Talk:A Clockwork Orange (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Removed section[edit]

I removed the section about genre. It needs better references than the Metro to even exist. --John (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

A section discussing genre would be valuable, I think. There are books which touch upon the difficulty of classifying the genre, and we should tell the reader which genres the film has been said to be. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh absolutely. But this section and the sources it was based on did not cut it. I'm sure there may be better sources to base this info on. --John (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet and John, please visit my proposed re-write HERE. Please bear in mind it is a work in progress as I have to add more weight to "satire", but you get the gist of what I'm trying to do. Your comments/input would be much appreciated. Thanks. Jodon | Talk 23:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I will completely understand, based on our past interactions, if you discount this input. I think that you have made more than just a good start on your alternative for the section removed. Based on WP:EGG I would make the following suggestions:
  1. Reduce the link "speculative fiction is distinguished from science fiction" to just "speculative fiction" as that is the name of the article.
  2. "little consensus of definition" is problematic. You have to read almost the entire article for History of SciFi and it still doesn't quite explain the lack of consensus in brief terms. However the link to the article is worth having - perhaps you could add a parenthetical - for example (see the History of science fiction for more information) or you could link the article in a footnote - and I know this is a less satisfactory solution.
  3. "didactic points about society" has the same problem. Again a (For more info see History_of_science_fiction#Verne_and_Wells) might be an alternative and that way you could also link the word didactic separately as not all readers will be familiar with it.
Again you are free to ignore this. I would also suggest that you get more input from the filmproject as it might be useful in enhancing your efforts but that is not required. It looks like you put some time into the work that you have done. I hope that you enjoyed it. MarnetteD | Talk 00:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible new developments are discussed below at Talk:A Clockwork Orange (film)#Genre section. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Roger Ebert reconsidering his early review, posted on Facebook[edit]

Twice I have removed a bit about Roger Ebert tentatively reconsidering his decades-old review of the film, this reconsideration posted to his Facebook page. I removed it because Ebert did not actually view the film a second time nor did he make an official second review forty years later. The Facebook post is just not significant enough for this article. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Aside from it being his wife’s favorite film, it was also a film that his partner, Gene Siskel, greatly admired. I remember an interview with Siskel & Ebert where Siskel mentioned that he’d gotten smarter about Apocalypse Now (to which he’d initially given a negative review) and that Ebert had gotten smarter about Clockwork. Ebert mentioned that Siskel had spent 20 years grilling him over that review. In his commentary for Dark City, he says, “although I haven’t liked every single Stanley Kubrick film, I’ve ADMIRED every single Stanley Kubrick film because of the craftsmanship and the attention to detail that goes into it, and the willingness to take infinite pains in order to make it just right.” Clockwork does seem to be the elephant in the room there. His opinion of the film definitely always seemed to grow every time he talked about it. In the Facebook post, he also mentioned that it was “in orbit to become a Great Movie”, that he wouldn’t write the review the same way today, and that the other review was from “the other end of his life”. These sound like the words of a man who’s given very serious consideration to the issue, and who has rethought his position. We’ll never know how long it would’ve taken him to get around to reviewing the film again, but it does sound like a re-review would’ve been alot more positive. He probably would’ve written something like: “I have never quite embraced "A Clockwork Orange," admiring it at arm's length, but now it is time to cave in and admit it to the canon.” At any rate, it’s unfair to Ebert to simply limit your acknowledgment of his view on the film to a reivew he himself repudiated. And since this is a subsection about the film’s critical reception, it is essential to note the evolving views of its most notable detractor. In fact, this seems indicative of a trend that seems to happen with nearly EVERY Kubrick film. Initally, the reception to the film is negative. Years later, the critics go back and re-evaluate it as a masterpiece…including those who initially derided it. Further, there’s no critic in the world more prominent than Roger Ebert, so his opinion, and its fluctuations carry alot of weight. 184.5.179.183 (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
This is just conjecture. The second review was never written. The slow re-appraisal was only from friction with other opinions, not from viewing the film. None of this is important to the Wikipedia article. Binksternet (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The encyclopedia is about the largest themes related to the topic, not about small details such as a published opinion piece writer telling his friends that he was possibly beginning to rethink his position as published forty years later. This is simply too unimportant—not part of the film's general reputation. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • With any other critic in the world, you’d be right, but Ebert was the most influential, most powerful, and most renowned critic of the last 40 years…in any medium. Ebert’s opinion often shaped discussions re: certain films, so his opinion of Clockwork actually is a major part of the film’s general reputation. When it comes to opinions re: certain films, Ebert’s opinion, if anything, is weightier than that of all other critics combined, save perhaps Gene Siskel’s. 184.5.179.183 (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
...But not sourced to Facebook. Ebert posting on Facebook was not affecting the film's reputation. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:FACEBOOK allows for it to be used as a source, “if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject”. There’s no dispute that the page in question was, indeed, Ebert’s FB page. And Ebert’s FB page was widely followed by those in the film community, for obvious reasons. I remember when he made that post, there was ALOT of talk over when he’d post the review. If this were just some guy on Rotten Tomatoes, you’d have a point, but this is Roger Ebert. How many other critics got an official statement from the White House upon their passing? 184.5.179.183 (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You have not yet proved that Ebert's possible nascent shift in opinion was discussed "A LOT". Please show how influential was this Facebook post. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Why not find secondary (tertiary?) sources that look at the evolution of critical thought on this film? Abductive (reasoning) 07:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Co-produced by Warner Brothers?[edit]

Was this movie also co-produced by Warner Brothers? This is because...

  • Cook, David A. Lost Illusions: American Cinema in the Shadow of Watergate and Vietnam, 1970 . University of California Press, 2000. ISBN 0520232658, 9780520232655.
    • p. 77: "His next film, a coproduction between Hawk and Warner Bros., was a perfect example of his ability to work the system. Adapted by Kubrick from the Anthony Burgess novel[...]"
  • Cocks, Geoffrey, James Diedrick, and Glenn Perusek. Depth of Field: Stanley Kubrick, Film, and the Uses of History. Univ of Wisconsin Press, Aug 1, 2006. ISBN 0299216136, 9780299216139.
    • p. 302: States: "A Clockwork Orange (1971). Production company: Warner Brothers, Polaris Productions."

