Talk:A Clockwork Orange (film)/Archive 1

Merge?

A good portion of the text here is the same as the text for the book. I know that these two articles were originally together, then they were split (see Talk:A Clockwork Orange). But given the overlap, and given the fact that most novels that have been adapted into movies share information on both the book and the film, I think that this article should be merged back. gavindow 02:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. Wahkeenah 02:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think there is too much information information to just merge the articles together. That said, the content that belongs with the movie needs to be segregated from that which belongs with the book and vice versa.

Also, shouldn't this discussion be at Talk: A Clockwork Orange? That's where the discussion link from the merge template goes. At least for now I'll add a post to that page with a link here so people know where the discussion actually is. Theshibboleth 08:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think the articles should stay split, and just the "Influences" section of the book be merged to the "Influences" section of the film, with a note and a link at the book page. Kusma (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually another possibility would be to split off A Clockwork Orange in popular culture or similar, which could contain the Influences sections of both pages. --Kusma (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The book and the film are two different things. Merging them together will create a whole lot of confusion. --BadSeed 07:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly. One should hope that the movie and book are similar, but they are still two different items, and therefore two different entries. It's the same reason why Braveheart and William Wallace don't share a page. R'son-W 18:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Plenty of Wikiprecedent for separate articles for film & book (see The Maltese Falcon, for one of many examples). | Klaw Talk 19:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Absolutely keep them separate. By all means link the two close together, but don't merge. Turnstep 02:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. And darnit I need to buy another copy of the book to check the editorial switches to which objects are in in the catlady fight. --Alf ^melmac 21:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Cutting influences section instead of merging

I have cut the Influences sections out and merged both articles' Influences sections into Cultural references to A Clockwork Orange (Still needs cleanup). I hope this will help in keeping the articles about book and film reasonably clean and separate. Oh, and I am removing the merge tags. Kusma (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed this text until it can be properly formatted and included in the article:

DISCUSSION:

the film provokes thought regarding the decision making process that is instilled in so-called civilized people. "Bad" behaviour is discouraged through law, religion and shame. One could argue that these things were not properly instilled in Alex as he matured and thus he's not responsible for his actions. Rather his parents, the church and the government are.

The film also draws attention to what happens when one tries to rule with an iron fist. Alex treats his droogies poorly (and later the police are shown abusing their power) so they will respect his power but they eventually rise up and overthrow him as leader of their gang. Point being: excersing power is important but maintaining the respect of your followers is equally important and if you wish to control people, you must combine fear with respect.

kmccoy (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A Joke...

a joke gone to waste.... i shall remove it

"The film opens with a view of a small orange clock, with the time approaching 12:45 PM. In European versions of the film, we instead first see a hand grenade that explodes just as the film enters its first scenes."

Von Steuben 06:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Recording of Beethoven's Ninth

Does anyone have a reference for Karajan's being the recording of Beethoven's Ninth? I have always heard that it was Ferenc Fricsay's Deutsche Grammophon recording. See this link Grover cleveland 08:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Have you listened to them both, side-by-side, to be sure? Wahkeenah 12:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• No I haven't. But the link I posted is prima facie evidence that Fricsay's recording was used -- does anyone have any evidence that it was Karajan's? Grover cleveland 15:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You're assuming that the advertising website is telling the truth. Wahkeenah 16:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Perhaps you are talking of Suicide Scherzo, it doesn't resemble the SN.9. 71.50.152.33 05:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots?

Does anyone else think that we should add a screenshot or two to the article? Wikipedia already has an image of Alex from the movie uploaded, so I don't understand why we wouldn't include that in the article. --Berserk798 20:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Go ahead and do it! Kusma (討論) 20:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

registrry

does anyone know why this film hasn't been selected for preservation at the library of congress' national registry? i mean, it's pretty culturally significant. it was made in england, but it was made by an american director.

Side effect? Unintended?

I don't think that making Alex adverse to Beethoven's 9th was an "unintended side effect." It was a deliberate part of the Ludovico technique. Tommyt 14:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

~It was not intentional. When the song was found to make him uncomfortable, it was unethically used to punish him (but it was only a coincidence that Alex liked the Ninth Symphony and they chose to have it as the background score). It was not planned and I doubt that they thought that the relatively short exposure to it in that context would have had the effect it had. So it was an 'unintended side-effect'. 211.29.251.50 05:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote of the sequence in the film:

ALEX (V.O.) It was the next day, brothers, and I had truly done my best, morning and afternoon, to play it their way and sit like a horrorshow co-operative malchick in the chair of torture, while they flashed nasty bits of ultra-violence on the screen; though not on the soundtrack, my brothers. The only sound being music. Then I noticed in all my pain and sickness what music it was that like cracked and boomed. It was Ludwig van, 9th symphony, 4th movement.

ALEX Stop it... stop it, please!!! I beg of you!!! It's a sin!!! It's a sin!!! It's a sin, please!!!

Brodsky leans forward and turns down the sound.

DR. BRODSKY What's all this about sin?

ALEX That!... Using Ludwig van like that! He did no harm to anyone. Beethoven just wrote music.

DR. BRANOM Are you referring to the background score?

ALEX Yes!!!

DR. BRANOM You've heard Beethoven before?

ALEX Yes!!!

DR. BRODSKY You're keen on music?

ALEX Yes!!!

DR. BRANOM (quietly) What do you think about that, Dr. Brodsky?

DR. BRODSKY (softly) It can't be helped. Here's your punishment element perhaps. The Governor ought to be pleased... I'm sorry, Alex, this is for your own good, you'll have to bear with us for a while.

...then later...

RUBINSTEIN The, um, newspapers mentioned that in addition to your being conditioned against acts of sex and violence, you've inadvertently been conditioned against music.

ALEX Well, uh, I think that was something that they, uh, didn't plan for. You see, Missus, I'm very fond of music, especially Beethoven, um, Ludwig van Beethoven. B... E...

He leans over and looks at her writing in notebook.

RUBINSTEIN It's alright, thank you.

ALEX It just so happened that while they were showing me a particularly bad film, of like a concentration camp, the background music was playing Beethoven.

Exacta 02:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Trivia

Changed the trivia bullet about the writing on the wall - it says "suck it and see", not "kick it and see" - suck it and see is a well known expression in vanilla English - which would make more sense when looking at what the graffitti is talking about. Also added reference to Moloko - is Russian for Milk Grufy 00:56BST, 22 april 2006

Doubting Something

"The film ends with a surreal image of Alex raping a woman, surrounded by applauding Victorian gentlemen, an image that suggests that his aggression is accepted by society now that Alex will be working with politicians instead of criminal outcasts."

