A Clockwork Orange is set in the future, in a world where the youth is corrupt and violent against the old. The world is a place of injustice. The main character is a teenage boy named Alex. He is the leader of a gang of boys who commit various crimes. One night, Alex accidently murders a woman who he is robbing and his fellow gang members turn on him. Alex is caught by the police and put in jail. Alex remains in prison for two years until he is put into a new program that is designed to make cure criminals of their negative social behaviors. Alex undergoes the treatment and from that point on becomes violently ill whenever he tries to do something “evil”. Alex is released into society again, but finds only hardship. Eventually he tries to kill himself when being tortured by a man he had done wrong to in the past. Afterward, the hospital works to undo the treatment and Alex returns to normal.

The plot of the movie and the book are almost identical, save one very key scene. The film does do a good job conveying the visual elements of the novel. The world that Kubrick creates looks exactly like what one envisions when reading A Clockwork Orange. However, there are certain elements that can never be recreated in the film, and therefore make the film far inferior to the novel.

            The film presents Alex as quite a different young man than the one portrayed by Burgess. The Alex in the film appears to be all on his own, with not a friend in the world. The whole world is against him in the film. (Kael) This is laughable, for anyone can see that Alex is a horrible criminal who assaults, steals and rapes on a regular basis throughout the story. However, the presentation in the film makes the reader sympathize with Alex and overlook his villainy. However, the first person narration in the novel actually makes Alex seem more of a hoodlum than the film does. The sheer contradiction between Alex’s narration and his actions are so absurd that the reader cannot help but detest Alex and his wicked ways.  In the first few chapters of the novel, Alex casually describes an evening out where he and his gang perform various atrocities. In one scene, Alex and his droogs beat an old, drunken homeless man. “So we cracked into him lovely, grinning all over our litsos [faces], but still he went on signing. Then we tripped him so he laid down flat…Then we went on our way” (Burgess 18). The nonchalant attitude that Alex describes the mayhem with is absurd to the point of a kind of black hilarity. The film cannot accomplish this feat. What comes across instead is one of two things. The viewer feels that either Alex is a poor young man forced into his position by a society that offers no alternative, or that he is nothing but a sadistic rapist who believes himself to be the only one that matters in the world; the only sane individual. (Ebert)

            The idea of Alex as the only sane individual is also captured in the film through Kubrick’s use of camera trickery. Kubrick uses shots and lenses that distort anything they look upon. He uses movie magic to make almost every scene that does not include Alex in it be skewed and bizarre, thus enforcing the viewer’s idea of Alex as the victim of a deranged society. Wide angle lenses were used to give the world a stretched or imperfect look to it. Also, in shots where Alex is present, Kubrick uses a special lens that can focus on one object while distorting everything else. Alex still remains the strong focal point and character through this technique. (Ebert) This is quite contrary to the novel. In the novel, Alex is often seen just as menacing as the society he is a part of. He commits any act he wishes without regard for anyone but himself and is as thoroughly twisted as anyone. Alex does not even heed moral guidance in the novel. When Alex has a surprise visit from his “probation” officer, Alex is warned not to continue in his delinquent ways. Alex’s officer even asks him about his morals when he says, “Is it some devil crawls inside you?” (Burgess 43) However, Alex ignores the advice of someone who is actually trying to help him. In the film, this guardian figure is comical and unhelpful. He tells Alex to behave while drinking from a glass containing dentures. The ridiculous behaviors of the characters around him show that in the film, everyone is insane; save little Alex, that is.

            In the film, A Clockwork Orange is a mysterious and enigmatic idea. In fact, throughout the entirety of the film, the phrase only appears once (aside from the title sequence). It appears in passing on a piece of paper in Mr. Alexander’s typewriter.  This is one of the most profound differences between the book and the film. How can the film be called A Clockwork Orange when no one who sees it knows what A Clockwork Orange really is? There is frequent discussion of what A Clockwork Orange is and its significance in the novel. A Clockwork Orange is best described as when an individual does not have the ability to choose between good or evil. Burgess said, “It is as inhuman to be totally good as it is to be totally evil” (Burgess VIII). What Burgess means, is that a human being, by definition, is a creature of free will. If a human acts only good or only bad, then they are devoid of free will and therefore inhuman. A Clockwork Orange is the elimination of free will. This is the fundamental idea behind the novel: the importance of free will. Without an explanation of such a key principle, the film is lacking in its delivery of what A Clockwork Orange is really about.

