is made to feel implicit.
During the home invasion scene, the spectator is certainly implicit in the attack. We had been made to identify and align with Alex, throughout the film and up to this point. Because we align with Alex and because he is the only POV we are given, the spectator is basically forced to feel as though they’re a member of the gang taking part in the attack.
At the start of the scene we are shown a shot of the gang approaching the house. Because we’re shown this shot, we have been given knowledge inly the attacker would know. Had this shot not been present the spectator may not have felt as implicit. Also Alex gave justification for the attack before it happened, in his narration. Because we knew the attack was going to happen before it did, the spectator would feel even more like a member of the gang. A lot of the attack is also shown from long shots, giving the spectator a view of the whole attack.
We are punished along with Alex in the Treatment scene because we went along with the stuff that he did and didn't oppose what he was doing and turn the film off so we are punished along with alex in this scene.
We get a close up of the eyes when the eye clamps go in and this makes us feel uncomfortable and his eyes watering can make ours water to because we align with him. His eyes are also alex's and not the violent fellow who rapes and beats people. Along with his screaming which also makes us feel uncomfortable. The audience are positioned in the same place as alex and this makes us sympathise with him later on in the film when he can't stop the bad things happening to him.
If we took no point of view we'd see a murderer and rapist who has a life sentence in prison for raping and killing a woman and is getting a change to get out in 2 weeks for being tortured to make him better and not have the need to murder or rape anymore and we'd naturally align with the doctors but because we take alex's POV thats why we align with him, we have no one else's.
During ‘Home Invasion’ how is spectator implicit in the attack?
In the home invasion attack the scene never allows us, as the audience to see how it feels to be attacked, more like how it feels to be the attacker. This is shown through the fact she is always kept at a distance, so we are denied her point of view therefore we don’t align with her. We are more attracted to Alex and his gang because we align with them through the lead up to the home invasion. Therefore the audience is positioned as part of the gang. We may not necessarily agree with the crimes they are committing but because of the alignment with them it is harder for us to go against them. Whilst Alex and the gang are committing this specific crime, all we see is 4 men attacking, we do not have the attachment to each of them as individuals because they are wearing disguises and also we do not have any extreme close ups of them.
During ‘Home Invasion’ how is the spectator implicit in the attack?
In this scene the spectator is implicit in the attack in a number ways. To begin with, as a spectator, Kubrick never allows us to how it feels to be sexually assaulted, but know how it feels to do the assault. The male gaze is established early on in the scene when the first shot we see is the male, and then when the bell goes it is the wife that goes and gets the door. At the door, the wife is saying no to letting the group in but it is the husband who says yeah which then leads to the wife letting the group in, the husbands knows best. In this scene the women is passive, and she is a kept at a distance from the audience, also in this scene we are denied her POV, which is why we never know how it feels to be sexually assaulted in this scene. The wife is easily dominated in this scene and her clothes are cut to reveal her breasts, which also establishes the male gaze in this scene because it is rewarding the audience for taking part in this home invasion.
The spectator is implicit in this scene because they have aligned with Alex, if they didn’t align with Alex, the spectator probably would of found the scene uncomfortable to watch and then turn off the DVD or walk out of the cinema. If you didn’t turn off the DVD or walk out of the cinema it then makes you implicit in the scene.
During the finale, how are both Alex and the spectator rewarded?
During the finale, Alex and the spectator are rewarded because Alex is now cured, so now he can enjoy the things that he used to enjoy such as Ludwig Van’s music, the 9th symphony and sexually assaulting women. We are both awarded because throughout the film we have Aligned with Alex so we have took on his POV so as a spectator we have enjoyed being implicit in the attacks that Alex has committed throughout the film.
During this scene the spectator remains implicit throughout the attack due to various techniques. The male gaze is established straight away when the woman answers the door remaining passive, it is then continually reinforced throughout the rest of the scene. For example, when the woman says no to let Alex and his droogs in, the man ultimately upturns her decision and allows them to enter.
