Literature & Film discussion
Monthly Readings/Screenings
>
A Clockwork Orange (Nov. 07)
date
newest »
newest »
Did Stephen Berkoff (is that his name?) had something to do with the Theatrical production of "A Clockwork Orange." In the film he plays one of the cops who tears into Alex at the Police Station, and he is also a respected playwright and I believe he has his own theater group as well. This is all from a faulty memory....The homosexual aspects in the film? Are we talking about the relationship between the writer and the muscle-man that lives in the house with him, or at least takes care of him?
There have been two theatrical productions of "A Clockwork Orange". The first was written by Burgess in the late 70s and emphasizes Alex's love of music. There are several songs set to melodies by Beethoven. I don't recall it very well, having read it many years ago. In 1990, The Royal Shakespeare Company staged a musical adaptation which was, for the most part, poorly received. It's not clear if it is derived from Burgess' own adaptation, but you can find some commentary on it here:
http://www.geocities.com/malcolmtribu...
The most notable thing about it was that the music was by Bono and The Edge, though as far as I know they've only released one selection from it commercially.
And yes, I do think that Kubrick intends the viewer to see homosexual connotations in the image of the writer and the semi-clothed bodybuilder.. As well as in the scene with the school advisor, obviously.
(Fun fact (that most of you probably already know): The muscleman in that scene is David Prowse, the actor who played Darth Vader...)
the intro by Burgess in the 1986 is interesting and funny - in a few words he lays out his view of what fiction should be - also very critical about leaving out the last chapter in the American edition - I have to wonder how many books/movies aren't based on the original screenwriter's/author's screenplay/book or if the screenwriter/director didn't even read the whole book through no fault of their own -as far as people leaving the movie because they are not getting "it", I remember going to see Fargo with some people and they wanted to leave but since I drove and didn't want to leave, they stayed. Other people left before the movie ended.
Afterwards, my friends asked me how I could sit through such a boring movie. I couldn't figure out why they didn't see that was the whole point of the movie - the movie was about the banality of evil.
Of course that was my opinion about the movie. I don't know if I was right or not but the others who were pretty smart people made me pay for dinner for putting them through what they said was the most boring movie they may have ever seen.
In the intro, Burgess writes
Unfortunately there is so much original
sin in all of us that we find evil rather
attractive.
So maybe the people who left A Clockwork Orange
early didn't have as much original sin in them as those who stayed.
I don't know if Fargo's based on a book or what but I certainly don't remember any one saying have you read Fargo - if any one knows, let me know and have a good weekend.
What did the bartender say when the hamburger came into the bar?
We don't serve food.
I checked it out, and Fargo was not based on a book. I enjoyed Fargo--thought it was funny, not boring--and I thought that the violence in that film was much easier to take than the violence in Pulp Fiction. In Pulp Fiction, the violent scenes and the funny scenes were one and the same. I felt very uncomfortable with how much I laughed about the scene where John Travolta accidentally shot that guy in the head. Yet, I kept laughing, even after the movie. In contrast, the Fargo violence seemed very separate from the humor, unless you happened to think the wood-chipper was funny.I started watching A Clockwork Orange today. I haven't read the book. I didn't finish the movie, not so much because it offended me as it just had that science-fiction look about it that kind of turns me off. Same thing happened when I watched a bit of Slaughterhouse Five--I read and enjoyed that book. Anyway, I'm undecided about whether or not I'll read the book. I've enjoyed reading this discussion, so perhaps I'll get to the book sometime.
hi Robbiebook is quick and fun - the 1986 edition intro by Burgess is worth reading by itself.
Burgess language fun. Do search on Clockwork Orange and you'll find dictionary for new words created by Burgess. I hadn't and found reading it cool.
good luck.
Mod
I especially laughed at the ridiculous publisher's note at the back of the book where they claim it was voluntary for Burgess to leave off his ending. Are they serious??? What writer is going to change his book voluntarily and in only one country? If Burgess felt the ending was weak, he would have removed it from all the editions.
Okay, Jim, you've convinced me. I'll read it sometime, especially if it's quick. As I said, I've really enjoyed the discussion in this thread, so I probably will enjoy the book on some level. A priest, a rabbi, a tele-evengelist and a pickle walk into a bar.
The bartender says, "What is this, some kind of joke?"
I finally found the opportunity to watch this month's selection, "A Clockwork Orange" filmed under the direction of Stanley Kubrick.When the show is over and the credits roll, I must admit, I feel...nothing.
