I have always considered the legendary filmmaker Stanley Kubrick with a school-girl curiosity of sorts simply because I did not know anything about him until very recently. Kubrick, as they say, is the veritable God of filmmaking but I had never had the pleasure of watching his movies while I was growing up. So when I decided to watch the 100 greatest movies of all time, I was excited to find Kubrick’s name on the list (but of course!) – “A Clockwork Orange”, “Dr Strangelove or How I learnt to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” and “2001: A Space Odyssey”.

A marathon Kubrick session later, I have to say that Kubrick is everything that he is cracked up to be. Going by the mother of all clichés, he was way ahead of time, his vision was astounding and quite honestly, I do not think anyone could have made a better statement about the future or the nuclear holocaust than him. Take, for example, “A Space Odyssey.” Released in 1968, the movie is a commentary on the evolution of man, the ugly side of artificial intelligence and the implications of space travel. Starting with the dawn of man when a tribe of (man) apes are shown fighting for territory and resources (inadvertently discovering a mysterious black monolith), the movie fast forwards four million years into the future – 2001 – when man sets foot on the moon (and discovers yet another monolith that emits a powerful radio signal) subsequently exploring the universe. This journey, however, is not for the faint-hearted – the first words are uttered some 30 minutes into the movie which is also when the first human appears on screen; a tad boring for those who just want to ‘get on with it’. Throughout the movie, in fact, there is very little dialogue and the profound philosophical speculation that Kubrick expects his viewers to sit through – and understand – may be hard for many new-age movie fans to digest. Kubrick’s statement?

We are headed towards a world where space and time no longer exist; where man can be past, present and future all at the same time. Now if that’s not way ahead of its time, then I do not know what is.

Then there is the black comedy “Dr Strangelove”, Kubrick’s interpretation of what can happen if all the so-called sensible, grounded people in the Pentagon one day decide to go ahead with a nuclear attack on the (former) Soviet Union. Kubrick, by turns, takes jabs at the prevailing mindset back then: the ‘red conspiracy’ that is ‘flouridating’ the water to pollute our bodily fluids, the absolute ineptitude and foolishness that military men are capable of and finally how wisdom and good sense can get lost in translation.

Perhaps the funniest character of the movie is the mad but clever German scientist Dr Strangelove (played by Peter Sellars, also playing the role of the US president and military commander Captain Mandrake) who explains the implications of a nuclear holocaust and possesses a hand that has a mind of it own (Nazi salutes and all). Even though “Dr Strangelove” was made quite early on during the Cold War, it is a compelling critique of the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and their fury if unleashed upon us by extremist generals and elected government representatives.

And finally who can forget Kubrick’s infallible adaptation of “A Clockwork Orange”, Anthony Burgess’ nightmarish sci-fi novel by the same name that is a strong commentary on the Pavlovian methods of conditioning – and reform. Made over 25 years ago, “A Clockwork Orange” has retained its ability to evoke feelings of shock and outrage in the audience. Centered on the ‘anti-hero’ Alex and his droogs (friends), a gang of unruly, frighteningly violent and deviant boys, Kubrick deliberates on the brutish activities of these men. Not surprisingly, the ring leader, Alex, is caught in the act by the authorities and is hauled off to prison where two years later he volunteer for the experimental aversion therapy in a bid to get out of jail. Two weeks – and aggressive conditioning techniques against violence, sex and even music – later, Alex finds that he has lost his free will and that he cannot help but feel sick every time he hears Beethoven’s ninth symphony (which he was fond of), is aroused by a woman or is assaulted. While Alex starts out as being the ‘immoral,’ evil no-gooder, by the end of the movie one is manipulated into feeling sorry for him. Therein lies Kubrick’s brilliance – his ability to force the audience to question if it’s okay to exercise control over an individual’s free will as a way to get rid of evil. Explicit and unsettling as it may be even in this day and age, “A Clockwork Orange”, like Kubrick’s other two movies, remains culturally and socially relevant – a testament to his greatness as a filmmaker.

The writer is a freelance journalist

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.