WhisperToMe (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ennio Morricone considered for the soundtrack[edit]

According to Ennio Morricone: "He did call me to do the score for 'A Clockwork Orange' and I said yes. He did not want to come to Rome, he did not like flying. And then he called Leone, who told him I was busy working with him. He never called again. I would have really liked working with Kubrick.", see http://www.malcolmtribute.freeiz.com/aco/acoquotes.html and http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/musik/ennio-morricone-im-interview-a-940284.html (german). This should be mentioned in the article.--Oneiros (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

British-American film[edit]

I believe that the article should label this as a British-American film, instead of just British. Kubrick, the sole writer, producer and director, was American. The majority of his other films are labeled British-American on Wikipedia. Another section on this talk page gives sources that say Warner Bros, an American company, co-produced it. It was released in the U.S. first. And also this film is included in the American Film Institute's 100 Years... series lists, which mainly includes American films. Doesn't anybody agree? 75.72.241.51 (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  • There are numerous American films made by British directors, this does not make the film itself British. The film was actually distributed by Warner Bros not produced by them. It was filmed in England, with a British cast and produced by Kubrick's British film production company Hawk Films (which he set up after immigrating to the UK). Most of Kubrick's films are American with the exception of this one which is British.
  • A film being released in a country first has no bearing on the nationality of the film. Also, there are British films included in the AFI's 100 Years series such as Goldfinger and Shakespeare in Love.
Academic film expert Simon Ward writes in the book Fifty Key British Films on page 155 that A Clockwork Orange "can hardly be labelled a US film simply because of its US director and funding. It is very hard to imagine the film functioning as successfully if located in any other country in the world besides Britain. It is this exploration of the iconography of the UK which confirms A Clockwork Orange's cultural identity as truly British." With analysis such as this, the proposed label "British-American" is shown to be simplistic and inappropriate. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The nationality of a film is hardly related to where the film is set, it is more about who was involved in making film. There are plenty of British and American films set in foreign countries. Regardless of all that, the British film institute refers to it as British and American. It is reliable source so it should be mentioned. 88.104.213.179 (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it "should be mentioned" but in the article body, not the first sentence. We certainly must tell the reader that the director is an expatriate American who funded the film with American money. At the same time, we must say the film used British actors, crew, locations and the uniquely British viewpoint of a bleak future; so foreign to largely optimistic Americans. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I know there has been controversy over this, but if the BFI itself says it's a British-American film, as you can see at http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6a7b69f6 then that should be the end of the debate. I've had discussions with AbramTerger where, I'm paraphrasing here, but he strongly believed if a country was mentioned in a RS, especially the BFI, it had to be included. I had objected to a couple of them. Here though, Warner Bros. was the sole source of backing for this film. For the sake of accuracy, the lead should not say it was solely a British film, as it now does, and the US should be added to the infobox Country field. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the BFI page does not say anything like "British-American" in their prose description. Instead, they have a list of countries that were involved in making the film, and the two list entries are "Great Britain" and "USA". The standard at BFI is for any country which has some small involvement to be included in such lists. There is no sense of proportion afforded by this kind of practice by BFI. The UK involvement on Clockwork Orange far outweighed the US involvement, as can be seen in various prose descriptions of the film. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, that sounds very much like what I was saying in the long debates at The Wolverine (film) and Rush (2013 film). Too bad you didn't join in there, as the UK had less to do with the former and Germany had less to do with the latter than the US did with Clockwork Orange here, yet those countries had to be included in those articles' infoboxes. I'm not sure what proportion you're referring to, as Clockwork Orange was solely backed by Warner Bros. in a relationship that continued through the remaining four films of Kubrick's career. That is considerably more than some small involvement. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I added US to the country in the infobox and removed the country listing in the lead (per WP:FILMLEAD when multiple countries. The infobox has a note detailing the disagreement in the country / countries for the film from 5 WP:RS: 2 list UK/GB, 3 list GB and USA.AbramTerger (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

───────@Bjenks:. If you really think it is needed, I can live with the filming location in the Country note, and I won't remove it again. To clarify my position: I don't doubt the accuracy of the statement, I was questioning the relevance of the filming location to the "Countries of Production". The location a film is shot in does not always have anything to do with the Country of the film. For example: The Quiet Man is a US film shot on location in Ireland; Lawrence of Arabia is a British film shot in location in the UK, USA, Spain, Morocco, Jordan; The Bridge on the River Kwai is a UK/US film shot in Sri Lanka. Take care.AbramTerger (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind forbearance, AT. Note, however, that I did not change the (questionable) interpretation of the film as UK/US, even though its director followed T. S. Eliot in choosing to live outside the US. Locations are incidental in the cited credit section—which I added merely to verify the relevant companies who made the film (one of which indeed has an American associate). Bjenks (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
A tangential point: Lawrence of Arabia was co-financed by Columbia Pictures, an American company, and thus is, like Bridge on the River Kwai and 2001: A Space Odyssey, considered a joint US/UK production. All three films are included in the US Library of Congress' National Film Registry (which has omitted Clockwork Orange). --50.109.165.162 (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ludovico technique[edit]

Very little in-depth discussion of the technique exists. Notability out-of-universe is thin at best, with only one secondary source discussing it. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge. Back in the old AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ludovico_technique which ended in KEEP, it was pointed out that the term is used in popular culture outside of talking about the film. Dream Focus 02:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    • ...all which are listed at List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange, which makes sense to have there, even if a separate section of Ludovico technique cultural references could be made. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
      • No, most aren't listed there at all. In the AFD many pointed out how many news articles and books use the term, many without mentioning the film even. Dream Focus 17:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support What little is there can be included here without size concerns - its part of the film's legacy, obviously. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The subject has received significant coverage in numerous relevant non-trivial, independent, third party and secondary sources in popular media, books and news results therefore it meets WP:GNG. Article needs more citations however there is clearly enough information to expand the article. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Just because it meets the GNG doesn't mean we need a separate article, that only means a separate article would be accepted. But in this case, it makes much more sense to talk about the technique as part of the films' legacy, and as noted, all the cultural references to the technique discussed on the separate cultural references page. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
      • It meets the requirements for GNG, and its long enough to stand on its own. Nothing gained by merging a token bit into another article and the rest being lost. The cultural reference page doesn't talk about anything, just mentions who took a name from the film, etc. Dream Focus 17:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
        • @Dream Focus: If there are so many secondary sources covering it, then why are none of them in the article? Are you expecting them to magically add themselves to the article? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
        • There are three paragraphs. Two of the paragraphs explain what the techniuque is and then its use in the novel/film, the third is about its influence. First, I'm 90% sure that nearly any reference from other sources to the technique are to the movie's version of it instead of the book, with the few coming from the book can be incorporated into the same place as the movie version. With that, anything in the first two paras that reiterate the plot are unnecessary. We do have to describe what the technique is, so that narrows the first two paragraphs to one (to talk on how Alex was restrained, eyes forced open, and etc.) So two paragraphs to move in here. Nothing - short of the duplicated plot summary - will be lost. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
        • To add - yes, I don't immediately see any call out to the Ludivico technique on the cultural reference pages - but they aren't there on the Ludivico page as claimed either. I am sure they exist, but again, as my estimate of 90% of the references to this technique in the pop culture are based on the film and not the book, there's no reason we cannot put those into the existing Cultural References page and then even carve out a special section for the Ludivico technique there if there are enough. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with Masem. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - another vote agreeing with Masem's argument. GNG or not, if the Ludovico article is going to stand on its own then there should be enough actual content in there to justify it, and right now there isn't. Psychojosh13 (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Production design[edit]

