After reading the confusing and grueling nine pages of The Banking Concept of Education, my head felt scattered and jumbled, similar to a 1001 piece jigsaw puzzle thrown out on a table. As I began placing each piece into a specific spot, I could then create an outline of the message Freire was trying to convey. He discusses relationships with students and teachers, and how failing to establish solid friendships could result in failing to overcome oppression. Nearly every student suffers from this brutal and nightmarish monster, however few are able to know exactly how to counter act such a thing. Oppression comes at you like a hellish minotaur with a lust to thrash out any optimism within, imploding your subconscious with more anxiety than ever thought imaginable. Teachers are essentially evolving their students into a drooling pet that only listens and does everything told to do. Class lectures have no significant meaning or purpose, instead just another chore and burden through the eyes of a student. As Freire describes it the teachers are metaphorically filling up our containers with knowledge, preventing interesting and creative conversations about the topic at hand.

            The outer edges of my jigsaw puzzle has been put together, I am able to understand the reading on a more prominent basis. This now allows me to take one step inside exploring the imagination of Paulo Freire and his concept of education. Without stable and significant relationships among teachers and their students, a false reality may become present in the lives of the student. Similar to a slight variation of Alice in Wonderland, the students won’t have a clue how to handle themselves, encountering all sorts of gizmos and unknown aliens with nothing but utterly useless information. To be educated doesn’t mean inject the reading material into your brain and spilling it all over the final exam, only to receive an average C. There is so much more to the text and the vast amount of information waiting to be picked up and used for every individual who has a desire to learn. It would be equivalent to hearing a Bob Dylan just to hear the soft acoustic guitar, accompanied with a beautiful harmonica. Instead of being footle, listen and dissect the lyrics to actually understand the inner beauty of his music. It’s the exact same principle with comprehending education for yourself or others. Develop a desire to wrap your fingers around the entire topic, using multiple angles and attitudes to think about the concept. Education is important to everyone, both students and teachers can use each other to extend their knowledge in and out of the classroom.

            If I had to choose one author who could somehow relate to this topic it would have to be Anthony Burgess. In on of his popular books A Clockwork Orange, Alex DeLarge is a mischievous fifteen year old who gets sent to jail after committing murder. He is asked to try out a new program that subsequently “cures” your brain and thought process, eliminating any desire to think about any evil thoughts. I relate it to Freire due to the fact no longer has any “free” thoughts or ideas. He now only knows what the scientists have allowed him to think, becoming in what Burgess defines a clockwork orange. Essentially students are becoming more like this as well, with only using the information dished out by their teachers. Students need to be able to be open and express their ideas feeling comfortable, without leashes limiting their ideas.

            The puzzle is complete, as I now sit back and gaze at the brilliant masterpiece Paulo Freire has written. It’s incredible the analogy he uses to describe the transaction between students and teachers. He points out distinct reasons showing how simple and boring class can be without a positive influence from either party. Students are essentially just droogs carrying out an everyday assembly line, with no variation. The New York Times ran an article explaining how todays generation has become the laziest of all. After reading Freires article I can definitely see the signs that show this being true. No one has the drive to do anything with the lectures from class. It will take an effort from both students and teachers, too not only overcome oppression but use the information from school out in the “real world”. 

“The attempt to impose upon man, a creature of growth and capable of sweetness, to ooze juicily at the last round the bearded lips of God, to attempt to impose, I say, laws and conditions appropriate a mechanical creation, against this I raise my sword-pen” (Burgess 21-22). Perhaps one of the most famous passages in my novel, this quote is given by a revolutionary and quasi-father figure of Alex, F. Alexander. This quote, in essence, summarizes one of the dominant themes of my novel, the importance of free will. It summarizes my rebellion against the mechanical nature of the government and the imposition of laws that limit human freedom. Now, the words “free will” might ring a bell. You might be thinking, “Oh, I get it. This presentation is about existentialism.” If that is what you are thinking, then you are correct. Specifically, this lecture is about how Alex DeLarge, as he is popularly called in Stanley Kubrick’s masterful adaptation of my novel, is an existentialist hero and a champion of freedom.