I can appreciate the stylish sets and costumes, the acting and the cinematography...all well put together and in line with the tone of the book. However, in my humble opinion, the psychedelic colors, the tables in the milk bar composed of a set of outstretched, pale, naked ladies...the pants that the droogs wear with the sling apparatus around the groin (reminded me a bit of Borat--sun-bathing)...it felt to me like the succulent chocolate frosting on the cake, the unexpected orange and purple sprinkles and polka-dots. But, beneath all the flash, somebody left out the flour, the eggs, and the milk.
For me, the brilliance of the novel...the lyrical language, the MESSAGE (I know I over-use that word, but it's important to me), it was a bit watered down in the translation. All of the discussion fostered regarding free will, moral choices, personal liberties. Can we honestly say this film would have brought about the same questions independent of the novel? (I say no). Is it meant to? Or are we meant to be more smitten with the technical skill and creativity on display?
There were lots of little technicalities that were altered from the page to the screen. (Did Alex have a snake in the book? I can't recall. In prison, Alex is chosen for the procedure because he is young, not because he murdered someone as in the book...and a few other details). One of the most interesting spins was how as Alex is beating the writer and raping and beating his wife, he is twisting and skipping, dancing around while he light-heartedly sings "Singing in the Rain." I guess this is meant to be ironic. Up until now that song had been associated with classic Hollywood film history...Gene Kelley iconically skipping and dancing around in the rain with a heart full of joy and romance. "Welcome", Kubrick (I gather) is saying, "to a new kind of film classic". Where violence will be shocking as well as beautifully choreographed and stylish.
And so I guess that's why ACO is considered a classic. It was among the first of many to come to stylize violence...to make it "interesting" and "arty." (I'm not a film historian, but I'm guessing that was a large part of the influence of this film). I am surprised to see this as a choice on AFI's 100 years list. If choosing among Kubrick's films, I would have gone with 2001 which to me felt more like a masterpiece.
I enjoy these self-indulgent reviews because they allow me to process my thoughts for now, and future sorting. I hope I didn't offend any of the Kubrick purists out there. I appreciated this film, but I don't think it captured the message of the much more memorable book. Thanks for the recommendation of book/film.
I haven't seen ACO since 1972 and now Alison has brought back a question that keeps bothering me about books, movies and pretty much everything - when do you cut your losses? --how do you decide whether to watch the whole movie - read the entire book? The older I get, the more valuable my time becomes because of my priorities - first there is my 12 year old daughter - then there's my happiness - then there's the realization that what you are doing might be the last thing that you ever do or that will determine your future (a little less dramatic but still a rather overwhelming thought) - something that everyone probably realises when something doesn't work out like they hope it will. So should I watch A Clockwork Orange or not?
I’ve seen “A Clockwork Orange” so many times that I have probably lost any ability to be objective about it. It’s technically perfect, visually stunning, but I’m not sure I would ever say it’s a “favorite” film. Like most of Kubrick’s work, it’s so exact, so carefully controlled in every respect, that it’s easier to admire from a distance than it is to respond to it emotionally. And I think that many of the things that Alison questions in her remarks are quite on target – and for the most part the same things that people admire about the film..I should preface this by saying that I don’t believe in nit-picking over this or that difference between a book and a film. Yes, it’s hard not to make comparisons, but it’s better to look at why the filmmakers made changes, not simply beat them over the head with them… But ideally that takes a little bit of distance, and watching a film immediately after reading the book – as many on the list probably did – makes it hard not to be distracted by any changes.. (My own case was slightly different; since I had only read the book once before – and more than 30 years ago – it was the novel that seemed different to me, and I found the changes – though I’d argue that they are minimal – to be very interesting..)
The biggest loss in the film, I’ll agree, is Burgess’ wonderful language. I’m not sure that any film version would have done better and I think Kubrick uses just enough of the pidgin-Russian talk to give us a sense of the anti-social youth culture. But it remains just a badge , a style, and never even attempts the Joycean/Shakespearean playfulness of the novel. (The Warhol film doesn’t really do much with the language but does retain the sense of a long monologue – albeit unsuccessfully..)
With that loss of language comes a crucial shift of perspective. We may identify with Alex in the film, we may be drawn to his charm and flair, we may sympathize with his misfortune – but we inevitably do so from a distance. He dominates the novel; we see things only from his point of view and his interpretation of things dominates – even at times obscures – the events he describes. Though he certainly demands attention in the film (and I can’t underestimate the sheer force of Malcolm McDowell’s performance), he is the absolute and final master of our perception in the novel.
That’s a crucial difference and one that has much to do with some of the aspects of the film’s tone that Alison objects to. The Alex of the film remains an object for us to watch, which adds to the film’s emphasis on irony, the grotesque and the whimsically stylized – all significant distinctions from the tone of the book.