The woman is smiling or laughing, and she is on top. It appears to be some kind of crazy wedding, not a rape. 24.117.154.106 10:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Justin

I vote to remove any and all lines like: "an image that suggests [X]". Kubrick detested such neat and narrow interpretations, and so do I. Also, since the scene in question is actually another one of Alex's fantasies, to say that the "image suggests that his aggression is accepted by society now" is a fallacious analysis. Exacta 02:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but during his meeting in the ward with Anthony Sharp's minister character, it is made quite clear to him that his newly regained aggressiveness will be utilised to the government's benefit. I like the ambiguity that Kubrick leaves the viewer with here. At first it seems better on one hand that Alex's belligerence will be utilised for the benefit of the state. Or will it be beneficial, will he just be used as an attack dog by the state, possibly against he state's political enemies? In any case, Kubrick makes a very good point about the subjectivity of the definition of a hooligan, or whatever else one may wish to label Alex as. Is he any less of a bad person because his aggression will now be used *by* society, rather than against it?

" [...] during his meeting in the ward with Anthony Sharp's minister character, it is made quite clear to him that his newly regained aggressiveness will be utilised to the government's benefit." Disagree strongly with this claim, which is actually a personal interpretation IMHO. Script reproduced here [1] has the following exchange (my emphases):

MINISTER: [...]"You see, we are looking after your interests. We are interested in you, and when you leave here you will have no further worries. We shall see to everything .. a good job on a good salary."

ALEX: "What job and how much?"

MINISTER: "You must have an interesting job at a salary which you would regard as adequate. Not only for the job which you are going to do and as compensation for what you have suffered, but also because you are helping us."

ALEX: "Helping you, sir?"

MINISTER: "We always help our friends, don't we? It is no secret that the Government has lost a lot of popularity because of you, my boy. There are some that think that at the next eleection we shall be out. The press has chosen to take a very unfavourable view of what we tried to do.

[...] Alex, you can be instrumental in changing the public verdict. Do you understand Alex? Have I made myself clear?"

Alex's "job" is unspecified, but there is no suggestion that his violence will be used by the Government. Rather, his (envisaged) post-deconditioning rehabilition is to be used as a PR exercise by a Government that has blundered badly.

(My POV: It's dramatic double-irony. The Minister is placatory, intending to produce a 'kiss-and-make-up' media triumph while rehabilitating an offender. Alex, on the other hand, has nothing on his mind except a return to health and previous form - his final fantasy suggests he foresees mingling with a higher social set, although he foresees no change in his attitude towards other people. IMHO, This sounds more in keeping with Kubrick's famously olympian and austere 'jokes' Garrick92 12:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Differences

Dropped this from the differences in film and book section:

• Alex is 15 in the book. McDowell was 27 at the time of filming.

This does not reflect a deliberate change in the plot: Alex was clearly still at school in the film version. Film characters are frequently portrayed by actors whose actual ages greatly exceed the characters' ages. Ellsworth 15:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this - McDowell's age should have nothing to do with Alex's age. Question, though: Where in the film does it mention that Alex was still in school? From what I recollect, they don't actually mention it... The first time they mention it in the book is by the mother saying that Alex will be late for school, but I don't think they mention it in the film. InvaderJem

Alex's mother also mentions that he will be late for school in the film version. The Rock And Roll Pirate 12:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Location

A guy I work with told me most of the film was shot on location in Thamesmead. Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC) This is true Alex's flat is actually alongside Southmere Lake in Thamesmead. Also the underpass which the tramp was beaten in was also in Thamesmead it has now been filled in and replaced with a predistrian crossing - it lead between Castilion School to the houses on the other side of the Crossways Road.

Classical Music

Gah, I removed that bit that said that classical music was in the film because it was Kubricks trademark. Anyone who had read the book would realise that classical music is central to the novel.

• You're right. While it's true that Kubrick often fell back on classical or traditional works, it was a happy coincidence in this case. Wahkeenah 22:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I actually object to this, depending on what exactly it was originally about. Yes, Beethoven is in the book. But for instance the William Tell Overture is not, nor is The Thieving Magpie, Pomp and Circumstance, or Funeral Music for the Queen Mary. Those as far as I recall from the book are all hallmarks of Kubrick. While one was genuinely in the book, he did exhibit his trademarks in this film to high degree.Callandor 07:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It has been many years since I read the book. I recall that both the Fifth and the Ninth figured prominently in it. Wahkeenah 14:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Black and White Sequences

This movie is listed in the category for "color and black and white films" but I don't recall any black and white sequences. Did someone mistak the milk bar scenes as using black and white film? -Captain Crawdad 07:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• There were black and white newsreel clips of Hitler reviewing his troops and such stuff as that. If that's someone's basis for calling this a "color and black and white film", that's really a stretch. Wahkeenah 07:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ahh, right, the Ninth Symphony treatment. I don't think a few seconds of newsreel footage makes this a color and black and white film. -Captain Crawdad 17:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting (sort of) to go back through the archive and see who or what added that "fact". Wahkeenah 22:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It was added on July 24, by a user named NorthernThunder. Wahkeenah 22:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Official title?

I always thought the correct title of the movie was simply Clockwork Orange, and that only the novel has the full title A Clockwork Orange. The movie posters and the covers of videos and DVDs only say Clockwork Orange, although the logo on many of them looks like it may represent a letter A. However two of the movie-based poster designs at art.com don't have anything resembling a letter A. I did a quick google search for online articles, but didn't find anything to answer this question.Spylab 17:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• Check your Leonard Maltin book. He goes by what it says on the title card. Or, for that matter, check you copy of the film and see what it says on the title card. Or I will, when I have time. Wahkeenah 17:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ok. I don't have them with me at the moment, so I'll have to check later.Spylab 17:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• I have confirmed that the official title is A Clockwork Orange.Spylab 22:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And I confirm your confirmation. I think the poster-makers just thought "Stanley Kubrick's Clockwork Orange" sounded better than "Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange". Maybe somebody thought that sounded like someone saying that Stanley himself was a clockwork orange. Also, I'm guessing the copyright date and the other blah-blah on the "A CLOCKWORK ORANGE" title card is not to be taken as part of the title, although one never knows, as the official title of Dr. Strangelove was about that lengthy. Wahkeenah 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Revelation! Look at the poster. Alex is emerging from a large, stylized letter 'A'. And now you know the rrrrrrrrest of the story! Wahkeenah 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I dimly remember that the supraliminal 'A' in the poster (eyeball on cuff prominent)[2] was deliberately designed by Philip Castle to recall Man Ray's Object to Be Destroyed[3] (which is itself a reference to the USA's Great Seal). Can anyone verify? Garrick92 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have found a sensible source (well, an authoritative one - the Masonic Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon) that links the CO poster to the Great Seal, which I shall now add. This is one of my all-time favourite wikipedia finds, and I shall treasure it forever. Garrick92 11:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Age

In the film, Alex is apparently 18, as said in the paragraph about the differences between the movie and the book, so I changed that part of the plot. Hope I did right, otherwise please change it back (and please explain, I'm interested^^) Gabriele, 10-18-06

his age was set at fifteen when prior to my edit, i changed it back to eighteen after seeing your mention of this and that no one had responded

No references

Just tagged this page. The only reference for the entire article is the novel. I am amazed at this since it is a fairly popular movie. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 05:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Colons

This is a very minor complaint, but it seems like the writer for some of these sections was insanely colon happy. Most of them seem to be used incorrectly as well... Anyone agree? Joe Brooks 13:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Feel free to perform a colonectomy as needed. Wahkeenah 15:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The REAL QUESTION should be why do you care? If its not a matter of life or death iI don't see why it would matter.