Hi MarnetteD,

Re your comments "(a) unsourced b) with a source it belongs in the body of the article not the lede c) did he win the bafta for this film? if not then there is no need to mention it in this article as it is not relevant to this film)":

(c) I was mistaken. He was nominated for a BAFTA on this film, but did not win it. This fact appears in the article.

(b) I disagree. The production design of the film is of extreme importance as part of what makes it canonical, and a lot of attention was given to the set. Works by: Herman Makkink such as "Rolling Machine", Roger Dean's "Retreat Pod", Korova Milk Bar sculptures by Liz Moore (were exhibited at the LACMA, among others), set design by John Barry, costume design by Milena Canonero and more.

(a) Importance demonstrated in this paper by Prof. Janet Staiger: [1] or Prof. Jens Eder see p. 238 "innovative set design", and this one by Vivian Sobchack.

-Pavner (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Nature of Society[edit]

Shouldn't the section "Nature of Society" really be under the heading "Themes" rather than "Production"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.39.204 (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Genre - crime drama and science fiction[edit]

The lead really needs to list this film's genre. Apparently some have resisted calling A Clockwork Orange science fiction because it's less obvious than other examples, but a film doesn't need spaceships or flying cars to be sci-fi. It's set in the near future and has a fictional serum created by fictional scientific means in its fictional universe. It also has a car in an early scene that was meant at the time to be seen as near-term futuristic. Most sources list it as a crime drama, which is fully accurate, and science fiction, which is accurate at least in a broad sense. I propose we call it a 1971 science fiction crime drama film, or if that is still a problem a 1971 crime drama film with science fiction elements. I like the latter less, but other WP film pages have used that phrasing for films with more complicated classifications. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's critical. For what it's worth, Variety calls it a "sci-fi thriller". I don't think we need to split hairs over genre. Lately, I've noticed people adding all kinds of cruft to article leads, especially the opening sentence, trying to cram as many genres in it as possible. I think Kick-Ass was described as a "satirical comedy-drama superhero action film" before I replaced that mess with "superhero film". This madness has to end, and I would suggest that the opening sentence be limited to one or two broad genres. If you like "science fiction crime drama film", that's alright with me, but it's a bit more verbose than what I usually prefer. "Crime film" works alright for me, as the science fiction elements can easily be implied through a brief plot synopsis. For example: "Set in the near future, a young criminal is selected for experimental conditioning techniques that..." You get the idea. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Right! Past discussions of genre have foundered on the multiplicity and contradictions of our reliable sources. The end result was that we determined there should be no particular genre in the first sentence. Instead, the various genres and styles are discussed in the article body, with none given primacy. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Binksternet. This is one film that the genre isn't obvious, or that relevant. SF seems to be stretching a point, and it's not what I'd call a "crime film" or a "crime-drama" for that matter. Now I have a pain in my gulliver... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
That's actually funny... But a crime drama focuses on the life and/or activities of a criminal(s), and in some cases how society deals with that criminal. Certainly applicable here. And it is science fiction, even if less obvious. A reader shouldn't have to go into the body to find out what type of film it is. Per WP:FILMLEAD, At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. The standard is not how obvious a genre is. And we're talking about only two genres here. The BFI lists its genre as "Crime" and "Science Fiction". Like I said above, calling it a 1971 crime drama film with science fiction elements may be the best compromise. I don't see how anyone can dispute the accuracy of that, and the lead looks very bare with no genre (or country, though let's not reopen that). At minimum it should be called a 1971 crime drama. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't mean to complicate the discussion further, but I was poking around Google Books results for this title + genre, and dystopia/dystopic comes up a few times. Why not have "dystopian science fiction film"? The modifier seems to encapsulate the dehumanization depicted in the film, which would encompass the themes of crime and drama. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not a genre film, that's the problem. I get where Gothicfilm is coming from, but does "science-fiction film" or "crime thriller" really help the reader at all in understanding what type of film it is, or are we just misleading them? In regards to Erik's suggestion, "dystopic" films are speculative science fiction, so if you go with the former you don't need the latter. Personally I think a "dystopian crime film" is the closest we can get using standard genre terminology. If we can't agree on something along those lines I recommend adopting the unorthodox approach at Brazil (1985 film). I agree that the lede should at least in some way convey to the reader what type of film it is. Betty Logan (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. While I would prefer science fiction crime film, "dystopian crime film" is an excellent compromise, for the sake of those that (incorrectly) need all sorts of sci-fi gadgets to agree to a sci-fi label. Last time I looked, we were calling The Hunger Games a "science fiction adventure film", which caused similar mild controversy in some quarters. Anyone who really knows sci-fi knows it is not about futuristic gadgets. But the heart of A Clockwork Orange is the crime element - the life and/or activities of a criminal, and how society deals with that criminal. It is important people know that from the first sentence. Per WP:FILMLEAD, WP gives a genre in the lead whether it's a flat-out genre film or not. I don't think the Brazil (1985 film) model is necessary here - this is really not that controversial. Who can dispute that A Clockwork Orange is a "dystopian crime film"? That is in no way misleading. Some may want to add other subgenres (which should be resisted), but no one can say it's not a dystopian crime film. I vote we put that in the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we're going to specify a genre, that's probably the best compromise. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm good with it too. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not complete enough. The film has been described many times as science fiction without the dystopian adjective, it has been described as satire, it has been described as more political fiction than sci-fi, and it has been described as horror, even rape-revenge horror. So any complete description of genre will be so extensive and so confusing as to be utterly worthless. I continue to hold the opinion that no genre should appear in the first sentence. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:FILMLEAD, At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. That clearly does not mean every sub-genre needs or even should be in the lead sentence. In fact at least two here have said they do not want more sub-genres in the lead. They can be covered later in the article. Full "completeness" in the opening sentence is not necessary, and "dystopian crime film" is in no way misleading. Readers find out about the sub-genres as they get into the article. (And BTW, there isn't enough satire in it to list it in that genre, IMHO. I see the word only appears once in the article.) I count four who are for adding in "dystopian crime film", including Betty Logan, who proposed it and wrote I agree that the lede should at least in some way convey to the reader what type of film it is. I'm putting it in. