{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.038307604345340196, 'fraction_numerical': 0.023441966838193252, 'mean_word_length': 4.573248407643312, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Clockwork Orange: The First 25 Years

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER ITS FIRST RELEASE in New York on 20th December 1971, Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, adapted from the 1962 novel by Anthony Burgess, has acquired a prominent place in the history of cinema. However, at the time of its release, it generated much controversy and was heavily criticised in its artistic, political and social dimensions. A New York Times reviewer called it ”a marvelously executed, sensationalist, confused and finally corrupt piece of pop trivia, signifying nothing.”(1) Next, Fred M. Hechinger, an American liberal, accused the film of promoting fascist ideology.(2) In March 1972, the Detroit News refused to give advertising and publicity space to X-rated films, judging them to be of ”pornographic nature” and instituted its policy with A Clockwork Orange.(3) On the other hand, the film was also nominated for four 1971 Academy Awards and it received the 1971 New York Film Critics’ Awards for Best Film and Best Director of the Year.(4) At the time, Kubrick remarked in an interview that ”I’m very pleased with A Clockwork Orange. I think it’s the most skillful movie I’ve made. I can see almost nothing wrong with it.”(5) Coming from a director who had created films in the calibre of Dr. Strangelove (1964) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), that was high praise indeed for a film, even if it was one of his own. Over the years, A Clockwork Orange has been revalued, its significance recognised and reaffirmed. It is a film whose meaningful complex of images, sound, and themes are as relevant today as it was when it was first seen. For this reason, the film deserves a revisit in the form of an appreciation of the unity of style and substance in the film.