When the Alex enters, he and his droogs take control as the woman is easily dominated. Alex then beings to sing “singing in the rain”. This is seen as a performance and not the character we have aligned with all this time but another person, therefore if we see him as a different character in the scene we do not feel any hatred to him as he is committing such acts as rape. Our encouragement to align with the woman in the scene is miniscule; audience position is constantly kept at a distance from her, as all but one shot containing her are medium to wide shots. We also do not align with her, as we are not given her PoV so we do not see the world from her eyes and are not encouraged to take on any views she may have about the situation. As a spectator Kubrick never actually shows us how it feels to be a victim, which then further encourages us to not align with any of the victims of the film and only align with Alex.
The spectator is felt implicit throughout the attack through a number of techniques. The male gaze theory is established straight away at the beginning of the scene when the man in the scene is on the typewriter and the woman is sitting round reading doing nothing and the male is the breadwinner. Then when the woman goes to the door the man says let them in so he has the final say. Alex see’s the rape scene as a performance, this is done by the way that he is singing “Singing in the rain” which is considered a happy song but at the present moment when he is singing it, it isn’t so happy. So its as if this person who is dancing round the room isn’t the Alex we know he is a character that is played by Alex and this is reinforced by the mask that Alex wears throughout the attack. So the audience is positioned to not align with this character who is being played by Alex but to stay aligned with the young Alex we know.
Throughout the home invasion scene we get various shots such as Wide shots and we have no Close Up’s of Alex or the woman who is being raped so therefore we don’t align with either of them. When Alex starts attacking the woman by cutting her dress before he starts to attack her we are kept at a distance because of the different shot types that are used, we are never aloud to see her POV. When the dress is cut open of her chest the camera goes down to look at her breast this shows us the audience that this woman like every woman in the film is seen as an object to be looked at and nothing else. Throughout this scene through the use of different techniques Kubrick never allows us to see what it feels like to be abused this is why we are kept at a distance from the woman and are never given the option to align with her. But he wants us to feel what its like to be the attacker.
During the home invasion scene how is the spectator implicit in the attack?
The scene begins with Alex and his droogs pulling up to the house, dressed in the same outfit making it hard to tell them apart, because of this deindivaiduation we are separated from Alex’s actions. Immediately the woman is shown as passive as she is the one who waits on her husband and her husbands is the one who has authority. When the attack begins we see very little of the women’s face instead getting Alex’s POV so we never get to feel what its like to be attacked only what its like to attack. Most of the shots of the women are from a mid shot so the audience gazes at her like she is an object. The crime is shown almost as a performance and the audience is more likely going to align with someone if they find them funny. Because the audience goes along with the attack meaning they did not turn of the film we can assume they go along with the attack
The 'male gaze' is present in the 'home invasion' scene as we can see things the way Alex sees them. The fact that the younger wife is controlled by her older husband, who tells her to allow Alex into the house reinforces this. This mainly begins when he leaves her to answer the door and doesn't bother getting up. When Alex and his droogs invade the writers house we see that the women is easily dominated by them, making no attempt to run away and is easily captured. This makes her seem as though she is passive, as though she has accepted what has happened and doesn't try to change it. The woman is visually unique in this scene, wearing red as the men are wearing white. Alex sings 'I'm singing in the rain', a song more commonly associated with happy situations. While Alex sings and dances he is constantly beating up the old writer and ruining his house. To Alex he see ultra violence as fun, a performance, seen by the masks and costume- like clothing. Alex cuts the woman's clothes to reveal her breasts in a wide shot putting the audience in the position of Alex, making the spectators gaze at her. While Alex and his droogs are making fun of the writer and his wife we are kept at a distance and denied her POV so we only see the males POV- that she is and object to be used. There is an OTS of the writer being held down by one of the droogs while watching Alex abuse his wife, showing that the younger males (Alex and his droogs) also dominate the older, weaker writer in a sort of hierarchy. We are given a choice; to walk out of the cinema/ turn off the DVD or keep watching the film as we have already aligned with Alex and we want to see if there are any repercussions for his actions. By choosing to continue watching the film we, the spectators, are put in the position of Alex and his droogs, making us feel as though we are taking part in the attack. The reason for this being that Kubrick never puts us in the woman's position. We never know what the women felt or see things in her POV, but we do see this through the attackers POV, as we are positioned very closely to Alex. The spectators are later rewarded with the fact that Alex himself is put through a sort of torture; the Ludovico technique.
