Tweet
The Ludovico Technique: Remembering “A Clockwork Orange” On Its 50th Anniversary
EE049AC3-7CDD-4D1D-B3D8-12394A7B85C1.jpeg
THE LUDOVICO TECHNIQUE: REMEMBERING “A CLOCKWORK ORANGE” ON ITS 50TH ANNIVERSARY
By Michael Coate
“Quite simply, A Clockwork Orange is significant because it’s a Stanley Kubrick film.” — Raymond Benson, Cinema Retro
The Digital Bits and History, Legacy & Showmanship are pleased to present this retrospective commemorating the golden anniversary of the release of A Clockwork Orange, Stanley Kubrick’s (Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey) critically acclaimed film based upon Anthony Burgess’s novel and starring Malcolm McDowell (Time After Time, O Lucky Man!) as gang leader Alex whose principal interests of rape, ultra-violence and Beethoven occupy his life before the government attempts a rehabilitation.
The film was nominated for four Academy Awards (including Best Picture), and in 2020 the Library of Congress selected A Clockwork Orange for preservation in the National Film Registry as being “culturally, historically or aesthetically significant.” Its most recent home media release, on 4K UHD, was in 2021 (and reviewed here).
For the occasion of A Clockwork Orange’s recent anniversary, The Bits features a multi-page article consisting of a Q&A with a quartet of film historians who reflect on the film, plus box-office data and statistics, passages from film reviews, and a reference listing of its first-run theatrical presentations in the key markets of North America.
CLOCKWORK NUMBER$
0 = Number of Academy Awards
4 = Number of Academy Award nominations
4 = Number of cinemas playing the film during its opening weekend
4 = Rank among top-earning films directed by Kubrick (adjusted for inflation)
6 = Rank among top-earning films released in 1971 (lifetime/retroactive)
7 = Rank among top-earning films during the 1972 calendar year
11 = Rank among Warner Bros.’ all-time top-earning films at close of first run
41 = Number of weeks the longest-running engagement played (domestic)
61 = Number of weeks the longest-running engagement played (international)
89 = Peak all-time box-office chart position
$1.3 million = Production cost
$9.0 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
$12.0 million = Domestic box-office rental (earnings through 12/31/1972)
$13.5 million = Domestic box-office rental (earnings through 12/31/1973)
$14.0 million = Domestic box-office rental (earnings through 12/31/1974)
$14.5 million = Domestic box-office rental (earnings through 12/31/1975)
$15.0 million = Domestic box-office rental (earnings through 12/31/1976)
$17.0 million = Domestic box-office rental (earnings through 12/31/1992)
$41.0 million = Domestic box-office gross (estimated; unconfirmed)
$73.0 million = International box-office gross (estimated; unconfirmed)
$114.0 million = Worldwide box-office gross (estimated; unconfirmed)
$808.1 million = Worldwide box-office gross (estimated; adjusted for inflation)
PASSAGES FROM A SAMPLING OF FILM REVIEWS
“Literal-minded in its sex and brutality, Teutonic in its humor, Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange might be the work of a strict and exacting German professor who set out to make a porno-violent sci-fi comedy. Is there anything sadder—and ultimately more repellent—than a clean-minded pornographer? The numerous rapes and beatings have no ferocity and no sensuality; they’re frigidly, pedantically calculated, and because there is no motivating emotion, the viewer may experience them as an indignity and wish to leave. The movie follows the Anthony Burgess novel so closely that the book might have served as the script, yet that thick-skulled German professor may be Dr. Strangelove himself, because the meanings are turned around.” — Pauline Kael, The New Yorker
“With the appearance of Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, he takes a step upward to the hallowed directorial ranks of Bergman and Fellini.” — Barry Morrison, The Denver Post
“One is left with the decidedly creepy impression that this is the sort of movie that Charles Manson might love to make.” — Gary Arnold, The Washington Post
“Malcolm McDowell as the patient-victim-hero on the screen is dragged through hell to cure him of his penchant for criminal violence, but it isn’t explained why the audience is being punished. Seeing Kubrick’s movie had the same painful effect on me that being forced to look at repellent, violent films has on the young thug narrator. Yet I was aware that people around me were grooving on A Clockwork Orange as the ultimate trip into mod decadence. This is surely one bit of fiendish irony that didn’t occur to Burgess as he wrote his satire about crime and punishment in the future. Burgess may not have realized it, but his book has provided Kubrick with the ideal vehicle to combine the freakout technology of 2001 and the hip-nihilistic philosophy of Dr. Strangelove. Kubrick doesn’t merely depict decadence; he provides the excuse for enjoying it by presenting a world so far out of control that only fools and squares cling to outmoded notions of decency and progress…. If this movie is a hit, it won’t be because people are horrified by this prophecy of dehumanization. It will be because the young audience accepts this nightmare vision as a turn-on. Kubrick’s idea of the future is the orgiastic present, only more so.” — Martin Knelman, The Globe and Mail (Toronto)
“The kind of tour de force that marks Kubrick as a true genius of the cinema.” — Paul D. Zimmerman, Newsweek
“I’m afraid I found A Clockwork Orange brilliant but disappointing, its moments of power offset by an overwrought stridency and its message overbalanced by the medium. It is a remote work, icy and abstract, strangely shy of the echoes of real human voices. It is also genuinely thought-provoking and uncompromising.” — Charles Champlin, Los Angeles Times
“Malcolm McDowell is sensational. His performance has the range and dynamism that signal the arrival of a new superstar. As for director Kubrick, his work is stylistically almost flawless. If there was any doubt after 2001, A Clockwork Orange confirms Kubrick as our most audacious film maker.” — Jay Cocks, Time
“Malcolm McDowell plays Alex in the style of a latter-day Leo Gorcey, with perfect smarmy presence. The others in the cast are generally acceptable, although Patrick Magee’s looniness, as a revolutionary polemicist crippled by the hoods and whose wife dies after being raped by them, is as graphic as a cartoon. So, for that matter, is Clockwork Orange, which is already the most overrated work of the year (Best Film, Best Director, from the New York Film Critics). It is, I’m afraid, nothing more than a garish Pop-art poster pretending to be a work of art.” — Kevin Kelly, The Boston Globe
“A Clockwork Orange is so beautiful to look at and to hear that it dazzles the senses and the mind, even as it turns the old real red vino to ice. A tour de force of extraordinary images, music, words and feelings. Malcolm McDowell is splendid as tomorrow’s child, but it is always Mr. Kubrick’s picture, which is even technically more interesting than 2001.” — Vincent Canby, The New York Times
“Clockwork Orange is a bit of brilliantly executed future shock from Mr. Stanley Kubrick, and oh, my brothers, it is not fare for the faint or weak at heart. Malcolm MacDowell [sic] gives a brilliant performance as Alex, a brutal but engaging London hood of the not-too-distant future. This is easily the most controversial film of the year. What Alex, in his Orwellian dialect, refers to as ‘the old ultraviolence’ has sparked a flood of outraged editorializing from people who, one suspects, missed the point of it all.” — Howell Raines, The Atlanta Constitution
“Harrowingly humanistic, magnificently moral and chillingly Christian. It’s not merely in the challenging content but also in the daringly original treatment that the film never loses its balance on its tight-rope walk to brilliance.” — John E. Fitzgerald, The Catholic News
“This movie begins where all others leave off and its ‘X’ rating proves, once and for all, the ineptitude and meaninglessness of movie ratings.” — Rex Reed, New York Sunday News
“It is told in some heavy British dialect that seems to echo in a cave; in addition it dwells heavily on the teen-age slang supposed to be current in the future. All of this makes it often unintelligible to the ears. Fortunately, it speaks eloquently to the eyes.” — Emerson Batdorff, The Plain Dealer (Cleveland)
“It is doubtful that any novel has ever been adapted for the screen as brilliantly as this one. It will undoubtedly cause shock waves among other directors, for Kubrick, in technical areas, at least, has surpassed them all. It can be said, without question, that he is this country’s most important filmmaker, fit to stand on a pedestal beside Europe’s best, Bergman and Fellini.” — Hollis Alpert, Saturday Review
“It is not one of the best movies of the year, it is not a classical work of art, it is not the best picture of the decade, it is not a breakthrough in the infant history of film as an art form. And, perhaps more important than all of the foregoing, A Clockwork Orange is not Stanley Kubrick—America’s best filmmaker—at his best. Yet, A Clockwork Orange is considerably more of a movie than most which have been made in the past year. Not in the top two or three, certainly—but better than most. And, if [t]he work is not Kubrick at his best, one supposes that some future film scholar (Rex Reed III, God forbid?) will describe the film as a Kubrick sidetrip, an amusing if imperfect excursion off the beaten path that eventually reaches a dead end. I am saying, then, that even a mediocre Kubrick movie is better than the best effort by many of his alleged peers and that this is why we have heard and read such an unprecedented barrage of talk, argument, praise, criticism—and why The Washington Post recently suggested that any movie that provokes this much reaction can’t be all bad.” — John Huddy, The Miami Herald
“In most of the writing about this movie, not enough credit has been given to author Burgess. His is an inspired novel, even more impressive when one considers it was written 10 years ago. The special language Alex and his ‘droogs’ [friends] employ, beautifully integrated into the script by Kubrick, is of particular delight. Kubrick’s contributions are his wit and his eye. The wit, too much at times, is as biting as in Dr. Strangelove, and the production, while of another order, is as spectacular as in 2001.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune
“Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is an ideological mess, a paranoid right-wing fantasy masquerading as an Orwellian warning. It pretends to oppose the police state and forced mind control, but all it really does is celebrate the nastiness of its hero, Alex.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times
“Clockwork Orange offers many avenues for interpretation, just as Kubrick’s adaptation lays itself open for the controversies that have erupted since the film’s premiere late last year. It’s as enigmatic as it is engrossing, and Kubrick’s tactics are endlessly fascinating, especially in his combination of the youthful violence and the music he has plucked from the classical repertoire.” — Mark Hemeter, The States-Item (New Orleans)
“So much can and must be said about the movie. What must also be said is that it is conspicuously short of being a completely realized vision. It is shallow and frigid and ultimately unsatisfying.” — William B. Collins, The Philadelphia Inquirer
“Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is a film with a severe case of inflated reputation. Thanks to cover stories in several magazines and the prestigious New York Film Critics’ award as the best movie of 1971, Kubrick’s first picture since 2001: A Space Odyssey has been heralded as important and innovative. To this Kubrick fan, it is neither. In fact, it seems his crudest and least interesting major work to date.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times
“A Clockwork Orange is an undeniably brilliant film by Stanley Kubrick—a harrowing thriller-satire. A youth named Alex is the central figure—portrayed by Malcolm McDowell with compelling skill and a satanic charm that brings incredible dimension to the anti-heroic role.” — Stanley Eichelbaum, San Francisco Examiner
“Stanley Kubrick’s ninth film is probably his best, a dazzling, disturbing, outrageous and ominous nightmare look into the near future. It is really a satire on growing tendencies of our times to violence, brutality, and fascination with erotica.” — Myles Standish, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
“A Clockwork Orange is a bad movie. There, I said it.” — Jeff Millar, Houston Chronicle
Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange says something so important, and so alarmingly well, that it should be required viewing for all who have reached the age of reason. Since the Motion Picture Association of America in its sublime arrogance has given this film the naughtiest rating, however, parents of teenagers under 18 will have to do the Midnight Cowboy number once again if they feel their offspring can and should experience Kubrick’s work.” — Susan Stark, Detroit Free Press
“Once again, Stanley Kubrick has dared more than any of his contemporaries. Once again, he has succeeded in a way that will be talked about for a long time.” — George Anderson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
THE FIRST-RUN THEATRICAL ENGAGEMENTS
What follows is a chronological reference listing of A Clockwork Orange‘s theatrical openings in the key markets of the United States and Canada. The emphasis is on the largest and earliest markets in which the film played, and the information is designed to provide a sense of the film’s rollout in the early stage of its release in what the industry considers the important and higher-grossing locales.
