If you look up "Top Villain" lists, whether it be film or literature, Alex will most like be there and, in many cases, one of the top spots. My personal interest in Alex is his transition from victimizer to victim, as well as the question of whether a villain can be "cured" of his violent thoughts and tendencies. In this post, I will also be discussing the differences between Alex in the mediums of literature and film. Stanely Kubrick uses the American edition of the novel, which omits the last chapter of the original story. This chapter not only sets a different tone for the entire novel but also changes view of the audiences on what Alex will do and be like in the future.
Alex from the Novel
We immediately get a sense of who Alex is just from his language - the slang, Nadsat. We are immediately distanced from him, we know he is different from us. It also makes me less aware of just what Alex and his droogs were doing until I got the hang of the slang. For example, I had to look up that "tolchock"(Burgess, 10) meant "to hit."
The first thing I noticed about Alex and his brutality was that he was very judgmental of those around him and how they committed their own acts of violence. His rivalry with Dim and Georgie really showed how he thought he was different from those around him. Although they all indulged in the same gruesome acts, Alex compared his acts of violence to music and art, as if violence was another genre, his genre, of the arts. One of the first times we see this comparison is when Alex is describing the rape of the writer's wife, "So he did the strong-man on the devotchka, who was still creech creech creeching away in very horrorshow four-in-a-bar, locking her rookers from the back, while I ripped away at this and that and the other, the others going haw haw haw still, and real good horrorshow groodies they were that then exhibited their pink glazzies, O my brothers, while I untrussed and got ready for the plunge" (Burgess, 27). Alex is not concerned with what his actions do to other people, he does not associate the consequences of his actions to the actions itself. Even when he finds out what happens to some of his victims later, it is as if he doesn't realize it was because of him that they died. What he is concerned about is the pleasure he receives from violence and music and how he goes about committing the acts. To Alex, Dim is less than him, even though they commit many of the same acts, because he is "vulgar"(Burgess, 32) and stupid. On the other hand, Georgie relies too much on his intellect instead of impulse, according to Alex. In the first part of Part One, Alex's natural instincts as a leader garner him success. But, it is this impulse over intellect reasoning that gets him arrested when Dim and Georgie betray him.
Alex is most fearsome in part one. In the small pong of his fellow droogs, he has the power. And he uses that power to commit very heinous crimes without regret or apology. He thinks he above the law, better than the law. He is naive, and we see him for what he is, a bored child, when he is arrested and becomes the victim of the State. Each part begins with the same question, "What's it going to be then, eh?" But each time, the question has a different tone. The first part is full of confidence, there is an excitement for what the night will bring. The second part, when Alex goes to the State Jail, it is more like "what are you going to do, now?" a more desperate feeling. And indeed, Alex has to fight off daily beatings not only from his fellow inmates but also the prison guards. Part Two and Three bring to the forefront the battle between the current government and political dissidents. Alex becomes an individual caught up between the two sides, who both want to use him as a pawn and, if need be, sacrifice him for their own ideas and philosophies. Neither is really concerned with morality but achieving their own ends.
Ludovico's Technique is interesting to consider when looking at villainy, for it did stop Alex from committing violence and thinking violent thoughts but only because it caused him physical pain not because he thought it was morally wrong. He could also no longer listen to music since he associated it with his violence. This just takes away his free will, it doesn't "cure" him of his nature. The question of what morality wants and "What God wants" seem to different than what the government wants. To the government, as long as a criminal is kept from doing bad things it doesn't matter whether he chooses to do so out of free will. Although, I would argue that Alex is a naive child throughout most, if not all, the novel, he does raise a point when he asks, "hey don’t go into the cause of goodness, so why of the other shop?" (Burgess, 44) It is true that as a society we believe that it is natural to be good and those who are bad have somehow strayed off the path. But Alex asks if that is actually the case. Alex is never turned "good" by the Ludovico Technique. He is only brainwashed and humiliated. But he doesn't feel regret over his victims, only nausea, and there is a difference.
Although he is the narrator and protagonist of the novel and film, it is difficult for me to feel bad for Alex when he becomes a pawn of first the State and then F. Alexander. It did bring to light that he is, firstly, a child, but not enough for me to like him. This might be because he doesn't feel regret for his actions. This doesn't mean he fails as a villain, he certainly doesn't. In many cases, it makes a villain more successful if you feel for them even at least once during the movie or book, since it adds a bit of humanity to the character and makes them more complex. And many do with Alex, I just didn't. I think Alex is successful because he is a perfect example that anyone, even a child, can be a villain.
The novel ends with Alex, no longer brain washed, running into Pete, an old droog who is now settled and married. Alex decides that he has grown passed the violence and that he also wants a son. He comes to the conclusion that violence was a product of his youth. This chapter was withheld from the American version because the American Publisher felt an American audience wouldn't find such a turnaround believable. I, myself, don't believe it, but I do not think it should have been taken out of the American edition. It adds a layer of manipulation to the character. He hasn't decided violence is bad, he doesn't think of his victims, he just got bored of it.
Alex from the Film
Alex from the film is less brash than the Alex in the book. He is more sly with those around him. Because we don't get the full narration like in the book, the idea that Alex views his violence as a work of art is less clear. And because he looks much older than 15, I viewed him as an adult not as a child. Thankfully, the victims of rape in the film are also older than those in the novel. The same slang is there, but because we can clearly see what Alex and his fellow droogs are doing, we are not distanced from the violence. Malcom McDowell is frightening. His stare really pierces us to the heart... but because he does look much older, when he becomes the pawn, his status as a smart villain decreases and just seems naive and maybe even a bit stupid.
Because the film ends without the optimistic final chapter, it seems like Alex has always and will always be out for himself - no argument about it. I think the only time I felt bad for Alex in the film, was when he came home to his parents, who have basically replaced him with Joe, who is renting Alex's old room. I think this scene had a more emotionally punch in the movie, for me, than in the book because Joe looks to be about the same age as Alex in the movie and is older in the book. It was the one time I saw him as a child.