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Now when four editors are for this genre listing Binksternet simply reverts with the note rv... On the Talk page I'm not seeing the remit for this addition - whatever that means - and he can't even be bothered to post anything on the Talk page? He has no consensus and he is going against WP:FILMLEAD. I answered every one of his points in the last paragraph. He doesn't reply, he just reverts and walks away. I thought we had a civil discussion here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a very civil discussion, and we should work to keep it that way. I hate getting reverted, too, but it's not the end of the world. I think Binksternet has a point; this film is difficult to categorize. He obviously has rather strong feelings about this, and it's not a pressing matter. It won't hurt to give the discussion a little more time. Worst case scenario, we can hold an RFC and maybe offer a few choices, including "no genre". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Binksternet above states that "any complete description of genre will be so extensive and so confusing as to be utterly worthless." I don't really agree with that, since even genre films borrow from other genres. James Bond for instance borrows from the action, romance and comedy genres, despite principally being genre thrillers. In the case of A Clockwork Orange it is principally a crime film above anything else i.e it is a crime and punishment story. Binksternet offers "political fiction" and "science fiction" but these terms are largely synonymous with dystopic fiction: "dystopic" fiction is by definition speculative science-fiction that focuses on (mostly futuristic) societies, which invariably encompasses hypothetical social constructs and political machinery. We could tweak the opening description to "A Clockwork Orange is a 1971 satirical crime film set in a future dystopia, written, produced and directed by...". These are the primary elements, so let's not get blinkered by sources using different words to express essentially the same thing. Betty Logan (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Does it need to be have it shoved into a genre. I like the phrasing at the end of the paragraph. I think this classifies it nicely. If we label the genre as dystopian, then the "dystopian" in the final paragraph becomes redundant and I think it loses more removing that, than adding a genre.AbramTerger (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:FILMLEAD, At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. The ending sentence with "dystopian" can be changed if necessary, though if we use "science fiction" in the opening it will work fine. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Question: Does the original story have a genre classification that is readily agreed on? The lead could be "A Clockwork Orange is a movie adaptation of Anthony Burgress' dystopian novella of the same title." I don't know if this works, just a suggestion. --MASEM (t) 12:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
In Google Books, Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (used keywords "clockwork orange" kubrick) is mentioned in 464 books that have "science fiction" in the title. It is mentioned in 148 books that have "horror" in the title. It is mentioned in 49 books that have "crime" in the title. 10 results with "political" in the title, and 25 results with "politics" in the title. Obviously the film is not science fiction in the traditional sense, but it seems that science fiction (near-future Britain) is used as the backdrop against which all the discussed elements are projected. Basically, the label is just setting-based. If we did use "science fiction" after all, it would be easy to have the next two sentences un-package that meaning -- "In near-future Britain, <synopsis here>... The film depicts <running list of elements>." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
As Betty said above, In the case of A Clockwork Orange it is principally a crime film above anything else i.e it is a crime and punishment story, and most films have crossover from multiple genres. But we don't put them all in the lead. Star Wars, Star Trek, James Bond, E.T. and many others are known for having humourous scenes, but we don't call them comedies in their leads. My impression is this film is more often called science fiction than dystopian, and science fiction is the base genre, so I would prefer 1971 science fiction crime film, but I'll be happy to go along with 1971 dystopian crime film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────No response in over 24 hours. Why do these WP Talk pages so often bog down like this? I just received a posting on my Talk page from Jodon, who has now effectively retired from WP. He wrote I disagree with User Binksternet's assertion that it should remain genreless. ... I haven't contributed to Wikipedia for some time, and my user/talk page redirect should be explicit enough as to my reasons. I've posted here just to compliment yourself on your raising this issue again, and to avoid the stress of pointless bickering with multiple Wikipedians, which is ultimately where these things end up.

It's clear a majority want a genre in the lead. The only question is should it be "dystopian crime film" or "science fiction crime film". My preference is for the latter because science fiction is the base genre, and Erik most recently encouraged the possibility of going in that direction (without dropping support for dystopian). However, no one has come here to back that, and I believe dystopian is less likely to cause disputes in the future (because of people who don't understand science fiction does not require elaborate futuristic technology). Jodon supported dystopian (because Kubrick and Burgess did), as have four people here. One user, Binksternet, doing a revert, then failing to comment on the Talk page should not hold things up. I answered every one of his points. He doesn't reply, he just reverts and walks away. I still count four who are for adding in "dystopian crime film", including Erik and Betty Logan, who proposed it and wrote I agree that the lede should at least in some way convey to the reader what type of film it is. and In the case of A Clockwork Orange it is principally a crime film above anything else i.e it is a crime and punishment story. This has gone back and forth and all points from Binksternet have been answered in detail. Per WP:FILMLEAD, At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. Crime and science fiction (or dystopian) are the primary genre and sub-genre. Other sub-genres do not belong in the opening sentence, per the guideline. I'll be restoring 1971 dystopian crime film to the lead shortly, giving a few hours for any further comment here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with "dystopian crime film". I prefer dystopian over Science-fiction since I see the category Science-fiction as too broad and misses what the film is about and suggests a different type of film. I think dystopian is a subcategory of science fiction that hits the mark more and is less likely to be questioned/reverted.AbramTerger (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to be where we have landed. Very good. That makes five who are for putting in dystopian crime film, six if you include Jodon. It's been another 24 hours since my last posting - more than enough time for comment. I'm restoring it to the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I tried to come up with a good way to replace the now-redundant ending of the opening paragraph

It employs disturbing, violent images to comment on psychiatry, juvenile delinquency, youth gangs, and other social, political, and economic subjects in a dystopian future Britain.