It should be noted that due to its initial X rating, A Clockwork Orange did not play numerous markets and smaller locales during its first-run period. In some situations the film did play a given market but without the support of any newspaper or radio/TV advertising. Some locales first played the film upon being re-issued with a revised R rating from the MPAA.
The presentations of A Clockwork Orange were in 35mm spherical (1.66:1 aspect ratio) with monaural audio.
Opening Date YYYY-MM-DD … locale — cinema (duration in weeks) [notes]
1971-12-18 … Los Angeles — Hollywood Pacific [midnight preview]
1971-12-19 … Los Angeles — Hollywood Pacific (41)
1971-12-19 … New York — Cinema I (31)
1971-12-19 … San Francisco — Metro (30)
1971-12-19 … Toronto — Towne (36)
1972-02-09 … Boston — Cinema 57 Complex 2 (14 [20])
1972-02-09 … Chicago — Michael Todd (18)
1972-02-09 … Detroit (Birmingham) — Bloomfield (19)
1972-02-09 … Detroit (Grosse Pointe Woods) — Woods II (18)
1972-02-09 … Philadelphia — Stage Door (20)
1972-02-09 … Washington — The Cinema (20)
1972-02-10 … Atlanta — Twelve Oaks (15)
1972-02-10 … Houston — Galleria II (15)
1972-02-10 … Seattle — Cinerama (18)
1972-02-17 … Montreal — Avenue (33)
1972-02-17 … Vancouver — Stanley (19)
1972-02-24 … St. Louis (Brentwood) — Brentwood (18)
1972-02-25 … Charlotte — Charlottetown II (13)
1972-03-01 … Minneapolis — Downtown World (12)
1972-03-01 … Rochester (Henrietta) — Todd Mart I (16)
1972-03-01 … San Jose — Century 22A (24) [w/ Blow-Up during weeks 21-24]
1972-03-03 … Syracuse (DeWitt) — Shoppingtown II (12)
1972-03-08 … Baltimore — York Road (11)
1972-03-08 … Baltimore (Pikesville) — Pikes (11)
1972-03-08 … Buffalo (Amherst) — Boulevard Mall I (1+)
1972-03-08 … Indianapolis — Glendale IV (11)
1972-03-08 … Milwaukee (Wauwatosa) — Mayfair (17)
1972-03-08 … New Haven (Orange) — Showcase 2 (10)
1972-03-09 … Portland — Irvington (22) [w/ Blow-Up during week 22]
1972-03-15 … Cleveland (Woodmere) — Village (15)
1972-03-15 … Louisville — Penthouse (15 [17])
1972-03-22 … Columbus — University City (10)
1972-03-22 … Des Moines — Eastgate I (10)
1972-03-22 … Des Moines — Eastgate II (3)
1972-03-22 … Pittsburgh — Chatham (9)
1972-03-23 … Winnipeg — Polo Park (11)
1972-03-24 … Denver — Centre (1+)
1972-03-29 … Hartford (Wethersfield) — Paris 2 (16)
1972-03-29 … Memphis — Memphian (8)
1972-04-05 … Akron (Fairlawn) — Fairlawn (15)
1972-04-05 … Davenport (Milan) — Showcase 2 (7)
1972-04-06 … Ottawa — Little Elgin (20)
1972-04-12 … Dallas — Wilshire (17)
1972-04-12 … San Antonio — Broadway (11)
1972-04-13 … Miami (Coral Gables) — Coral (17)
1972-04-13 … Providence — Elmwood (1+)
1972-04-19 … Cincinnati — Carousel 1 (10)
1972-04-19 … Richmond — Broad Street I (12 [17])
1972-04-21 … Little Rock — Center (6)
1972-06-14 … Kansas City — Embassy 1 (13)
1972-06-14 … Kansas City — Embassy 2 (7)
1972-06-15 … Fort Worth — 7th Street (8)
1972-06-21 … Albuquerque — Lobo (5)
1972-06-21 … Austin — Varsity (7)
1972-06-21 … Orlando — Plaza 2 (12)
1972-06-21 … Sacramento — Sacramento Inn II (17)
1972-06-21 … Tampa — Florida (8)
1972-06-21 … Tulsa — Will Rogers (1+)
1972-06-22 … Omaha — Six West 4 (12)
1972-06-22 … Omaha — Six West 5 (6)
1972-06-23 … Dayton — Northwest Plaza (10)
1972-06-23 … Las Vegas — Boulevard (5)
1972-06-23 … Norfolk — Terrace (1+)
1972-06-28 … New Orleans — Cine Royale (15)
1972-06-29 … San Diego — Valley Circle (13)
1972-07-19 … Honolulu — Cinerama (11)
1972-07-21 … Birmingham — Ritz (5)
1972-08-09 … Salt Lake City (South Salt Lake) — Century 22 (10)
1972-08-11 … Jackson (Flowood) — Town & Country Drive-In I (1 [2]) [w/ Beauty and the Bull]
1972-08-16 … Wichita — Twin Lakes II (6)
1972-08-25 … Tucson — Buena Vista 1 (3)
1972-09-13 … Phoenix (Scottsdale) — Kachina (5)
1972-09-29 … Nashville — Green Hills (3)
THE Q&A
Raymond Benson is the author of over forty published books. He is most well-known as the third—and first American—continuation author of original James Bond novels commissioned by the Ian Fleming Estate, and for his acclaimed and best-selling five-book serial, The Black Stiletto. Raymond has taught Film History college courses in New York and Illinois for years, contributes a regular column and occasional pieces in Cinema Retro magazine (“The Essential Guide to Movies of the ’60s & ’70s”), and co-stars inDann & Raymond’s Movie Club, a monthly live presentation on cinema history in the Chicago area (with Chicago’s Daily Herald film critic, Dann Gire), now in its 15th season.www.raymondbenson.com. Raymond was previously interviewed for this column’s retrospectives on 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Last Picture Show.
John Cork is the president of Cloverland, a multi-media production company which has produced Value Added Material for numerous home media releases. He wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990) starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek, and wrote and directed the feature documentary You Belong to Me: Sex, Race and Murder on the Suwannee River. Cork is the author of James Bond: The Legacy (with Bruce Scivally, 2002), Bond Girls are Forever: The Women of James Bond (with Maryam d’Abo, 2003) and James Bond Encyclopedia (with Collin Stutz, 2007). John was previously interviewed for this column’s retrospectives on Planet of the Apes , Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and numerous James Bond movies.
Sheldon Hall is a senior lecturer in film studies at Sheffield Hallam University and the author of Zulu: With Some Guts Behind It—The Making of the Epic Movie (2005), Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History (with Steve Neale, 2010) and Widescreen Worldwide (with John Belton and Steve Neale, 2010). Sheldon was previously interviewed for this column’s retrospectives on Around the World in Eighty Days, Jaws and Zulu.
Peter Krämer is a Senior Research Fellow in Cinema & TV in the Leicester Media School at De Montfort University. He has published four books on Stanley Kubrick, including the volume on A Clockwork Orange in Palgrave's “Controversies” series. He is also the author of The New Hollywood: From Bonnie and Clyde to Star Wars (2006) and The Hollywood Renaissance: Revisiting American Cinema’s Most Celebrated Era (with Yannis Tzioumakis, 2018). Peter was previously interviewed for this column’s retrospectives on 2001: A Space Odyssey, Funny Girl and Raiders of the Lost Ark.
The interviews were conducted separately and edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.
Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): How do you think Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange should to be remembered on its 50th anniversary?
John Cork: A Clockwork Orange should be remembered as one of the most visually compelling, aurally seductive, audaciously engaging, and intellectually confounding movies ever made. It is a film that many have hated themselves for loving, that has spurred on countless hours of late-night dissections in college dorms, and, as we know, inspired a few to embrace the violent ethos of Alex and his Droogs. It is a film that refuses to be ignored, and a film that provokes and provides no simple answers to the questions it poses.
Raymond Benson: It’s nothing short of bravura filmmaking. Intelligent, courageous, innovative, surprising, mind-boggling, disturbing, exciting, funny—all these descriptions apply to A Clockwork Orange. It was a novel by Anthony Burgess that was deemed “unfilmable,” and yet, Kubrick did it. It will be remembered as a controversial, dynamic piece of art that still divides audiences, and it’s easily one of Stanley Kubrick’s defining masterworks.
Peter Krämer: Living in the UK, I probably should say that first and foremost A Clockwork Orange has to be remembered as arguably the most controversial film in British history. The public debate about the film was so heated that Kubrick, in 1976, asked Warner Bros. not to go ahead with the planned theatrical re-release of the film in the UK. Indeed, A Clockwork Orange was not legally available in any format in this country until the year after Kubrick's death in 1999. The initial response to the film was deeply divided. While the British Board of Film Censors had passed it without cuts, various local authorities banned it and the BBFC was severely criticized for being too lenient. And while London film critics loved the film from the outset, and it was a massive box office hits during its incredibly long run in British cinemas, all kinds of commentators, politicians, campaigners etc. attacked the film. It was referenced in several court cases to do with the crimes of young people who, supposedly (and very fancifully), had somehow been influenced by the violence of the youngsters in the movie. It is fascinating to read the hundreds of newspaper articles published during and after the movie's theatrical release in the UK. In addition to juvenile crime many aspects of British society—modern architecture, family breakdown, the prison system etc.—were being discussed with reference to A Clockwork Orange. The film seemed to have to say something about all of this, or, at the very least, it was useful for illustrating some point or other that a writer wanted to make about contemporary Britain. So half a century later, it may still serve as a window into the early 1970s, although, at the same time, it also transcends its original historical context, having long become a timeless masterpiece.
The Digital Bits: What was your first impression of the film?
Benson: I first saw it in the summer of 1973, as I was a year shy of seeing it when it was still X-rated in late ’71 and all of ’72 (although I tried!—but the box office person was annoyingly strict about the admittance policy). Kubrick himself withdrew the picture temporarily in late ‘72/early ’73 to make two cuts that totaled around thirty seconds, and the movie was re-rated R in the States. It was re-released that way and I saw it then. (As I understand it, though, those miniscule cuts are back in the film on home video and the R rating remains intact.) By the time I did see it, I knew all about it. I’d read the published “storyboard” screenplay that illustrated the entire movie, and I had read the novel. It was likely my most anticipated film of that era, having had my life changed (literally!) after seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey on first release. Interestingly, I find A Clockwork Orange much more difficult (unsettling) to watch today than back in the 70s. Back then, the sex and violence were all part of cinema’s new freedom that began in the late 60s with the collapse of the Production Code and initiation of the ratings in the U.S. It was a time when filmmakers were pushing the envelope to see what they could get away with, and audiences were more accepting of what was on the screen. Rapes depicted in movies are perceived quite differently today by the Gen Z crowd, as I’ve noted in the recent Film History college classes that I taught. One must place the film within the context of when it was released.
