A Clockwork Orange: The Book or The Film?

Question

Recently I read 'A Clockwork Orange' by Anthony Burgess
and then saw the film adaptation by Stanley Kubrick.

I was surprised. The film was nothing like I thought it would be and I'm not sure If it lives up to the great book. Which version do you prefer? Or you can just talk about the one you like I don't really mind.

Is there any other book-film crossovers you've been disappointed with or even liked better than the original?

Answer 1

The problem with Kubrick's film of "A Clockwork Orange" is that it is so dated. Some films are timeless - this one is just creaky.

I recently had cause to see "Gone With The Wind" and was delighted - I hadn't seen it in 25 years or so. Then I re-read the book. While there were differences for screen adaption, the film was true to the book.

For what, in my opinion, is the best Navy film ever made - read and see "The Sand Pebbles." Outstanding book and outstanding film adaptation.

Answer 2

Most films that are made from books aren't that great. I have not seen one yet that I liked better than the book (although there are some bookfilms that I do really like, such as A Clockwork Orange). The only thing that I have seen that is better than the books are the Brother Cadfael mysteries. The TV shows are good and exciting, but the books are dry and tedious, not worth wading through.

ACO was changed in the film version to fit the time period it was in. The whole last chapter or so was left out to give a different impression of the character and the outcome. Burgess himself has stated in some interviews that the outcome and the theme of the book was different than the film version. I much prefer the book.

Answer 3

I saw the movie years before reading the book, and I thoroughly enjoyed both, but I can see how if it had been the other way round I might have been disappointed by the film.

One thing the book makes clear, which the film cannot really do, is that the narrator is looking back on an incident from his youth ... from the grand old age of 19 he is looking back at when he was about 14 (if I remember correctly)... and was an amazingly accurate prophesy from the 60s of how violent degeneracy would start younger and younger and how even supposedly left-wing Home Secretaries would become more and more reactionary in their response.

I think there's a similarity with the book/film of Brighton Rock - both are brilliant... but whether you consider the film a masterpiece or a disappointment may depend on whether you read the book or saw the film first.

But let's not mention that other novellistic/celluloid degenerate, Harry Potter!

:-)

Answer 4

The movie was great, but not in relation to the book. As far as subject matter, I liked the book much better. Another book/movie that I was not so happy about the movie at all was Stephen King's "The Shining," the movie was HORRIBLE, but the book was amazing and so much more detailed. I read the book in two days because I couldn't put it down, I fell asleep watching the movie.

Yet another movie that didn't live up to the book was "Queen of the Damned," by Anne Rice. The movie wasn't bad, but it didn't even come close to the book.

The only Movies I have seen that remotely held up to their literary counterparts were: Lord of the Rings, Narnia, The Di Vinci Code, and the Harry Potter movies (JK Rawling has a LOT of input into those films). Hope this helps.

Answer 5

For me, it depended on which version of the novel I read. When I read the American version of A Clockwork Orange, I thought the movie was great. It ended with the horrible realization that Alex was going to revert to his pre-treatment self.

But then I decided to look up information about the novel and learned that Burgess had not intended it to end at chapter 20 but for it to end with chapter 21. Alex is supposed to get bored with his juvenile extracurriculars. Ah! (I know that once I reached 23, I was done with all of the stupid stuff, too. So, to have him return to his ways seemed... unsatisfying and maybe moderately unrealistic.)

And then I hated the movie and felt betrayed by the Americanization that always happens with most things (i.e. The Office, Ugly Betty, a lot of things that started out as "foreign.") So, which version did you read? That might change your opinion.

Answer 6

As is often the case, the book "Clockwork Orange" has so much more depth because it's a better medium for giving background information that gives contect for the action.

I saw the movie first and was turned off, but then re-watched it after having read the book and enjoyed it MUCH more since I understood the background and the meaning of the slang vocabulary (created by Burgess and defined in a glossary in the back of the book)

Answer 7

I never read the book and I absolutely hated the movie. Saw it in London and was freaked out by it.
Books are always better than the film adaptation. Except in the film "The Godfather."
I was very pleased with the film as well.

Answer 8

you think the book is better then? i've always wanted to read that....
because i really liked the film, it looks great visually...

but it's true that most of the time the book is better than the film adaptation, like for instance The Great Gatsby, Of Mice and Men, Lolita (either of the films) , The French Lieutenant's Woman.....

Answer 9

i agree, i read the book first and was blown away.. the film is more of an illustration of the idea than fully doing justice to the original. i think it's a great film but underplays the important ethical arguments raised by the book.

Answer 10

Liked the book immensely. Never seen the movie.
Usually books are better than films if they are original. I know the only exception: "Fight club" by Chuck Palahniuk and the movie (don't remember the director). Movie is much better, but it is the only case