Si Litvinoff, the Executive Producer of the film A Clockwork Orange has recently revealed that both Mick Jagger and The Beatles were itching to be involved in this movie when it was coming to be. Our boy Mick was hot-to-trot to play the cuckoo criminal Alex, while the Fabs wanted to write the score for the film. Litvinoff explains…

“This film should break ground in its language, cinematic style and soundtrack (the Beatles love the project and Mick Jagger and David Hemmings have both been keen to play Alex).”

Having Mick and The Beatles involved in this movie would have really upped its coolness factor, don’cha think?

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-24 06:47 by parislocksmith.

I've been hearing this rumour since the late 80. and I find it amusing when every now and then some paper reveals this "latest news"...

The film is a masterpiece, albeit, about the most evil thing I have ever seen. but, Malcolm played Little Alex to the nth degree...no one coulda done it better. Thanks, Stanley Kubrick (who incidentally was born on 26 July 1928)...

JR

Quote
steffiestones
The Fabs wanted to write the score for the film.

Were the Fabs even still together when work on the film began? They broke up in '69. The film came out in '71.

>> I find it amusing when every now and then some paper reveals this "latest news" <<

well, this is the first i've heard about any concept of "Jagger & the Beatles" doing it.
sounds like someone got the Stones and the Beatles mixed up. it was in the mid-60s that ALO
was talking about the Stones doing it.

This reminds me: has anyone seen the early 80s rock comedy film GET CRAZY? Malcolm McDowell plays Reggie @#$%&, whose stage moves are obviously based on Jagger. I just looked for a clip on youtube without success. It apparently has never been released on DVD. Catch it if you can. (Lou Reed fans will particularly get a kick out of his self-parody role, Auden.)

<<it was in the mid-60s that ALO
was talking about the Stones doing it.>>


That's also how I got the story.

I've read that Terry Southern bought the rights to the novel and wrote a screenplay based on that with Michael Cooper.

Southern tried to interest Kubrick, who rejected the project, apparently because of the nadsat language.

Southern then sold the rights to Litvinoff, who tried to interest The Stones, but the band being too busy at the time, and the project died.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-07 21:42 by Sohoe.

I alway's was glad the Stones didn't do this film.

I remember seeing this movie when I was 17/18 or something like that, horrible.

And for Malcolm McDowell everytime I see that guy in a movie he remindes if of this movie

__________________________

The Stones were also penciled in to star in a scifi movie called I think "the only lovers left alive"

Boy....picked one of my favorite movies. Sorry but Kubric can do no wrong in my book.

One of his dominating points is his use of music/sound, grunt music for FMJ, Straus for 2001, the plunk of one note in EWS, and Ludwig Von B. for this classic. I used to 1st mate on a government boat and the skipper had Straus playing in the wheel house, my mind filled with space images. So I'm trying to picture myself with this deep association with film and Beatles music....it ain't work'in.

I can see Mick doing this role, but MM was unknown at this time and the film needed unknows. Another Kubric strength, use unfamiliar faces so as not to distract....wow, that's Mick Jagger would have detracted. However it would have given me some pleasure to think of Mick with his eyes clamped open, see what he thinks about acting (lol).

Out of all the Kubrick movies...this one was a tough one. I'll have to sit and give it another watching.....

.... clockwork orange is a rare flawless gem . maybe not everyone would wear it on there finger, but there is no denying it,,, . mcdowel polish'd it off like no other possiably could ........ take a look at ned kelly, end of subject about jagger leading the droogies.. ridiculas coorelation..

yeah, i think the idea of the Stones as Alex & Droogs is very appealing, but
the Stones aren't actors, are they, so it's probably one of those ideas that are better off left hypothetical.
dropping the idea of the Stones starring in a feature film was no doubt a very sensible decision.

[www.lettersofnote.com]

I have heard that story dozens of times but only about the Rolling Stones. The Beatles performing ACO? -- LOL. Nope, I can't see it.