Cork: My first interaction with the film was when my mother, then dating my future adoptive father, went to see it. I had read something about the controversy over it, and demanded that she tell me about the plot (something I did with most of the movies she saw on dates). Later, when cable television came to my hometown of Montgomery, Alabama, my grandparents subscribed to HBO, and in December 1977, I had the chance to watch A Clockwork Orange for myself. I was 16, and it was one of the most chilling, mesmerizing, fascinating films I had ever seen. I must have seen it six or seven times over the next few months. Like many, I loved imitating Alex’s speech patterns. “Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well!” Sometimes I didn’t “see” something, but I “viddied” it. If a new song was good, I might comment on “angel trumpets and devil trombones.” That said, I could be inspired by Alex’s style and swagger, but had nothing but repulsion for his ethics and lust for a bit of the old ultraviolence.
Krämer: This may sound odd, but watching A Clockwork Orange at my local cinema when I was a teenager in late 1970s West Germany really helped to change my life. I was simply overwhelmed by the film, and I felt so strongly about its odd mixture of sex, violence, humor, beauty, social commentary and philosophical reflection that almost immediately I had to see it again—and I had to write about it. In those days there was nothing like “Film Studies” at German schools, but there was a class on communications, and I decided that, together with a friend who was deeply impressed by the movie as well, I would do an extensive study of A Clockwork Orange—but it had to be the novel. Really we were working through the impact the film had had on us, and we used the novel to do so. Which was not a problem for me because I had read the novel before. In fact, I was first and foremost an avid reader of all kinds of Science Fiction and only secondarily a cinephile. But with Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange and 2001: A Space Odyssey, which I watched around the same time, suddenly movies did become much more central to my life—and this, eventually, lead to me studying film at university and becoming a film scholar. As I said: A Clockwork Orange helped to change my life!
The Digital Bits: In what way is A Clockwork Orange a significant motion picture?
Benson: Quite simply, it’s significant because it’s a Stanley Kubrick film. Anything Kubrick made is significant because it’s generally accepted that Kubrick is one of the great filmmakers. As Martin Scorsese commented in Jan Harlan’s excellent documentary, Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures, Kubrick was on the radar of anyone interested in cinema after Paths of Glory had hit theaters. As Kubrick continued to make challenging films such as Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, and then 2001, Kubrick became the guy on the pedestal to young filmmakers in film school. After 2001, any picture made by Kubrick was an event, and you made it a point to see it. A Clockwork Orange was made when Kubrick was at the height of his powers.
Sheldon Hall: On first release in London A Clockwork Orange played 61 weeks—the longest run in the world—in the 890-seat cinema Warner West End, earning £466,917 (about $1 million, or about $7 million adjusted for inflation).
Cork: A Clockwork Orange may be the most thought-provoking film on the subject of toxic masculinity ever made. Of course, that term didn’t exist when the film came out, but the concept of unchecked masculine desire, of the unbridled id of males of a certain age, of testosterone-fueled raping and senseless brutality has never been presented both so seductively and so repulsively and addresses in such a way that it turns a mirror back on the viewer over and over again, eluding simple answers and safe conclusions. Because it presents a set of moral conundrums that force us to confront our ever-shifting emotional reactions to Alex and his violence, the film makes the viewer work to find meaning in the chaos of Alex’s rampages, the indifference of governmental bureaucracy, the self-serving nature of politics, the self-absorption of the rich, and our
own ugly desires for consequence-free vengeance.
The Digital Bits: How does the film compare to the source material?
Cork: The novel is indisputably brilliant. It arrived after nearly a decade of headlines about violent youth gangs in the UK after World War II. Originally called Cosh Boys, the Teddy Boys caused tremendous hand-wringing among the press and politicians after The Notting Hill Riots of 1958, which lasted nearly a week. The Teddy Boys were ruthlessly violent, had their own slang and style, and were obsessed with music (rock ‘n roll, not classical). Burgess’s novel showed up in 1962, just four years later, and rather than write about the actual Teddy Boys, Burgess created his own youth gangs in a future that very well reflected the social strata of post-war Britain.
Benson: I mentioned that the Anthony Burgess novel was “unfilmable,” but Kubrick did it. The film is quite faithful, although Alex and his Droogs are much younger in the book than in the film. It should be noted that Kubrick worked from the American publication of the book, which was missing the final chapter. In that deleted chapter, Alex is grown and no longer interested in “horrorshow” violence. The U.S. publisher had found the chapter unnecessary (and I agree!) and cut it out. The British edition of the novel still includes those final pages. So, the film ends with the irony (something Kubrick excels in) of Alex reverting to his old ways after being “cured all right.” (Wink.)
Krämer: Anthony Burgess's novel is, perhaps more than anything else, about language, especially the odd slang that the first-person narrator and protagonist Alex uses. This element is still present in the film but, of course, the powerful sensual impact of its sounds and images is much more important. As a reader of the novel, all I have is Alex's point of view and the often rather incomprehensible—or at least difficult-to-understand—language he uses. Sometimes I will not grasp all-too-clearly what he is saying, and what is actually happening in the story. And I am likely to be more or less detached from those happenings. In fact, even horrendous torture and sexual violence may come across rather humorously or lyrically due to the quirky, inventive, clever expressions Alex uses in his telling of the story. The film viewer's experience, especially of sex and violence, is much more in your face (and ear), and while the film as it is clearly is shocking, it has massively toned down the novel's sex and violence. There is also, of course, the debate about the novel's final chapter, which is present in the original British edition but not in the original American edition, and which seems to be very explicit about the moral (or message) of the story. Burgess could not decide which version to publish, so he didn't mind (at least not initially) when both appeared. Kubrick decided not to use that final chapter, and in general, I would say, the film is rather ambiguous about what we, as viewers, are to make of Alex's development towards the end of the story: will he go back to his old ways, or has he changed in some fundamental way. A lot of people seem to think they know which way it is (namely the former) and what the moral of the film is—but, personally, I think that there are a lot of clues telling us that Alex has indeed changed, and that, if the film does indeed have a message, it has to do with a final ambiguity. In fact I think that this applies to much of what we encounter in the course of the film. Unfortunately, both Burgess and Kubrick talked an awful lot about what novel and film were meant to say—thus reducing, even denying the complexity and radical openness of the film.
Cork: There are many things in the novel that are harsher than the sex and violence shown in the film. Alex and his Droogs rape ten-year-olds, for example. They also commit robberies for profit. But Burgess has a very different, and more optimistic take on the ending. Despite all that has happened, at the end, Alex is a somewhat changed person, now focused on growing up and settling down, compared to the implication that he has been returned to his monstrous state in the film. All that said, much of the dialogue is word-for-word from the novel. Kubrick was very respectful of the source material.
The Digital Bits: In what way was Kubrick an ideal choice to direct?
Hall: A recession in the industry led MGM to cancel Kubrick's planned biopic of Napoleon and he turned instead to adapting Anthony Burgess's satirical fantasy A Clockwork Orange. The resultant film embodies all his worst tendencies: it is glib, vulgar, schematic, misanthropic, over-designed, and evades confronting the full implications of its subject—the necessity of free choice between good and evil—by dealing in grotesque cartoon caricatures rather than human beings.
Cork: Kubrick was a visual poet. He obsessed over the details within an image. There are few directors who understood the technical aspects of putting an image on film better. Having started out as a still photographer, Kubrick knew lenses, film stocks, lighting, camera rigs as well as most directors of photography. Despite his reputation for meticulousness and endless takes, Kubrick was a surprisingly efficient director. He would rather take a tremendous amount of time to capture one brilliant shot than use the same time to do a lot of okay coverage. So you get numerous scenes captured in one shot in one take.
Benson: A Clockwork Orange is easily one of Kubrick’s greatest accomplishments. Interestingly, it was almost an afterthought of his to make it. He had planned to make an epic picture about Napoleon right after 2001: A Space Odyssey and spent two years in pre-production on that before MGM got cold feet and pulled the plug. Then, Kubrick made his unprecedented deal with Warner Brothers to make films exclusively for that studio. To show them that he could make a movie cheaply and quickly, and to capitalize on the current and trendy “youth film” market (i.e. Easy Rider, etc.), he chose to make A Clockwork Orange. He made it in six months (a very short time for Kubrick!) and for around two million pounds sterling, which at that time was not even $1.5 million U.S. When you view the film, it’s extraordinary to think that it cost so little. It looks like an expensive movie.
Krämer: We owe the film to Kubrick’s failure to get financing for Napoleon; and perhaps this is just one of those lucky failures that lead to something unexpectedly good.
Cork: Kubrick was also great with actors. He found actors he trusted, then pushed them to deliver incredibly nuanced performances. While in 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick had the actors embody the confined, emotionless, sexless aspects of space exploration, in A Clockwork Orange Kubrick gets brilliant comic performances. All the characters reflect their essential nature in larger-than-life ways that still feel true, whether it is Alex’s passion for ultra-violence or the simmering frustration of P.R. Deltoid, the “Post-Corrective Adviser,” or the smug pomposity of the Minister of the Interior. You don’t get that kind of consistency of performances across a film without a director who understands how to get actors to give their very best.
The Digital Bits: Which are the film’s standout scenes?
Cork: I feel this film is as near-perfect as can be. Every scene stands out to me.
Benson: The first half hour is such iconoclastic filmmaking that it dazzles and assaults the audience with sight, sound, color, violence, comedy, and horror. One can barely catch a breath after those opening sequences that establish exactly what Alex and his Droogs are all about. It’s as if the movie itself has been drinking the “Moloko Plus” and is on a supercharged high. It’s only after we see Alex at home with his parents that the pulse of the film “comes down” to tell its story. I can’t find any flaws in any scene in the film. It’s perfect.
The Digital Bits: What are your thoughts on Malcolm McDowell’s performance as Alex?
Benson: Alex was the role McDowell was born to play. He is still trading on his performance today, appearing at horror conventions and such to sign autographs. When I interviewed him he admitted that he never had another role as good, and that it was a “once in a lifetime” part. And he’s brilliant in it. I’m still flabbergasted that he wasn’t nominated for an Oscar.
Cork: With all due respect to McDowell’s brilliant career and tremendous talent, I’ve never seen him dominate the screen the way he does in A Clockwork Orange. Of course, playing a character like Alex is often a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. McDowell’s Alex strikes just the right balance of confidence, swagger, sarcasm, and the facile ability to deliver to others what they wish to hear. He knows how to play the victim and victimizer for all it is worth.
The Digital Bits: Any thoughts on A Clockwork Orange as a home-viewing experience?