The male gaze theory is present throughout ‘A clockwork orange’, we are positioned as an audience to align with this theory. During the opening shot women are introduced as adornment, decoration rather than functioning characters. This is a direct result of the ‘Male Gaze’. Women are reduced to objects to be looked at and used. The first real woman we see is being used as a sex object. In the 'Home Invasion' scene the audience are implicit to the scene because we are essentially part of alex's gang because he said so, he called us 'brother' through narration because we made it through the initiation with the beating of the old man and the fight with the other group. We also do not see how the event is from the woman's point of view just from alex's who is a male. Kubrick only lets us see how its like to be the attacker and not the attacked so we dont identify with the woman and inevitably empathise with her. Maybe if we saw from the POV of the woman and we didn't see a shot of them approaching we'd be shocked and probably feel like being attacked too. This scene supports Mulvey's theory of 'The Male Gaze' because the me are in control and we see from the eyes of men and the woman is also desirable.
During the treatment scene , how is the spectator punished?
ReplyDeletein this scene both Alex and the spectator are denied the pleasure of the images as they flash up onto the screen, instead the spectator is punished for the participation of the violence on women as throughout the film we have always been a bystander to these attacks as we have stayed to watch the film and not walked out and denied this, almost as if we were standing there in the same room as Alex observing the attacks. By now we have already aligned with our main character Alex through the opening scene through the use of close ups, voice overs and character emotions such as when Alex is looking down the camera as his 'droogs' are looking away from the camera, due to being aligned to him this 'torture' he is going through also affects us as we have been a spectator to these attacks but also we sympathise with Alex and we clearly see he is in pain with the close ups of him screaming and looking clearly distressed.
During the treatment scene, how is the spectator punished?
ReplyDeleteBy this point of the film, it is believed by many that since the audience is still here with Alex (as oppose to choosing to just not watch the film at all), then they too are in need of punishment due to their involvement of the previous crimes. Alex introduces the scene via his narration, and refers to the audience once again as his 'brothers'. The audience, who have now been directly identified, are invited in to the scene.
During the punishment of Alex, the audience are given an Extreme Close-Up of Alex's right eye (which has been identified earlier in the film as symbolic of the evil side of Alex's persona, due to the make-up in his costume. This connotes his evil persona is being punished) which has been cramped open by metal prongs. The audience are forced to watch this which in turn will distress and disturb some audiences. The Close-Up of Alex's face as he is being tortured also tells the audience of the terror and pain Alex is going through. His excessive screaming and begging to stop can also distress some audiences. It is thought that while Alex may be being punished for violent crimes through the Ludvigo Technique, the audience are being punished for their involvement in the crimes by being shown these distressing images. With the Audience and Alex both being punished for their crimes, it enhances their growing relationship, showing a sort of solidarity and unity between the two. The audience will also sympathise with Alex more through this scene, thus aligning with him more.
Home Invasion!
ReplyDeleteDuring the home invasion attack scene i feel involved with in the attack through the use of the camera because there are many POV shots from Alex so we see the attack through his eyes so it feels like we are apart of the attack.
This scene is very male orieentated because at the begining of this scene the female is taking orders from the male, when she opens the door she is wary of Alex and wont let him in but then her husband suggests that she should let him in so she is easily persuaded and this leads to her being capturedand dominated by Alex's droogs.
Alex is singing 'singing in the rain' so this withdraws the spectators how shocking this scene actually is.
as a spectator kubrick never allows us to see how it feels to be sexually assaulted, but rather how it feels to commit the assault.
In the 'Home Invasion' scene the audience are implicit to the scene because we are essentially part of alex's gang because he said so, he called us 'brother' through narration because we made it through the initiation with the beating of the old man and the fight with the other group. We also do not see how the event is from the woman's point of view just from alex's who is a male. Kubrick only lets us see how its like to be the attacker and not the attacked so we dont identify with the woman and inevitably empathise with her.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if we saw from the POV of the woman and we didn't see a shot of them approaching we'd be shocked and probably feel like being attacked too. This scene supports Mulvey's theory of 'The Male Gaze' because the me are in control and we see from the eyes of men and the woman is also desirable.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlex's Treatment
ReplyDeleteThe spectator is punished during the treatment scene beause we have gone along with the violence that Alex has carried out during the film, and we have had the decision to turn the film off or continue to watch it and we have chosen to cary on watching it, because we have alligned with Alex through the use of narration e.g.' your humble narator...my brothers' we are punished by watching him being punished because we dont believe that he should be punished for the brutal violence that he has carried out because of the wording of the narration and use of camera, he gives us a reason why he has commited the violence so we see his pov through out the film. Also we only ever see Alex's pov throughout this wierd, strange world so we have no choice but to adapt his view of this world.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuring 'Home invasion' how is the spectator implicit in the attack?