but there is no other word quite like dystopian. It's most important to have it in the opening sentence. Although I don't like using the same word twice, the end does back up the genre. Feel free to suggest here any possible alternatives. Also I believe I'll change the end to

in a dystopian near-future Britain.

as sources all seem to agree that is the case, and it's misleading to infer it's set in anything like a Blade Runner universe. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Genre section[edit]

I think that this conversation has come to a useful conclusion. The only problem is the inevitable edits trying to add other genres. I don't know if a hidden note will work in slowing these down but it is worth considering. Back in April of 2013 Jodon1971 created a section that discussed the fact that this film fits into several genres. It was well researched and sourced. Unfortunately, I was the only one to respond and this editor had problems with me in other areas of editing. As you can see Jodon eventually asked for it to be deleted User:Jodon1971/Clockwork Orange. @Gothicfilm: on the off chance that Jodon contacts you again you might ask them to consider restoring the item in their user space. Then more of you can take a look at it and assess the work. IMO it would be an asset to the article and it would allow the lede to stay as it is (with the main genres) while giving readers more info as to the broader ideas that the film contains. If Jodon isn't interested that is fine as well. It looks like the article is on a number of editors watchlists so just keep an eye peeled for more edits adding other genres. MarnetteD|Talk 19:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree at minimum a hidden note should be put in the opening sentence. I would go for page protection as well, but it would most likely be temporary at best. I believe Jodon is checking this page more often than he did in the past. He mentioned that genre section on my talk page. It was a response to there being no mention of science fiction in the article. Perhaps you could give a dif from the Clockwork Orange page history that shows which version of that section you prefer. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately @Gothicfilm:, it never got beyond the draft stage in Jodon's user space. I wouldn't want to ask the admin who deleted it (JohnCD) to resurrect it without J's permission. Hopefully J will consider asking for it to be restored so you can take a look. As to the hidden note I would say proceed with the wording that you think best - though I find they tend to work more when they are explanatory rather than demanding. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would be my default as well. As for that genre section, are you sure it was never in the article? Jodon1971 wrote on my Talk page:

You may be aware that at one point there was a section in the article on "Public perception of genre" discussing the various genres as they were interpreted by various sources. This was removed over a year ago (in April 2013), leaving any reference to genre in the article unfairly non-existent. I had actually proposed a modification and expansion to that section after it was removed, in the hopes that it would address the issues raised, but was met with little or no so support, and any mention of genre in this article has been excluded/suppressed ever since.

I've spent too much time on WP already today (as all too often happens) to go digging for it right now... - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Here is the old one G. As you can see it is pretty meager. Jodon's version was a definite improvement. MarnetteD|Talk 00:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I keep forgetting to point you to the first section at the top of this talk page. You may have already seen it but if you haven't that is what J us referring to in the section that you italicized G. MarnetteD|Talk 00:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I see it on top at Talk:A Clockwork Orange (film)#Removed section. (I just posted a note there to stop it from being archived.) As for the now-removed genre section itself, your link sparked my memory - I saw it there in the past. You're right, that version isn't really comprehensive. If Jodon responds and restores his version (I don't remember seeing his sandbox when it was there), I'll take a look at it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Jodon1971 has posted the genre section MarnetteD was refering to on my Talk page, with 11 references. It may make a good addition here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that @Gothicfilm:. I am glad that Jodon1971 did that. Now you can see the research and work that went into it. If you don't want to leave it on your talk page you could move it to a draft or sandbox page until you (or other editors) have time to add the items that J mentioned. Even this is just a suggestion. Feel free to proceed as you wish. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I'd like to see Jodon1971 proceed with it, as he initiated it and knows the sources best. I really don't have time to start a new sandbox now. Anyone else can work on it as well. It does need refs for Crime film, like the BFI. I'm copying it over to here for easy access and, if necessary, archival purposes. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm glad to see you're making some headway on this issue. In appreciation of your efforts I've taken the liberty of posting my re-write on the removed section below (including referenced section). I had saved the draft of it into a Word document as a record for my own posterity (and apparent futility).
Please note the proposed re-write is in an unfinished state, as sources for "crime film" had yet to be included (perhaps you could add these yourself?), and more sources about "dystopia" need to be added, so that this section reflects the Wikipedia consensus of the genre in the lead's first sentence better.
The third paragraph in the proposed re-write below is basically a condensed version of the removed section, the rest is simply my modest effort to broaden the perception and sources a bit.
Although MarnetteD and I have had our differences in the past, please feel free to implement his suggestions regarding the re-write, if you wish.
In the final analysis, regardless of who does the edits, I believe it's important that this film gets the recognition it deserves. Obviously, disputes about its genre are part of that recognition. Ignoring those disputes does Kubrick, Burgess, and the film itself, a disservice.
I look forward to seeing you bring this to a satisfactory conclusion.
All the best.
Jodon | Talk 12:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Public perception of genre (proposed re-write)[edit]

Despite the story being part of a "futuristic" setting, i.e. London in the near future (or London in an alternative reality), the precise genre of A Clockwork Orange has been the subject of much debate. Sources such as The American Film Institute class the film as science fiction,[1] while others such as Turner Classic Movies class it as psychological drama (bearing in mind that "psychology" is a "science"),[2] and the British Board of Film Censors calls it simply a "drama".[3]

The film is included in numerous science fiction film reference books, such as Encyclopedia of Science Fiction Movies,[4] A Pictorial History of Science Fiction Films,[5] and Fantastic Cinema.[6] While the film does have elements of soft science fiction, such as the futuristic/alternative version of 60s/70s Britain, or the "The Ludovico Technique", many critics have asserted that A Clockwork Orange is a dystopian satire, [7] as well as horror.[8]

Although A Clockwork Orange was not marketed as a horror film, nor reviewed as one upon release, one critic who counts the film as horror is Maitland McDonagh, senior movies editor of TV Guide from 1995 to 2008.[9] Proponents of A Clockwork Orange as a horror film, however, overlook in the film the marked absence of the macabre and the supernatural as major themes in the horror genre. American Movie Classics' film critic Cory Abbey in an article on scary movies that are not horror lists A Clockwork Orange along with Jaws, Silence of the Lambs and others.[10]

The idea that A Clockwork Orange could cover multiple genres is addressed by one critic:

"A Clockwork Orange falls into the category of dystopian science fiction, in which future society lives in a repressive and corrupt state. It also is a juvenalian social satire, focusing on the effects of an ignorant government. A Clockwork Orange is [therefore] categorized as soft science fiction, dealing with more psychological, social and political themes."[11]

A further difficulty in a precise definition arises when speculative fiction is distinguished from science fiction, lending weight to the argument that it is not "true" science fiction. However, science fiction authors like H.G. Wells used science fiction literary devices to make didactic points about society. While science fiction has significant influence on world culture and thought, there remains little consensus of definition among scholars or devotees, meaning that a precise definition of genre for A Clockwork Orange will probably never reach true consensus.