ACO is one of my favorite movies. I have a lot of memorabilia of that movie. DVDs (regular & Blu Ray), lobby cards, LPs, books, even a copy of the radio commercials for ACO that were recorded from the original reel tape. I have six of the Dancing Jesuses (Jesi?) statues. I even had a copy of the Rocking Machine (the male anatomy sculpture). However, my wife didn't like it so I got rid of it.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-28 01:25 by MILKYWAY.

Quote
steffiestones


Having Mick and The Beatles involved in this movie would have really upped its coolness factor, don’cha think?

You couldn't up the coolness factor if this movie if you tried. It was perfect the way it was.

I just saw this movie yesterday, so I figured I'd respond while its fresh in my mind. I don't think Mick could have done it, and if he had the film would have suffered. That part needed a seriously dedicated actor, and while I can understand how maybe Jagger fits the bill lookwise and characterwise, he wouldn't have had the chops to play that character well. Also, at this point, I don't know how you can picture anyone playing it besides Malcolm McDowell.

As for the Beatles input, I feel that is doubtful to be accurate. They were broken up by the time the film was seriously being made. Its possible they knew about it in its early stages, but I feel it would have been impossible for them to tell they wanted their music in it just from the script. I can understand how they might have been able to create some music from the film (as it has that sort of acid-y feel, mixed with orchestration, and the Beatles had dealt with both of those) although I ultimately think they wouldn't have been able to make music that was dark enough for the film's tone. Same with Malcolm, all of the music in that film is so perfect that I can't picture it not being there.

2STONED .......... Andrew Loog Oldham



ROCKMAN

ROCKMAN

According to this, Jagger bought the rights for $500 (!?)
[dangerousminds.net]

Quote
RollingFreak
I just saw this movie yesterday, so I figured I'd respond while its fresh in my mind. I don't think Mick could have done it, and if he had the film would have suffered. That part needed a seriously dedicated actor, and while I can understand how maybe Jagger fits the bill lookwise and characterwise, he wouldn't have had the chops to play that character well. Also, at this point, I don't know how you can picture anyone playing it besides Malcolm McDowell.

As for the Beatles input, I feel that is doubtful to be accurate. They were broken up by the time the film was seriously being made.

The idea floated about of Jagger playing Alex and The Beatles scoring music dates from 1964, when Oldham was looking for a film vehicle suitable for The Stones to mirror more darkly the success The Beatles had just had with Hard Day's Night.

According to a 1972 retrospective article written by Anthony Burgess himself, a figure like Jagger was precisely the type he had in mind when writing the book:

Burgess article at: [www.johncoulthart.com]

But once Kubrick took control of the film, it appears that any notion of Jagger's portrayal or the involvement of other pop music and cultural elements were dropped.

That's a great movie, isn't it? Excellent to hear that it's fresh in your mind right now. I enjoyed watching that movie in my teens on cable TV, then later in my 20s in art house cinema and eventually on DVD.

Incidentally, funny how Burgess structures the book: 21 chapters, one chapter each for every year leading up to adulthood.

Funnily enough, I just happen to be eating a nice big "steaky-wakey" as I type this.

By the way, thanks again for that Townshend ticket! (Yes, it's me with my new user name.) I'm eternally grateful. Speaking of droogs, The Who seem to be the closest equivalent in rock n roll--you know, gangs, Mods, uniforms, youth cult, Quadrophenia, but that's a whole other (and great) movie....

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
RollingFreak
I just saw this movie yesterday, so I figured I'd respond while its fresh in my mind. I don't think Mick could have done it, and if he had the film would have suffered. That part needed a seriously dedicated actor, and while I can understand how maybe Jagger fits the bill lookwise and characterwise, he wouldn't have had the chops to play that character well. Also, at this point, I don't know how you can picture anyone playing it besides Malcolm McDowell.

As for the Beatles input, I feel that is doubtful to be accurate. They were broken up by the time the film was seriously being made.