Cork: I first saw A Clockwork Orange on a 4x3 television in my grandparent’s living room late at night. The film mesmerized me then. I college, I saw it repeatedly at revival houses and at campus screenings. I once watched it on a seatback screen on a transatlantic flight. Most recently, I watched it on HBO Max on a very nice 4K television. This may sound like sacrilege, but the film blows me away every time I see it, no matter the format.
Benson: The film is very well represented on home video. The 40th Anniversary Blu-ray that came out ten years ago is excellent. It’s gorgeous. I understand that the new 4K Ultra looks magnificent (I haven’t seen it).
Cork: There is a great new documentary, A Forbidden Orange, about the release of A Clockwork Orange, particularly whether it would appear at a festival in Spain. I would love to see more done about the film and its legacy, but I am unsure whether a Blu-ray release is the proper way to accomplish this.
The Digital Bits: How would you describe A Clockwork Orange to someone who has never seen it?
Cork: I would simply say it is one of the most thought-provoking films I’ve ever seen. Within the past six months, I’ve shown the film to someone who had never seen it. I warned them it was violent, but the violence is there not in a pornographic way, but to make you think about violence, and all the different levels of violence from the personal violence humans visit upon each other to societal violence that happens at all sorts of other levels.
Benson: I’d say that A Clockwork Orange is a one-of-a-kind movie that is unlike anything else. It’s a story about crime and punishment, and if the government should have medical control over man’s choices of free will. It’s a movie filled with irony and dark comedy, but it’s also horrifying and disturbing. I would first make sure the viewer is familiar with Stanley Kubrick and his work, and then I would prepare them for the “assault” on the senses they are about to see. I feel that today I would need to warn them about the violent rapes, and that most of the serious violence is finished after the first twenty minutes.
The Digital Bits: What do you think is the legacy of A Clockwork Orange?
Hall: The film's cult reputation was enhanced in Britain by the director's ban on its UK exhibition from 1973 until a posthumous reissue in 2000. The willingness of Warner Bros—financier and distributor of this and all his subsequent projects—to indulge him speaks volumes about Kubrick's unique status.
Benson: Stanley Kubrick did a brilliant thing with A Clockwork Orange. In the first 20-30 minutes of the film, he shows the audience this really horrible person, Alex, who is a villain in the worst way. He commits shocking crimes, one after the other, boom boom boom, and for some it can be stomach-churning. Then, the movie calms down, and Alex, who has been addressing the audience in first-person narration since the beginning, embraces the viewers as friends, and he takes us into his confidence. We begin to likethe guy. By the middle of the movie, the audience is actually rooting for him. By the end, Kubrick is laughing at us, saying, “Ha, I fooled you! I got you to empathize with a horrible criminal who is addicted to violence,” which puts the viewer in the same shoes as Alex himself. Kubrick shows us how easy it is for base instincts to move to the dark side. He gets us to exchange the roles of protagonist and antagonist in the film, with Alex becoming the “hero” and the corrupt government and doctors who experiment on him as the villains. Irony. Pure Kubrick.
Krämer: The film has resonated across popular culture in so many different ways, most especially through the iconic figures of the Droogs, the brutal thugs that make up Alex's gang of juvenile delinquents. Already when the film was initially released in the UK, youth started to copy their dress—but not their violent behavior (although there was a great deal of public concern that this would follow). Later, in the UK and elsewhere, Halloween costumes and hardcore football fan groups echoed the Droogs' outfit. Across the decades, various bands paid homage, in their names, their music and their dress code, to A Clockwork Orange in general and the Droogs in particular (in fact, David Bowie did so already in 1972/73). Even in academic circles, there is sometimes a tendency for writers to associate themselves with, and to express a certain admiration for the Droogs—which is actually quite unsettling, given the fact that the Droogs are brutal criminals, rapists and murderers. So both within and beyond film culture, there is something deeply unsettling still about the impact A Clockwork Orange has had and continues to have. It is not simply a masterpiece cocooned in a discourse about art and the cinematic canon—it is still disturbingly visceral and resonant; and it is not even necessary to have actually seen the film for this resonance to be felt.
Cork: When a film of such an iconic nature arrives, it tends to stand alone. You see other filmmakers attempting to play with the universe created by Kubrick and Burgess, sometimes directly in the portrayal of the gangs in Walter Hill’s The Warriors, or, less directly, in the far superior The Wanderers, both from 1979. You see a great deal of Alex in Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker in The Dark Knight. Tarantino was playing with the Singin’ in the Rain scene for a similar set piece in Reservoir Dogs. Trainspotting also has some visual hat-tips. Yet, I don’t see the film itself as something that created a movement. Airport launched the disaster film genre. The Godfatherspawned a slew of gangster films. A Clockwork Orange, not so much. Now, fifty years on, we are left with a baffling appearance by Alex’s Droogs in Space Jam: A New Legacy. Some of the scenes seem to pop up in parodies, music videos, television comedies, particularly someone strapped to a chair, eyes opened, forced to watch something they dislike.
The real legacy, though is censorship, and the very ironic story of how the film of A Clockwork Orange both omitted a key part of the novel and then later disappeared from British screens for nearly thirty years. This is a complex story that is, for me, intrinsically linked to the themes of the movie itself.
The film centers around society’s futile attempts to control Alex and the chaos he creates. He is eventually compelled to give up rape and violence through “aversion therapy” (called the Ludovico Technique in the novel and film). This is a concept born out of a branch of psychology called Behaviorism. The Behaviorists believe that rather than diving deep into the root causes of destructive behavior, it is generally more effective to mentally train folks not to engage in the behaviors. Thus, a drug that will make one feel deathly ill if one drinks may cure alcoholism much faster than years of therapy to understand why one drinks too much. Well, in the 1960s, there was much fretting over these concepts. Could Behaviorism be used by a government to take away free will? Can it leave us defenseless and unable to make our own choices? Can the government “censor” our behavior through techniques like those portrayed in A Clockwork Orange?
Of course, censorship in the classic sense is a government deciding what we can watch, read, hear, and many governments did ban or censor the film version of A Clockwork Orange. The UK did not censor it, despite outcries at the time from many that violent films were polluting the nation’s movie-going population. When the press seized upon a couple of brutal crimes that may have been tenuously linked to the film, and protesters came after Kubrick and his family, the director himself requested that the movie be pulled from British distribution. It was never legally screened in the UK again until after Kubrick’s death. Even prior to that time, Burgess claimed his American publisher requested that the final chapter be deleted, and this incomplete version was the novel Kubrick read. He did not read of Alex musing on growing up and out of his violent phase, an ending that promoted the notion that Alex would, given a bit of time, mature into a contributing member of society.
Just as in the film, where Alex does everything he can to undergo the treatment so he can leave prison, Burgess claimed in the 70s and 80s that he reluctantly accented to cutting the last chapter in the novel, and Kubrick was, ultimately, the censor of the film in the UK. Burgess’s cuts to the novel and Kubrick’s pulling of the film were in reaction to certain real-life forms of aversion therapy. In Burgess’s case, it was, he claimed, to appease a publisher with access to the huge US market (although there is strong evidence that Burgess was, at best, ambivalent about the need for his deleted last chapter when he wrote the book and did not include it in his own screenplay version of the story). In Kubrick’s, it was reportedly death threats and a barrage of negative press. This happens today, too. A singer changes lyrics to a song because some on Twitter lambast her for using a certain word many find offensive. A celebrity issues some “heartfelt” apology for a joke because of blowback on social media. A publisher pulls a couple of classic children’s books because a few are loudly objecting to some of the original illustrations. Clearly, aversion therapy works at modifying behavior, but as A Clockwork Orange asks, at what cost?
Burgess and Kubrick wanted to show us the worst of the worst, a deeply unlikable character, and make the argument that even his freewill was something a government shouldn’t take away, and that everyone’s freewill is something for which we should care. Yet, when faced with pressure from a publisher or a segment of an outraged public, these creators censored themselves. Did they make the right choices? I am not here to judge, but it is just this kind of moral ambiguity that makes A Clockwork Orange and the real-life story behind it so captivating to me.
The Digital Bits: Thank you—Raymond, John, Sheldon and Peter—for sharing your thoughts about A Clockwork Orange on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.
IMAGES
Selected images copyright/courtesy Hawk Films, John Hazelton, Polaris Productions, Warner Bros. Pictures, Warner Home Video.
SOURCES/REFERENCES
The primary references for this project were the motion picture A Clockwork Orange(Warner Bros., 1971), regional newspaper coverage, trade reports published in Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter, and Variety, and interviews conducted by the author. All figures and data pertain to North America (i.e. United States and Canada) except where stated otherwise.
SPECIAL THANKS
David Ayers, Don Beelik, Raymond Benson, Diane Buckley (Virginia Beach Public Library), Lanham Bundy (Providence Public Library), John Cork, Shane Curtin (San Jose Public Library), Sheldon Hall, John Hazelton, Isaac (Buffalo & Erie County Public Library), Peter Krämer, W.R. Miller, Gabriel Neeb, Jennifer Pawlowski (Tulsa City-County Library), John Wilson (Jacksonville Public Library).
IN MEMORIAM
Neil Wilson (“Prison Check-in Officer”), 1916-1975
Paul Farrell (“Tramp”), 1893-1975
Michael Bates (“Chief Guard Barnes”), 1920-1978
John Barry (Production Designer), 1935-1979
James Liggat (Casting), 1920-1981
Patrick Magee (“Frank Alexander”), 1922-1982
Anthony Sharp (“Frederick, Minister of the Interior”), 1915-1984
Lindsay Campbell (“Police Inspector”), 1927-1984
John Alcott (Lighting Cameraman), 1930-1986
Michael Grover (“Prison Governor”), 1913-1987
Peter Burton (“Junior Minister”), 1921-1989
Bill Rowe (Dubbing Mixer), 1931-1992
Anthony Burgess (Novelist), 1917-1993
Madge Ryan (“Dr. Branom”), 1919-1994
Godfrey Quigley (“Prison Chaplain”), 1923-1994
John J. Carney (“Detective Sergeant”), 1940-1995
Sheila Raynor (“Mum”), 1906-1998
Stanley Kubrick (Writer-Producer-Director), 1928-1999
Philip Stone (“Dad”), 1924-2003
Lee Fox (“Desk Sergeant”), 1912-2003
Barrie Cookson (“Dr. Alcott”), 1922-2005
Max L. Raab (Executive Producer), 1925-2008
Miriam Karin (“’Catlady’ Weathers”), 1925-2011
Margaret Tyzack (“Conspirator Rubinstein”), 1931-2011
John Clive (“Stage Actor”), 1933-2012
Vivienne Chandler (“Handmaiden in Bible Fantasy”), 1947-2013
Warren Clarke (“Dim”), 1947-2014
Bernard Williams (Associate Producer), 1942-2015
Aubrey Morris (“P.R. Deltoid”), 1926-2015
Adrienne Corri (“Mary Alexander”), 1931-2016
Pauline Taylor (“Psychiatrist”), 1935-2017
Bill Butler (editor), 1933-2017
Carl Duering (“Dr. Brodsky”), 1923-2018
David Prowse (“Julian”), 1935-2020
Russell Hagg (Art Director), 1938-2022
Originally posted by Michael Coate/The Digital Bits
EE049AC3-7CDD-4D1D-B3D8-12394A7B85C1.jpeg
THE LUDOVICO TECHNIQUE: REMEMBERING “A CLOCKWORK ORANGE” ON ITS 50TH ANNIVERSARY
By Michael Coate
“Quite simply, A Clockwork Orange is significant because it’s a Stanley Kubrick film.” — Raymond Benson, Cinema Retro
The Digital Bits and History, Legacy & Showmanship are pleased to present this retrospective commemorating the golden anniversary of the release of A Clockwork Orange, Stanley Kubrick’s (Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey) critically acclaimed film based upon Anthony Burgess’s novel and starring Malcolm McDowell (Time After Time, O Lucky Man!) as gang leader Alex whose principal interests of rape, ultra-violence and Beethoven occupy his life before the government attempts a rehabilitation.