References[edit]

  1. ^ AFI: 10 Top 10 (Sci-Fi) - American Film Institute
  2. ^ http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/71092/A-Clockwork-Orange/genre.html
  3. ^ http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/CaseStudies/A_Clockwork_Orange
  4. ^ Phil Hardy, Encyclopedia of Science Fiction Movies, p.297-298
  5. ^ David Shipman, A Pictorial History of Science Fiction Films, p.115-118
  6. ^ Peter Nicholls, Fantastic Cinema, p.92-93
  7. ^ *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.#
  8. ^ "Maitland McDonagh on horror films and the dark dreams of Dario Argento".
  9. ^ "Maitland McDonagh on horror films and the dark dreams of Dario Argento".
  10. ^ "Cartoons, Conspiracy Flicks, and A Clockwork Orange – Non-Horror Movies Terrify Too".
  11. ^ Camille Veri

Music[edit]

I have added a sentence to the MUSIC section detailing the importance of Rossini's music to the movie. In fact there's more Rossini in it than Beethoven! With a reference to a scholarly book. Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct. If you're judging that on a scene-by-scene basis then Beethoven's 9th Symphony is heard in 6 separate instances:
- First, at the beginning when the girl in the Korova milkbar starts singing the choral part of the Ninth's 4th movement
- Later, when Alex goes home he listens to the Ninth's second movement
- When he undergoes aversion therapy a rendition of the Ninth's 4th movement is played
- When he undergoes aversion therapy in another scene a rendition of the Ninth's 2nd movement is played
- When Mr. Alexander realizes who Alex is, he plays the Ninth's second movement.
- At the end, when Alex is in hospital the Ninth's 5th movement is played to him by the hospital staff.
In addition, putting aside the soundtrack, music is mentioned in the film as integral to the plot (as it is in the book). The appreciation of music is presented through Alex's character. Rossini is never mentioned by name, while Beethoven's name is mentioned multiple times as central to the plot. Rossini is as incidental to the soundtrack as either Henry Purcell or Edward Elgar, whereas Beethoven is central. 86.42.68.95 (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The new section says In spite of Alex's obsession with Beethoven, the soundtrack contains more music by Rossini than by Beethoven. I assume that is referring to overall running time of the music as used in the film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre "... failed Labour Party architecture..." claim[edit]

The "Nature of the society" section contains the rather dubious claim that:

"As Malcolm McDowell points out on the DVD commentary, Alex's residence was shot on failed Labour Party architecture, and the name "Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North" alludes to socialist-style housing."

Quite apart from the attribution to a political party of a style of architecture that was embraced and implemented by local authorities of all shades, the location for Alex's flat is Canterbury House in Borehamwood. That - whether at Parliamentary or local government level - is solid Conservative country, and has been since before the film was made. Without knowing exactly what McDowell says on the DVD it's hard to say for certain, but this looks like an instance of a claim that is demonstrably wrong, or at least a gross distortion. Just because someone says it, it doesn't make it true. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Was these contribs really to improve the article? I guess: NO. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 00:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

New category[edit]

The attempt to add this category to the article has problems with WP:CATDEF. In particular the section that read "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article." A 10 second scene (give or take a few seconds) of Alex whipping Jesus through the street does not meet this criteria. IMO the cat should not be part of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 04:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. When we categorize films by content then the content should at least be integral to the film, if not a defining aspect of it. It's rather telling that there is no coverage of the "portrayal of Jesus" in the article itself. It's worth contrasting the scene to Ben-Hur (1959 film) where Jesus only briefly appears, but it weighs heavily on the film itself. Betty Logan (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Material[edit]

After completing 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick searched for a project that he could film quickly on a small budget. He settled on A Clockwork Orange (1971) at the end of 1969, an exploration of violence and experimental rehabilitation by law enforcement authorities, based around the character of Alex (portrayed by Malcolm McDowell). Kubrick had originally received a copy of Anthony Burgess's novel of the same name from Terry Southern while they were working on Dr. Strangelove, but had rejected it on the grounds that Nadsat,[a] a street language for young teenagers, was too difficult to comprehend. In 1969, the decision to make a film about the degeneration of youth was a more timely one; the New Hollywood movement was witnessing a great number of films centering around the sexuality and rebelliousness of young people, which no doubt influenced Kubrick in Baxter's opinion.[1]

A Clockwork Orange was shot over the winter of 1970-1 on a budget of £2 million.[2] Kubrick abandoned his use of CinemaScope in the filming, deciding that the 1:66:1 widescreen format was, in the words of Baxter, an "acceptable compromise between spectacle and intimacy", and "favoured his rigorously symmetrical framing", which "increased the beauty of his compositions".[3] The film heavily features "pop erotica" of the period; the house of one of the victims of the "droogs" (friends), the exercise instructor Cat Lady, is full of erotic statuary and paintings, including a giant white plastic set of male genitals. Kubrick informed Ciment that the erotic decor used in the film was intended to give it a "slightly futuristic" look, the assumption being that "erotic art will eventually become popular art".[4] Kubrick and production designer John Barry spent weeks perusing back issues of architectural magazines for inspiration. They cut out relevant material and kept it in a special display named "Definitiv".[5] Whereas the novel had depicted the droogs in Alex's gang as "teenage juvenile delinquents who squash pets, smash windows and seduce pimply teenage girls", Kubrick wanted Alex and his gang in the film to function more as young adults, whose victims are also adults. McDowell, aged 28 at the time, was almost twice the age of the Alex in the novel. His role in Lindsay Anderson's if.... (1968) was crucial to his casting as Alex, as Kubrick had been impressed with his ability to "shift from schoolboy innocence to insolence and, if needed, violence".[6] So central was McDowell to the film and his vision, that Kubrick professed that he probably wouldn't have made the film if McDowell had been unavailable.[7]

An example of the erotica from A Clockwork Orange (1971)