Although existentialism is a loose and ambiguous school of thought almost devoid of logic, with its major proponents criticizing each other, existentialism still has a focus on literature. The existentialists, unlike the logical positivists or the phenomenologists, are also famous literary writers. Their novels, obviously, tend to focus on existentialism and this focus is usually shown through their existential protagonist. Usually an anti-hero, the existential hero is characterized by alienation and individuality. He eventually realizes the importance of freedom and the indifference of society. We find all of these values in the character of Alex DeLarge, whom I would consider as an existential hero.

Although it may not be apparent at first, we eventually realize that Alex is a loner. He has his little droogies, but do they mean anything to him? Almost everyone he meets betrays him. This includes his droogs, his family, his advisor, and the revolutionaries. In the end, we see that Alex has no place to go and no one to confide in. This is particularly apparent in a quote by Alex: “Nobody wants or loves me. I’ve suffered and suffered and suffered and everybody wants me to go on suffering” (137). Spoken after Alex’s family rejects him, this quote illustrates his alienation. After his mistreatment at the hands of the government, Alex has nowhere to go and nothing to do. He considers committing suicide and sinks deeper and deeper into nihilism.

His individuality worsens his alienation. In many existentialist novels, we see that the protagonist cannot get along with society because of how different he is. Alex is no exception, though I must still admit that Alex is not nearly as alienated as some other existentialist heroes. Unlike Antoine Roquentin or the Underground Man, he is perfectly capable of interacting with society. Yet, he is still different. He loves classical music and art. Towards the end of the novel, he professes his love for lieders, which are songs for piano and voice written mostly during the Romantic era. Because Alex is an individual, society hates him. It hates the fact that he is different. Because of his individuality, he even finds himself incapable of getting along with his droogs, demonstrated by the fight he had with Dim over an insult.

So, we have already established his individuality and alienation, two major qualities of an existential hero. If existentialism is to be a rebellion against society, the heroes cannot conform to society. Another important quality we have yet to touch upon is freedom. As I have previously mentioned, the existential hero is the champion of free will. It is with his free will that he defines himself. Usually, he doesn’t realize the importance of free will until after some important experience. In A Clockwork Orange, Alex, from the start, shows signs of being an existentialist. In a quote in the first part, Alex states: “More, badness is of the self… they of the government and the judges and the schools cannot allow the bad because they cannot allow the self. And is not our modern history, my brothers, the story of brave malenky selves fighting these big machines… But what I do I do because I like to do.” First and foremost, we see the rebelliousness in the character of Alex. He sees the government as a machine that imposes its will upon others, a machine that restricts the freedom of others, which, as it turns out later in the novel, he is correct. Furthermore, by not allowing badness, the government is essentially not allowing an important element of human nature. He tops it all off by stating that he is bad not because he is inherently bad or because the devil is making him bad, but because he chooses to be bad. This is every bit rebellious and every bit existential.

Even though he does show early signs of existentialism, we cannot call him an existentialist at this point. As much as he may appreciate his freedom to choose badness, he also scoffs at F. Alexander’s passage, which I read earlier, suggesting that there is still much he does not understand. It is not until after his conditioning and loss of free will that he finally realizes the importance of freedom. Much more important than simply getting out of jail is his ability to choose. He wants to be in control of his life and without the ability to choose, he cannot be in control. Perhaps one of the most poignant scenes in the novel is when Alex is taken to his last experiment with the Ludivico technique. This time, he is not injected with the drug. However, he still experiences the same sensations of pain and nausea. Finally, he realizes that the conditioning has succeeded, that he is no longer free. And with that in mind, he breaks down and cries. Equally important is a quote that summarizes his epiphany: “Am I just to be like a clockwork range?” (127). He asks rhetorically whether or not he is just supposed to be a mechanical man completely devoid of choice, like a robot. This is really the beginning of his maturity.

A final characteristic I wish to focus on is the absurdity and indifference of the world. Like many other existential heroes, Alex eventually realizes how the world does not care about him. After all his suffering, he realizes how cruel the world truly is. As he mentioned in the beginning of Part III, he becomes aware that nobody loves him. He makes the same realization that Meursault and the Underground Man makes. He, though, responds differently. Instead of accepting it and simply living with it, Alex cannot stand it. He accepts it, but he cannot live with it. And so, he makes the drastic decision to take away his own life and end all the suffering. But, we all know that did not work out.