To the above user who apparently didnt sign their comment, he stated that it was indeed a minor complaint and quite frankly, excessive use of devices like that can make for an awkward read. Please sign your comments. Glassbreaker5791 03:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sex scene description

I think - I repeat, I am NOT sure - that before Alex has sex with the two girls from the record store, he gets them drunk. If I do in fact remember correctly, I think this should be included briefly in the description of the scene, perhaps nothing more than "...nonetheless, he takes them home and, after a few drinks, has sex with them both." As well, it mentions later in the article that, as opposed to in the novel where Alex rapes the young girls, the sex here is consensual. I don't think that's entirely the case here, since Alex is essentially drugging them first. Thoughts? Zhankfor

• No. Alex is walking through the record store, to the sound of part of the electronic version of Beethoven's Ninth (the same section that will later be playing during his aversion therapy session featuring the Hitler footage) and finds the two chicks looking through the album bins. He hits on them a bit and offers to let them come to his place to list to music filled with "angel trumpets and devil trombones... you are invited!" The film cuts immediately to his bedroom and the highly sped-up threesome scene to the strains of an electronic William Tell Overture, which if you watch it at normal speed, you see that nothing actually happens, it's just a bit of comic relief. Unless Kubrick pulled such a scene from the final cut of the film, Alex does not get the babes drunk first. Wahkeenah 00:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Maybe I'm mixing up the book with the movie, it's been a long time since I've looked at either. [[User:Zhankfor|Zhankfor}}

You were right, it's in the book; I just found it. He gave them each some Scotch. As the old saying goes, "Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker!" Wahkeenah 05:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

well im not an expert on drugs (though i have done my far share) but aren't "angel trumpets and devil trombones" some kind of a psychoactive drug?

No, they're trumpets and trombones (respectively). There are fungi named after trumpets and devils and angels, but any similarity ends there. Garrick92 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Brugmansia are also called Angel's Trumpets and used as drugs, sothis indeed might be a reference to drug use in the film.--85.182.34.104 (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Unconscious?

Apparently the gent at 172.159.252.65 disagrees with me, but I'm absolutely positive Alex isn't left unconscious after being hit with the milk bottle. He is, in fact, screaming about being blind and calling his former droogs bastards. I could be wrong, but generally unconcious people don't talk.

• You're right; he was momentarily blinded and/or disoriented by his "friends" smashing the full milk bottle across his face, filling his eyes with milk, but apparently not glass. Wahkeenah 00:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

100% you are right. he was knocked out, atleast in the movie version. bloodreaper

• In the movie he was NOT knocked out. It was as I described. Wahkeenah 00:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian?

This article claims that Burgess was a "devoted Christian". The WP article on Burgess states that Burgess "lapsed from Catholicism early in his youth", with no suggestion that what he "lapsed" into was any other variety of Christianity. I suspect that the Burgess article is right and this one is wrong (for instance, the first quotation at http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bushcoolframe.htm#BURGESS doesn't sound very Christian), but I don't know. Anyone have anything more authoritative? Gareth McCaughan 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Burgess regarded himself as a lapsed Catholic, but in his two volumes of autobiography he still tends to talk of himself as a Catholic. On other occasions in the same works, he comes across as agnostic, and on other occasions outright gnostic (there's one marvellous description of God and sinners in which he compares God to 'a field of sentient snow, which screams when you absent-mindedly piss on it'). I don't think 'lapsed Catholic' is the same as 'non-Catholic'. The same as you supposedly can't be an ex-Jew. More theologically-minded contributors might be able to phrase that more succinctly. Garrick92 14:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Orange Theme

I enjoyed the text that gave credit to A Clockwork Orange for providing the influance for Cygnus X's "The Orange Theme". However, the only text that remains of that reference is simply the name and title under the "soundtrack" section. Since the song was not included on the soundtrack, and no reference for its inspiration is given, i am deleting it from the article. Please re-add this once the reference has been found. Psydude 21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

FALSE! that all DVDs are X-versions

I just rented this DVD at a Phoenix, AZ (USA) library, and in fact it was the rated-R version. The article should reflect "most" DVDs are the non-x version

The remastered blu-ray is also Rated R. Go-go-wikipedia blanket statements! Gront 22:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

MISTASKEN IDENITY

Wasnt the character alex actualy played by Julian Sands(forgive me if i spell the name wrong)the same actor who played the warlock in the movie "Warlock" blood reaper

No. No he wasn't. HalfShadow 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the voice is a dead ringer if he isnt. blood reaper

Ah. So he doesn't have the same name as the actor credited with playing the role, and he doesn't look anything like him either, but he does sound like him? Suddenly I understand why you ask. It is because you are mad. Next! <dings little foyer bell> Garrick92 15:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sony Pictures Classics

I don't understand. If this is distributed by Warner Brothers... why did I watch a Sony Pictures Classics edition of the film? PyroGamer 12:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

trivia - popular culture

the video for the song pacifier by Shihad is a total homage to this movie. im sure this info used to be in this article. is it valid? Snapnz86 23:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Differences between the book and movie

I have changed 3 things in the section detailing differences between the book and the movie: - removed the part that said some nadsat words are changed: although only once or twice, the word "vino" is used in the book to mean blood as well (as in "the red vino on tap"). I don't believe any of the vocabulary is actually changed in the movie. - added a note about the snake not being in the book. Since Alex raves about it when visiting his parents after being released, I thought it relevant. - changed the part that said the cat lady was killed with a bust of Beethoven in the book. That was just plain wrong - she is killed with a "malenky silver statue" of a naked woman. There is mention of a bust of Beethoven: Alex is trying to get to it when the cat lady, lying on the floor, grabs him, which leads to the killing blow. All this is done from memory, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. 84.193.231.219 21:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A or Not?