            That is the most important difference between the film and the novel: the meaning of A Clockwork Orange as a whole. The conclusion of the film shows a rehabilitated Alex, free from the horrible treatment that the state put him through. Alex is once again able to engage in any kind of sex and violence he pleases. The film ends with a scene where Alex envisions committing acts of sex once again with his new found “freedom”. Kubrick seems to push the idea not of a man who has seen the evils of society and tries to be above it, but rather the idea that is society is criminal then the individual should be criminal as well. (Ebert)

The movie Alex is a savior who rescues the viewer from oppressive control. Is this concept true to the novel though? It is actually in direct contrast with what the author of A Clockwork Orange believed. This is demonstrated in the twenty-first chapter of A Clockwork Orange when Alex has a change of heart about his life and demonstrates that he has free will. This chapter was left out of the film for some reason. In this chapter, Alex is running with a new crowd of droogs and expresses his lack of interest in the violent life style he’s leading. Then, Alex meets an old member of his gang and learns that his former droog has settled down and been married. Alex becomes filled with thoughts and emotions. He decides to become a more moral individual and leave behind his old ways of delinquency. This illustrates the idea of free will and A Clockwork Orange all at once. Before Alex’s treatment, he was A Clockwork Orange, because he had no choice in his youth but to be a violent crook. Then after his treatment Alex had no choice but to be a saint. However, after he was cured, he finally became a free man. Little Alex grew up. He was presented with both worlds, that of a delinquent and that of an honest man and he made the choice on his own. (Carey) The novel is a tale of maturation and free will, while the film stands out as dark humor directed toward the backward thinking of, “Do unto others as they do unto you.”

            Truly, what an individual takes away from A Clockwork Orange is entirely dependent upon how they experience it; through film or through text. Will the individual see a tale of free will and adolescence or the twisted depiction of a corrupt society and its foul creations? Either way, I, your humble narrator ask you droogs to viddy what you will and to make sure that you have a good rassoodock about it when it’s all through, lest you too become A Clockwork Orange.

Burgess, Anthony. A Clockwork Orange. New York: Norton. 1962.

Carey, Scott. “A Clockwork Orange: Human Freedom.” Clockwork101. http://clockwork101.tripod.com/info/id6.html

Ebert, Roger. “A Clockwork Orange.” RogerEbert.com. Feb. 1972. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19720211/REVIEWS/202110301/1023

Kael, Pauline. “Stanley Strangelove.” The New Yorker. Jan. 1972. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0051.html

This looks like a promising start. Both actors seem to have a similar skin tone and facial features. Plus they are both absolutely, stunningly gorgeous! Apart from the hair, which can easily be changed, Saldana should fit in to the character very well. She even appears to already have the same taste in ear rings as Uhura! Saldana was brought up in NYC but hails originally from the Dominican Republic. She is best known for her role as Anamaria in the Pirates of the Caribbean sequel The Black Pool. Although Latina, she has the right "look" for the part.

Although broader in the nose than Takei (but we wouldn't ask him to have plastic surgery for that small detail!), Cho could do a passable Sulu - on a dark night. As will all the actors, the twenty first century hair will just have to go. It may also be an idea for Cho to lose a little weight for the role - Takei was always very lithe in the original show. Cho was born in Korea, but raised in Los Angeles and is best known for his overuse of the word MILF in the American Pie series. He has a great deal of on screen experience, appearing in such films as American Beauty, Evolution and Bowfinger. You may have spotted him in Ugly Betty as well!

Maybe, maybe not. Yelchin seems to have the same shape nose as Koenig but not the same shape head. His cheek bones are way too twenty first century and something will have to be done with the wavy hair. Wonders can be done with a few pieces of dental swab and a pair of hair tongs. Yelchin, however, is a real Russian, despite living in the US since his parents (who were figure skaters) defected in 1989. He is best known for the lead role in Charlie Bartlett, released in 2008.

This is possibly the best casting for the film and gives us cause for optimism. Firstly, Pegg is an extremely well established comedy actor who does not have to go rooting around for roles as he made several films in which he was the main star. OK, they were low budget and British but they still made him a fortune at the box office. Particularly memorable was the first ever “Rom Zom Com” - Shaun of the Dead, a hilarious take on the zombie genre. Pegg is ginger and something most certainly will have to be done about that (plus he may have to do a head hide by front combing his hair). The Scottish accent may cause a problem, but bear in mind that Doohan was a Canadian, so if he could do it, why can't Simon whose origins, although not Scottish, are much closer to the border!

Yes, t his could work. The hair may have to be a little longer than in the picture above but the shape of the face is very similar. It remains to be seen whether or not Urban can do irascible quite as well as Kelly, but the likeness is certainly passable enough. Urban is a well established actor, having appeared as Eomar of Rohan in The Lord of The Rings as well as the odd soap opera in his native New Zealand. Hey, actors have to do what it takes when they are starting out! He was even considered - briefly - for the role of 007 in Casino Royale.