A Clockwork Orange is not an existential novel. Although it may have characteristics of existentialism, and I do admit that previous existentialist writers influenced my thought, I never intended it be an existential novel. Unlike Notes from the Underground or Nausea, my novel is not blatantly existential or philosophical. It simply touches on a few topics here and there. Nevertheless, Alex DeLarge is decidedly an existential hero. He is the one that has had “laws and conditions appropriate a mechanical creation” imposed upon him. Yet, he fights back with his individuality and will. And through this fight, he realizes many important lessons. It is not F. Alexander, but Alex DeLarge who “raises [his] sword-pen” against tyranny and restrictions of freedom. Thank you.

Works Cited

Burgess, Anthony. A Clockwork Orange. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1986.

Scala in the 1980s

The site where Scala sat had a very varied life during the 1920’s Scala operated as The King’s Cross Cinema, and had for a period of time reasonable trade. Between 1921 and 1929 the cinema changed hands more times than some had varied dinners in the same timeline. From 1929 to the Second World War trade was constant and the cinema was owned by Gaumont British Pictures. But at some point, exact date unknown the building was bombed by German fighter planes flying overhead. The result was that the cinema closed and fell into a dire state of disrepair until 1952, when it re-opened as The Gaumont. In 1962 the Cinema was bought out and re-opened as the Odeon which lasted until 1970. In 1971 the cinema went in a dramatically different direction re-opening as Cineclub; the choice of movies was strictly of an adult nature. With raids, embarrassment and all sorts of other controversy after four months of trading Cineclub came to a sudden, but highly expected close. Later in the same year the cinema re-opened as The King’s Cross Cinema again with a themed cinema and venue for music. Having then tried to change into a sports complex, the cinema finally closed in its known form in 1975 and began to fall into disrepair. It was the form the cinema took in 1980 that was the most bizarre, as a sort of Eco-Project the legendary seating was pulled out, untold historical damage done to the building, in order to lay grass and show strange “nature” style films, called the Primatarium the key interest to the then owner/tenant was monkeys.

In 1977 on Tottenham Street a group formed in a cinema known as The Other Cinema. This group was called the Scala Club. Scala was a speciality club showing classic movies to a select group of individuals. In 1978 Stephen Woolley (later the part owner of Palace Pictures), took over Scala and began to change the format moving on from classic to cult movies. In 1981 Scala had grown in popularity and saw a window of opportunity by acquiring tenancy of the Primatarium. Opening under their own rights as The Scala, the cinema screened the original King Kong and progressed to show more unusual and progressively daring pictures.

Scala was different to any other cinema in the UK, it was very much a place to turn up, chill out, and really let your hair down. Never the best part of Pentonville Road to be in, Scala was a place strangely out of time, it’s clientele varied from business professionals, stuffy upper class types, punks, the lesbian and gay community, drug users, alcoholics, and plain good old movie lovers that wanted a different experience. Scala was a place where anything quite literally would go, if you wanted to have sex then it was off to the back row, if you wanted to smoke whatever took your fancy it was the centre seats, and if you quite simply wanted to watch and love movies it was straight up to the front. Scala flaunted every public law possible it could inviting its clients to do whatever they saw fit. At times smoke at the centre part of the cinema was so extreme that often the beam of the projector found it difficult to penetrate the smoke, smoking incidentally had been banned in cinemas many years before. Whatever your vice, Scala was a night-time venue for those that wanted more stimulation than pop music, those that wanted culture, and an ambience that they could not get anywhere else.

Over the next few years things at Scala changed dramatically offering its visitors an experience they could not get anywhere else at that time. Straight after the British board of film classification had their arms twisted to be more vigilant and video tapes of movies in the home became fashionable, censorship in Britain reached a pinnacle, with more or less any movie with an 18 certificate falling foul of the censors. At this time Scala again flaunted these rules and showed movies both in their uncut form, but also often showing movies that were banned in the UK. The Exorcist, Salo, I Spit On Your Grave, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre were all movies made illegal by the BBFC and the government, yet Scala stood up and showed them. In the mid 1980’s the focus moved towards bigger targets in the world of adult, gay, and horror cinema. And as these progressions occurred so did further change at Scala, the cinema showed different movies every night, with calendars of schedules released often months in advance.

The cinema became the ultimate haunt, all night horror movie marathons proved incredibly successful driving people from the nightclubs into the cinemas, where they could enjoy both alcohol and the culture of movies they could not see anywhere else.