Response to the comment below, so it won't get lost: In the film poster, Alex is emerging from a giant "A". Wahkeenah 23:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey you're right! But that still doesn't explain the soundtrack... 218.186.9.1 02:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not the official soundtrack album, it's a collection of Walter/Wendy Carlos' renditions of various music, some of which was used in the film and some was not. The CD version has that cover on the inside and a different cover on the outside, with Beethoven drawn inside a large "A", a parody of Malcolm McDowell's appearance inside the "A". The clincher, though, is the film's title card which reads A Clockwork Orange. The title card is what counts, not any poster or album cover. Wahkeenah 03:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded a collage of the title cards (of which there are only three at the beginning) to put to rest the question raised here and some months ago about whether there's an "A" in the title. There is. Wahkeenah 03:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also amusing that on the cover of the DVD it has that much-discussed poster; on the DVD disk itself it says only "Stanley Kubrick's Clockwork Orange"; and on the DVD's edge it says "A Clockwork Orange". Wahkeenah 03:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I know the title is a Clockwork Orange but the picture of the DVD cover of the film does not seem to have "a" written anywhere before "clockwork orange". The same is true for the 1972 Soundtrack. Should the title of the article be changed to match the DVD cover and the 1972 cover? Some references here

Shown on tv

Has "A Clockwork Orange" been shown of tv . Will be on TCM or AMC? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.0.98.175 (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:ACO Carlos LP.jpg

Image:ACO Carlos LP.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alex Korova1.jpg

Image:Alex Korova1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Differences between the film and the book - Error?

This is a very minor quibble, but...

"The bodyguard is played by former bodybuilder David Prowse in a non-speaking role."

Non-speaking role? I just saw the film and he did speak. I think he said he'd see who was at the door when Alex arrived, and he definitely replied "No, thank you," when offered wine by Alex. Is that enough to elevate him to a "speaking role" (or at least the rewording of the sentence)? I ask because I just walked in here and don't wish to interfere with others' work. Steve1138 01:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The list says Alex claims to have been conditioned against "all music" in the movie. That's wrong. In the scene where he's been interrogated by the Writer's anti-government journalist friends (just before the drugged wine causes Alex to fall face-first into a plate of spaghetti) they specifically ask him if he's been conditioned against all music -- and Alex replies something to the effect of "No, just the Ninth, I mean Beethoven's Ninth, it was played during a horrible viddy of a concentration camp or somesuch." Alex goes on to decribe his conditioned response of wanting to "snuff it" etc. -- before his pasta plunge. That knowledge is the reason F. Alexander put the kick-ass speakers on the pool table, pointed up, playing the lovely, lovely Ludwig's Ninth to Alex in the attic in an effort to blast Alex off into suicidal space as a means of bringing down the government. Without that inside dope, hell, it might as well have been Schoenberg. I plan to fix this, but will viddy the film again, and know that I know that I know first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.203.44 (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible Mistakes in 'Plot' section

First, "As a result of this conquering of the fear of death, Alex inadvertently cures himself of his crippling psychological anguish." Is this explained in the movie? I don't recall it being mentioned at all.

Second, "Anticipating his return to havoc, Alex relives his surreal fantasy of having sex with a woman in the snow, surrounded by applauding Victorian ladies and gentlemen." It says "relives" but I don't remember him having that fantasy ever before. Ormaybemidgets 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: first plot mistake. You're not mistaken: it's a mistake. While neither the film nor the novel states it explicitly, the government somehow (subliminal conditioning, who the hell knows) rewired Alex back the way he was after he wound up all bandaged up in the hospital. The government's motive: giving Alex his old rotten self back was a quid pro quo to get Alex on their side and counter the anti-governmental attacks of F. Alexander and friends, namely, that the state was using monstrous brainwashing techniques on poor Alex and others like him). Both set-up and payoff were hinted at twice. Alex tells the lady with the psychological association cards he had a dream that doctors were fooling around with his gulliver. (i.e.: brain) She tells him "patients in your condition often have that sort of dream"--but there's a crafty, calculated look in her eye. Alex, of course, responds to her flash cards with thoughts of the old in-out and smashing eggiweggs. The Minister of the Interior (or Inferior) while forking steak in Alex's mouth, implies the whole deal -- and it's as "clear as a sky of azure summer" to little Alex. Alex's last voice-over line in the film is "I was cured all right." Not "I cured myself." It's something that happened to him, something that was done to him. Lacking the novel's final chapter, he's still a clockwork orange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.203.44 (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:COtitle1.JPG

Image:COtitle1.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

the really lengthy discussion of Tales from the Hood should mostly exist within the article for that vastly less known film. Nobody gives a crap about all the details of the similarities between the two 131.172.99.15 (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

1992?

"Set in 1992 England..." - where is it stated or mentioned that the film is set in 1992? Vargklo (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

British withdrawal

So the C4 documentary was "the only time British audiences could see portions of the film during the twenty-odd-year ban". The word "officially" or "legally" should be inserted here. Example: my mate in Sweden taped in on a VHS off the tellly in about 1995 and I borrowed it and watched it back here. Similarly, it would have been perfectly legal to buy a VHS copy of the film on holiday at any time before 2000 and bring it home. Selling it would have been illegal. But anyone who reallly wwanted to see Clockwork Orange in the 80s and 90s in the UK could get hold of it, albeit with subtitles, without any trouble.

Also "twenty-odd" is not ver encyclopedic.There should be a date for its withdrawal (about 1974, but I don't think it actually came to light until about 1978) and re-release (about March 2000). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.181.166 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So what does it mean?

So what does 'a clockwork orange' mean then. I was told its to do with 'time is like a clockwork orange' but that's not all that helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.226.149 (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) In the book, when the gang goes to the author's house, Alex says the author is writing a book called "A Clockwork Orange". Its also a cockney slang reference (I'm not sure what it means though)

In the foreword of the novel Burgess says that it's a symbol, the orange flowing with juice, represents a human being full of life, and clockwork refers to something mechanical like old clockwork toys. So basically the title is about trying to control a human being as though they are mechanical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.200.102 (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Queer as a clock-work orange" is a common British saying. Queer meaning mad, strange, or curious of course. The author was determined to use it for something, "quote" Rolling stone magazine article. Also, like the last person mentioned, it takes something organic, an orange, and fills it with machinery, clock-work. It's basically stating that it is organic on the outside but machine on the inside, ie. Alex in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.242.173.43 (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Intended film format vs. HDTV?

Wasn't Kubrick's intended film format 4:3, so the HD anamorphic releases hide picture parts intended to be seen by the audience?--85.182.34.104 (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• • The Blu-ray is pillarboxed at a 1.66 aspect ratio [4], which according to the imdb is the intended ratio [5] Conquerist (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clockwork orangeA.jpg

Image:Clockwork orangeA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the Differences secton

Is it just me, or does the section containing differences between the book and the novel just run into a general trivia section? Everything after the comment about how the last chapter was not filmed is completely irrelevant to that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.198.15 (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

opera titles

Does Wiki have a standard for when to translate the titles of works in a foreign language? This article refers to "The Thieving Magpie" and "La Gazza Ladra". Anyone unfamiliar with the work (or Italian) wouldn't know that they're the same thing. Iglew (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Theme: Hypocrisy

Another theme is hypocrisy, shown by Alex, his friends turned police, the government and minister, and the author. --Ephilei (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The hypocrisy theme is even more pronounced in the full version of the novel which was never published in the U.S. because the ending is too dark. It goes on for some time beyond the end of the story in the movie. Alex rebuilds his gang with new members and continues his reign of terror, but finds himself getting bored and begins to consider the idea of settling down and starting a family. Hypocrisy indeed. 76.168.70.193 (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Fifth Pillinipsi

I removed the Miscellaneous section

Is this even true? Why was it in a section of its own? Why was it in a quote box?

