Movie Vs. Book – a Clockwork Orange

            “What’s it going to be then, eh?” (Burgess 3) the humble narrator asks his droogs at the opening and closing of Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange. That is the question is, it not? What happens to dear little Alex all depends on how you experience A Clockwork Orange. The film, directed by Stanley Kubrick, and the novel create similar realms of moral injustice and dark humor; however, each has its own exclusive spin on the presentation and meaning of what A Clockwork Orange really is.

            A Clockwork Orange is set in the future, in a world where the youth is corrupt and violent against the old. The world is a place of injustice. The main character is a teenage boy named Alex. He is the leader of a gang of boys who commit various crimes. One night, Alex accidently murders a woman who he is robbing and his fellow gang members turn on him. Alex is caught by the police and put in jail. Alex remains in prison for two years until he is put into a new program that is designed to make cure criminals of their negative social behaviors. Alex undergoes the treatment and from that point on becomes violently ill whenever he tries to do something “evil”. Alex is released into society again, but finds only hardship. Eventually he tries to kill himself when being tortured by a man he had done wrong to in the past. Afterward, the hospital works to undo the treatment and Alex returns to normal.

The plot of the movie and the book are almost identical, save one very key scene. The film does do a good job conveying the visual elements of the novel. The world that Kubrick creates looks exactly like what one envisions when reading A Clockwork Orange. However, there are certain elements that can never be recreated in the film, and therefore make the film far inferior to the novel.

            The film presents Alex as quite a different young man than the one portrayed by Burgess. The Alex in the film appears to be all on his own, with not a friend in the world. The whole world is against him in the film. (Kael) This is laughable, for anyone can see that Alex is a horrible criminal who assaults, steals and rapes on a regular basis throughout the story. However, the presentation in the film makes the reader sympathize with Alex and overlook his villainy. However, the first person narration in the novel actually makes Alex seem more of a hoodlum than the film does. The sheer contradiction between Alex’s narration and his actions are so absurd that the reader cannot help but detest Alex and his wicked ways.  In the first few chapters of the novel, Alex casually describes an evening out where he and his gang perform various atrocities. In one scene, Alex and his droogs beat an old, drunken homeless man. “So we cracked into him lovely, grinning all over our litsos [faces], but still he went on signing. Then we tripped him so he laid down flat…Then we went on our way” (Burgess 18). The nonchalant attitude that Alex describes the mayhem with is absurd to the point of a kind of black hilarity. The film cannot accomplish this feat. What comes across instead is one of two things. The viewer feels that either Alex is a poor young man forced into his position by a society that offers no alternative, or that he is nothing but a sadistic rapist who believes himself to be the only one that matters in the world; the only sane individual. (Ebert)

            The idea of Alex as the only sane individual is also captured in the film through Kubrick’s use of camera trickery. Kubrick uses shots and lenses that distort anything they look upon. He uses movie magic to make almost every scene that does not include Alex in it be skewed and bizarre, thus enforcing the viewer’s idea of Alex as the victim of a deranged society. Wide angle lenses were used to give the world a stretched or imperfect look to it. Also, in shots where Alex is present, Kubrick uses a special lens that can focus on one object while distorting everything else. Alex still remains the strong focal point and character through this technique. (Ebert) This is quite contrary to the novel. In the novel, Alex is often seen just as menacing as the society he is a part of. He commits any act he wishes without regard for anyone but himself and is as thoroughly twisted as anyone. Alex does not even heed moral guidance in the novel. When Alex has a surprise visit from his “probation” officer, Alex is warned not to continue in his delinquent ways. Alex’s officer even asks him about his morals when he says, “Is it some devil crawls inside you?” (Burgess 43) However, Alex ignores the advice of someone who is actually trying to help him. In the film, this guardian figure is comical and unhelpful. He tells Alex to behave while drinking from a glass containing dentures. The ridiculous behaviors of the characters around him show that in the film, everyone is insane; save little Alex, that is.

            In the film, A Clockwork Orange is a mysterious and enigmatic idea. In fact, throughout the entirety of the film, the phrase only appears once (aside from the title sequence). It appears in passing on a piece of paper in Mr. Alexander’s typewriter.  This is one of the most profound differences between the book and the film. How can the film be called A Clockwork Orange when no one who sees it knows what A Clockwork Orange really is? There is frequent discussion of what A Clockwork Orange is and its significance in the novel. A Clockwork Orange is best described as when an individual does not have the ability to choose between good or evil. Burgess said, “It is as inhuman to be totally good as it is to be totally evil” (Burgess VIII). What Burgess means, is that a human being, by definition, is a creature of free will. If a human acts only good or only bad, then they are devoid of free will and therefore inhuman. A Clockwork Orange is the elimination of free will. This is the fundamental idea behind the novel: the importance of free will. Without an explanation of such a key principle, the film is lacking in its delivery of what A Clockwork Orange is really about.

            That is the most important difference between the film and the novel: the meaning of A Clockwork Orange as a whole. The conclusion of the film shows a rehabilitated Alex, free from the horrible treatment that the state put him through. Alex is once again able to engage in any kind of sex and violence he pleases. The film ends with a scene where Alex envisions committing acts of sex once again with his new found “freedom”. Kubrick seems to push the idea not of a man who has seen the evils of society and tries to be above it, but rather the idea that is society is criminal then the individual should be criminal as well. (Ebert)

The movie Alex is a savior who rescues the viewer from oppressive control. Is this concept true to the novel though? It is actually in direct contrast with what the author of A Clockwork Orange believed. This is demonstrated in the twenty-first chapter of A Clockwork Orange when Alex has a change of heart about his life and demonstrates that he has free will. This chapter was left out of the film for some reason. In this chapter, Alex is running with a new crowd of droogs and expresses his lack of interest in the violent life style he’s leading. Then, Alex meets an old member of his gang and learns that his former droog has settled down and been married. Alex becomes filled with thoughts and emotions. He decides to become a more moral individual and leave behind his old ways of delinquency. This illustrates the idea of free will and A Clockwork Orange all at once. Before Alex’s treatment, he was A Clockwork Orange, because he had no choice in his youth but to be a violent crook. Then after his treatment Alex had no choice but to be a saint. However, after he was cured, he finally became a free man. Little Alex grew up. He was presented with both worlds, that of a delinquent and that of an honest man and he made the choice on his own. (Carey) The novel is a tale of maturation and free will, while the film stands out as dark humor directed toward the backward thinking of, “Do unto others as they do unto you.”

            Truly, what an individual takes away from A Clockwork Orange is entirely dependent upon how they experience it; through film or through text. Will the individual see a tale of free will and adolescence or the twisted depiction of a corrupt society and its foul creations? Either way, I, your humble narrator ask you droogs to viddy what you will and to make sure that you have a good rassoodock about it when it’s all through, lest you too become A Clockwork Orange.

Burgess, Anthony. A Clockwork Orange. New York: Norton. 1962.

Carey, Scott. “A Clockwork Orange: Human Freedom.” Clockwork101. http://clockwork101.tripod.com/info/id6.html

Ebert, Roger. “A Clockwork Orange.” RogerEbert.com. Feb. 1972. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19720211/REVIEWS/202110301/1023

Kael, Pauline. “Stanley Strangelove.” The New Yorker. Jan. 1972. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0051.html