发条橙观后感

篇一：《发条橙》读后感

《发条橙》读后感

读完这本书，我的大脑中浮现出一幅奇妙的景象——一个又一个的上了发条的橙子扭动着，汁液飞溅，腐臭甜腻的味道四散。这非常的荒诞无稽，但荒诞正是对这本书的最好诠释。

很多人对这本书都有自己独特的看法。我想，我的看法是最奇特的，主角亚历克斯，一个热爱古典的青少年，操着独特的语言，拿着凶器，和朋友们为非作歹。这很荒诞，一个如此年轻的人是不可能做出如此凶恶歹毒的事情，他们抢劫，强奸，欺负老人，可以说是无恶不作。这事实上是一种夸大，夸大了青少年在他们人生迷茫的时期对于世界的看法。

亚历克斯爱好着古典音乐，但是他的爱好不被世界接受。这种现象在他入狱后达到了极点，他入狱后接受手术，使他成为一个不能做坏事的人，虽然过程痛苦万分，但是就连他本人也赞同手术的结果——当然，是在手术之前。手术非常成功，他不能再做坏事了，这表明了一个道理，即使一个人，他不反抗世界，不彰显自己的个性，他也能够浑浑噩噩的活下去。

但是亚历克斯惊恐的发现，他的古典音乐也被多有了，手术后的他不能再听古典音乐了。他意识到，他的命运和《命运》都被夺走了。他选择了自杀，但是没有死。

不过我们亲爱的亚历克斯小兄弟最后交了好运，被政客利用的他被变回了那个可以欣赏贝多芬，又可以无恶不作的恶棍。这又表明，一个孩子只需要成为大人要求他成为的就行了。

在亚历克斯再次上街准备做坏事的时候，却碰到了他已经结婚的曾经的朋友。他的朋友只告诉他“大家都长大了”。只是亚历克斯不愿意面对现实。

《发条橙》曲折离奇，荒诞无稽的故事其实就是在讲述亚历克斯的青春，一个反抗世界最终屈服的青春，一段会让他后悔的记忆。在书的结尾，亚历克斯终于要面对人生。但是什么是人生？与其思考这些，还不如把一切交给自己的本心。

下面该玩点什么花样呢？他管这叫人生。

篇二：发条橙影评

A Clockwork Orange: An Anthem of Free Will

As a dark comedy of Stanley Kubrick based on a novel by Anthony Burgess to both critical and popular acclaim as well as to political controversy, it scored Kubrick his biggest box office hit at that point in his career. Maybe it sounds a little bit weird, a clockwork orange, a slang commonly used by old cockneys to describe some queer ones: ‘He is as queer as clockwork orange.’ Served as the title of this film, however, it can be literally understood: applying mechanistic morality (so-called clockwork) to some sweet, juicy, living engine bodies (so-called oranges). The Britain, left in your mind, could be the misty, drippy alleys of London in ‘Jack the Ripper’; the classical, sophisticated architecture in ‘Sherlock Holmes’ or the royal clothing in ‘Downton Abbey’. Unfortunately, these fascinating descriptions find no evidence in A Clockwork Orange. Here is a society filled with violence, force and desire where both the people and the country are all abusers. The film itself makes a mockery of English values and manners, for example, the rundown housing complex where Alex, the main character, lives closely resembles London’s poorly maintained public housing project. Moreover, the young represented by Alex rebelled politically and socially, and allied against what they saw as the hypocrisy and the repression of their elders. They have no particular political or social motivation for their violence and performs, they rape, robe, steal and murder as they want, indulging in

the original desire in the heart of heart. Even though most of the violent images are not of the blood-and-gore variety, the film’s brutality disgusted a lot. When Kubrick combined graceful dances and classical symphony with their atrocities, a freak kind of passion rushes out of mind, which reflects our most primitive impulses. Kubrick’s view of man is as a risen ape rather than Rousseau’s sentimental characterization of him as a fallen angel. Are we human beings’ essence destined to be evil? What if we choose to be a virtuous man spontaneously? And are we endowed with this right of choice by our state?