Burgess sold the rights to the screenplay to a then upcoming rock n roller, Mick Jagger, for a very low price.
Mick Jagger went on to sell it to Kubrick. This was supposedly why Burgess disclaimed the relations with the
movie along with its anti-"status quo".

Please don't put it back unless you can cite a source. Thanks. Alexforcefive (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it mention it somewhere on the imdb page? Dannysjgdf (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Some plot-related remarks

1. "...While they are walking by a canal, Alex without warning suddenly attacks the other Droogs in a move to reestablish his leadership.". How relevant is the canal? IMHO the 1st part of the sentence can be removed.
2. "He briefly has a fantasy of him having sex with a naked woman while Victorian age figures look on applauding.". Isn't it obvious she was naked? That's the normal way it's done. Maybe "having sex with a woman" would be enough?
Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that some parts of the summary-just little things like places or actions-are irrelevant and could be removed. I agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Spacing

There were a couple of blank lines at the end of the lede, with a comment saying "spacing, please do not remove". I couldn't see any reason for them to be there so I've removed them anyway, but I thought I'd leave a notehere inviting whoever added them to comment if they think they're needed. Olaf Davis | Talk 19:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would you do that?!? If it says don't remove it, then DON'T F***ING REMOVE IT! No, I'm just kidding. I think it was for the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

This section is way too long. It needs to be refined to those entries for which reliable third-party sources can be found per WP:V. At present it is a trivia list and I have tagged it as such. --John (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Especially since there is in fact a separate article linked at the top on list of cultural references to CO. We should put in an invisible wikinote to add further stuff there, move a lot of stuff that is here to there.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted this section. Any that were worth keeping can be moved to the other article. Very few were in my opinion. --John (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this really Science Fiction?

I take issue with the idea that this story is science fiction, even though many people disagree as can be seen by the fact that is was named one of the best science fiction films in various surveys. By wikipedia's own definition, science fiction refers to stories in which technological or scientific issues are speculated upon. There is none of that sort in the story. The closest thing to it might be the behavioral modification treatment the anti-hero receives while in jail, and such things have been practiced in mental hospitals for centuries. Perhaps it is the use of a drug that suggests a technological speculation, but I fail to see how that lifts the story beyond historically common practices of beating, burning, or partially drowning mental patients to change their behavior. If an author were to write a story wherein one character beats another one with an object never before used for that purpose, a foghorn perhaps, have they written science fiction? Of course not.

To me, the story belongs in the genre of alternative history, with it's notion of Soviet domination of Britain. There are lots of novels like this, where the southern states won the American Civil War, or the Nazis won WWII. I never agreed with people calling those novels science fiction either. Alternative histories are a branch of fantasy, not science fiction. 76.168.70.193 (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Fifth Pillinipsi

CO fits the definition of what is sometimes called social science fiction. There's a whole WP article on it. Perhaps this should be reflected in the text of the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're joking! Alex and the droogs wouldn't have lasted a minute in the Soviet Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.181.166 (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• How do you get the notion that they are under Soviet domination (why would that be alternative history anyway, conspiring that it apparently is taking place in the future and many people though the Soviets would win)? The Church of England is still around and I seem to recall crowns on uniforms and other things implying the survival of the monarchy, Besides the Russian influenced slang there does not seem to be much sign of well anything implying Communist control of the country. Hawjam (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)hawjam

In reference to the original question - and bare in mind , for me , it doesn't make it "science fiction" - but early in the films' narration , and possibly mumbled by the drunk they beat up , there are references that England looks so sparse and empty because the populace have mostly moved to the moon. It's not in the novel , but it seems like another Kubrick reference to 2001:A Space Odyssey , within the film. Harvey J Satan (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

We have to agree on a definition. "Alternative history" is in fact a subgenre of "science fiction", and while "fantasy" and "science fiction" have elements that overlap, fantasy generally consists of imaginary worlds (and universes) in which some magic or the supernatural is involved. This film has none of that, and is therefore not fantasy.

A previous contributor defined and edited this article recently as being a "crime" film. The real crime is calling this a crime film. I have changed it back to science fiction. Despite the narrative being conducted by a criminal, Clockwork Orange to me is clearly a science fiction film. To argue against this is to disagree with all the science fiction reference books edited and authored by experts who state this as being science fiction. Science fiction is a very broad genre, with mutliple definitions. One of the definitions of science fiction is that it explores alternate realities (or histories), in this case a dystopian vision of society. Science Fiction also explores the future, in this case the near-future (or a possible future i.e. a dystopia with an advanced penal system). NO other genre covers these themes together like this film, therefore it must come under the category of science fiction. NO other genre uses these themes as a social commentary for the ills of our world the way science fiction does.

The comment above by User:76.168.70.193 that there were no "technological or scientific issues", is also incorrect. A large portion of the film/novel is devoted to the "Ludovico Technique", which is a scientific-based aversion therapy specifically created by the author which was not in existence at the time. The argument that brain-washing in general has been done for centuries is insufficient, as author Burgess could therefore have used any of the existing methods. Instead Burgess created this method specifically for the story, for the exact purpose of reforming imprisoned criminals. Criminals that have already been diagnosed as "criminally insane" and moved to mental hospitals don't count, because this technique specifically grants early parole to ordinary criminals, only when the criminals "volunteer" to undergo this technology. Where has anyone seen this done in the real world? It is the method of brainwashing rather than the brainwashing itself which automatically puts it in the category of science-fiction. The social commentary and the effect of this technology is a direct result of this procedure so therefore everything that follows must also be classed as science fiction. In other words, the theme of the experimentation of human criminals (not mental patients), by making them "better" (or more adapted to society) through technology, since it doesn't happen in this world (that I know of), is the "fiction" resulting from the "science", i.e. "science fiction". Jodon1971 (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The above is pretty much WP:POV WP:OR on your part. Characterizing the aversion therapy as a "large" portion of the film is in the eye of the beholder. The section A Clockwork Orange (film)#Public perception of genre is there to cover the fact that this film can be assigned to more than one genre. Interestingly SciFi is not mentioned there at the current time. Which brings us to the fact that WikiP operates on WP:V information coming from WP:RSs. If you can find anything about the film being considered a SciFi film by an outside source you could add it to that section but to state such in the lede is a mistake as the film cannot be ascribed to just one genre. MarnetteD | Talk 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Followup: I've spent the last several minutes doing some searching and most sights list multiple genres for this film - dystopian future - fantasy - drama - dark humor - and yes SciFi - among many others. This illustrates the point that this film cannot be pigeonholed into one genre. Please feel free to add - with sources - SciFi to the public perception section but please do not place one narrow interpretation of genre to the lede. MarnetteD | Talk 23:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's be ABSOLUTELY clear - I'm not pigeonholing this film and I’m not saying its ONLY science fiction. Please be clear on that. If a film satisfies certain criteria for a genre but also has criteria for ANOTHER genre, you don’t exclude it from one just because it overlaps with another! Calling it just "a film" is a disservice to both the film and its genre. The film "They Live" for example is by WK's own definition a "science fiction - horror film". I have no problem with you or anyone else calling this a multiple-genred film as long as you don't exclude science fiction from that definition, just because some editors can't reach a consensus.

