Talk:A Clockwork Orange (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Roger Ebert reconsidering his early review, posted on Facebook

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?

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

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)

Proposed merge with Ludovico technique

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

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

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)

Music

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)

Removed section

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)

Genre - crime drama and science fiction

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

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)

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, while others such as Turner Classic Movies class it as psychological drama (bearing in mind that "psychology" is a "science"), and the British Board of Film Censors calls it simply a "drama".

The film is included in numerous science fiction film reference books, such as Encyclopedia of Science Fiction Movies, A Pictorial History of Science Fiction Films, and Fantastic Cinema. 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, as well as horror.

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. 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.

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."

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.

Bizarre "... failed Labour Party architecture..." claim

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

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

British-American film

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)

New category

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)

Reception: "Despite its controversial nature"

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

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

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100117212132/http://collativelearning.com/a%20clockwork%20orange%20review.html to http://collativelearning.com/a%20clockwork%20orange%20review.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/malcolmtribute/aco/xrated.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/malcolmtribute/aco/forbidden.html

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)

Alex's age

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

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

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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130415023731/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/23471 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/23471

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!!

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.

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 Jacobite_{The '45} 12:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

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)

• 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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Malcolm McDowell Clockwork Orange.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Cooperation

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cooperation https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/cooperation https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/cooperation

This is the standard UK spelling. There is no doubt whatsoever that cooperation is not the wrong spelling, so it should be left as it was as per WP:STATUSQUO. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN: So the script needs to be fixed. Thanks for explaining and sorry for my revert. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries- yes that's definitely a script issue.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Misnamed

Why is the movie not properly named "Clockwork Orange"? Nicmart (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Nicmart, I was wondering why you were asking this, then I looked at the poster. I see why you think it is supposed to be Clockwork Orange, but The "A" is actually hidden as part of the shape the main character is peering through. So the poster shows the full title A Clockwork Orange. Funny that I never thought about that before. I hope that answers your question. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I was puzzled by the question. I thought maybe the book title omitted "A". It never occurred to me to check the poster. Betty Logan (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know if I’ll ever find it again, but I remember a documentary about Kubrick which made mention of his absenting the “A” in the movie title. I’ll try to run something down. Nicmart (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Unreasonably deleted information

Anybody, please, elaborate on the criterion of relevancy in this article! Why those are removed? --Geysirhead (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• [One night, after getting intoxicated on drug-laden "milk-plus"] decorated with human furniture artwork,
• Rob Zombie based his 2009 song and video, "Never Gonna Stop (The Red, Red Kroovy)" on the first act of the film.

References

Hi. I had hoped the edit summaries explained but obviously happy to discuss as per BRD. The first one is not grammatically correct. As it's written, it states that the milk is decorated with human furniture. Secondly, the decoration of the bar doesn't affect the plot. It's the drug milk that's plot-related, not the decor of where it's being drunk.

The second one seems quite obscure and the source is not WP:RS.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Plot section

The plot section as it currently stands is needlessly fragmented and padded out with unnecessary details. A three-paragraph synopsis split into a beginning, middle and end is the most reliably navigable format, and details should be reserved for those that actively advance the progression of the plot. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. As per MOS, plot summaries are suggested to be between 400 and 700 words. This is. I don't believe any of the details within are unnecessary. In the edit which was reverted, the first sentence changed 'Britain' to 'London'. See talk page. Nowhere is it said the film takes place in London. It was shot for the most part in London, but that doesn't mean it takes place in London. Anyway it's all in the talk page. Brittanica has England. It simply isn't the case that ACO is set in London. It also removed referring to Alex as the leader of a gang. Pretty relevant detail.

If you would like to explain your edits and achieve consensus for their inclusion, you are of course able to do so. But totally rewriting the article (which is not neglected and has a good and recent edit history) when it is within the suggested length is not required. Please suggest smaller edits and your reasons for them.

Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I concede in the matter of the setting, but not every single detail in the current synopsis is essential; is Alex's probational officer at all vital to the story's events, or Alexander's servant for that matter? Do the more intricate details of the burglary, such as the sculpture and the position of Alex's droogs, come into play later on? Does the chaplain affect anything following his protest? Why does the matter of Alex being beaten by the vagrants and then by his former droogs read as long as it does? I'll even say that Alex's choice of song during his sexual escapade isn't incredibly relevant, since the fact that Alexander could recognize his singing voice was implicitly enough. Just because a synopsis fits within the tail end of a word count limit doesn't mean it shouldn't be made more concise or more evenly spaced. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

