Learning on ScreenA Clockwork Orange
The work draws effectively on material from the Kubrick archive at the University of the Arts, London including Kubrick’s own letters, memos and treatments. This material is particularly well-used when Krämer explores Kubrick’s motivations and later justifications for his production of Anthony Burgess’ 1962 novel. Krämer’s thoughtful consideration of A Clockwork Orange as a production which must be viewed in the context of Kubrick’s broader career is a valid one and one which is in danger of being forgotten in the elevation of the film to the status of seminal and standalone text. Within the film, Kubrick had the opportunity to explore issues which he felt he had failed to fully explore in previous films such as Lolita (1962) and Krämer argues that it is in this context that the critical and thematic preoccupations of A Clockwork Orange must be understood.
As Krämer points out, in the late 1960s Kubrick was one of the most successful and celebrated directors of the period and so had no difficulty in attracting funding and production support for his film. The levels of support given to Kubrick in the late 1960s and early 1970s to make A Clockwork Orange is at odds with the financial construction of both the American and British film industries in this period.
In dealing with the film’s controversial and extreme thematic preoccupations, Krämer situates A Clockwork Orange within the broader context of increased permission and changing standards of acceptability at the end of the 1960s and start of the 1970s. He alludes briefly to changes in censorship and to the desire of young audiences to see youth-focused films and films whose content would have been unthinkable years before including Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and The Graduate (1967). Situating the production of the film as part of the New Hollywood of the 1970s is a helpful teaching tool for exploring the changing landscape of production as well as indicating the proactive role played by the British Board of Film Censors in signalling approval or otherwise of a proposed project.
Krämer carefully explores the provenance of the novel and makes the point that it was written about 1960s, not 1970s society, a key point which many critics of the film were happy to overlook.
Perhaps one of the areas which would have benefited from a little more detail was the making of the film. The only people mentioned who are associated with the production apart from Kubrick are executive producer Si Litvinoff and the main cast members. The appendix usefully contains key details about the film including the names of all the important production personnel, but it would have useful to explore the input of some of these individuals – notably production designer John Barry and lighting cameraman John Alcott – particularly when considering the film’s distinctive visual style in section two. This would also have allowed for a brief engagement with the problematic notions of A Clockwork Orange as Kubrick’s solely-produced text and the issues of auteurism, particularly when applied to such a famous work by such a celebrated director. The same observation cannot be applied to the issue of the film as an adaptation. Krämer carefully explores the provenance of the novel and makes the point that it was written about 1960s, not 1970s society, a key point which many critics of the film were happy to overlook.
The best thing about this book is that it moves beyond the typical debates about the controversy created by the film and presents it as a fascinating text worthy of study in its own right, not simply for its controversy. All the usual A Clockwork Orange lore is here – the withdrawal of the film at Kubrick’s own request, the ‘Clockwork crimes’ cited in the press – but Krämer explores the film in a way which feels fresh and draws attention to its less controversial features, such as its funding and production history, as well as its controversial qualities.
Dr Sian Barber works in the Department of Media Arts at Royal Holloway, University of London.