Its good that you started some research - it means you might at least be open to other possibilities. Your "research" has lasted a few minutes, while mine has covered many years of reading BOOKS before there was ever an Internet! The Internet is not the only source of information for my "claim". This is not a "complex" problem, this is NOT my point of view, and it is hardly original research. This film is included in countless science fiction film reference books, not to mention as many online resources. That convinces me and should convince anyone else who knows how to read. The verdict should be unamimous, if not then it merely remains for everyone else to see that. My reading of this material over the years (and I possess a small library of many science fiction film books and novels), and my understanding of science fiction, makes it clear that it is (AT LEAST) science fiction. If you read the article itself, both the words “future” and “futuristic” are used. No other genre (to my knowledge) deals with that. If you still deny this as falling under the realm of science fiction then you are ignoring WK's own definition of Science fiction, and you have also then to concede both that the article is contradicting itself and that you have a limited understanding on what either the genre or the film is about. I had about 10 inline citations after the sci-fi definitions and then it was suddenly removed without explanation. If that's not good enough then I don't know what is. I seriously don't know what else you people expect.

The aversion therapy is a crucial part of this film. Its crucial to the plot, and its crucial the characterization of the main protagonist. It is the catalyst for change within the story. It is the basis which gives the entire film its name "Clockwork Orange". A natural living thing like an orange is forced to do something that is unnatural: runs like clockwork. Its not supposed to do that. By making it unnatural you change the fundamental nature of it. And so it was with Alex - he had natural free will, albeit misguided, and gets transformed by science and technology (mechanized) to become a "good little boy". But the price of "freedom" is actually the lack of free will, as he automatically (or mechanically) is directed towards doing good.

With regard to removals and reversions, just because more than one editor removed it doesn’t make it correct!!! If their understanding was limited or their logic was flawed, the "consensus" or argument becomes invalid, and the edit itself becomes harmful to the whole exercise of editing and to the people, like myself, trying to make a legitimate contribution!

The section of the article you mention on "public perception of genre" is therefore inadequate, given such a visible lack of consensus, in my opinion (I will concede that that is my opinion). The reason science fiction is not mentioned in that section on "public perception of genre" is probably because it gets removed any time someone puts it in there - look what happened when I tried to give legitimate sources! They got removed! Jodon1971 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This "wall of text" shows that you need to read up on Wikipedia's policies. Your years of reading, as much as they are to be valued and there was no doubt much joy in the learning, are still WP:OR as well as WP:SYNTHESIS. BTW I an old enough to have seen this film in its original release and have read numerous books (as well as having a nice selection of Kubrick books in my library} as well but none of that offsets wikipedia's policies regarding sourcing or notability. As to WP:CONSENSUS invalid or not it is the policy to abide by. The only reason Sci Fi is not mentioned in the appropriate section is that no one has added anything about it yet. There is a clear opportunity for you to improve the section with well sourced information. I look forward to reading anything that you add. MarnetteD | Talk 02:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Wall of Text"?!? Are you suggesting that what I've said is irrelevant? Hmm...I've heard something about Wikipedia's "fascist standards", but didn't want to believe it. Its seems like you're not addressing any of the (legitimate) points I'm making, but are instead deflecting them or defending your own arguments in favor of strict adherence to the forced rigidity inherent in "policies". I couldn't possibly "improve the section" as you suggest, when I know it'll just be torn to shreds. Thanks but no thanks. You can keep your Clockwork Orange definition, as what I've said has obviously fallen on deaf ears. Wall of text indeed. Jodon1971 (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have given you links to all of the relevant policies. All of your WP:SYNTH does not replace those. Wikipedia's policies are not fascistic nor are the people who follow them. I think that you are capable of improving the section but will bow to your decision to not even try. MarnetteD | Talk 04:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I rest my case, Mr. Wall-of-text. Once again instead of acknowledging the points I'm trying to make, you jump right in like a faithful wiki-bot (maybe you're in fact another "clockwork orange") citing "policies". Try acknowledging and addressing my points FIRST, and THEN I'll consider what you have to say about Wikipedia's infinite array of wonderfully humane policies. This is about having a discussion, not about ramming rules and regulations down my throat. Incidentally, since you love policies so much, perhaps you missed the one that tells you to ignore the rules: WP:IGNORE. I challenge you to try replying to this post without citing another Wikipedia policy. I think you are capable of that but will bow to your decision to not even try. Jodon1971 (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• The reliable sources are split on the matter of this film's genre. We should not saddle the film with only one answer. Binksternet (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Bruce F. Kawin, How Movies Work, page 29. "But A Clockwork Orange is a bit more problematic. Set in the future and full of intriguing technology (notably the conditioning equipment), it has claims to being science fiction. But it may be more precise and more useful to think of it as a satire, in the Swiftian mode, and to identify its genre as that of the dystopia..."
  • Kristopher Spencer, Film And Television Scores, 1950-1979: A Critical Survey by Genre, page 191. "more dystopian vision of the future... satirical..."
  • Michel Ciment, Gilbert Adair, Robert Bononno, Kubrick: The Definitive Edition, page 125. "less to science-fiction proper than to political-fiction... satirical..."
  • Alexander Horwath, Thomas Elsaesser, Noel King, The Last Great American Picture Show: New Hollywood Cinema in The 1970s, page 99. List of genre-bending films includes A Clockwork Orange.
  • Steffen Hantke, American Horror Film: The Genre at the Turn of the Millennium, page 26. A Clockwork Orange is listed as a rape-revenge horror film.#

That's more like it. I'll check out those books. Thanks for the references. Perhaps my own books are a little out of date. If that's the case then I wonder if the definition of genre is changing? If so why? Jodon1971 (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Alex Burgess

Regarding Alex's surname in the movie - near the end of the movie (around 1:57), after Alex awakens in the hospital, a series of newspaper pages is shown, criticizing the Ludovico project. In almost all articles name Burgess can be seen fully or partially. One page in particular reads:

"DOCTORS las night blamed secret laboratory experiments on criminals for causing Alex Burgess, the 'Cat-Woman Killer', to attempt suicide." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roundchild (talk • contribs) 05:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree to this. Alex's last name in the movie is Burgess. Alex sings himself into the prison as DeLarge as joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.175.116 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dark Comedy

I say we change Genre to Science Fiction Dark Comedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LedBeatles52596 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Dropped Japanese reference to cane stick

Article suggested Alex's concealed knife in his cane was similar to a Japanese weapon. I've changed the reference to indicate similarity to the Victorian London dagger cane as I feel this is more likely the reference point, given Alex's wearing of the archaic bowler hat. Swords sticks and dagger canes are familiar references for echoing the dark side of Victorian London, mentioned in Sherlock Holmes novels and still advertised on the listed hoardings of [James Smith & Son’s on New Oxford Street]. --mgaved (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

White Trash Award

Seems this movie licits a new genre of awards. Teetotaler 22 November, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Spelling inconsistancy?