I would argue that Kubrick compensates for the loss of Burgess’ language and Alex’s perspective by making the film so visually excessive, by the stylistic set-pieces and most of all by the use of music, which actually improves on the novel. But these decisions inevitably add to our distance from the events on screen and our sense of watching Alex rather than listening to him.
I don’t really have anything to say about the violence of the film because I don’t really react as negatively to that sort of thing as many do, but I would point out that while the visual effects – the ballet-like slow motion or the “Singin’ in the Rain” scene – certainly create an aesthetic level that clouds our objection to what Alex is doing, I found the violence of the novel more disturbing and even less ambiguous, leaving little doubt that the narrator enjoys it remorselessly.
The final point that I’d like to raise is that the film doesn’t avoid the issues of free will, morality and responsibility raised by the novel, but it takes a slightly different perspective on them. It may be that the difference is caused, again, by Kubrick only being able to show us what happens to Alex and not offer the full and sometime contradictory monologue of the novel. The film could be interpreted as saying that by having his savage nature stripped from him Alex is denied free will, but it leaves no doubt that Alex’ will is childish and brutal. I think the final scenes of the movie illustrate this very well, especially his almost infantile responses to the psychological testing and the wonderful irony of the final “I was cured” shot.
Which raises an important point of difference between Kubrick and Burgess and one that may say the most about why you preferred the novel. Kubrick is frequently described as a misanthrope, and while I think that’s a bit harsh, there is little doubt that he was deeply mistrustful of human nature. Nearly all of his films take a deeply suspicious few of the behavior of which man is capable (Alex is in fact one of the more likable heroes in his films…), and many of the best – “Dr. Strangelove” and “2001” forego a central sympathetic figure completely. I can’t imagine him making the “lost” Chapter 21 work on film as anything other than a joke.
I see what you're saying. For the translation of book to film, we had to lose a few things (most of the lyrical language, the ability to be inside Alex's head as the solitary Narrator) in order to gain a few more (the addition of the perfectly placed music, the psychedelic sets constantly reminding us that this is a different time, a different place). I will agree with and echo you on 1) amazing performance from M. McDowell (can you imagine not only having to work under the relentless perfectionism of Kubrick, but having to film such emotionally gut-wrenching scenes?) and 2) the well thought out placement of music.
Jim, to watch or not to watch...I think it's ultimately up to you.
I got a copy of Burgess' theatrical adaptation from the library yesterday. I haven't re-read it yet, but I did go over the preface,in which the author discusses many of the topics - the language, the final chapter - that have been raised here. (I don't know if this is the same text that some have referred to as a preface to 1985 editions of the novel, but I'm sure it's similar...) I was strongly tempted to scan a copy and post it or send it to any interested members but - even better fortune - found a slightly condensed version of the text posted here:http://pers-www.wlv.ac.uk/~fa1871/bur...
The omitted passages deal primarily with the book's original publication and its relatively meager sales.
And, yes, I had to look "subfusc" up in the dictionary. It means "dark, drab, and or dusky" and Burgess' use of it to contrast the book from the colors of the film version complements the above remarks from Alison questioning Kubrick's visual treatment.
That is a fascinating addition to this discussion. I mean, really. That's a great find. I was amazed to read that the author himself had considered the book "a sort of allegory of Christian free will." I feel like this must be one of the most misunderstood pieces of literature, ever. I'm convinced that the people who wanted this book banned could have never actually read it. Or comprehended it. Or something. Burgess says himself the violence is meant to be "morally shocking"...not just pornographic."But in a film little can be implied; everything has to be shown. Language ceases to be an opaque protection against being appalled and takes a very secondary place." And because the language was such an essential tool in the novel, I genuinely felt this was too difficult a piece of work to try to translate from book to screen.
So...A Clockwork Orange: the movie, standing alone: an artistic and influential piece of film-making. As an effective interpretation of novel, page to screen: misses the mark for me.
Alison's well-selected quote reminded me of an important point. Burgess' novel came out at a time when "Ulysses", "Naked Lunch" and "Tropic of Cancer" had just won their court cases, and his concern over what he was allowed to say as an author was legitimate. In that context, it's not entirely surprising that his agent expressed concern about getting the book published. How different everything had become less than 10 years later when Kubrick made his film- and may very well have felt obligated to show what Burgess could only say through a screen of language. I would suggest that Kubrick's film is broader and falls more into the category of dystopian fantasy, while Burgess used the idea of a future society as an allegory for the moment of the book's publication. As an interpretation - and I think there's a distinction worth making between "interpretation" and "adaptation" - Kubrick's film turned Alex' story into a statement about violence and freedom that intersects but doesn't entirely displace the message of the novel. The film is ultimately Kubrick's own and stands or falls solely on what he's trying to say, not on its fidelity to the novel. Burgess took a real sociological concern - violent youth gangs - and followed the implications of their behavior . Kubrick let the behavior speak for itself.