There is context of this film in its legacy and analysis that some of those plot elements are important. I would agree that without knowing the legacy, some of the elements presently includes seem non-essential like the prohibition officer, but the reason we have plot summaries on WP is to support the rest of the article about a film ,and so if there's discussion or analysis on certain elements or scenes, we should be establishing these in the plot section. And given the weight this films been given, there's alot that can be talked about with the minor elements. --Masem (t) 19:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The song is very relevant as that's how Alexander recognises Alex - this isn't made clear in the reverted version, but was made clear in the stable version. The mureder of the cat lady and the betrayal of Alex by the droogs is also very pertinent to the plot, as that's why he goes to jail. Deltoid is a major character. The manservant's name isn't important but he is, as he's doing what Alexander's wife used to do. The summary doesn't contain obvious errors, and it's within MOS guidelines for length. As a consequence, a total rewrite isn't required, and rides roughshod over the careful editing of this page over a long period of time. Please do suggest improvements, and your reasoning for them. Length isn't really an issue, as it's fewer than 700 words. I'm not saying it can't be improved, but I am saying that your reverted edit was not an improvement, and it was quite heavy-handed in my opinion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the point concerning the song is valid; the cat lady's murder and the betrayal were already conveyed in the reverted version and more concisely than the current version; how is the probation officer at all major? Does he spur any development in a character or drastically affect the events of the plot? His actor doesn't even get poster billing, unlike Mr. and Mrs. Alexander and the cat lady; the only narrative purpose of Alexander's wife was to be raped and murdered, which spurs Alexander's treatment of Alex in the climax, so whatever the manservant is doing is hardly vital in relation. If a summary is able to be made more concise (which can only be an improvement), there's no reason why it shouldn't be, and my revision was only in service of that. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss any changes that you feel might improve the article. I should say, however, that arguments as to concision are compromised by MOS guidelines, which are being followed.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I had been justifying the changes I made to the section this entire time, so if you're so sure that the synopsis as it is now is really pertaining to MoS guidelines, I would appreciate it if you cite which exact guidelines were violated by the version I'd made before. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest mooting less wholesale changes for the moment. I have restored the stable version while discussion is taking place. I have explained why I reverted the edit and you have graciously accepted several reasons already. My point is that the 'too long' opinion is severely compromised by the fact that it's not too long as per the guidelines. And I didn't say yours was too long. I said that the stable version wasn't, as it isn't.NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Close as not moved. Nom is an IP sock of ArbCom-blocked User:SwissArmyGuy and the proposal has failed to gain any traction. Bona fide users may submit a new request, should they so choose. Favonian (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

---

• A Clockwork Orange (film) → A Clockwork Orange
• A Clockwork Orange → A Clockwork Orange (disambiguation)

– This article is more likely a primary topic for this film, rather than a novel (which had based on). 122.2.107.192 (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose neither is clearly the primary topic blindlynx (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. In addition to what the editor above me said, this situation will cause incorrect links to accumulate, which will be much harder to spot and fix. --Gonnym (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gonnym. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improving the rating of this as article

Hi all. I wonder if anyone might help improve this article's rating? It seems as if it's far better than its current rating suggests. How does one go about having it reviewed? NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The procedure is outlined at WP:GAI. Betty Logan (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Film locations

I have corrected the entry that stated that the York Road Roundabout, where the tramp was attacked in the film, was located at the southern end of Wandsworth Bridge. The source claiming it to have been at Wandsworth Bridge is mistaken and should be disregarded. It is in fact at the southern end of Waterloo Bridge, close to the South Bank complex. The site at the time of filming had been an interconnected set of underpasses that was largely occupied by tramps. It remained so until the 1990s, when the site was cleared. It is now the location of an IMAX cinema. I will find alternative sources to verify this. TuringBox (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I have now found a source that confirms the location of the site, formerly known as "Cardboard City", was in the Waterloo area and is now the site of the BFI IMAX cinema. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardboard_City_(London) I will retain the old source for the mention of the film location, but will add this one to confirm that it is actually near Waterloo Bridge, NOT Wandsworth Bridge. TuringBox (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Changed the second source to a BBC one about the transition from Cardboard City to the BFI IMAX. I hadn't realised that Wikipedia doesn't like to cite Wikipedia articles as sources, but that does make sense. Will also be on the lookout for other sources that specifically link the tramp scene to the York Road Roundabout. TuringBox (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Oops, my bad! Having double checked the locations and photographs of the subway at Wandsworth Bridge Road, I now concede that the original source was indeed correct and have reverted the edits accordingly. In my defence, the old Cardboard City at the Waterloo site (which also had an exit to York Road) was a notorious site occupied by homeless people and was a similar warren of concrete underpasses to the Wandsworth site. TuringBox (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

People who prevent others from contributing to this page

Hello people, while I appreciate anyone making informed corrections or additions to Wikipedia pages, I have tried to make some relatively small factual additions and re-write a couple of sentences (simply to make them better written, grammatically and stylistically) only to discover that you have placed restrictions on much of the editing on this page. Apparently, to add, correct or edit requires your permission! How democratic. The usual process is to discuss further edits on the talk page afterwards, not prevent others from making contributions before. Actually, whoever wrote or contributed to this page is not the expert they think they are on Anthony Burgess or A Clockwork Orange, novella and film. Also, your information is totally America-centric and it shows. The result is that, thanks to your imposing of editing restrictions, sections of paragraphs are now missing and sentences break off midway. As you are responsible for it, I'll leave you guys to clear up the mess. As this, and every, Wikipedia page should be created with a desire to be as informative, neutral and factually reliable, it would be nice to think you will include the new additions. However, given the size of your egos and evident certainty that you are the only experts on this subject, I won't hold my breath. Mag Wildwood (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about my ego but I did revert your edit for reasons that should be clear to any experienced editor--you removed a valid "hidden" note, inserted unverified material and odd formatting, etc. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course you removed all and any additional text back to your own incomplete, factually and badly-written, text. What exactly is your dictatorial belief in your own omnipotence based on? Please list what criteria/qualifications you hold that justify your self-propelled 'expert' status. Thanking you most sincerely. Mag Wildwood (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh look, as I'm aware of your personal interference in my contributions, clearly you're arrogant and egocentric, so any attempt at reasonable discussion is pointless. You should at least have had the humility and academic knowledge to check all and any factual additions or corrections before summarily removing everything and reverting to your original edit. Obviously, you have no actual editing or publishing experience and don't understand the importance of unbiased COMPREHENSIVE research. Ta ta dearie. Mag Wildwood (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Drmies - an administrator of the project - has been around the project since 2007, has 340,000+ edits to their name, and has been thanked for their work 8,600+ times since the "thanks" process was introduced in 2013. As an independent to this conversation - I'd say that covers your request for criteria and qualifications.

Rather than assuming that edits have been reverted explicitly to antagonise you - consider that they may have been done for a valid reason - even if you cannot yet see what that reason is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)