The film was nominated for four Academy Awards (including Best Picture), and in 2020 the Library of Congress selected A Clockwork Orange for preservation in the National Film Registry as being “culturally, historically or aesthetically significant.” Its most recent home media release, on 4K UHD, was in 2021 (and reviewed here).
For the occasion of A Clockwork Orange’s recent anniversary, The Bits features a multi-page article consisting of a Q&A with a quartet of film historians who reflect on the film, plus box-office data and statistics, passages from film reviews, and a reference listing of its first-run theatrical presentations in the key markets of North America.
CLOCKWORK NUMBER$
0 = Number of Academy Awards
4 = Number of Academy Award nominations
4 = Number of cinemas playing the film during its opening weekend
4 = Rank among top-earning films directed by Kubrick (adjusted for inflation)
6 = Rank among top-earning films released in 1971 (lifetime/retroactive)
7 = Rank among top-earning films during the 1972 calendar year
11 = Rank among Warner Bros.’ all-time top-earning films at close of first run
41 = Number of weeks the longest-running engagement played (domestic)
61 = Number of weeks the longest-running engagement played (international)
89 = Peak all-time box-office chart position
$1.3 million = Production cost
$9.0 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
$12.0 million = Domestic box-office rental (earnings through 12/31/1972)
$13.5 million = Domestic box-office rental (earnings through 12/31/1973)
$14.0 million = Domestic box-office rental (earnings through 12/31/1974)
$14.5 million = Domestic box-office rental (earnings through 12/31/1975)
$15.0 million = Domestic box-office rental (earnings through 12/31/1976)
$17.0 million = Domestic box-office rental (earnings through 12/31/1992)
$41.0 million = Domestic box-office gross (estimated; unconfirmed)
$73.0 million = International box-office gross (estimated; unconfirmed)
$114.0 million = Worldwide box-office gross (estimated; unconfirmed)
$808.1 million = Worldwide box-office gross (estimated; adjusted for inflation)
PASSAGES FROM A SAMPLING OF FILM REVIEWS
“Literal-minded in its sex and brutality, Teutonic in its humor, Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange might be the work of a strict and exacting German professor who set out to make a porno-violent sci-fi comedy. Is there anything sadder—and ultimately more repellent—than a clean-minded pornographer? The numerous rapes and beatings have no ferocity and no sensuality; they’re frigidly, pedantically calculated, and because there is no motivating emotion, the viewer may experience them as an indignity and wish to leave. The movie follows the Anthony Burgess novel so closely that the book might have served as the script, yet that thick-skulled German professor may be Dr. Strangelove himself, because the meanings are turned around.” — Pauline Kael, The New Yorker
“With the appearance of Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, he takes a step upward to the hallowed directorial ranks of Bergman and Fellini.” — Barry Morrison, The Denver Post
“One is left with the decidedly creepy impression that this is the sort of movie that Charles Manson might love to make.” — Gary Arnold, The Washington Post
“Malcolm McDowell as the patient-victim-hero on the screen is dragged through hell to cure him of his penchant for criminal violence, but it isn’t explained why the audience is being punished. Seeing Kubrick’s movie had the same painful effect on me that being forced to look at repellent, violent films has on the young thug narrator. Yet I was aware that people around me were grooving on A Clockwork Orange as the ultimate trip into mod decadence. This is surely one bit of fiendish irony that didn’t occur to Burgess as he wrote his satire about crime and punishment in the future. Burgess may not have realized it, but his book has provided Kubrick with the ideal vehicle to combine the freakout technology of 2001 and the hip-nihilistic philosophy of Dr. Strangelove. Kubrick doesn’t merely depict decadence; he provides the excuse for enjoying it by presenting a world so far out of control that only fools and squares cling to outmoded notions of decency and progress…. If this movie is a hit, it won’t be because people are horrified by this prophecy of dehumanization. It will be because the young audience accepts this nightmare vision as a turn-on. Kubrick’s idea of the future is the orgiastic present, only more so.” — Martin Knelman, The Globe and Mail (Toronto)
“The kind of tour de force that marks Kubrick as a true genius of the cinema.” — Paul D. Zimmerman, Newsweek
“I’m afraid I found A Clockwork Orange brilliant but disappointing, its moments of power offset by an overwrought stridency and its message overbalanced by the medium. It is a remote work, icy and abstract, strangely shy of the echoes of real human voices. It is also genuinely thought-provoking and uncompromising.” — Charles Champlin, Los Angeles Times
“Malcolm McDowell is sensational. His performance has the range and dynamism that signal the arrival of a new superstar. As for director Kubrick, his work is stylistically almost flawless. If there was any doubt after 2001, A Clockwork Orange confirms Kubrick as our most audacious film maker.” — Jay Cocks, Time
“Malcolm McDowell plays Alex in the style of a latter-day Leo Gorcey, with perfect smarmy presence. The others in the cast are generally acceptable, although Patrick Magee’s looniness, as a revolutionary polemicist crippled by the hoods and whose wife dies after being raped by them, is as graphic as a cartoon. So, for that matter, is Clockwork Orange, which is already the most overrated work of the year (Best Film, Best Director, from the New York Film Critics). It is, I’m afraid, nothing more than a garish Pop-art poster pretending to be a work of art.” — Kevin Kelly, The Boston Globe
“A Clockwork Orange is so beautiful to look at and to hear that it dazzles the senses and the mind, even as it turns the old real red vino to ice. A tour de force of extraordinary images, music, words and feelings. Malcolm McDowell is splendid as tomorrow’s child, but it is always Mr. Kubrick’s picture, which is even technically more interesting than 2001.” — Vincent Canby, The New York Times
“Clockwork Orange is a bit of brilliantly executed future shock from Mr. Stanley Kubrick, and oh, my brothers, it is not fare for the faint or weak at heart. Malcolm MacDowell [sic] gives a brilliant performance as Alex, a brutal but engaging London hood of the not-too-distant future. This is easily the most controversial film of the year. What Alex, in his Orwellian dialect, refers to as ‘the old ultraviolence’ has sparked a flood of outraged editorializing from people who, one suspects, missed the point of it all.” — Howell Raines, The Atlanta Constitution
“Harrowingly humanistic, magnificently moral and chillingly Christian. It’s not merely in the challenging content but also in the daringly original treatment that the film never loses its balance on its tight-rope walk to brilliance.” — John E. Fitzgerald, The Catholic News
“This movie begins where all others leave off and its ‘X’ rating proves, once and for all, the ineptitude and meaninglessness of movie ratings.” — Rex Reed, New York Sunday News
“It is told in some heavy British dialect that seems to echo in a cave; in addition it dwells heavily on the teen-age slang supposed to be current in the future. All of this makes it often unintelligible to the ears. Fortunately, it speaks eloquently to the eyes.” — Emerson Batdorff, The Plain Dealer (Cleveland)
“It is doubtful that any novel has ever been adapted for the screen as brilliantly as this one. It will undoubtedly cause shock waves among other directors, for Kubrick, in technical areas, at least, has surpassed them all. It can be said, without question, that he is this country’s most important filmmaker, fit to stand on a pedestal beside Europe’s best, Bergman and Fellini.” — Hollis Alpert, Saturday Review
“It is not one of the best movies of the year, it is not a classical work of art, it is not the best picture of the decade, it is not a breakthrough in the infant history of film as an art form. And, perhaps more important than all of the foregoing, A Clockwork Orange is not Stanley Kubrick—America’s best filmmaker—at his best. Yet, A Clockwork Orange is considerably more of a movie than most which have been made in the past year. Not in the top two or three, certainly—but better than most. And, if [t]he work is not Kubrick at his best, one supposes that some future film scholar (Rex Reed III, God forbid?) will describe the film as a Kubrick sidetrip, an amusing if imperfect excursion off the beaten path that eventually reaches a dead end. I am saying, then, that even a mediocre Kubrick movie is better than the best effort by many of his alleged peers and that this is why we have heard and read such an unprecedented barrage of talk, argument, praise, criticism—and why The Washington Post recently suggested that any movie that provokes this much reaction can’t be all bad.” — John Huddy, The Miami Herald
“In most of the writing about this movie, not enough credit has been given to author Burgess. His is an inspired novel, even more impressive when one considers it was written 10 years ago. The special language Alex and his ‘droogs’ [friends] employ, beautifully integrated into the script by Kubrick, is of particular delight. Kubrick’s contributions are his wit and his eye. The wit, too much at times, is as biting as in Dr. Strangelove, and the production, while of another order, is as spectacular as in 2001.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune
“Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is an ideological mess, a paranoid right-wing fantasy masquerading as an Orwellian warning. It pretends to oppose the police state and forced mind control, but all it really does is celebrate the nastiness of its hero, Alex.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times
“Clockwork Orange offers many avenues for interpretation, just as Kubrick’s adaptation lays itself open for the controversies that have erupted since the film’s premiere late last year. It’s as enigmatic as it is engrossing, and Kubrick’s tactics are endlessly fascinating, especially in his combination of the youthful violence and the music he has plucked from the classical repertoire.” — Mark Hemeter, The States-Item (New Orleans)
“So much can and must be said about the movie. What must also be said is that it is conspicuously short of being a completely realized vision. It is shallow and frigid and ultimately unsatisfying.” — William B. Collins, The Philadelphia Inquirer
“Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is a film with a severe case of inflated reputation. Thanks to cover stories in several magazines and the prestigious New York Film Critics’ award as the best movie of 1971, Kubrick’s first picture since 2001: A Space Odyssey has been heralded as important and innovative. To this Kubrick fan, it is neither. In fact, it seems his crudest and least interesting major work to date.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times
“A Clockwork Orange is an undeniably brilliant film by Stanley Kubrick—a harrowing thriller-satire. A youth named Alex is the central figure—portrayed by Malcolm McDowell with compelling skill and a satanic charm that brings incredible dimension to the anti-heroic role.” — Stanley Eichelbaum, San Francisco Examiner
“Stanley Kubrick’s ninth film is probably his best, a dazzling, disturbing, outrageous and ominous nightmare look into the near future. It is really a satire on growing tendencies of our times to violence, brutality, and fascination with erotica.” — Myles Standish, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
“A Clockwork Orange is a bad movie. There, I said it.” — Jeff Millar, Houston Chronicle
Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange says something so important, and so alarmingly well, that it should be required viewing for all who have reached the age of reason. Since the Motion Picture Association of America in its sublime arrogance has given this film the naughtiest rating, however, parents of teenagers under 18 will have to do the Midnight Cowboy number once again if they feel their offspring can and should experience Kubrick’s work.” — Susan Stark, Detroit Free Press
“Once again, Stanley Kubrick has dared more than any of his contemporaries. Once again, he has succeeded in a way that will be talked about for a long time.” — George Anderson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
THE FIRST-RUN THEATRICAL ENGAGEMENTS
What follows is a chronological reference listing of A Clockwork Orange‘s theatrical openings in the key markets of the United States and Canada. The emphasis is on the largest and earliest markets in which the film played, and the information is designed to provide a sense of the film’s rollout in the early stage of its release in what the industry considers the important and higher-grossing locales.