What is most strange about Scala was that at its height of popularity things were being ran at their worst, staff did as they felt, the projectionists were often so out of their heads on whatever the drug of the moment was that film reels were often placed in the wrong order, or not even played at all. The whole Scale experience became so hit and miss that people often thought they were just watching movies that were meant to be almost nonsensical. Outside the projection booth, staff performed, drank and fornicated with the patrons of Scala; but it just became all the more popular.

It’s of no surprise I guess that this story had to come to an end, and the past tense manner I have spoken about Scala in this whole piece is a clear indication of this. Censorship began to lift in the UK, and more and more movies made it onto video, the exact sort of movies Scala chose to show. It was indeed time to up the ante, and then manager Jane Giles knew exactly how to do that. Giles committed the ultimate sin, on April 1st 1992 Scala showed the full and uncut version of Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange; a movie outlawed in the UK after director Kubrick received death threats. Without permission to screen the movie Warner Brothers, FACT (Federation of copyright theft) and Kubricks own legal counsel all took a civil action against Scala, at a time audiences were at an all time low and the landlord wanted a hefty rent increase.

In April 1993 Giles was prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and in June after a screening of King Kong, Scala closed its doors forever. After months of campaigning, and incredibly hard partying it was apparent that nothing could save Scala, and a unique piece of history, the only ever Grindhouse cinema the UK ceased to exist.

Scala’s effect on UK cinema is far more than anyone will ever truly appreciate, making mockery of the government by screening banned movies, and films were forced out of censorship. Copycat cinemas tried their hand at mimicking Scala’s charm, but none were a  match for Scala.

Scala Nightclub in 2008

Most films that are censored are aimed at an adult audience, thus the previous mentioned quote is untrue, for censorship is used to protect everyone from the damaging effects of horrific, sexual or violent images and idea. The images and ideas that are believed to need protecting from vary from classification system to classification system.

This variation is caused by cultural influences, governmental control and general public debate in conjunction with the classification board. Therefore every film will get a different classification and or different cuts pertaining to the country in which the classification is given. In the United States of America the classification of films is completed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

In Australia the Office of Film and literature Classification (OFLC) classifies and censors films and in the United Kingdom the classification board is The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). Each of these organizations aims at classifying film into age ranges, pertaining to the films content and appropriateness. However, the three organizations do so differently and with different standards.

The MPAA classifies films using a parent method, which means that every movie is classified by a rating board who members can “put themselves in the role of most American parents so they can view a film and apply a rating that most parents would find suitable and helpful in aiding their decisions about their children and what movies they see” (How Movies Are Rated, 2005). Thus, the MPAA is aimed at classifying films into appropriate content for specific age groups with a large concern of what parents want their children to see.

If a film’s target audience is a G rated audience and gets a higher rating than expected. The film maker then has the option of re-editing the film for re-evaluation. The MPAA in its self will not censor a film due to the film maker’s constitutional first amendment of free speech, but will suggest certain areas for editing in order for the movie to get a specific rating.

Two films, A Clockwork Orange (1971) and 9 Song (2004), can be examined closer in connection with the MPAA classification system. The Film, A Clockwork Orange was originally given an X rating (now NC-17) by the MPAA. The NC-17 rating is given to movies that the board believes most parents would find inappropriate for their children under that age of 17. The content of an NC-17 movie can be pornographic or obscene in connection with sex, violence and or drug use (What do the Rating mean, 2007).

The creators of A Clockwork Orange re-edited and re-released the film in American theaters which received an R rating. With the R rating the movie was distributed in national theater but the original X rated film was later released on video/DVD. The film, 9 Song (2004), according to the MPAA is not rated (NR). This means that the film was not viewed by the MPAA and thus was not given a rating.

The fact that films can be nationally distributed without a classification is a key difference in the American film industry compared to other counties. However, most film are classified because it help with a films theatrical release, but video and DVD sales include many NR titles, usually sold as Director’s Cuts.

The OFLC is different than the MPAA, because the OFLC is organized by the Australian government and is run with specific legislation in mind. This legislation includes the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, National Classification Code and Classification Guidelines (Relevant Legislation, 2007).

The classification board of the OFLC is an independent statutory organization whose soul purpose is to make classification decisions on a variety of public media and art. The OFLC states that it classifies films with four key points or codes in mind.