ReplyDeleteIn this scene we are positioned as a spectator of this attack almost as if we were there in the room as the attack was happening, as we do not see any POV shots and often the shots are detached from the characters as if we were there. As we do not turn the film off or leave the cinema we not doing anything against the violence or denying it, we are not condoning the actions but we are witnessing it and by not turning it off we go along with the violence and are later in the film punished for this as Alex is during the treatment scene. In this scene Kubrick never shows us how it is to be assaulted but does show us how it is to commit it through the lack of POV shots from the women and as we are positioned away from the characters and also the alignment with Alex, this almost softens us up for the attack.
Home Invasion
ReplyDeleteDuring the home invasion scene, the spectator is firstly positioned close to the initial violence as the camera is explicitly involved in the attack because it is almost panning around the house in the first opening shots of when Alex and his droogs come in. The spectator is then positioned even closer to the violence as Alex subdues his victim. The mask that he wears implies that the spectator is taking part in the act because we can disassociate from Alex because of this, which makes us even more involved in the attack whilst we watch it on screen. Also the fact that the camera's wide shots last for so long, makes the spectator more involved as with this attack we don't see Alex's point of view, which again disassociates the spectator from the violence taking place.
During the finale, how are both Alex and the spectator rewarded?
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the film, Frederick tells Alex of his wrong-doing to put him through the treatment and offers an apology. Just as he does so, an uplifting score gradually rises and the audience are shown a POV shot of Alex. Now that the audience are in Alex's eyes, they can identify with them too be being rewarded. The flowers, the speakers hurling the uplifting score and the press taking photographs at the audience are all for the audience as well as Alex. It could even be a way of Kubrick making his apology for making the audience go through their punishment also.
For Alex, the score is the main piece of reward in my opinion as it triggers a response to his former self. Alex then tells the audience after a short dream sequence via narration "Oh, I was cured alright". The 'was' implies that the cure is now past tense, and that Alex is now back to himself. Because the audience have identified and sympathised with Alex all the way through the film, the return to his former self is welcomed. The uplifting score also leads to the connotation that this return to former-Alex is a victory, and it should be celebrated.
During ‘Home Invasion’ how is the spectator implicit in the attack?
ReplyDeleteDuring this scene the male gaze is established when the man’s wife is introduced, this is applied as she is much younger than her husband also the colour of her clothing distinguishes her from Alex, his drouges and her husband. The mid shot of the woman highlights the use of the male gaze in this scene as Alex has cut of sections of her clothes to expose her breasts.
The spectator is implicit in this scene as they may be aligned with Alex, if the spectator hasn’t aligned with Alex they may find this scene much more disturbing than the spectators who have aligned with him. However the alignment in this scene is far less prominent than in other scenes, this is due to the fact that there are not many close ups of Alex and when there is his face cannot be seen because of the mask he wears during the attacks.
Home Invasion: How the spectator is made to feel implicit.
ReplyDeleteDuring the home invasion scene, the spectator is certainly implicit in the attack. We had been made to identify and align with Alex, throughout the film and up to this point. Because we align with Alex and because he is the only POV we are given, the spectator is basically forced to feel as though they’re a member of the gang taking part in the attack.
At the start of the scene we are shown a shot of the gang approaching the house. Because we’re shown this shot, we have been given knowledge inly the attacker would know. Had this shot not been present the spectator may not have felt as implicit. Also Alex gave justification for the attack before it happened, in his narration. Because we knew the attack was going to happen before it did, the spectator would feel even more like a member of the gang. A lot of the attack is also shown from long shots, giving the spectator a view of the whole attack.
We are punished along with Alex in the Treatment scene because we went along with the stuff that he did and didn't oppose what he was doing and turn the film off so we are punished along with alex in this scene.
