Did Anthony Burgess really hate Stanley Kubrick’s ‘A Clockwork Orange’?
Anthony Burgess, the English novelist renowned for his linguistic prowess and inventive use of prose, held an intricate relationship with the world of cinema. Many audiences, however, will be familiar with his work A Clockwork Orange – mainly due to the film adaptation of it by the 20th-century movie maestro, Stanley Kubrick.
As with many passionate authors and cinematic interpretations of their work, it’s often been assumed that Burgess wasn’t a fan of Kubrick’s 1971 movie. However, it’s important first to note his existing relationship with Kubrick’s oeuvre. While Burgess admired films like Paths of Glory, Dr Strangelove, and 2001: A Space Odyssey, he was notably hesitant about Lolita, feeling Kubrick “had found no cinematic equivalent to Nabokov’s literary extravagance”.
The crux of Burgess’ initial apprehensions surrounding the film adaptation of A Clockwork Orange was rooted in the possibility of Kubrick prioritising the novel’s explicit scenes over its rich linguistic texture. These reservations might have been heightened by the rejection of his own script adaptation and his subsequent detachment from Kubrick’s filmmaking process.
Yet, after a private viewing with Kubrick in London, Burgess’s tune completely changed. He found the film undeniably brilliant, observing how Kubrick’s camera work ingeniously responded to the novel’s wordplay. As he penned in a review for the Listener, the film was “technically brilliant, thoughtful, relevant, poetic, mind-opening”. Burgess even described it as a complete reimagining of his novel, praising it as “Stanley Kubrick’s Clockwork Orange“.
This respect, however, came with its complications. The blurred line of ownership and accountability for the story led to rumours that Burgess resented the adaptation. His promotional trip to New York alongside actor Malcolm McDowell turned sour due to the relentless media scrutiny. Burgess lamented: “I was not quite sure what I was defending […] Kubrick’s achievement swallowed mine, whole, and yet I was responsible for what some called its malign influence on the young.”
Kubrick’s absence from this media circus, which Burgess described as “paring his fingernails in Borehamwood” (referring to the director’s manor house-turned-personal studio), certainly fuelled the fire. The release of a book titled Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, a visual rendition of Kubrick’s screenplay, further incensed Burgess. He perceived this as an undue appropriation, feeling short-changed by the cinematic industry regarding the commercial success of the film adaptation.
As years passed, Burgess’ vexation grew, primarily with media figures focusing on A Clockwork Orange and sidelining his vast bibliography. This frustration, however, shouldn’t be mistaken for disdain towards Kubrick’s film. Burgess’ occasional outbursts and critiques stemmed from a desire to protect his intellectual property and, perhaps, seek recognition for his pivotal role in creating this cinematic masterpiece. At the heart of it, he still maintained his belief in Kubrick’s adaptation as nothing short of “brilliant”.
