A Clockwork Orange: Book / Movie Comparison

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess and the Interpretation by Stanley Kubrick: A Comparison

Comparisons between Burgess’s literary work and the film by Kubrick which it inspired are, not surprisingly, numerous. What is shocking perhaps, is the glaring differences that are found. I maintain that both versions are outstanding works of art and portrayals of the varying human condition; However, I have been raised in a culture which embraces an adversary system, so I must argue that the novel by Anthony Burgess is the only one which captures the true essence of our humble narrator and protagonist, Alex.

I take Burgess’s position when I criticize the exclusion of the twenty-first chapter (of the novel) from American printing presses, and consequently, the film version created from the American text. In the twenty-first chapter Alex finds himself, a number of years later, dissatisfied with his “childish” ways of living. The systematic rape, theft, and general acts of violence which he partakes in nightly begin to define him. The spontaneity is gone, and without it Alex feels as though his life has become mundane and dull. He finds himself in a rut of sorts, wondering where this path will take him, and concluding that this behavior must inevitably decease. Probing deeper he asks himself, what shall I do when it ends?

The answer comes in the form of dreams. Our dear and humble narrator has been having “strange” dreams of being an old man resting in front of a fireplace. What is even queerer is that he finds a baby (his) in the other room. Additionally, he has a wife, but her face is obscured. Upon awakening Alex experiences a secret longing for such a life – most notably for the love he felt for his wife and child. Alex finds that the only time he feels truly fulfilled is during the occurrences of said love. Thus he decides that his reign of terror will never ultimately garner his heart’s desires. By laws of opposition, if hate does not consume him with happiness, then it must be devotion to good which brings about such discharges.

This realization is the basis of criticism for the American text and film. The American version shows a static Alex – an unrealistic character because people logically change throughout their lives. We are dynamic. We are capable of both good and evil, even if our natural tendency is to favor one over the other. Kubrick’s Alex never wavers in his resistance to the nobler qualities of man. Burgess wrote that when we fail to portray humanity in its actuality, we are creating a fable – no more credible than the Brothers Grimm or lore from Greek mythology. Additionally, if man is framed as such a creature than it is a lie, and thus will fail to enrich our existence. It is only the accurate representation of humanity which contributes to a greater good. This, Burgess argues, is one of the most important explanations for why Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange does not do justice to his original work.

So why would Kubrick, a man of tedious, enduring devotion to his craft and subject, leave out such a pivotal scene? A case of ignorance comes to mind first – but is quickly destroyed. Kubrick, although American by birth, worked out of Great Britain; So it does not stand to reason that he would find an American copy of the text (the twenty-first chapter is present in editions world-wide, with only the United States as an exception). Additionally, Burgess’s novel was first published in 1962, with Kubrick’s interpretation arriving almost ten years later in 1971. By then the book had been widely circulated and it would have been readily available with the twenty-first chapter included, even in American book stores.

A more likely explanation is that the changes made and/or scenes omitted, was a political move. Three factors lead me to believe this. First, at least two major elements (not including the exclusion of the twenty-first chapter) were made in the film version. In the scene where Alex goes to the record store and meets up with two of-age girls and takes them home to “show off his record player,” then repeatedly has sex with them, a change has been made. In the novel, Alex does indeed meet two girls, but they are only ten years old. And instead of having consensual sex with them, he encourages them to consume large amounts of liquor at his apartment, before finally raping them once they are unable to fight back. Not only does he forcibly have sex with them, but he hits them when they struggle, causing substantial bruises. When he is done, he kicks them out of his house, almost before they have a chance to dress.

It is quite clear that it was a purely political move to replace two underage girls being raped, with two of-age consenting adults engaging in sexual acts which appear to be enjoyed by both parties. Had it remained the former, the MPAA would have never allowed this movie to be shown throughout the country.

Additionally, in the Korova Milk Bar, we are only left to assume that the drinks are spiked with drugs. In the novel, Alex has some of his “greatest” criminal ideas while sipping on milk laced with LSD. One might venture so far as to say, since the drugs numb the senses and create an otherworldly feeling, that Alex and company were only so inclined to evil because of the effects of the drugs. Considering that at no point do the boys ever commit such heinous acts without being drugged, or before getting sufficiently drunk at a pub, I wonder if the drugs and alcohol are the most important factors in their tendencies to act out in such a manner.

We all have fits of rage, or consider acting violently towards another, but seldom do we proceed with such action. Why would Alex be any different? Perhaps he has our same mentality, only these drugs spur him to go the extra mile, to kill when he would have only thought of killing. Taken into account that Alex was a mere fifteen years old before the accidental murder of the old lady, I find it incredibly hard to believe that he intentionally murdered her – especially considering that when he learns of her death (he thought she was just unconscious in both the film and the novel,) he is stricken with surprise.

