From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Article	This article is a Article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A Clockwork Orange (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Merge? 2 Cutting influences section instead of merging 3 Removed text 4 A Joke... 5 Recording of Beethoven's Ninth 6 Screenshots? 7 registrry 8 Side effect? Unintended? 9 Wrong Trivia 10 Doubting Something 11 Differences 12 Location 13 Classical Music 14 Black and White Sequences 15 Official title? 16 Age 17 No references 18 Colons 19 Sex scene description 20 Unconscious? 21 Christian? 22 The Orange Theme 23 MISTASKEN IDENITY 23.1 Sony Pictures Classics 23.2 trivia - popular culture

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)