In this film, the government chose Alex to be the subject of an experimental procedure, Ludovico’s Technique, conducted by government-employed doctors, which attempted to get rid of his violent tendencies by alerting his mind. The therapy forced Alex to abandon violence by medicine in order to transform him into a virtuous man. Every time when his favorite music, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, (which he often used to accompany his atrocities) rang out, the medicine started to work and it drove him to be sick and fear. This is the new way the country hoped to reestablish the law and order. The first half of the 20 century has found the rise of psychological and scientific methods of changing human behavior, as well as instances where governments used those methods to control criminals and other members of society they regarded as threat. One in Alex’s gang of hoodlums, Dim, was then taken

on by the government as a rogue policeman who used his thuggish brutality to impose law and order. A theme of the governmental abuse of power is coupled with the concept of dehumanization of modern society. It offers another look at the dangers of state power, where the power-hungry individual, Alex, and the power hungry-state seem almost equally threatening.

If the freedom of choice can not be guaranteed, the act of violence might as well be let alone. Alex claimed himself to be cured, in fact, what he formed in the experimental procedure is just negative condition reflex to violence, which gave rise to his committing suicide. The government deprived him of his right of moral choice, he was not truly good because he didn’t choose to be good and the utilization of that right is vital to being a complete human. It occurs to me that the obtainment of law and order that is at the cost of people’s free will is nothing but crime. This enduring topic has been represented in many great works: V for Vendetta, Snow piercer, where the superficial harmony and stability are used to cover totalitarian and tyranny. The illusory utopia which restrains free will is absolutely the root of sins. ‘We don’t carry out our moral commitment by taking up a public stance on these things, but only by choosing to do something about them ourselves.’

Some people view the film as a celebration of youth violence, and the sign that society had grown too permissive with children. In another

words, they view free will as an abuse of desire. No matter morality or desire, it is born with two sides: good and evil, like the classical symphony used in some violent scenes, it can both expresses and channels human impulses. As such, the real sense of law and order comes from the good will in the heart rather than the power of governments. The influence of Catholicism lays the theological foundation for the free will theory, free will goes to ordinary people for the will of God, to drive people live naturally and be a real human. In the virtual reality means, A Clockwork Orange has huge implications. All down the centuries, we have been used to putting national sovereignty first, and then spontaneously, the harmony and stability become undisputed footstone of it. What we are gradually ignoring is the significance of human rights, which works as the symbol of being human and endowed by God. We have the free will to express and act ourselves, and we are minded men in the flesh rather than the dolls with clockwork.

篇三：发条橙影评

彻底的善与彻底的恶一样没有人性

这是电影史上最奇特的影片之一，也是最著名的禁片之一。自它问世以来，不仅惹来了至今仍争论不休的讨论，而且其中暴力场面还被许多青少年争相模仿。因为这个原因，在很多国家它一直被禁演，例如在英国，它便遭遇了近30年的禁演——直到这部影片的导演库布里克导演辞世之后，它才得以与英国观众见面。

除了涉及到暴力问题，这部电影也与“洗脑”有关——在西方世界，“洗脑”好像是最为恐怖的话题，甚至比变态杀手还要让人谈虎色变，因为“洗脑”意味着对个性的完全抹杀，对个人自由的彻底干涉。电影史上有很多经典作品都表现了这一话题的恐怖，最著名的例如《飞跃疯人院》。而这部《发条橙》更是将这一问题放到一种极端的形势下进行拷问：即使对象是无耻堕落的小流氓，是不是也应该维护他的自由选择权利？是不是就像电影中的神父所说，任何人都没有权利，剥夺他人“做出正确选择的能力”？

当美国导演库布里克看完英国作家安东尼?伯吉斯的小说《发条橙》之后，他极力说服华纳电影公司于1969年斥资20万美元买下了它的版权。随后他带着仅200万美元的预算，开始了电影《发条橙》的拍摄。在这部电影的拍摄中，库布里克借鉴了许多记录片的拍摄手法，包括现场收音，只利用自然光照明以及在拍摄追踪镜头时利用轮椅制造颠簸的效果等。

《发条橙》在拍摄完成后，由于它里面对暴力和性的表现而被美国电影审查委员会评定为X级的电影。而且因此它成为了继《午夜牛郎》后的第二部得到奥斯卡提名的X级电影。在电影上映一年后，库布里克删剪掉了电影里的30秒钟的镜头，才使《发条橙》的评级改为了R级。《发条橙》在英国的上映比在美国更不顺利，它被归罪为几件谋杀暴力事件的元凶。于是，库布里克请求华纳公司停止《发条橙》在英国的发行。随后英国禁止此片在其国内上映，直到2000年才解禁。