It should be noted that due to its initial X rating, A Clockwork Orange did not play numerous markets and smaller locales during its first-run period. In some situations the film did play a given market but without the support of any newspaper or radio/TV advertising. Some locales first played the film upon being re-issued with a revised R rating from the MPAA.
The presentations of A Clockwork Orange were in 35mm spherical (1.66:1 aspect ratio) with monaural audio.
Opening Date YYYY-MM-DD … locale — cinema (duration in weeks) [notes]
1971-12-18 … Los Angeles — Hollywood Pacific [midnight preview]
1971-12-19 … Los Angeles — Hollywood Pacific (41)
1971-12-19 … New York — Cinema I (31)
1971-12-19 … San Francisco — Metro (30)
1971-12-19 … Toronto — Towne (36)
1972-02-09 … Boston — Cinema 57 Complex 2 (14 [20])
1972-02-09 … Chicago — Michael Todd (18)
1972-02-09 … Detroit (Birmingham) — Bloomfield (19)
1972-02-09 … Detroit (Grosse Pointe Woods) — Woods II (18)
1972-02-09 … Philadelphia — Stage Door (20)
1972-02-09 … Washington — The Cinema (20)
1972-02-10 … Atlanta — Twelve Oaks (15)
1972-02-10 … Houston — Galleria II (15)
1972-02-10 … Seattle — Cinerama (18)
1972-02-17 … Montreal — Avenue (33)
1972-02-17 … Vancouver — Stanley (19)
1972-02-24 … St. Louis (Brentwood) — Brentwood (18)
1972-02-25 … Charlotte — Charlottetown II (13)
1972-03-01 … Minneapolis — Downtown World (12)
1972-03-01 … Rochester (Henrietta) — Todd Mart I (16)
1972-03-01 … San Jose — Century 22A (24) [w/ Blow-Up during weeks 21-24]
1972-03-03 … Syracuse (DeWitt) — Shoppingtown II (12)
1972-03-08 … Baltimore — York Road (11)
1972-03-08 … Baltimore (Pikesville) — Pikes (11)
1972-03-08 … Buffalo (Amherst) — Boulevard Mall I (1+)
1972-03-08 … Indianapolis — Glendale IV (11)
1972-03-08 … Milwaukee (Wauwatosa) — Mayfair (17)
1972-03-08 … New Haven (Orange) — Showcase 2 (10)
1972-03-09 … Portland — Irvington (22) [w/ Blow-Up during week 22]
1972-03-15 … Cleveland (Woodmere) — Village (15)
1972-03-15 … Louisville — Penthouse (15 [17])
1972-03-22 … Columbus — University City (10)
1972-03-22 … Des Moines — Eastgate I (10)
1972-03-22 … Des Moines — Eastgate II (3)
1972-03-22 … Pittsburgh — Chatham (9)
1972-03-23 … Winnipeg — Polo Park (11)
1972-03-24 … Denver — Centre (1+)
1972-03-29 … Hartford (Wethersfield) — Paris 2 (16)
1972-03-29 … Memphis — Memphian (8)
1972-04-05 … Akron (Fairlawn) — Fairlawn (15)
1972-04-05 … Davenport (Milan) — Showcase 2 (7)
1972-04-06 … Ottawa — Little Elgin (20)
1972-04-12 … Dallas — Wilshire (17)
1972-04-12 … San Antonio — Broadway (11)
1972-04-13 … Miami (Coral Gables) — Coral (17)
1972-04-13 … Providence — Elmwood (1+)
1972-04-19 … Cincinnati — Carousel 1 (10)
1972-04-19 … Richmond — Broad Street I (12 [17])
1972-04-21 … Little Rock — Center (6)
1972-06-14 … Kansas City — Embassy 1 (13)
1972-06-14 … Kansas City — Embassy 2 (7)
1972-06-15 … Fort Worth — 7th Street (8)
1972-06-21 … Albuquerque — Lobo (5)
1972-06-21 … Austin — Varsity (7)
1972-06-21 … Orlando — Plaza 2 (12)
1972-06-21 … Sacramento — Sacramento Inn II (17)
1972-06-21 … Tampa — Florida (8)
1972-06-21 … Tulsa — Will Rogers (1+)
1972-06-22 … Omaha — Six West 4 (12)
1972-06-22 … Omaha — Six West 5 (6)
1972-06-23 … Dayton — Northwest Plaza (10)
1972-06-23 … Las Vegas — Boulevard (5)
1972-06-23 … Norfolk — Terrace (1+)
1972-06-28 … New Orleans — Cine Royale (15)
1972-06-29 … San Diego — Valley Circle (13)
1972-07-19 … Honolulu — Cinerama (11)
1972-07-21 … Birmingham — Ritz (5)
1972-08-09 … Salt Lake City (South Salt Lake) — Century 22 (10)
1972-08-11 … Jackson (Flowood) — Town & Country Drive-In I (1 [2]) [w/ Beauty and the Bull]
1972-08-16 … Wichita — Twin Lakes II (6)
1972-08-25 … Tucson — Buena Vista 1 (3)
1972-09-13 … Phoenix (Scottsdale) — Kachina (5)
1972-09-29 … Nashville — Green Hills (3)
THE Q&A
Raymond Benson is the author of over forty published books. He is most well-known as the third—and first American—continuation author of original James Bond novels commissioned by the Ian Fleming Estate, and for his acclaimed and best-selling five-book serial, The Black Stiletto. Raymond has taught Film History college courses in New York and Illinois for years, contributes a regular column and occasional pieces in Cinema Retro magazine (“The Essential Guide to Movies of the ’60s & ’70s”), and co-stars inDann & Raymond’s Movie Club, a monthly live presentation on cinema history in the Chicago area (with Chicago’s Daily Herald film critic, Dann Gire), now in its 15th season.www.raymondbenson.com. Raymond was previously interviewed for this column’s retrospectives on 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Last Picture Show.
John Cork is the president of Cloverland, a multi-media production company which has produced Value Added Material for numerous home media releases. He wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990) starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek, and wrote and directed the feature documentary You Belong to Me: Sex, Race and Murder on the Suwannee River. Cork is the author of James Bond: The Legacy (with Bruce Scivally, 2002), Bond Girls are Forever: The Women of James Bond (with Maryam d’Abo, 2003) and James Bond Encyclopedia (with Collin Stutz, 2007). John was previously interviewed for this column’s retrospectives on Planet of the Apes , Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and numerous James Bond movies.
Sheldon Hall is a senior lecturer in film studies at Sheffield Hallam University and the author of Zulu: With Some Guts Behind It—The Making of the Epic Movie (2005), Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History (with Steve Neale, 2010) and Widescreen Worldwide (with John Belton and Steve Neale, 2010). Sheldon was previously interviewed for this column’s retrospectives on Around the World in Eighty Days, Jaws and Zulu.
Peter Krämer is a Senior Research Fellow in Cinema & TV in the Leicester Media School at De Montfort University. He has published four books on Stanley Kubrick, including the volume on A Clockwork Orange in Palgrave's “Controversies” series. He is also the author of The New Hollywood: From Bonnie and Clyde to Star Wars (2006) and The Hollywood Renaissance: Revisiting American Cinema’s Most Celebrated Era (with Yannis Tzioumakis, 2018). Peter was previously interviewed for this column’s retrospectives on 2001: A Space Odyssey, Funny Girl and Raiders of the Lost Ark.
The interviews were conducted separately and edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.
Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): How do you think Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange should to be remembered on its 50th anniversary?
John Cork: A Clockwork Orange should be remembered as one of the most visually compelling, aurally seductive, audaciously engaging, and intellectually confounding movies ever made. It is a film that many have hated themselves for loving, that has spurred on countless hours of late-night dissections in college dorms, and, as we know, inspired a few to embrace the violent ethos of Alex and his Droogs. It is a film that refuses to be ignored, and a film that provokes and provides no simple answers to the questions it poses.
Raymond Benson: It’s nothing short of bravura filmmaking. Intelligent, courageous, innovative, surprising, mind-boggling, disturbing, exciting, funny—all these descriptions apply to A Clockwork Orange. It was a novel by Anthony Burgess that was deemed “unfilmable,” and yet, Kubrick did it. It will be remembered as a controversial, dynamic piece of art that still divides audiences, and it’s easily one of Stanley Kubrick’s defining masterworks.
Peter Krämer: Living in the UK, I probably should say that first and foremost A Clockwork Orange has to be remembered as arguably the most controversial film in British history. The public debate about the film was so heated that Kubrick, in 1976, asked Warner Bros. not to go ahead with the planned theatrical re-release of the film in the UK. Indeed, A Clockwork Orange was not legally available in any format in this country until the year after Kubrick's death in 1999. The initial response to the film was deeply divided. While the British Board of Film Censors had passed it without cuts, various local authorities banned it and the BBFC was severely criticized for being too lenient. And while London film critics loved the film from the outset, and it was a massive box office hits during its incredibly long run in British cinemas, all kinds of commentators, politicians, campaigners etc. attacked the film. It was referenced in several court cases to do with the crimes of young people who, supposedly (and very fancifully), had somehow been influenced by the violence of the youngsters in the movie. It is fascinating to read the hundreds of newspaper articles published during and after the movie's theatrical release in the UK. In addition to juvenile crime many aspects of British society—modern architecture, family breakdown, the prison system etc.—were being discussed with reference to A Clockwork Orange. The film seemed to have to say something about all of this, or, at the very least, it was useful for illustrating some point or other that a writer wanted to make about contemporary Britain. So half a century later, it may still serve as a window into the early 1970s, although, at the same time, it also transcends its original historical context, having long become a timeless masterpiece.
The Digital Bits: What was your first impression of the film?
Benson: I first saw it in the summer of 1973, as I was a year shy of seeing it when it was still X-rated in late ’71 and all of ’72 (although I tried!—but the box office person was annoyingly strict about the admittance policy). Kubrick himself withdrew the picture temporarily in late ‘72/early ’73 to make two cuts that totaled around thirty seconds, and the movie was re-rated R in the States. It was re-released that way and I saw it then. (As I understand it, though, those miniscule cuts are back in the film on home video and the R rating remains intact.) By the time I did see it, I knew all about it. I’d read the published “storyboard” screenplay that illustrated the entire movie, and I had read the novel. It was likely my most anticipated film of that era, having had my life changed (literally!) after seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey on first release. Interestingly, I find A Clockwork Orange much more difficult (unsettling) to watch today than back in the 70s. Back then, the sex and violence were all part of cinema’s new freedom that began in the late 60s with the collapse of the Production Code and initiation of the ratings in the U.S. It was a time when filmmakers were pushing the envelope to see what they could get away with, and audiences were more accepting of what was on the screen. Rapes depicted in movies are perceived quite differently today by the Gen Z crowd, as I’ve noted in the recent Film History college classes that I taught. One must place the film within the context of when it was released.