Because of its depiction of teenage violence, A Clockwork Orange became one of the most controversial films of the decade, and part of an ongoing debate about violence and its glorification in cinema. It received an X-rated certificate upon release, just before Christmas in 1971, though many critics saw much of the violence depicted in the film as satirical, and less violent than Straw Dogs which had been released a month earlier.[8] Kubrick personally pulled the film from release in the United Kingdom after receiving death threats following a series of copycat crimes based on the film; it was thus completely unavailable legally in the UK until after Kubrick's death, and not re-released until 2000.[9] The censor, John Trevelyan, himself considered A Clockwork Orange to be "perhaps the most brilliant piece of cinematic art I've ever seen, and believed it to present an "intellectual argument rather than a sadistic spectacle" in its depiction of violence, but acknowledged that many would not agree.[10] Kubrick disagreed with many of the scathing press reports in British media in the early 1970s that the film could transform a person into a criminal, and argued that "violent crime is invariably committed by people with a long record of anti-social behavior". He defended the depiction of violence in the film, arguing that "The violence in the story has to be given sufficient dramatic weight so that the moral dilemma it poses can be seen in the right context", otherwise the viewer would not reach a "meaningful conclusion about relative rights and wrongs". The State cannot turn even the most "vicious criminals into vegetables".[11] Biographer LoBrutto sees the film as more a "sociopolitical statement about the government's threat against personal freedom" than one which celebrates violence.[12] Robert Hughes, the art critic for Time magazine, also sees beyond its violence, arguing that "No movie of the last decade (perhaps in the history of film) has made such exquisitely chilling predictions about the future role of cultural artefacts—paintings, buildings, sculpture, music— in society, or extrapolated them from so undeceived a view of our present culture".[13][14] Rex Reed concurred, calling it "a mind-blowing work of dazzling originality and brilliance that succeeds on many levels of consciousness", adding that it was "of the most perfect movies I have ever seen in my lifetime".[15] Ignoring the negative media hype over the film, A Clockwork Orange received four Academy Award nominations, for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay and Best Editing, and was named by the New York Film Critics Circle as the Best Film of 1971.[16] After William Friedkin won Best Director for The French Connection that year, he told the press: "Speaking personally, I think Stanley Kubrick is the best American film-maker of the year. In fact, not just this year, but the best, period".[17]

References

  1. ^ Baxter 1997, p. 243.
  2. ^ Duncan 2003, p. 129.
  3. ^ Baxter 1997, p. 252.
  4. ^ Baxter 1997, pp. 250, 254.
  5. ^ LoBrutto 1999, p. 344.
  6. ^ Baxter 1997, pp. 246-7.
  7. ^ Baxter 1997, p. 247.
  8. ^ Baxter 1997, pp. 255, 264-65.
  9. ^ Webster 2010, p. 86.
  10. ^ Baxter 1997, p. 265.
  11. ^ Ciment 1980, pp. 162-3.
  12. ^ LoBrutto 1999, p. 371.
  13. ^ Baxter 1997, p. 253.
  14. ^ Hughes, Robert (December 27, 1971). "The Décor of Tomorrow's Hell". Time.
  15. ^ LoBrutto 1999, pp. 359-60.
  16. ^ Baxter 1997, p. 270.
  17. ^ Baxter.

Reception: "Despite its controversial nature"[edit]

The first sentence of the Reception section reads:

Despite its controversial nature, A Clockwork Orange was a hit with American audiences [...]

Controversial films are sometimes successful in part because they are controversial. Such films will often alienate moviegoers, but at the same time, they can generate a lot of buzz. Thoughts? Uncle Alf (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It does sound like the article is WP:EDITORIALIZING. I have no objections if you want to cut that bit out. Betty Logan (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
BL sums it up well. Plz feel free to alter as you see fit Uncle Alf MarnetteD|Talk 20:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I have cut the bit out. Thanks for your feedback! Uncle Alf (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Shirley Jaffe[edit]

I'm not an editor and I don't know how to best fix this, but Shirley Jaffe is not the girl Billyboy's gang have captured but a nurse in the film. My source here is the Wikipedia article on her, which states that iMDb incorrectly pins her as Billyboy's victim instead of the nurse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.219.175.94 (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The sculpture[edit]

There are hundreds of pics of the sculpture in the cat ladies home on the net of which this is but one. IMO none of them display any testicles - which hang below the penis. The sculpture represents a penis and buttocks. IMO the term "phallic sculpture" is the preferable description in the plot section. MarnetteD|Talk 17:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see how someone might interpret the sculpture as depicting testicles, but without a reputable source stating as much I agree the current wording is preferable. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on A Clockwork Orange (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Location of the film[edit]

I have changed 'In a futuristic London' to 'In a futuristic Britain'. While it is of course on record that the film was shot in London and the surrounding area, it simply cannot be stated with any confidence that the film is meant to take place in London. In the book it's not mentioned and it's often thought that Alex and co could actually be in Moscow. What's certain is that it is not clear. In the film, there is no mention that they're in London and the accents indicate that they could well be in the north of England. Given that all the characters speak English/ Nadsat, it's safe to assume that they're in Britain, but it is disingenuous explicitly to state that they're in London, in spite of the filming taking place there. NEDOCHAN (talk)

Alex's age[edit]

Is Alex really only about 17 or 18 in the film? I've read reviews which point out a much larger age gap between the book and film versions of Alex, particularly that actor Malcolm McDowell was almost 30 when he played him, and that this was part of the quarrel between Burgess and Kubrick, including about the lost final chapter of the book. For Burgess, Alex is just some kid who only needs to get his rocks off and test his boundaries for some time until he'll grow up and grow out of it, whereas Kubrick makes him almost twice as old in the film and portrays him as genuinely rotten, evil, and eventually incorrigible for life. Within the context of the film's cynical, grotesque satirical tone where there is not a single character we can actually fully identify or sympathize with, making Alex drastically older is Kubrick's way of saying we all have little Alexes inside of us because man is born incorrigibly evil and, according to Kubrick, *MUST NOT BE CORRECTED OR APPREHENDED* but there are a few hypocrites in denial of this, whereas Kubrick obviously finds this hypocritical denial of the supposed incorrigible evil nature of all mankind much worse than what Alex does. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Pre-Kubrick production history[edit]