I consider these two changes to be very important to the script because they change our perception of the protagonist and make him appear to be inhuman – when in fact he is acting only as rationally as he can, considering the circumstances. Both changes in the script serve this political agenda and help to explain why the twenty-first chapter was excluded. These political changes were created to gain acceptance from an American audience, the MPAA, and to better entertain (with complete and utter disregard for the meaning of the original work) the viewer. In other words, Kubrick has sacrificed art for the sake of popularity.

The second reason I believe Kubrick’s version of A Clockwork Orange is different from Burgess’s has to do with the period it was created in. It is well documented that tensions between the United States and the U.S.S.R. were climaxing in the 1970’s (during production of Kubrick’s version). Based on this fact, and the evidence showing that Kubrick made artistic sacrifices to appease his audience, I have concluded that the character Alex is intentionally representative of the American enemies of the time. The way Kubrick portrays Alex – as a savage, unrelenting beast of evil, who despite all attempts at reform, remains unchanged, is the mentality that Americans of the day were fed in regards to the threat of Communism.

The government of the era was fighting enemies on all fronts. In foreign affairs, the Cuban Missile Crisis had just passed, the Monroe Doctrine and the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty were being ignored, the conflict in Vietnam was reaching outstanding proportions, Mao Zedong was in power in China, and we were on the brink of a nuclear war with Russia. Domestically, the freedom to peacefully assemble was being tested at Kent State, the Black Panther Party was encouraging riots, drug use was growing exponentially, two icons of peace in America, John F. Kennedy, followed by Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated, and the danger of opposing the MPAA had been clearly demonstrated during the McCarthy era.

Upon consideration of these many factors, it is a natural assumption that times were rough. It is during these epochs that people crave strongest a common enemy – one which is truly, unrepentantly evil – a whipping boy of sorts. We must not allow ourselves to consider the possibility that we are wrong. I believe that this sentiment of ultimate morality in the actions of the United States is the reason we toiled so unproductively with racism, Vietnam, Russia, and applicable today, Iraq. Once America has embarked on a mission, the thought that we could be doing the wrong thing is completely eliminated as a possibility.

The inclusion of the twenty-first chapter, which shows that only through personal choice can we be made “good;” and the absence of emphasis on bad parenting, unfit environments for children, failed correctional institutions, and a poor education system, all gravitate towards an appeal to ignorance for the answer to why we misbehave. Consequently, when all factors are not taken into deliberation and properly analyzed, we end up with a skewed belief that some humans are born evil and lack the capabilities to change – which was the exact ongoing reaction to communism during the film’s production, and justification for racism before that.

The third confirmation that Kubrick differentiated between the original story and the film version to serve cinematic ends comes in the form of an additional theme. Throughout the film miscellaneous sexual references are made in the construct of physical objects, as well as the imagery used. Although Burgess wrote the novel with sex as an integral part of Alex’s life, it was not meant to be nearly as consuming as Kubrick makes it.

The novel uses sex as a means to end, not as an end in-and-of itself. Burgess shows that Alex has four taboo indulgences: He drinks (underage) and does drugs, has sex whenever he pleases (consent is optional), and commits acts of violence on a whim. Each one of these exploits serves the purpose of disobeying the conventional rules of society. It is these rebellious actions that Alex appears to feed off. I assert that if rape and murder were legal, Alex would not be doing them. The fact that he is fighting the powers that be, by not following their laws, is what materializes his harmful thoughts into action. In this sense, sex is almost meaningless for Alex – no more than another physical charge.

However, Kubrick warps Burgess’s illustration of sex as a tool, and instead makes it comparable to an idol. All around the walls, in every house, we are shown framed portraits of naked women. In the living room of Alex’s flat they are more tasteful than in other places. The women are partly clothed and pictured in sensuous posture. Upon entering Alex’s personal room though, the woman is pictured with her legs up in the air, spread apart, and all undergarments are abandoned. In the old lady’s home who Alex accidentally kills, there are naked women in a variety of sexual positions. She even has a large ceramic statue in the shape of a penis. The girls in the record store are licking phallic shaped popsicles; When Mr. Deltoid greets Alex in his home he causes him considerable harm by cupping his genitals and squeezing them; And when Alex must undress for the prison warden, we can catch him staring quite clearly at the young man’s nude form. In another scene the chaplain consoles Alex by saying he knows what it’s like to be young and isolated from the female form – and then lays his hand on Alex’s shoulder.

The dominance of both sexual imagery and innuendo over many of the more important themes in the work is a travesty. In Hollywood today the promise of seeing a particular actress nude in her upcoming film will cause box office numbers to spike – Kubrick applied this same principle by showing an excessive amount of gratuitous nudity.