ReplyDeleteWe get a close up of the eyes when the eye clamps go in and this makes us feel uncomfortable and his eyes watering can make ours water to because we align with him. His eyes are also alex's and not the violent fellow who rapes and beats people. Along with his screaming which also makes us feel uncomfortable. The audience are positioned in the same place as alex and this makes us sympathise with him later on in the film when he can't stop the bad things happening to him.
If we took no point of view we'd see a murderer and rapist who has a life sentence in prison for raping and killing a woman and is getting a change to get out in 2 weeks for being tortured to make him better and not have the need to murder or rape anymore and we'd naturally align with the doctors but because we take alex's POV thats why we align with him, we have no one else's.
During ‘Home Invasion’ how is spectator implicit in the attack?
ReplyDeleteIn the home invasion attack the scene never allows us, as the audience to see how it feels to be attacked, more like how it feels to be the attacker. This is shown through the fact she is always kept at a distance, so we are denied her point of view therefore we don’t align with her. We are more attracted to Alex and his gang because we align with them through the lead up to the home invasion. Therefore the audience is positioned as part of the gang. We may not necessarily agree with the crimes they are committing but because of the alignment with them it is harder for us to go against them. Whilst Alex and the gang are committing this specific crime, all we see is 4 men attacking, we do not have the attachment to each of them as individuals because they are wearing disguises and also we do not have any extreme close ups of them.
Megan Evans
During ‘Home Invasion’ how is the spectator implicit in the attack?
ReplyDeleteIn this scene the spectator is implicit in the attack in a number ways. To begin with, as a spectator, Kubrick never allows us to how it feels to be sexually assaulted, but know how it feels to do the assault. The male gaze is established early on in the scene when the first shot we see is the male, and then when the bell goes it is the wife that goes and gets the door. At the door, the wife is saying no to letting the group in but it is the husband who says yeah which then leads to the wife letting the group in, the husbands knows best. In this scene the women is passive, and she is a kept at a distance from the audience, also in this scene we are denied her POV, which is why we never know how it feels to be sexually assaulted in this scene. The wife is easily dominated in this scene and her clothes are cut to reveal her breasts, which also establishes the male gaze in this scene because it is rewarding the audience for taking part in this home invasion.
The spectator is implicit in this scene because they have aligned with Alex, if they didn’t align with Alex, the spectator probably would of found the scene uncomfortable to watch and then turn off the DVD or walk out of the cinema. If you didn’t turn off the DVD or walk out of the cinema it then makes you implicit in the scene.
During the finale, how are both Alex and the spectator rewarded?
ReplyDeleteDuring the finale, Alex and the spectator are rewarded because Alex is now cured, so now he can enjoy the things that he used to enjoy such as Ludwig Van’s music, the 9th symphony and sexually assaulting women. We are both awarded because throughout the film we have Aligned with Alex so we have took on his POV so as a spectator we have enjoyed being implicit in the attacks that Alex has committed throughout the film.
Home Invasion
ReplyDeleteDuring this scene the spectator remains implicit throughout the attack due to various techniques. The male gaze is established straight away when the woman answers the door remaining passive, it is then continually reinforced throughout the rest of the scene. For example, when the woman says no to let Alex and his droogs in, the man ultimately upturns her decision and allows them to enter.
When the Alex enters, he and his droogs take control as the woman is easily dominated. Alex then beings to sing “singing in the rain”. This is seen as a performance and not the character we have aligned with all this time but another person, therefore if we see him as a different character in the scene we do not feel any hatred to him as he is committing such acts as rape. Our encouragement to align with the woman in the scene is miniscule; audience position is constantly kept at a distance from her, as all but one shot containing her are medium to wide shots. We also do not align with her, as we are not given her PoV so we do not see the world from her eyes and are not encouraged to take on any views she may have about the situation. As a spectator Kubrick never actually shows us how it feels to be a victim, which then further encourages us to not align with any of the victims of the film and only align with Alex.
Home Invasion
ReplyDeleteThe spectator is felt implicit throughout the attack through a number of techniques. The male gaze theory is established straight away at the beginning of the scene when the man in the scene is on the typewriter and the woman is sitting round reading doing nothing and the male is the breadwinner. Then when the woman goes to the door the man says let them in so he has the final say. Alex see’s the rape scene as a performance, this is done by the way that he is singing “Singing in the rain” which is considered a happy song but at the present moment when he is singing it, it isn’t so happy. So its as if this person who is dancing round the room isn’t the Alex we know he is a character that is played by Alex and this is reinforced by the mask that Alex wears throughout the attack. So the audience is positioned to not align with this character who is being played by Alex but to stay aligned with the young Alex we know.
