Anthony Burgess prepared an adaptation of his novel before Kubrick filmed A Clockwork Orange. That screenplay represents a distinct stage of the project, not the definitive shooting script.
The 1969 Draft as a Standalone Document
The history of A Clockwork Orange includes a screenplay associated with Anthony Burgess and dated 1969. Its existence makes it possible to distinguish the novelist’s involvement in adaptation attempts from the film Kubrick completed in 1971. An author’s draft may propose dialogue, scenes, and visual solutions, but it does not prove that those proposals were accepted, filmed, or retained in the final cut.
Archive catalogs and studies describing the document provide information about its identification, chronology, and relationship to other materials. That information is valuable, although it is not the same as reading every handwritten or typewritten page in full. When a specific difference has not been verified against the complete text, it should be framed as a possibility for further research, not as a lost scene from the film.
The preproduction context includes attempts to bring the novel to the screen that never came to fruition. The history of rights and projects in the 1960s helps explain why different proposals may have circulated. Burgess’s screenplay should be identified by author and date, rather than automatically credited with decisions made in a later production.
A Literary Proposal Is Not a Record of Filming
Adapting a novel involves choices about narration, language, scenes, and pacing. Burgess knew Alex’s world from writing the original and could have carried some of that voice into a dramatic format. However, film requires resolving actions, settings, and timing that literary prose can describe in other ways. An earlier screenplay documents one possible solution to those challenges, not a film that physically existed.
The distinction between written, filmed, cut, and released is especially important in this case. A scene in a draft may have been rejected before filming; a scene that was filmed may have been cut; a text may be published later with changes. Each claim requires a different kind of evidence. The absence of a passage from the final cut does not prove that it was filmed or that an institution censored it.
The screenplay developed by Kubrick has its own history of versions and annotations. Comparing the two requires identified documents, not merely similarities between their titles. Burgess’s work helps illuminate the range of adaptation possibilities, while Kubrick’s text belongs to later writing and production decisions.
What Can Be Compared with the Film
A responsible comparison starts by identifying the document: author, attributed date, archive, version, and scope of the consultation. Then a described sequence can be compared with the corresponding episode in the film, if both are directly available. Changes to Alex’s voice, the selection of characters, or the setting of a scene would be relevant observations, provided they are supported by verifiable passages.
Discussion of the novel’s final chapter has become a separate issue. The film ending and Chapter 21 focus that debate and prevent an earlier screenplay from being used as automatic proof of what Kubrick intended to do with the ending. The relationship between book and screen has more dimensions than that familiar difference.
Above all, Burgess’s draft is evidence of earlier creative work. It makes it possible to study how the work circulated and the possibility of a different adaptation, but it does not authorize anyone to reconstruct unseen scenes or attribute all its proposals to Kubrick. Documentary accuracy depends on keeping the project’s stages separate and stating what material was actually consulted.
An adaptation screenplay may preserve solutions that respond to imagined production conditions, not those that ultimately existed. For example, a location note does not prove that the building was reserved; a complete line of dialogue does not prove that actors rehearsed it. This distinction is especially important for projects with several creative leads over the years. A document’s history should not be written retrospectively as if it already knew the film’s eventual fate.
It is also important to distinguish a dated version from a copy archived later. Collections may acquire materials through donation, purchase, or reorganization, and current descriptions may use standardized titles that do not appear exactly in the original. The catalog record helps locate the document and learn its general characteristics; comparing specific lines requires access to the text and verification that it is complete.
Research into drafts is valuable even when it cannot reconstruct an alternative film. It helps identify adaptation questions that were already present before filming: how to translate an inner voice, which scenes require visual representation, and how to sustain a cinematic pace. These can be verified as working challenges without attributing solutions to Burgess that have not been read in his manuscript.
Comparisons between versions should also note whether a difference concerns the content or the document’s physical presentation. Different pagination, a new cover page, or a typographical correction does not necessarily amount to a revision of the scene. Identifying such variations helps avoid exaggerating the significance of changes that do not affect the story.
View all articles in A Clockwork Orange: Characters, Violence, and Cinematic Form