The "Droogs" of the book were consistantly called "Droogies" by narrator Alex thoughout the movie. So for the article about the movie shouldn't they be spelled the latter way and not the former?Trilobitealive (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Both "droogs" and "droogies" are used in the film.

Opening line "There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie Boy and Dim."

Next reference "It was around by the derelict casino that we came across Billy Boy and his four droogs."

Next reference "Lets get things nice and sparkling clear. This sarcasm, if I might call it such,does not become you, O my Brothers. As I am your droog and leader I'm entitled to know what goes on eh?"

Later in same scene is first usage of "droogies" "Good. Real Horrorshow. Initiative comes to those that wait. I've taught you well my little droogies"

Later, Dim says "And for you my droogie."

In jail, Alex says "And where are my stinking treacherous droog?"

When Alex's old droog(ie)s find him when he got out of jail, Dim says

"Well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well. If it isn't little Alex. Long time no viddy, droog. How goes?" (final use of 'droog' in the film).

Later in the scene, Alex says "Come, come, come my little droogies"

In the scene, Dim says "We want to make sure you stay cured. We'll viddy you some more some time droogie."

When invading the writers house, Alex as narrator says " I knew he would not remember me, for in those care-free days, I and my so-called droogies wore our maskies, which were like real horrorshow disguises."

In the hospital, Alex says to the minister "Hi, hi, hi there, my little droogies."

Five droogs, six droogies. Not what I would call "consistent" (the last vowel by the way is 'e' not 'a'- You misspelled both consistently and inconsistency)--WickerGuy (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Screenplay posting

It was quite appropriate to delete the link to the CO screenplay promoting the new website ScreenPlayDB since this site probably is engaged in multiple copyright violations. However, there are legal and legit postings of the screenplay of Clockwork Orange on other sites that have cleared their copyright status. Perhaps such a link might be appropriate.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

W. Carlos

I'm just about to undo a (clearly well-meaning) change that replaced "Wendy Carlos" with "Walter Carlos" everywhere on the grounds that when the film was made that person was still going by the name Walter. I'm undoing it because, per the WP style manual standard practice here when writing about transgendered people is to use their presently-preferred name, pronouns, etc., even when referring to earlier times when they were using a different name, presenting as a different gender, etc. I dare say it's debatable whether this is the best policy, but that's what the policy is. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's what WP policy is, go for it. Interestingly, the Imdb and the soundtrack album released on CD in 1990 identify the music's author as Walter, though the soundtrack released on tape that same year identifies author as "Walter,Wendy" and the 1998 CD of the original score (including unused bits) identifies the author as Wendy. Yes, lets go for the WP standard--WickerGuy (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wendy is much easier for readers to understand who this is, hence the policy, but a footnote might be put in, saying what the credits were at the time. Beyond being made aware in a neutral way that Walter > Wendy, most readers won't care. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reversion re. 'trialed', and US vs British spelling

I've reverted an edit that replaced 'tried' with 'trialed' which was clearly wrong in the context. This edit had also made some spelling changes from British to US style. I think this is justified, if open to debate. The story is set in Britain, was written by a Brit. Though the film was made by Kubrick, an American, it was filmed in Britain too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Alex Prisoner Number

The long-standing biz on Alex's prisoner number was correct. The final script of the film is online at http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/films/clockwork/coscript.html. This is not an early draft as with the many online copies of the 2001 script, but an exact transcript of the final film as was published in book form shortly after the film's release.

The book can be inspected on Amazon.com as long as you have a buyer/customer account with them using the "Look inside" feature. Word searches on amazon have to be complete words. For example, "prison" will not find "prisoner" etc. But search for 6655321 in the text of the book and Amazon.com yields 10 matches.

http://www.amazon.com/Clockwork-Orange-Anthony-Burgess/dp/0393312836/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287008862&sr=1-1#reader_0393312836 --WickerGuy (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I was asking for you to check this change [6] made on the 10th (which changed the long standing biz) against this change [7] made today. Neither change used an edit summary. Since you hadn't reverted the earlier one, and since I did not have access to the book, I was hoping that you would be able to confirm which one was correct. Looks like you have it nailed down now and this thread will be here for future reference. Is it worth attaching anything that you have added here as refs to the item in the article? Thanks for taking the time to get this right and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the 2nd edit put it back to its correct form, I didn't really pay it much attention. I tend to think this is sufficiently verifiable from primary sources as to not need a reference.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Rimsky-Korsakov

When I saw RK in the edit summary this morning the grape eating and the thrashing scene came flooding into my memory - which may mean that I have seen this film too many times. Then I looked thru the back and forth before everyone got things settled. It sure is a great thing that WickerGuy has all of his books at hand to get these taken care of. There are two things to mention. First the music from "Scheherazade" is not on my LP and, from my search on the net, I can't find it listed on the CD either so I have removed it from the track listing. If any of you can find a version that it is on please restore it with my apologies. Though it would probably be worth adding a footnote which format it is available on. The second item is purely cosmetic and, thus, not that big of a deal. There are now three separate items about this piece of music that is only heard for a minute or so in the film. I am wondering if some of the info could be turned into a footnote? That way it is still in the article for verification but it won't be taking up as much room in the main text of the soundtrack section. Again this is only a suggestion and if everyone else is okay with it as is than so am I. Good job to all in getting it straightened out and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 23:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear then if the "soundtrack" section is a listing of the official CD/LP soundtrack or just a list of tracks used in the film. Half of my references were found doing a search for "Clockwork Orange" "Rimsky-Korsakov" on books.google.com though I have a few handy in print.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops edit conflict with my new section below. The numbers used in the soundtrack listing do match the LP/CD listing. Though they are roughly in order of their use in the film they aren't 100% accurate and there are reprises of several of the works that would need to be taken into account if we were trying to do an complete listing of the music in that manner. I just haven't learned how to use google books, darn it. I am a happy slave to having the heft of books in my hands and pages turning under my fingers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Cast list in the infobox

