The late Stanley Kubrick has long held a reputation for being one of the finer directors in the world. One of the movies that helped cement this fame A Clockwork Orange. He utilized a screenplay based on the Anthony Burgess novel of the same title. Kubrick adapted the screenplay himself. The film was released in 1971 so it was eight years after the publication of the novel.

This is part of my ongoing series of book vs. movie. From time to time, I am going to review both book and movie of the same title and compare the merits of each. This is an example of a cinematic classic and a near literary classic. A Clockwork Orange continues to thrill viewers and readers. The movie was features a great performance by Malcolm McDowell in the role of Alex. Alex is the narrator of both the novel and the movie. He is also the central character.

I included some thoughts on the slang used in this book in my review on the book. I found an online glossary that explains the slang. Some of the slang is culled from Russian words and some of it is invented slang or is lifted from the rhyming slang in some parts of England. I provided a few examples in the book review. I will offer a few here as they arise. The slang is less of a hindrance to the film than it is to the novel. In the movie, much of the slang can be understood through the visual context of what is going on in the background, the tones of voice and the reactions etc.

The sets utilized in the movie also create a unique world. The décor of the Korova Milk Bar, for example, takes the viewer on a ride into another world. The soundtrack music also provides much stimulation. Alex is preoccupied with rape, ultra violence and Beethoven. The early portion of the movie revolves around the crimes of Alex and his droogs (friends). Warren Clarke, James Marcus and Michael Tarn play Dim, Georgie and Pete. These malchicks (boys) are up to no good. Alex is the leader of the group although he tends to abuse his authority. His droogs begin to resent him and feel that he should not behave toward them as he does. This rift is what ultimately gets Alex caught. They have already broken into the home of a writer Mr Alexander (Patrick Magee) and raped his wife (Adrienne Corri). Alex joyously croons “Singing in the Rain” while committing this crime.

He is the only one to break into the second house of a woman who has called the rozzes (cops). Alex assaults her with a large sculpture of a penis. His droogs turn on him and tolchock (hit) him with a small club leaving him to be arrested by the police. This begins his period of incarceration. In prison he tries to behave in order to get out. The Charlie (chaplain) views him as a favorite. Alex learns of a new technique that will make the prisoner better. It will condition him to be good or safe. Alex is desperate to get out and so is willing to volunteer for the treatment. It is run by Dr Brodsky (Carl Duering) who is the main proponent of the theory. The treatment is a form of brainwashing that involves drugs and viddying (seeing) films of bad deeds.

The treatment renders Alex unable to defend himself or even make a play for a half naked girl. The Charlie (Godfrey Quigley) is outraged as he views it a removing free will and humanity. The State is only worried about the physical acts of crime and reducing prison population. The Charlie is concerned with matters of the soul. That is the morality play in the movie. Kubrick follows Burgess lead in not offering easy answers. One must wrestle with the issue of whether or not the ends justify the means. He will not harm another person but he is not a human being able to make a choice.

A side effect of the treatment is that they use music as a backdrop to the films of violence they use to sensitize Alex. Alex feels it is a sin to use Beethoven in this manner as Ludwig van never hurt a soul. Alex becomes unable to listen to music without becoming ill. He is also left defenseless against former victims or anyone else that wishes to abuse him.

The aversion to music comes into play when he wanders into the home of the writer he broke into earlier. The writer does not recognize him at first. The writer opposes the state and the current government and initially views Alex as a victim. He figures out who Alex is when Alex is in the bathroom singing “Singing in the Rain”. He has friends with similar political views who are interested in Alex.

Alex ends up locked in a room with Beethoven being funneled in loudly. He has no escape and eventually attempts suicide by leaping from the building. When publicity breaks on how the treatment rendered him so helpless there is a political furor. The minister of Interior Information must have him treated to be returned to his normal self. Here he is in the hospital as the politicians try to do damage control on the issue. The film ends with Alex listening to Beethoven and announcing “I was cured all right”.

It is a disturbing way to end the film. That is where the issues of right and wrong come into play. Each viewer (or reader) is confronted with this morality issue. Is it right to remove one’s humanity in the name of greater good? How do you balance the rights of the individual against the rights of society? The book has an additional chapter that features Alex beginning to outgrow his antisocial behavior. This chapter was excluded from the original American edition. Kubrick made the film based on the abridged American version.

I think that the movie works better with the American version. It would have been anticlimactic to add this extra material on to the film. From a cinematic standpoint, I think the current ending is better. It does leave the viewer hanging. It also leaves them walking out without easy answers. While I do like the notion of human transformation and redemption, I think that’s a better device for literature than cinema.

It is a close call but I think I will give a slight edge to the movie. Both are remarkable achievements but this has always been my favorite Kubrick movie. The soundtrack and the sets on the film are eerie and beautiful. Both should be sought out and compared. Kubrick shows off his brilliance at filmmaking in the movie and Burgess shows an extraordinary ability to create his own slang and manipulate the English language.

to read the book review consult:

http://www.epinions.com/content_127808147076


Recommended:
Yes