This is, if anything, inspired casting. Quinto is possibly even more saturnine than Nimoy. Perhaps the hair could do with a little work - it doesn't look as if he works on his shine half as much as he should be! The Spock of the original series always looked as if he has just washed and was ready to go. Quinto is fairly well known for his part of the serial killer Sylar in the series Heroes. He has also appeared in numerous other TV shows, such as Charmed, Six Feet Under and 24.

Well, OK, you can see the resemblance here and it is very much down to personal taste whether or not you think Shatner is better looking than Pine. Better to cast an actor who hasn't caught the attention of the public too much, it could be said. Pine has appeared in a number of TV series such as CSI: Miami and ER. Perhaps his greatest claim to fame so far is a small part in The Princess Diaries 2, as one of Anne Hathaway's love interests. No doubt as the new James Tiberius he will have plenty of opportunities to woo ladies many species as well as the occasional princess.

"Fail Safe" took a serious approach to the story, while "Dr. Strangelove" was a bit more comical.

In the Movie "Fail Safe" we learn that new technology is created faster than our ability to fully control it. Most of the movie is shot very close-up, with a normal lens, and the movie itself has no soundtrack.

The movie begins as a pilot is awaken from a disturbing dream he's been having of a bull fighter and a bull, which doesn't seem to make sense until the end of the movie.We then join a Congressman as he is given a tour of a United States air military control facility. As he is shown around and told the fail safe measures the military has, the equipment notices a unidentified flying object near the United States.

They send planes to check out the situation, and after the coast is clear they are told to return to their fail-safe points; however, one of the bombers didn't get the all clear to return to the fail-safe point. The pilot receives an emergency code CAP811 that means to head toward Russia to bomb Moscow. The interior shot of the plane it self is a very tight close-up shot and the camera it self doesn't tilt or pan.The inside of the plane is very confined, almost claustrophobic.

Back in master control we see the first long shot in the entire movie as doors open and more military personal come out. In the next scene we enter a war room with a table in the shape of the letter "V" which the director intentionally did to draw the eye of the viewer to the center of the screen at the most important person in the room.We then enter a empty room with nothing much more than a phone, where the General and his interpreter call Moscow to alert them of the mistake. To no avail the United States could stop their own bombers and Moscow is bombed. The movie ends with a montage of generic shots of New York life right before we drop the bomb on our own country as we promised the Russians.

In the Movie "Dr. Strangelove" we see a very similar story line with more of a comical approach.

The motion picture contains more Long Camera shots and more establishing shots.The camera shots in this movie tracks around freely and less confine than in "Fail Safe". The Movie was based on novels called "Red Alert" by Peter George. "Dr. Stangelove" is a movie about Jack D. Ripper, General of Air Force Base that orders planes from their fail-safe points to go out and attack the Soviet Union.

Unlike Fail-Safe their are more shots of the exterior of the plane and of the base. Not just stock footage of one place taking off multiple times. The master control room is shown The War room in this movie is Circular and doesn't draw the attention of the audience to a certain point. The Movie ends comically as he rides the Bomb down wearing his cowboy hat and yelling, then a montage of shots of the bomb going off appear on the screen.

I enjoyed both movies but found "Dr. Strangelove" to be more engaging than "Fail Safe".

Everything in Fail Safe was too symmetrical, and very plain. The visuals in Strangelove were more appealing and easier on my eyes, in "Fail Safe" i felt very confine to the space on the screen. I do recommend seeing both movies back to back.

It was interesting to see the art direction of two different directors with similar story lines.

In the actual film the main picture is the same, they are in a prison and obviously want to escape. But one is based on a true story and the other is about Chickens who want to escape. No matter how many times they try, they fail, every time being sent to the solitary confinement. In there Ginger, the chicken from Chicken run, plays with a baseball and glove which is based on what happens when Capt Hilts is put in the room and plays too. So I think Ginger is based on Hilts.

Half way through, in both films somebody dies Haynes in Great escape and a chicken in the other. But seeing as chicken run is based on Great Escape there are many things that are the same. For example another thing that is the same is that there are people in each film that both disagree with the idea of getting everyone out at the same time and believe it to be insane because of the amount of bodies. However, in both films they manage to get one person out but both of them returns on there own because they went to help.

A lot of the characters have the same name too, for example; there are two Mack's who are Scottish and are also the brains of their escape. But when it comes towards their big escape they go different ways. In chicken run they fly out of the farm but are pursued by Mrs Tweedy. (She is like the Germans in Great escape) They manage to get all out and stay out. In Great Escape they get 76 of them out and only three or four actually escape away and rest are either killed or put back in. They dig tunnels to get out because in the real world there would be no way in such a secure prison they would be able to make a plane that could fly.

So yes there are a lot of similarities between the two films and a lot of things that had to be changed like the fact that fifty of them were killed in Great Escape at the end and in chicken run it was a happy ending with little baby chicks and happiness.