I have wondered for awhile about our infobox cast list but kept putting off mentioning it. Then I came across this discussion Template talk:Infobox film#.22Starring.22 parameter so I finally thought I should ask here whether we should alter the list that we currently have. While I would not state that we should adhere to the "names above the title" mentioned in the other discussion I would question whether we should have J Marcus (Georgie) and M Tarn (Pete) there. Pete really only has one line "Right" (though he does get to scream while they are motoring through the countryside) and he is gone before the film is half over. We do see Georgie with Dim as cops in a later scene but I don't think that pushes him into a starring spot. Godfrey Quigley and Anthony Sharp would seem to be in the film only slightly less than the droogs but might be considered bigger stars. However, I would not necessarily advocate for their names to be in the infobox either. I only use them to illustrate my point. I am not demanding change and I only bring this up cause it has bugged me for awhile and I wondered what those of you who help take care of this article thought. MarnetteD | Talk 00:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined the think the Infobox should be limited to 4 or 5 at most, while the Cast list could accomodate more. Patrick Magee is an absolute must keep- certainly the 2nd most important character in the film, as well as a major actor. I would say both Anthony Sharp (prime minister) and the prison chaplain are far more important than the prison guard (who is currently listed). At the very least drop the guard (Michael Bates), and add these fellows in.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree about Patrick Magee he is one of the joys of this film. I will say this about Michael Bates - after all of his stomping and bluster the looks on his face when the doctors are displaying the "reformed" Alex at the demonstration, just before his release, are a real treat. MarnetteD | Talk 02:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Narrator Query- Request for Opinions and Comments

Should a narrator (in this case Malcolm MacDowell) be included in the infobox when it is a character who also physically appears in the movie talking in first person?

WP has no specific guidelines on this, but I have reservations, even though I realize Alex frequently refers to himself as "your humble narrator". It seems more like extended voice-over to me.

Most folks when they think of a movie "narrator" think of someone like the chorus of Greek tragedy or the expositor of a non-fiction documentary.

Legitimate uses of the notion of "narrator" of a film would be:
In the realm of fiction, Orson Welles should be listed as the narrator of A Woman Called Moses (fictionalized account of Harriet Tubman)- Michael Hordern as the narrator of Kubrick's Barry Lyndon (he is none of the characters in the film)- Woody Allen as the narrator of Radio Days (only the younger version of himself played by Seth Green appears onscreen), and Rod Serling as narrator of The Twilight Zone.

In non-fiction, we should certainly list Orson Welles as narrator (although he appears on screen) of The Late Great Planet Earth, and Michael Moore as narrator of Fahrenheit 9/11.

In the odd case of Fight Club, we have to list Edward Norton as "Narrator" because the character has no name and that is how he is listed in the film credits.

On the other hand, one does not generally credit Richard Basehart as the "narrator" of Moby Dick, or William Holden as the "narrator" of Sunset Boulevard, or Kevin Spacey as "narrator" of The Usual Suspects or Harrison Ford as the "narrator" of Blade Runner. All of these are general referred to as "voice-overs", rather than "narration", and "voiceover" is, I think, the proper classification of MacDowell's contribution to this film, notwithstanding his self-references as "your humble narrator".

I therefore think the credit to MacDowell as "narrated by" in the Infobox should be deleted.

Any thoughts from other editors?--WickerGuy (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Scala cinema

This article states:

Unable to meet the cost of the defense, the cinema club was forced into receivership.

Please see my discussion about the problems with this statement on the Scala (club) talk page. Laned130 (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Kubrick's withdrawal

Was a protest against the allegations that his film inspired copycat violence in real life. I have added this into the article (perhaps this will one day become a well-known fact in the UK) Lung salad (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Addendum - these allegations were only made in the UK, hence Kubricks's decision to withdraw the film from the UK and not from any other country where it was released Lung salad (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It was also unavailable in Australia, until after Kubrick's death (and possibly other Commonwealth countries like Canada and New Zealand). At the time, I was under the impression that it was actually banned by the government. Can't see how any ban by Kubrick himself could have been justified (outside Britian)), if there were no issues related to death threats or copycat crimes outside Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.166.52 (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that it was a PAL release made it uneconomical to release it on VHS in every other PAL country but Britain.

Title Name

Does anybody know why that name "a Clockwork Orange" ?

--Laurentleap (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Film critic Stanley Kauffmann commented, "Inexplicably the script leaves out Burgess' reference to the title". Lung salad (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

WP gives its own explanation here: A Clockwork Orange#Title. The 3rd bullet point in that explanation satisfies me. A natural living thing like an orange does something that is unnatural: runs like clockwork. Its not supposed to do that. By making it unnatural you change the fundamental nature of it. And so it was with Alex - he had natural free will, albeit misguided, and gets transformed by science and technology (mechanized) to become a "good little boy". But the price of "freedom" is actually the lack of free will, as he automatically (or mechanically) is directed towards doing good. The title is also an allegory of the human condition in general, because we are the ones who take everything that is natural about us and put it through the meatgrinder of the social and technological machine. Jodon1971 (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

World record

From the lead: "The film holds the Guinness World Record for being the first in media history to use the Dolby sound system" Is a first really a world record? Lugnuts (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Last name as "Delarge"

As noted in the article and by editors, Alex's last name in print is "Burgess" (homage, no doubt, to Anthony Burgess) while when being taken in for imprisonment, he gives the name "Delarge", a reference to a joke made in the book of his being "Alexander the Large", which is Alex's wry joke about his penis. Being that as it is, I don't think we should give Alex any last name in this article at all. If you take the name in print at face value, it means that the name "Alexander Delarge" was just Alex having cheeky joke. If on the other hand, you take the name he gives at face value, there's no explanation for why stories about him should report him as "Burgess" short of some clerical error.

In light of all of this, I propose removing the explicit mentions of his last name in the plot, leaving only the discussion section to comment. It's in the style of the narrative that none of the characters are identified beyond a single name, anyway.--Louiedog (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a possible explanation for the two names , although not spelled out in the film. It's quite possible "DeLarge" is his self imposed alias , while "Burgess" - his real last name - is what would appear on documents and in newspapers. ( There is also postulation that "Alexander The Large" is also an egotistical comparison to "Alexander The Great".). But it should also be noted , that since this article is about the film , referencing a last name is in keeping with the film character. Harvey J Satan (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Colour Of Villainy?

Was not sure how relevant , or indeed where to place it in the main body of the article , I'll leave that to the powers that be , but in the novel , Alex and his Droogs wear all BLACK outfits. For me , not having read any interviews with Kubrick on the matter , my guess is the change to WHITE , was part of the then prevalent cinema ideology that "Not all villains wear black". Harvey J Satan (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Apyr" = "Droog" ??

I don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Joe the lodger

I feel Clive Francis' performance as the person his parents rent Alex's room out to is too important and relevant to have been overlooked entirely. Especially in the context of the topless woman at the stage show being credited, it's only more than appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaith M. (talk • contribs) 23:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

accent

I'm neither British nor a native English speaker, but is it possible that a lot of the involved actors have a Yorkshire accent although the fictional city seems to be a suburb of London? mere chance? - Primusinterparem (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)