Cork: My first interaction with the film was when my mother, then dating my future adoptive father, went to see it. I had read something about the controversy over it, and demanded that she tell me about the plot (something I did with most of the movies she saw on dates). Later, when cable television came to my hometown of Montgomery, Alabama, my grandparents subscribed to HBO, and in December 1977, I had the chance to watch A Clockwork Orange for myself. I was 16, and it was one of the most chilling, mesmerizing, fascinating films I had ever seen. I must have seen it six or seven times over the next few months. Like many, I loved imitating Alex’s speech patterns. “Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well!” Sometimes I didn’t “see” something, but I “viddied” it. If a new song was good, I might comment on “angel trumpets and devil trombones.” That said, I could be inspired by Alex’s style and swagger, but had nothing but repulsion for his ethics and lust for a bit of the old ultraviolence.
Krämer: This may sound odd, but watching A Clockwork Orange at my local cinema when I was a teenager in late 1970s West Germany really helped to change my life. I was simply overwhelmed by the film, and I felt so strongly about its odd mixture of sex, violence, humor, beauty, social commentary and philosophical reflection that almost immediately I had to see it again—and I had to write about it. In those days there was nothing like “Film Studies” at German schools, but there was a class on communications, and I decided that, together with a friend who was deeply impressed by the movie as well, I would do an extensive study of A Clockwork Orange—but it had to be the novel. Really we were working through the impact the film had had on us, and we used the novel to do so. Which was not a problem for me because I had read the novel before. In fact, I was first and foremost an avid reader of all kinds of Science Fiction and only secondarily a cinephile. But with Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange and 2001: A Space Odyssey, which I watched around the same time, suddenly movies did become much more central to my life—and this, eventually, lead to me studying film at university and becoming a film scholar. As I said: A Clockwork Orange helped to change my life!
The Digital Bits: In what way is A Clockwork Orange a significant motion picture?
Benson: Quite simply, it’s significant because it’s a Stanley Kubrick film. Anything Kubrick made is significant because it’s generally accepted that Kubrick is one of the great filmmakers. As Martin Scorsese commented in Jan Harlan’s excellent documentary, Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures, Kubrick was on the radar of anyone interested in cinema after Paths of Glory had hit theaters. As Kubrick continued to make challenging films such as Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, and then 2001, Kubrick became the guy on the pedestal to young filmmakers in film school. After 2001, any picture made by Kubrick was an event, and you made it a point to see it. A Clockwork Orange was made when Kubrick was at the height of his powers.
Sheldon Hall: On first release in London A Clockwork Orange played 61 weeks—the longest run in the world—in the 890-seat cinema Warner West End, earning £466,917 (about $1 million, or about $7 million adjusted for inflation).
Cork: A Clockwork Orange may be the most thought-provoking film on the subject of toxic masculinity ever made. Of course, that term didn’t exist when the film came out, but the concept of unchecked masculine desire, of the unbridled id of males of a certain age, of testosterone-fueled raping and senseless brutality has never been presented both so seductively and so repulsively and addresses in such a way that it turns a mirror back on the viewer over and over again, eluding simple answers and safe conclusions. Because it presents a set of moral conundrums that force us to confront our ever-shifting emotional reactions to Alex and his violence, the film makes the viewer work to find meaning in the chaos of Alex’s rampages, the indifference of governmental bureaucracy, the self-serving nature of politics, the self-absorption of the rich, and our
own ugly desires for consequence-free vengeance.
The Digital Bits: How does the film compare to the source material?
Cork: The novel is indisputably brilliant. It arrived after nearly a decade of headlines about violent youth gangs in the UK after World War II. Originally called Cosh Boys, the Teddy Boys caused tremendous hand-wringing among the press and politicians after The Notting Hill Riots of 1958, which lasted nearly a week. The Teddy Boys were ruthlessly violent, had their own slang and style, and were obsessed with music (rock ‘n roll, not classical). Burgess’s novel showed up in 1962, just four years later, and rather than write about the actual Teddy Boys, Burgess created his own youth gangs in a future that very well reflected the social strata of post-war Britain.
Benson: I mentioned that the Anthony Burgess novel was “unfilmable,” but Kubrick did it. The film is quite faithful, although Alex and his Droogs are much younger in the book than in the film. It should be noted that Kubrick worked from the American publication of the book, which was missing the final chapter. In that deleted chapter, Alex is grown and no longer interested in “horrorshow” violence. The U.S. publisher had found the chapter unnecessary (and I agree!) and cut it out. The British edition of the novel still includes those final pages. So, the film ends with the irony (something Kubrick excels in) of Alex reverting to his old ways after being “cured all right.” (Wink.)
Krämer: Anthony Burgess's novel is, perhaps more than anything else, about language, especially the odd slang that the first-person narrator and protagonist Alex uses. This element is still present in the film but, of course, the powerful sensual impact of its sounds and images is much more important. As a reader of the novel, all I have is Alex's point of view and the often rather incomprehensible—or at least difficult-to-understand—language he uses. Sometimes I will not grasp all-too-clearly what he is saying, and what is actually happening in the story. And I am likely to be more or less detached from those happenings. In fact, even horrendous torture and sexual violence may come across rather humorously or lyrically due to the quirky, inventive, clever expressions Alex uses in his telling of the story. The film viewer's experience, especially of sex and violence, is much more in your face (and ear), and while the film as it is clearly is shocking, it has massively toned down the novel's sex and violence. There is also, of course, the debate about the novel's final chapter, which is present in the original British edition but not in the original American edition, and which seems to be very explicit about the moral (or message) of the story. Burgess could not decide which version to publish, so he didn't mind (at least not initially) when both appeared. Kubrick decided not to use that final chapter, and in general, I would say, the film is rather ambiguous about what we, as viewers, are to make of Alex's development towards the end of the story: will he go back to his old ways, or has he changed in some fundamental way. A lot of people seem to think they know which way it is (namely the former) and what the moral of the film is—but, personally, I think that there are a lot of clues telling us that Alex has indeed changed, and that, if the film does indeed have a message, it has to do with a final ambiguity. In fact I think that this applies to much of what we encounter in the course of the film. Unfortunately, both Burgess and Kubrick talked an awful lot about what novel and film were meant to say—thus reducing, even denying the complexity and radical openness of the film.
Cork: There are many things in the novel that are harsher than the sex and violence shown in the film. Alex and his Droogs rape ten-year-olds, for example. They also commit robberies for profit. But Burgess has a very different, and more optimistic take on the ending. Despite all that has happened, at the end, Alex is a somewhat changed person, now focused on growing up and settling down, compared to the implication that he has been returned to his monstrous state in the film. All that said, much of the dialogue is word-for-word from the novel. Kubrick was very respectful of the source material.
The Digital Bits: In what way was Kubrick an ideal choice to direct?
Hall: A recession in the industry led MGM to cancel Kubrick's planned biopic of Napoleon and he turned instead to adapting Anthony Burgess's satirical fantasy A Clockwork Orange. The resultant film embodies all his worst tendencies: it is glib, vulgar, schematic, misanthropic, over-designed, and evades confronting the full implications of its subject—the necessity of free choice between good and evil—by dealing in grotesque cartoon caricatures rather than human beings.
Cork: Kubrick was a visual poet. He obsessed over the details within an image. There are few directors who understood the technical aspects of putting an image on film better. Having started out as a still photographer, Kubrick knew lenses, film stocks, lighting, camera rigs as well as most directors of photography. Despite his reputation for meticulousness and endless takes, Kubrick was a surprisingly efficient director. He would rather take a tremendous amount of time to capture one brilliant shot than use the same time to do a lot of okay coverage. So you get numerous scenes captured in one shot in one take.
Benson: A Clockwork Orange is easily one of Kubrick’s greatest accomplishments. Interestingly, it was almost an afterthought of his to make it. He had planned to make an epic picture about Napoleon right after 2001: A Space Odyssey and spent two years in pre-production on that before MGM got cold feet and pulled the plug. Then, Kubrick made his unprecedented deal with Warner Brothers to make films exclusively for that studio. To show them that he could make a movie cheaply and quickly, and to capitalize on the current and trendy “youth film” market (i.e. Easy Rider, etc.), he chose to make A Clockwork Orange. He made it in six months (a very short time for Kubrick!) and for around two million pounds sterling, which at that time was not even $1.5 million U.S. When you view the film, it’s extraordinary to think that it cost so little. It looks like an expensive movie.
Krämer: We owe the film to Kubrick’s failure to get financing for Napoleon; and perhaps this is just one of those lucky failures that lead to something unexpectedly good.
Cork: Kubrick was also great with actors. He found actors he trusted, then pushed them to deliver incredibly nuanced performances. While in 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick had the actors embody the confined, emotionless, sexless aspects of space exploration, in A Clockwork Orange Kubrick gets brilliant comic performances. All the characters reflect their essential nature in larger-than-life ways that still feel true, whether it is Alex’s passion for ultra-violence or the simmering frustration of P.R. Deltoid, the “Post-Corrective Adviser,” or the smug pomposity of the Minister of the Interior. You don’t get that kind of consistency of performances across a film without a director who understands how to get actors to give their very best.
The Digital Bits: Which are the film’s standout scenes?
Cork: I feel this film is as near-perfect as can be. Every scene stands out to me.
Benson: The first half hour is such iconoclastic filmmaking that it dazzles and assaults the audience with sight, sound, color, violence, comedy, and horror. One can barely catch a breath after those opening sequences that establish exactly what Alex and his Droogs are all about. It’s as if the movie itself has been drinking the “Moloko Plus” and is on a supercharged high. It’s only after we see Alex at home with his parents that the pulse of the film “comes down” to tell its story. I can’t find any flaws in any scene in the film. It’s perfect.
The Digital Bits: What are your thoughts on Malcolm McDowell’s performance as Alex?
Benson: Alex was the role McDowell was born to play. He is still trading on his performance today, appearing at horror conventions and such to sign autographs. When I interviewed him he admitted that he never had another role as good, and that it was a “once in a lifetime” part. And he’s brilliant in it. I’m still flabbergasted that he wasn’t nominated for an Oscar.
Cork: With all due respect to McDowell’s brilliant career and tremendous talent, I’ve never seen him dominate the screen the way he does in A Clockwork Orange. Of course, playing a character like Alex is often a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. McDowell’s Alex strikes just the right balance of confidence, swagger, sarcasm, and the facile ability to deliver to others what they wish to hear. He knows how to play the victim and victimizer for all it is worth.
The Digital Bits: Any thoughts on A Clockwork Orange as a home-viewing experience?