Here's an interesting note on the history of the production before Kubrick got hold of it: According to this show host interviewing both Burgess and McDowell[2] (at about 14:20), when the rights to the book were originally sold in the mid-60s, the adaptation was first planned to star The Rolling Stones and then The Beatles as Alex and his droogies, but none of that ever came to be, allegedly simply because of the stricter film censorship codes in Britain for most of the 60s. Since neither Burgess nor McDowell object to this information or seem surprised by it when the inteviewer presents it (Burgess even seems to kinda nod and grunt in confirmation just slightly out of frame several times around that bit), they kinda seem to confirm it. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Clockwork Orange (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

DREAMS!![edit]

I suggest that the part where he asked the psychologist about his dreams be included in the plot. Isn't that the reason he got the violent tendencies back? Is that the minister's team reverted back the treatment? --Ja 1207 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

White Is The New Black.[edit]

A major difference between the novel and the film - not acknowledged at this point - is the droog's "uniforms". In the novel , Alex and Co. all wear black outfits , as opposed to Kubrick's eye gougingly brilliant white togs!( Which may or may not have been the reasoning for the colour change. ) 75.104.163.28 (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

What has this to do with article improvement? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

November 2018[edit]

Changed

"Alex becomes nauseated by the films, and then recognises the films are set to music of his favourite composer, Ludwig van Beethoven. Fearing the technique will make him sick upon hearing Beethoven, Alex begs for an end to the treatment."

to:

"The images leave Alex nauseous and he begs for an end to the treatment, fearing the soundtrack will leave him feeling the same upon hearing the music of his favourite composer, Ludwig van Beethoven."

In avoiding ambiguity, it needed stipulating that it was just the images from the film that were causing nausea, not the soundtrack. There was unnecessary repetition in both sentences, of Beethoven and terms for 'make sick'.

Neatly reduced to a single sentence. My Favourite Account Talk 21:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You have failed to address NEDOCHAN's main point: "Nauseated is not the same as nauseous." In doing so the edit potentially creates ambiguity for those who have not seen the film. Your alteration makes it unclear as to whether Alex is suffering from or causing nausea. By sticking with "nauseated" there is no ambiguity that it is Alex who is suffering from nausea. Betty Logan (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Something that is nauseous induces nausea, while nauseated means feeling sick. The images leave Alex nauseous, therefore the images have induced nausea. This doesn't change for those who have not seen the film. My Favourite Account  😊 12:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I am aware of what the words mean, but your alteration still creates ambiguity. If somebody is "nauseous" then they can either be nauseating (causing nausea) or nauseated (suffering from nausea). As Nedochan states in his edit summary, the use of "nauseated" is entirely correct here so there is no reason to alter it. The use of "nauseous" is not incorrect but it does potentially create ambiguity for people unfamiliar with the film. Betty Logan (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Your friend is also convinced that 2 people constitute a consensus. My Favourite Account  😊 14:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Logan. My Favourite Account, not only is nauseated the correct word but you have also made other errors in this sentence. The subject of your sentence is 'the images'. The second subject is 'the treatment'. The third subject is 'the soundtrack'. The objects are 'Alex' and 'him'. When you say 'will leave him feeling the same' you should be referring to one of the subjects. In the particular clause 'the same' should actually refer to 'the soundtrack'. So 'fearing the soundtrack will leave him feeling the soundtrack' is actually what it should mean. It could mean 'the soundtrack will leave him feeling the images'. Neither is very good. There is certainly no ambiguity in the original sentence. There is in the replacement. I'm afraid that you also haven't grasped the difference between 'nauseated' and 'nauseous'. This could be due to its usage in US English, though I should point out that this article is in UK English. In the spirit of civility, I have put a lot of work into this article and am proud of its grammar. I would ask you, please, to leave it as it was. Many thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I have sought a compromise. I trust that's the end of it.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: Greetings everyone. While there are already more than two editors involved in this discussion, I figured I would try to help anyway, especially as one who has not seen the film (I know, I know, I really need to watch it someday!).

    I do agree that there is some ambiguity in the original regarding what actually causes Alex's nausea. I would have assumed that the films in their entirety were the cause, and would not have known that it was merely the images and not the soundtrack. However, in the revised version I'm not sure we have accomplished what we set out to: we've addressed the cause of nausea (specifically the images}, but we've managed to lose the information that the soundtrack is actually Beethoven. I don't think it's a strong enough link to say that Alex feared the soundtrack might make him feel nauseated if he later heard his favourite composer. Had I not read the original, I am not sure I would have come to the proper conclusion that the images were set to Beethoven and that Alex did not want the images to be permanently associated with his favourite composer's music. (I suppose this would be a good time to ask if I have that correct? I don't actually know for sure.)

    Regarding nauseous vs. nauseated, I agree that the proper word in this case would be nauseated. The usage is the same in US English, but we've become quite lazy recently and nauseated has fallen out of favo[u]r; I rarely hear or read it these days and see nauseous used in its place. Is that also the case in the UK, or is nauseated still relatively common? In any event, I think we would do best to keep nauseated as our preferred word, as it is unambiguous in its meaning that Alex is feeling sick and not causing sickness to someone or something else. Between the two versions I would say I prefer the original, but I see that the article now reads as follows: Alex is strapped to a chair, his eyes clamped open, he is injected with drugs and forced to watch images of sex and violence accompanied by the music of his favourite composer, Ludwig van Beethoven. Alex becomes nauseated by the films and begs for an end to the treatment, fearing the technique will cause similar nausea when he listens to Beethoven. I like this version better still, as we've established that the music is not the unpleasant part and his fear is that he won't be able to listen to Beethoven in the future without feeling the same nausea. If I were to change anything I might be more explicit about this in the second sentence, assuming my characterization is accurate. To address My Favourite Account's concerns, it might be helpful to change films to images, or if necessary images in the films, in the second sentence as well.

    I hope this helps! If I can be of any further assistance, feel free to ping me. I'll put this page on my watchlist for a bit as well. CThomas3 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cthomas3, many thanks for your honest input. Yes, you are correct, the images are set to Beethoven. Regarding nauseous vs. nauseated, either word is "proper" in the form each was used, but again you are correct, we too have become quite lazy and the use of nauseated is less common, resulting in the confusion for some, how each is used. The change was needed to facilitate the flow of the altered sentences, not for change's sake as was suggested. I will, of course, accede to your preference. I am pleased you like the current version "better still", although it needs no changes to address my concerns as, essentially, I made those changes. Thanks once again. My Favourite Account  😊 03:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

3O response very reasonable.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).