These codes are that, “(a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want, (b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them, (c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive and (d) the need to take account of community concerns about, depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence and the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner” (National classification Code, 2007). The codes followed by the OFLC, are further elaborated on in the guidelines of the organization.

The OFLC uses these codes to classify every film that is brought to the board. The film A Clockwork Orange was viewed by the board but was initially banned due to its highly violent content. The Film was banned for over 30 years until October 2007 when the film was re-reviewed and was given an R 18+ rating due to its highly violent content (Clockwork Orange, 2007).

The R 18+ rating means that the film is restricted to adult viewers but viewers should understand that the film may be offensive to sections of the adult community (R18+ – Restricted, 2007).

Another film supposedly reviewed by the OFLC is the film 9 Songs, the movie was given an X rating according to an unreliable website. However, the OFLC website gives no indication that the movie 9 Songs has been reviewed. There are many reasons that the film choice not to be reviewed by the OFLC.

In Australia every movie that wanted to be sold legally needs to be reviewed by the board and a fee from the film makers is required. The film makers of 9 Songs, could have chosen not to have their movie reviewed due to Australia’s strict restrictions on sexually explicit films. The restrictions are as followed, a film containing consensual sexually explicit activity will be given an X 18+ rating, with this rating the film is only available for sale or hire in the ACT and Northern Territory.

The film can also show no violence and does not have sexually assaulting language. The film can also use no fetishes, examples of which are bondage, fisting and candle wax. The rating also restricts the age of actors and the portrayal of actor’s ages (X18+ – Restricted, 2007). The film makers of 9 Songs could have deemed in unnecessary to advertise there movie in a country where such high restriction are place on content.

The BBFC, is the boldest of the three organizations in that it not only classifies films it also has the ability to censor them. When reviewing a film the BBFC, uses legislation to deem material as appropriate for a viewing audience, but unlike the OFLC the BBFC is not under direct government control. When classifying and censoring films the BBFC does so not with the governments control but with what they deems as appropriate for the audience in conjunction with legislation specific to film material.

Three key elements of a film are examined when a film is being reviewed, they are: (a) does the material conflict with the law? (b) is the material, at the age group concerned, likely to be harmful and (c) is the material, at the age group concerned, clearly unacceptable to the board’s public opinion (Introduction, 2007). In direct connection with children, a harm test is done to every film.

When a film goes through the harm test, it is viewed to see if the material in the movies could cause harm to a child. An example of the harm test being used is in the opening scene of the Disney movie Rocketman. The opening scene of the movie was cut because it portrayed a child using the Dryer as a rocket ship. This was viewed as harmful because if a child were to do the stunt it their own home they could die. This is a blatant form of censorship pertaining to children. However, every film has the ability to be censored even if it is advertised at an adult age group by the BBFC.

The idea for the film, A Clockwork Orange, was originally submitted for review in 1967, when the movies original screen play was reviewed. The Boards initial reaction to the screen play was that a film with vicious violence and hooliganism would be unacceptable by the BBFC, even though the film was advertised at an adult audience.

Surprisingly with little script changes the final movie was classified with an original X rating later changed to an 18 rating when released uncut by the BBFC (A Clockwork Orange – Case Study, 2000). Another movie classified by the BBFC was 9 Songs, the film was given an 18 rating and was uncut. It was a landmark move by the BBFC because the movie depicted real sex.

The classification had received mixed reviews with many individuals praising the classification and other finding it inappropriate (9 Songs, 2007). These two films were aimed at adults and were not cut, however that is not the case with every movie reviewed by the BBFC. Films that have been aimed at an adult audience and were cut by the BBFC are 1995s Showgirls, 1989s Child’s Play, and 1982s The Evil Dead. All three of these films were advertised for an adult audience but the BBFC still deemed that parts of the films needed to be censored.

A Clockwork Orange and 9 Songs are used as examples in connection with the MPAA, OFLC, and BBFC’s classification and censorship procedures, demonstrate that the organizations are censoring film for all age groups not just for children.

If the classification organizations were censoring films only for children then movies targeted at an adult audience would be free of censorship, which according to the OFLC and BBFC are not due to the organizations ability to censor and ban material. The MPAA does not have the ability to out right censor a film but it can determine the appropriate content available for specific age groups by classifying film into a higher or lower classification group.