I am enjoying Robert and Alison's commentary on the film and book. I now want to read it again (the third time) and watch the film (I can't count how many times I have seen it) again.
I'll second Tosh - kudos to Robert and Allison for their insights and thoughts. I decided not to see the movie again for different reasons.
The main reason is that I really enjoyed Burgess's introduction which simply laid out that fiction is supposed to show you through the language, actions and consequences of the character's actions rather than tell you what the moral is if any.
The languager Burgess invented/adapted was fun to read and brillant. I don't know any books where the author invents a language where you understand what the character's talking about even if you don't know the language.
Also the way Alex ingratiated himself with the reader was genuis. I really felt this guy was talking to me like I was there and pleaded his point of view where I at least understood it even if I didn't agree with it.
Finally I didn't like the last chapter and recall the end of the movie as being better.
But Kubrick had to interpret what Burgess had written while Burgess would have still had a great book whether the film was ever made or not - I don't think there ever has been a movie made and then someone wriote a novel based on the movie.
Finally congrats to our founder for allowing all of us to enjoy this book and movie.
Jim, I didn't have that introduction, so I missed out big time. I did read (in Robert's article maybe?) that Burgess thought that all fiction should be about man's ability to change, and therefore, chapter 21 was spawned. Call me a cynic (you wouldn't be the first), but I don't think people really change that much. At least not that drastically.The only other book I can think of that created it's own language was 1984 (Newspeak) but certainly not to this degree.
When do we start the next book? Dec. 1? Kimley?
Mod
This next book should be interesting as well especially since we've got three film versions to discuss.
So, if I can only watch one version, which should it be? (Even though I'll probably watch all three...yes, I know it's Christmas but I'll probably be holed up in a back bedroom somewhere watching these movies while everyone else is caroling/opening presents/being festive in general). But, which one, if only one? I haven't seen any, or read the book. I know!!
To Jim: Doesn't "Finnegans Wake" count as having invented it's own language? Nabokov said of it that he didn't like books written in dialect - even if it was the dialect of genius.I will probably start "Postman" in a few days. I haven't read much of Cain (just "Postman", "Double Indemnity" and - my favorite "Serenade") and honestly don't even remember when I read it before. it was probably in the early 70s. I seem to recall a very beat-up old 10-cent Signet copy... with appropriately lurid cover , of course.
I've seen the two authorized film versions but would like to track down a copy of the Visconti film. I didn't like the Rafelson version much when I saw it - again, a very long time ago - but I may have been wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. And as slick and restrained as the MGM version inevitably was, it's closer in time to the novel and - keeping in mind the restrictions of the day - perhaps the closest to an "official" film version. On one hand, it can't be as explicit as the Rafelson version. On the other, it's got Lana Turner...
I realize that "Clockwork Orange" is soooo 9 days ago, but while cleaning through an overwhelming stack of articles to be filed away, I came across this review of a recent biography of Anthony Burgess:http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n03/print/bu...
To get straight to the pertinent section (somewhere around the 8th paragraph), the reviewer writes that Burgess' books "were founded on a belief that human beings were perfectible and that salvation could be achieved by human endeavor alone.."
"A Clockwork Orange'...with its wildly innovative vocabulary and its venomous hostility towards any kind of state-based attempts to reform the individual, is by no means as peripheral to the Burgess canon as he wanted it to be."
read the article cited by robert. it was rather erudite and over my head in some ways. i don't plan on reading any more burgess but i'm glad i read ACO.
Mod
I'm actually curious to read some of his other work especially considering that he didn't think Clockwork to be his best.
Has anyone else read any of his other books? Any recommendations?
Yes, Burgess has fallen out of favor since his death, but it seems like that may be reversing. I haven't read all that much of his fiction - I liked "Beard's Roman Women" and "1985", also read "The Clockwork testament" which is part of the semi-autobiographical "Enderby" series and a response to the controversy over Kubrick's film. But I have also liked much of his critical work on Joyce and Shakespeare. I've currently got "Nothing But the Sun" from the library, so I'll chime in if I actually get around to reading it.
I also did not know anything about the theatrical adaptations. Did you see any of them? Did Burgess write them himself and are they available to read? Were they done before or after the Kubrick film? I'm curious as to how much they may have been influenced by the film.