Throughout the home invasion scene we get various shots such as Wide shots and we have no Close Up’s of Alex or the woman who is being raped so therefore we don’t align with either of them. When Alex starts attacking the woman by cutting her dress before he starts to attack her we are kept at a distance because of the different shot types that are used, we are never aloud to see her POV. When the dress is cut open of her chest the camera goes down to look at her breast this shows us the audience that this woman like every woman in the film is seen as an object to be looked at and nothing else. Throughout this scene through the use of different techniques Kubrick never allows us to see what it feels like to be abused this is why we are kept at a distance from the woman and are never given the option to align with her. But he wants us to feel what its like to be the attacker.
During the home invasion scene how is the spectator implicit in the attack?
ReplyDeleteThe scene begins with Alex and his droogs pulling up to the house, dressed in the same outfit making it hard to tell them apart, because of this deindivaiduation we are separated from Alex’s actions. Immediately the woman is shown as passive as she is the one who waits on her husband and her husbands is the one who has authority.
When the attack begins we see very little of the women’s face instead getting Alex’s POV so we never get to feel what its like to be attacked only what its like to attack. Most of the shots of the women are from a mid shot so the audience gazes at her like she is an object. The crime is shown almost as a performance and the audience is more likely going to align with someone if they find them funny. Because the audience goes along with the attack meaning they did not turn of the film we can assume they go along with the attack
The 'male gaze' is present in the 'home invasion' scene as we can see things the way Alex sees them. The fact that the younger wife is controlled by her older husband, who tells her to allow Alex into the house reinforces this. This mainly begins when he leaves her to answer the door and doesn't bother getting up. When Alex and his droogs invade the writers house we see that the women is easily dominated by them, making no attempt to run away and is easily captured. This makes her seem as though she is passive, as though she has accepted what has happened and doesn't try to change it. The woman is visually unique in this scene, wearing red as the men are wearing white. Alex sings 'I'm singing in the rain', a song more commonly associated with happy situations. While Alex sings and dances he is constantly beating up the old writer and ruining his house. To Alex he see ultra violence as fun, a performance, seen by the masks and costume- like clothing. Alex cuts the woman's clothes to reveal her breasts in a wide shot putting the audience in the position of Alex, making the spectators gaze at her. While Alex and his droogs are making fun of the writer and his wife we are kept at a distance and denied her POV so we only see the males POV- that she is and object to be used. There is an OTS of the writer being held down by one of the droogs while watching Alex abuse his wife, showing that the younger males (Alex and his droogs) also dominate the older, weaker writer in a sort of hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteWe are given a choice; to walk out of the cinema/ turn off the DVD or keep watching the film as we have already aligned with Alex and we want to see if there are any repercussions for his actions. By choosing to continue watching the film we, the spectators, are put in the position of Alex and his droogs, making us feel as though we are taking part in the attack. The reason for this being that Kubrick never puts us in the woman's position. We never know what the women felt or see things in her POV, but we do see this through the attackers POV, as we are positioned very closely to Alex. The spectators are later rewarded with the fact that Alex himself is put through a sort of torture; the Ludovico technique.
The male gaze theory is present throughout ‘A clockwork orange’, we are positioned as an audience to align with this theory.
ReplyDeleteDuring the opening shot women are introduced as adornment, decoration rather than functioning characters. This is a direct result of the ‘Male Gaze’. Women are reduced to objects to be looked at and used. The first real woman we see is being used as a sex object.
In the 'Home Invasion' scene the audience are implicit to the scene because we are essentially part of alex's gang because he said so, he called us 'brother' through narration because we made it through the initiation with the beating of the old man and the fight with the other group. We also do not see how the event is from the woman's point of view just from alex's who is a male. Kubrick only lets us see how its like to be the attacker and not the attacked so we dont identify with the woman and inevitably empathise with her.
Maybe if we saw from the POV of the woman and we didn't see a shot of them approaching we'd be shocked and probably feel like being attacked too. This scene supports Mulvey's theory of 'The Male Gaze' because the me are in control and we see from the eyes of men and the woman is also desirable.
Megan Evans