A Clockwork Orange: Book vs. Film *SPOILERS*
Posted: 14 Nov 2011, 02:14
I recently read the book, after seeing the film, and found myself disappointed with aspects of the film, as is typically the case for me regarding adaptations. For instance, based on Stanley Kubrick's film, I would not have guessed the character of Alex, to be in the midst of his teens years. The film also did what I thought to be a poor portrayal of the character Dim, where he appeared meek, rather than brutish. Almost every scenario involving the writer, I felt, was inaccurate. Especially the involvement of his muscular friend.
Beyond what I took as botched portrayals of some key characters (not to mention many minor details), I found the film unnecessarily sexualized, which I think cheapened the story. A prime example of this would be the opening scene at the milk bar, which for me, was on par with the second burglary. Other examples could be found throughout; the scene with the rival gang accosting a naked woman, who in the book was a clothed adolescent.
I think the movie used excessive nudity to lure an audience, and given the time of production, to add shock value. I think had Kubrick stuck by the story, the shock value would be much greater. For instance, the scene with the young women at the record store seemed pointless, where as the book offered a fairly disturbing scene, in which the women were ten years old. Oddly, although the film seemed over sexed, the violence appeared under played. Burgess definitely had the old "ultra violence" more in mind while writing.
Overall, I preferred the book. It maintained a much darker feel than the film, which should count for something when portraying a dystopian society. However, I found the film more entertaining. I was glad Kubrick cut the scene where Alex fights an inmate, which I felt dragged on. I also loved the "Singing in the Rain" scene.
I'd like to read other observations between the two, I have only read/watched once, and have surely missed things.
Beyond what I took as botched portrayals of some key characters (not to mention many minor details), I found the film unnecessarily sexualized, which I think cheapened the story. A prime example of this would be the opening scene at the milk bar, which for me, was on par with the second burglary. Other examples could be found throughout; the scene with the rival gang accosting a naked woman, who in the book was a clothed adolescent.
I think the movie used excessive nudity to lure an audience, and given the time of production, to add shock value. I think had Kubrick stuck by the story, the shock value would be much greater. For instance, the scene with the young women at the record store seemed pointless, where as the book offered a fairly disturbing scene, in which the women were ten years old. Oddly, although the film seemed over sexed, the violence appeared under played. Burgess definitely had the old "ultra violence" more in mind while writing.
Overall, I preferred the book. It maintained a much darker feel than the film, which should count for something when portraying a dystopian society. However, I found the film more entertaining. I was glad Kubrick cut the scene where Alex fights an inmate, which I felt dragged on. I also loved the "Singing in the Rain" scene.
I'd like to read other observations between the two, I have only read/watched once, and have surely missed things.