纽约的电影评论界评价《发条橙》为美国1971年的年度最佳电影，而库布里克则为年度的最佳导演。它还获得了奥斯卡的最佳影片、最佳导演、最佳改编剧本以及最佳电影剪接的提名。

在影片的开始，是一张脸的特写。它似乎在微笑着，可笑容邪恶而扭曲，它像是在欣赏着自己。随后镜头慢慢拉远，近景，中景，全景。我们看到超现实风格的室内装饰中弥漫着性与毒品的气息。这近乎达利式梦境的场景，就像是弗洛伊德的本我天堂，同影片中另外一些典型场景设置一样，这里有着浓重的超现

故事发生于未来社会，几个充满暴力倾向的青年在亚历克斯的率领下，在刚喝过据说含有毒品成分的人奶后，他们开始到处去寻欢作乐。他们先是痛打了一个街边的流浪汉，而后找到一群欲强奸一少女的流氓，为报私怨大打出手。库布里克用慢镜头表现着双方的恶战，音乐声中桌椅飞舞，玻璃破碎，那确实可以称得上是“暴力美学”了（对比这段“暴力慢镜头”，同样令人印象深刻的还有随后的那段“性爱快镜头”：亚历克斯将两个少女猎物领回家进行乱交，库布利克用快镜头表现着整个性爱过程）。

一场恶战后，亚历克斯和同伙驾车飞驰，在马路上肆意地逆行。在郊外的一

处寓所，亚历克斯以发生交通事故为由向这里的户主作家亚历山大夫妇借用电话，当门打开时，他们就戴着面具冲入屋内，殴打作家，并当着作家面轮奸他的妻子……

第二天，亚历克斯痛打对自己不忠的手下，从而确立了自己老大的地位。晚上他们就又一起准备以相同的方法进入富婆“猫夫人”家中，不料“猫夫人”早有防范，不但没有开门，还在亚历克斯离开后给警察通了电话。亚历克斯失手将“猫夫人”打死，而当他慌忙逃出“猫夫人”的公寓时，被意图报复的手下当场击昏，最后被赶来的警察逮捕。亚历克斯以杀人罪被判入狱14年。

大概是由于那个时代像亚历克斯这样的恶性青年太多了，监狱资源异常紧张。为缓解这一问题和减少社会上的罪恶，当时的政府对这些青年采取了一项实验性的治疗措施。方法很简单：在对“实验品”注射某种药物后，用个人电影的方式将一些极端残忍和血腥的犯罪事件放大、加压，不停地给“实验品”看。而在药物的作用下，“实验品”的原欲与身体指涉着不同的方向，先天的快感与药物的恶心感使他们的身体无所适从，这种难以忍受的分裂状态将有效且强力抑制住“实验品”的一切恶欲……

不知底细的亚历克斯自告奋勇，自愿充当这项政府新实验的“实验品”。实验很成功，亚历克斯在实验结束后如政府所愿，变成一个打不还手、骂不还口、没有性欲且绝对不会危害社会的“新人”……

原著小说作者安东尼?伯吉斯在解释他的观点时曾说：“彻底的善与彻底的恶一样没有人性，重要的是道德选择权。”而从事着魔鬼般罪恶勾当的亚历克斯就在这彻底的善与彻底的恶中（不是“之中”）生存——他的外表是有机物，似乎具有爱的色彩和汁液，实际上仅仅是发条玩具。而可怕的上帝或是魔鬼，以及日益完善的，发挥着比他们更大作用的国家机器从未停止它们操纵一切的手，它们在黑暗中不动声色地为发条玩具们拧紧发条，不动声色地看着这些玩具们走上自我毁灭之路……

库布里克在这部有意隐去时代特征的关于未来社会思考的电影中提出了一个疑问：人在未来的社会体制中，在科技高度发展的过程中，能否依旧按照自己的意志选择自己的行为？抑或是作为一个“发条橙”任人支配而没有自己的主张？或者说人在社会体制中如何保持自己的自由意志？——库布里克的这个疑问似乎永无答案。