Stacked among all the differences between film and text, one theme remains the same: Karma, the idea that every deed merits a consequence of equal nature. In both versions we are shown several cause and effect scenarios. In the beginning, Alex helps save a young girl from being raped by a rival, and later is gifted with two girls of his own. Dim is initially stabbed for his insubordination, but later gets revenge when he becomes a cop. Upon release from the Ludovico Treatment, Alex is attacked by a group of old men whom he had done earlier harm to. And what are the odds that the writer attacked in the beginning of the film becomes an essential mechanism in Alex’s suicide attempt?

It would appear that the world Alex has damaged would rather see him broken and crying than rehabilitated. This fateful twist brings about the Karma necessary for Alex to become “cured.” In a cause and effect relationship, Alex did harm to others, and was damaged in return. However, by becoming debilitated he is cosmically rewarded with the ability to return to his old ways of living.

If the twenty-first chapter were included in the film, we would be able to see that Karma has not only given Alex the ability to return to his old ways of living, but also gives him a capacity for realizing the merit of good deeds, which he was otherwise lacking. The theme of Karma is only fully realized if Alex is given this chance. If he is not, as in the film version, then the actions that Alex endured were essentially without cause.

The significance is furthered with a brief analysis of Kubrick versus Burgess. Summary of Kubrick’s Alex: He was a social deviant, forced to change his actions (not his perception on morals), and is miraculously freed from the mind-prison that was holding him back from doing what he wanted. Message: Action is inherently connected to intent; technology is incapable of curing human mental disease; and once a menace, always a menace. Kubrick is conveying the idea that true rehabilitation is not possible. No matter how hard we try, there can be no method of reform, nor answers to why some humans behave as they do. The only explanation Kubrick offers is that most people are born intrinsically good-natured, while others, like Alex, are violent by design.

Burgess’s version of A Clockwork Orange differs in several aspects. Summary of Burgess’s Alex: Social deviant, forced to change his actions, has several encounters with Karma, and changes his ways. Message: action is irrelevant if not supported by intent; technology is not the cure, but it is a means to an end; and rehabilitation is certainly possible, but the answer is not in politics or science, rather in positive relationships.

Burgess is negating the idea that humans can be diffused in to separate entities by asserting that the sum of the parts is what defines the whole. Changing one aspect of the mind is unquestionably futile when attempting to control the complete device. With this in mind it makes sense that technology is able to manage Alex’s impulses, but fails to “cure” him.
Burgess also constantly notes the failings of this society’s culture in matters of parenting, education, prison/jail, government, sustainable business, and housing. Karma is just one tool that he uses to do this. The greater focus is on the answer to crime and how this civilization should deal with it: Imprisonment (as the only structure of reform), or the new Ludovico Treatment which forces good behavior? Both answers presented are wrong because they fail to glimpse the root of the problem.

The social order is depicted as a trapping for the soul which only renders cruelty. Burgess’s novel introduces this institution as both the cause of, and solution to, abnormal behavior; whereas Kubrick abstains from any such judgment. He instead insists that Alex simply is a wrongdoer; and though there may be an underlying source, it cannot be remedied by science or society.
Overall, I believe Kubrick has created a masterpiece of film which is highly entertaining (though it does make ample use of artistic liberties). My only true objection arises from his failure to fully develop the meaning of a “clockwork orange” in the literary sense.

A clockwork orange is old English cockney – the language (combined with some Russian elements) that is used in both the film and text of A Clockwork Orange. It describes two contradictory ideas working together. For a clock to function properly it must be uniform, meticulously designed for hundreds, if not thousands of pieces to support each other in constant movement for years to come. No cog can be out of place, or the clock will fail. For this reason a clock must command every quantity to perform scrupulously. The opposite of this brand of perfection is the orange. Each one varies in shape and size, number of seeds, longevity, and taste. The typical orange is vibrantly bright, ripe with juice and life, and incapable of internal manipulation.

A clockwork orange is impossible because the nouns combined to create the phrase could never in this reality work together. This is the character which Burgess describes in his novel – a man driven by wanton desires and yet compelled to act the polar opposite. It is not possible for man to be wholly evil, or completely consumed by holiness. Humanity can only be defined by the constant duality of these clashing spirits. Inevitably, such qualities will struggle until a sense of balance is found. This is the reason why the twenty-first chapter is so necessary. It completes the circle of a clockwork orange by showing the unavoidable truth that humankind (Alex) has found equilibrium with both methodologies. It is for all the above-stated reasons that I believe the film by Stanley Kubrick does not accurately represent the human condition which is portrayed in Anthony Burgess’s novel, A Clockwork Orange.