Cork: I first saw A Clockwork Orange on a 4x3 television in my grandparent’s living room late at night. The film mesmerized me then. I college, I saw it repeatedly at revival houses and at campus screenings. I once watched it on a seatback screen on a transatlantic flight. Most recently, I watched it on HBO Max on a very nice 4K television. This may sound like sacrilege, but the film blows me away every time I see it, no matter the format.
Benson: The film is very well represented on home video. The 40th Anniversary Blu-ray that came out ten years ago is excellent. It’s gorgeous. I understand that the new 4K Ultra looks magnificent (I haven’t seen it).
Cork: There is a great new documentary, A Forbidden Orange, about the release of A Clockwork Orange, particularly whether it would appear at a festival in Spain. I would love to see more done about the film and its legacy, but I am unsure whether a Blu-ray release is the proper way to accomplish this.
The Digital Bits: How would you describe A Clockwork Orange to someone who has never seen it?
Cork: I would simply say it is one of the most thought-provoking films I’ve ever seen. Within the past six months, I’ve shown the film to someone who had never seen it. I warned them it was violent, but the violence is there not in a pornographic way, but to make you think about violence, and all the different levels of violence from the personal violence humans visit upon each other to societal violence that happens at all sorts of other levels.
Benson: I’d say that A Clockwork Orange is a one-of-a-kind movie that is unlike anything else. It’s a story about crime and punishment, and if the government should have medical control over man’s choices of free will. It’s a movie filled with irony and dark comedy, but it’s also horrifying and disturbing. I would first make sure the viewer is familiar with Stanley Kubrick and his work, and then I would prepare them for the “assault” on the senses they are about to see. I feel that today I would need to warn them about the violent rapes, and that most of the serious violence is finished after the first twenty minutes.
The Digital Bits: What do you think is the legacy of A Clockwork Orange?
Hall: The film's cult reputation was enhanced in Britain by the director's ban on its UK exhibition from 1973 until a posthumous reissue in 2000. The willingness of Warner Bros—financier and distributor of this and all his subsequent projects—to indulge him speaks volumes about Kubrick's unique status.
Benson: Stanley Kubrick did a brilliant thing with A Clockwork Orange. In the first 20-30 minutes of the film, he shows the audience this really horrible person, Alex, who is a villain in the worst way. He commits shocking crimes, one after the other, boom boom boom, and for some it can be stomach-churning. Then, the movie calms down, and Alex, who has been addressing the audience in first-person narration since the beginning, embraces the viewers as friends, and he takes us into his confidence. We begin to likethe guy. By the middle of the movie, the audience is actually rooting for him. By the end, Kubrick is laughing at us, saying, “Ha, I fooled you! I got you to empathize with a horrible criminal who is addicted to violence,” which puts the viewer in the same shoes as Alex himself. Kubrick shows us how easy it is for base instincts to move to the dark side. He gets us to exchange the roles of protagonist and antagonist in the film, with Alex becoming the “hero” and the corrupt government and doctors who experiment on him as the villains. Irony. Pure Kubrick.
Krämer: The film has resonated across popular culture in so many different ways, most especially through the iconic figures of the Droogs, the brutal thugs that make up Alex's gang of juvenile delinquents. Already when the film was initially released in the UK, youth started to copy their dress—but not their violent behavior (although there was a great deal of public concern that this would follow). Later, in the UK and elsewhere, Halloween costumes and hardcore football fan groups echoed the Droogs' outfit. Across the decades, various bands paid homage, in their names, their music and their dress code, to A Clockwork Orange in general and the Droogs in particular (in fact, David Bowie did so already in 1972/73). Even in academic circles, there is sometimes a tendency for writers to associate themselves with, and to express a certain admiration for the Droogs—which is actually quite unsettling, given the fact that the Droogs are brutal criminals, rapists and murderers. So both within and beyond film culture, there is something deeply unsettling still about the impact A Clockwork Orange has had and continues to have. It is not simply a masterpiece cocooned in a discourse about art and the cinematic canon—it is still disturbingly visceral and resonant; and it is not even necessary to have actually seen the film for this resonance to be felt.
Cork: When a film of such an iconic nature arrives, it tends to stand alone. You see other filmmakers attempting to play with the universe created by Kubrick and Burgess, sometimes directly in the portrayal of the gangs in Walter Hill’s The Warriors, or, less directly, in the far superior The Wanderers, both from 1979. You see a great deal of Alex in Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker in The Dark Knight. Tarantino was playing with the Singin’ in the Rain scene for a similar set piece in Reservoir Dogs. Trainspotting also has some visual hat-tips. Yet, I don’t see the film itself as something that created a movement. Airport launched the disaster film genre. The Godfatherspawned a slew of gangster films. A Clockwork Orange, not so much. Now, fifty years on, we are left with a baffling appearance by Alex’s Droogs in Space Jam: A New Legacy. Some of the scenes seem to pop up in parodies, music videos, television comedies, particularly someone strapped to a chair, eyes opened, forced to watch something they dislike.
The real legacy, though is censorship, and the very ironic story of how the film of A Clockwork Orange both omitted a key part of the novel and then later disappeared from British screens for nearly thirty years. This is a complex story that is, for me, intrinsically linked to the themes of the movie itself.
The film centers around society’s futile attempts to control Alex and the chaos he creates. He is eventually compelled to give up rape and violence through “aversion therapy” (called the Ludovico Technique in the novel and film). This is a concept born out of a branch of psychology called Behaviorism. The Behaviorists believe that rather than diving deep into the root causes of destructive behavior, it is generally more effective to mentally train folks not to engage in the behaviors. Thus, a drug that will make one feel deathly ill if one drinks may cure alcoholism much faster than years of therapy to understand why one drinks too much. Well, in the 1960s, there was much fretting over these concepts. Could Behaviorism be used by a government to take away free will? Can it leave us defenseless and unable to make our own choices? Can the government “censor” our behavior through techniques like those portrayed in A Clockwork Orange?
Of course, censorship in the classic sense is a government deciding what we can watch, read, hear, and many governments did ban or censor the film version of A Clockwork Orange. The UK did not censor it, despite outcries at the time from many that violent films were polluting the nation’s movie-going population. When the press seized upon a couple of brutal crimes that may have been tenuously linked to the film, and protesters came after Kubrick and his family, the director himself requested that the movie be pulled from British distribution. It was never legally screened in the UK again until after Kubrick’s death. Even prior to that time, Burgess claimed his American publisher requested that the final chapter be deleted, and this incomplete version was the novel Kubrick read. He did not read of Alex musing on growing up and out of his violent phase, an ending that promoted the notion that Alex would, given a bit of time, mature into a contributing member of society.
Just as in the film, where Alex does everything he can to undergo the treatment so he can leave prison, Burgess claimed in the 70s and 80s that he reluctantly accented to cutting the last chapter in the novel, and Kubrick was, ultimately, the censor of the film in the UK. Burgess’s cuts to the novel and Kubrick’s pulling of the film were in reaction to certain real-life forms of aversion therapy. In Burgess’s case, it was, he claimed, to appease a publisher with access to the huge US market (although there is strong evidence that Burgess was, at best, ambivalent about the need for his deleted last chapter when he wrote the book and did not include it in his own screenplay version of the story). In Kubrick’s, it was reportedly death threats and a barrage of negative press. This happens today, too. A singer changes lyrics to a song because some on Twitter lambast her for using a certain word many find offensive. A celebrity issues some “heartfelt” apology for a joke because of blowback on social media. A publisher pulls a couple of classic children’s books because a few are loudly objecting to some of the original illustrations. Clearly, aversion therapy works at modifying behavior, but as A Clockwork Orange asks, at what cost?
Burgess and Kubrick wanted to show us the worst of the worst, a deeply unlikable character, and make the argument that even his freewill was something a government shouldn’t take away, and that everyone’s freewill is something for which we should care. Yet, when faced with pressure from a publisher or a segment of an outraged public, these creators censored themselves. Did they make the right choices? I am not here to judge, but it is just this kind of moral ambiguity that makes A Clockwork Orange and the real-life story behind it so captivating to me.
The Digital Bits: Thank you—Raymond, John, Sheldon and Peter—for sharing your thoughts about A Clockwork Orange on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.
IMAGES
Selected images copyright/courtesy Hawk Films, John Hazelton, Polaris Productions, Warner Bros. Pictures, Warner Home Video.
SOURCES/REFERENCES
The primary references for this project were the motion picture A Clockwork Orange(Warner Bros., 1971), regional newspaper coverage, trade reports published in Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter, and Variety, and interviews conducted by the author. All figures and data pertain to North America (i.e. United States and Canada) except where stated otherwise.
SPECIAL THANKS
David Ayers, Don Beelik, Raymond Benson, Diane Buckley (Virginia Beach Public Library), Lanham Bundy (Providence Public Library), John Cork, Shane Curtin (San Jose Public Library), Sheldon Hall, John Hazelton, Isaac (Buffalo & Erie County Public Library), Peter Krämer, W.R. Miller, Gabriel Neeb, Jennifer Pawlowski (Tulsa City-County Library), John Wilson (Jacksonville Public Library).
IN MEMORIAM
Neil Wilson (“Prison Check-in Officer”), 1916-1975
Paul Farrell (“Tramp”), 1893-1975
Michael Bates (“Chief Guard Barnes”), 1920-1978
John Barry (Production Designer), 1935-1979
James Liggat (Casting), 1920-1981
Patrick Magee (“Frank Alexander”), 1922-1982
Anthony Sharp (“Frederick, Minister of the Interior”), 1915-1984
Lindsay Campbell (“Police Inspector”), 1927-1984
John Alcott (Lighting Cameraman), 1930-1986
Michael Grover (“Prison Governor”), 1913-1987
Peter Burton (“Junior Minister”), 1921-1989
Bill Rowe (Dubbing Mixer), 1931-1992
Anthony Burgess (Novelist), 1917-1993
Madge Ryan (“Dr. Branom”), 1919-1994
Godfrey Quigley (“Prison Chaplain”), 1923-1994
John J. Carney (“Detective Sergeant”), 1940-1995
Sheila Raynor (“Mum”), 1906-1998
Stanley Kubrick (Writer-Producer-Director), 1928-1999
Philip Stone (“Dad”), 1924-2003
Lee Fox (“Desk Sergeant”), 1912-2003
Barrie Cookson (“Dr. Alcott”), 1922-2005
Max L. Raab (Executive Producer), 1925-2008
Miriam Karin (“’Catlady’ Weathers”), 1925-2011
Margaret Tyzack (“Conspirator Rubinstein”), 1931-2011
John Clive (“Stage Actor”), 1933-2012
Vivienne Chandler (“Handmaiden in Bible Fantasy”), 1947-2013
Warren Clarke (“Dim”), 1947-2014
Bernard Williams (Associate Producer), 1942-2015
Aubrey Morris (“P.R. Deltoid”), 1926-2015
Adrienne Corri (“Mary Alexander”), 1931-2016
Pauline Taylor (“Psychiatrist”), 1935-2017
Bill Butler (editor), 1933-2017
Carl Duering (“Dr. Brodsky”), 1923-2018
David Prowse (“Julian”), 1935-2020
Russell Hagg (Art Director), 1938-2022
Comment