Sir, - The decision to permit the screening of A Clockwork Orange is a retrograde step. Its central character, Alex, is described as an amoral young man "obsessed with sex, ultra-violence and Beethoven". Quite a cocktail. The late Stanley Kubrick had the integrity to withdraw his own film when he sensed the damage it could do. What has changed to make this film acceptable in the year 2000? The film hasn't altered, yet it has been passed uncut with an 18 Cert. So the change must be in the community of viewers who are becoming so used to violence of word and deed in cinema and living-room that they are no longer shocked by it.
It is ironic that the posters advertising the film, have been censored, while the film itself remains uncut. This is a strange message; apparently our censor thinks it's all right to eat the food but dangerous for some eyes to see the menu.
Your reviewer Michael Dwyer (The Irish Times, March 17th), questions Kubrick's depiction of the victims of the violence of the Droogs as "flawed, weak and grotesque, as if they deserved their fate". However they are portrayed, this sort of inhumanity is as offensive as it is corrupting. There are no arguments left in the syntax of those who try to convince the Irish public that screen violence is not translated on to the streets. If Kubrick himself had difficulty living with his own creation when he faced up to the consequences, the Irish public can hardly escape unscathed. Murder, rape and violence are now commonplace. All these acts may not be attributable to videos or films, but they contribute significantly to a culture of violence. A sure case of "sow the wind and reap the whirlwind" (Hosea 8 v. 7).
What a pity this film and many, many others which graphically depict violence, rape and debauchery are put on the screens of our cinemas and not left where they belong - on the cutting-room floor. - Yours, etc.,
Robert Dunlop, Naas, Co Kildare.