Mom & I are visiting my brother in Los Angeles; last Friday night after we left Canter’s Deli we passed the Greenway Arts Alliance theatre on Fairfax- the sign advertising A Clockwork Orange adapted for stage. LA WEEKLY recommends it so we’re going Thursday night…
anyone already see it? Thoughts?
Of course, I’ll be giving my review- also to anyone interested, I think it ends May 10
Since so much of that movie depended on its look and on Malcolm McDowell’s performance, I wouldn’t expect much out of a stage version. A Clockwork Orange is one of the most over-rated movies, IMO.
There was a critically acclaimed stage version in Chicago a few years. It was based on the book of course and not the movie, so Scumpup’s expectations would have just as irrelevant then as they are now.
I saw the production in Chicago at Steppenwolf a few years ago with my sister, and we both enjoyed it. I’m a big fan of the movie and the book as well.
I just read that Burgess hated the filmed version with the (American) downbeat ending. The UK version supposedly had the original more upbeat ending.
Also, I am not sure, but he either wrote the stage version or gave his seal of approval.
(Damn…where did I read that article…)
::DMark glances over at a huge stack of newspapers that should be put in tonight’s recycling and decides it is not all that important where he read it::
I have no idea how that smilie appeared instead of DMark…
Following a colon with a capital d will do that every time… just like clockwork. 
For some reason one version of the book had the last chapter missing. This is the version the film is based upon. The full version of the book has a 21st chapter.
During that chapter Alex chooses to be moral. He becomes an adult (21) and does not have morality forced upon him.
Haven’t seen it, but my theater (or theatre) critic friend has seen it and had this to say:
It wasn’t Kubrick who cut the last chapter, it was Burgess’s American publisher. Kubrick was working from the American version of the book (despite making the film in England). Burgess himself said that the ending of the movie “wasn’t [Kubrick’s] fault.”
HORRORSHOW!!!
It was frightfully discordant at first until ya got into the rhythm; minimalist staging with scaffolding & lights & a central cabinet that held the main scene-change props; the hat & eyelash & codpiece aspects of the costume were of course film-derivative but the overall droog outfits were quite original.
The Ludivico technique also resembled the film but how much variation can there be in a chair equipped with brain-probe cap & eyelid-clamps?L The milkbar had NO porceline female milk dispensers alas
Since Malcolm so took over the role of Alex, this actor was as original as possible but couldn;t help but occasionally echo MMcD; Mr Deltoid was totally unique as were F Alexander & the IntInf Minister- who seemed to be channelling Robert Morley.
They also sold scripts in the lobby so I enjoyed seeing how the production departed from the Burgess script (w/ uneven results).
I think performances have been extended into early June- see it!
Kubrick sort of renounced the movie himself; he didn’t like the bleak portrait of humanity he’d painted. He didn’t know about Burgess’s last chapter when he made the movie, and my understanding is that he was quite pissed when he found out what happened.
Awww, c’mon guys, I like the Kubrick ending. I remember seeing the film for the first time and absolutely cracking up at Alex’s final line. It was so perfect. I wanted to see humanity painted badly, it fit with everything else in the movie. The libertarian author ends up violating his principles for vengeance and to use another human as means to an end, great moment. If it had been upbeat and Alex had matured, I don’t know if I’d have liked the film as much.
Yeah, well Kubrick turned into a real wuss at the end of his career. Look at Eyes Wide Shut, Cruise and Kidman indulge to some degree in their own temptations, but then at the end come back to each other. Married life and family had finally corrupted Kubrick, and he had to return his characters to a sane baseline at the end of the film.
It seems like in general, his films had shown people of weak and easily corrupted character (Jack cannot overcome his weakness for alcohol) and characters whose efforts at self-restraint were entirely futile (see Dr. Strangelove). Then he made characters who were malleable but not totally corruptable (Full Metal Jacket.) Then he ends his career with Eyes Wide Shut in which characters are stronger than their flaws, at least they are so after confronting them.
Cite?
I’m not saying I don’t believe you. I just want to know wehre this comes from.
I’m not sure which part of Marley23’s remark you’re questioning, but here’s a cite for Burgess’s not knowing about the 21st chapter:
As for “renouncing” the movie, Kubrick did withdraw it from release in the U.K. a year or two after its premiere. It was never shown there again until after Kubrick’s death.
as to why the movie was withdrawn in the UK, several gang-crimes had been committed using CWO themes & so the movie was being blamed for inspiring violence- and Kubrick concurred with its banning