The idea floated about of Jagger playing Alex and The Beatles scoring music dates from 1964, when Oldham was looking for a film vehicle suitable for The Stones to mirror more darkly the success The Beatles had just had with Hard Day's Night.

According to a 1972 retrospective article written by Anthony Burgess himself, a figure like Jagger was precisely the type he had in mind when writing the book:

Burgess article at: [www.johncoulthart.com]

But once Kubrick took control of the film, it appears that any notion of Jagger's portrayal or the involvement of other pop music and cultural elements were dropped.

That's a great movie, isn't it? Excellent to hear that it's fresh in your mind right now. I enjoyed watching that movie in my teens on cable TV, then later in my 20s in art house cinema and eventually on DVD.

Incidentally, funny how Burgess structures the book: 21 chapters, one chapter each for every year leading up to adulthood.

Funnily enough, I just happen to be eating a nice big "steaky-wakey" as I type this.

By the way, thanks again for that Townshend ticket! (Yes, it's me with my new user name.) I'm eternally grateful. Speaking of droogs, The Who seem to be the closest equivalent in rock n roll--you know, gangs, Mods, uniforms, youth cult, Quadrophenia, but that's a whole other (and great) movie....

Haha hey man! Good to hear from you! Thats really interesting to read. Like I said, I can't even picture there being different music or people in the film, and least of all Jagger so I'm shocked to hear thats true. Very cool indeed to know. Needless to say, with those things added, the film wouldn't be what it is today and that would be a huge disappoint.

You are correct, it is such a great film. Possibly my favorite Kubrick movie, but then again I love the Shining which a lot of people I have met recently hate so what do I know! Having watched it about 48 hours ago, I can honestly say its still with me and there certainly aren't many movies like that. My friend said after we watched it that its like being yelled at for 2 hours, which I think is a pretty accurate way of thinking about it. My brain is just fried afterwards. My favorite line, or variation of a phrase from the film is "your humble na-rator". If I haven't said that at least 10 times since I've seen the movie a couple days ago lol!

I really need to read the book. I've been meaning to for so long and never got around to it. Thats so interesting about the 21 chapters thing, I've never known that because I've never looked up stuff about the book (aside from the fact that the final chapter was omitted from the film). And good observation about the droogs. I wouldn't have thought about it but they are very similar to that mod culture that I really know because of Pete and the Who. There are definitely a lot of similarities!

Still not to late to do a sequel. Why not a Clockwork Orange II with with both the sons of Beatles and the sons of Stones involved. Must be a more providing work for them than stupid modelling... What do you think Jack?

Quote
RollingFreak
Possibly my favorite Kubrick movie, but then again I love the Shining which a lot of people I have met recently hate so what do I know!

Love The Shining! I think the thing that makes some people really dislike it--including Stephen King--is that it's different from the book. But I saw the movie first, then read the book years later. It is different from the book, but a film should be. You live with a book over a period of days or weeks, but you take in the entire story through a movie in just 90 minutes or 2 hours or whatever. So of course, for the sake of pacing, things need to be changed around or dropped altogether.

I love the desolate, snowbound atmosphere of the movie. When you're snowed in on a winter's night and there's no place you can go, then it makes for especially great viewing--with John Carpenter's The Thing as a double feature.

I recently bought The Shining on DVD, and it has a special feature on the making of The Shining, in which we find out about Jack Nicholson's rice and noodles and we watch him brush his teeth....





And here's an extended doc on making The Shining, titled Staircases to Nowhere.

The other day I heard Stephen King say he was going to write the sequel to The Shining.
He mentioned Nicholson so maybe he's grown to appreciate the film more, don't know.

~"Love is Strong"~

Milk laced with mescaline was the bev of choice, if I remember



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-29 05:50 by schillid.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
RollingFreak
Possibly my favorite Kubrick movie, but then again I love the Shining which a lot of people I have met recently hate so what do I know!

Love The Shining! I think the thing that makes some people really dislike it--including Stephen King--is that it's different from the book. But I saw the movie first, then read the book years later. It is different from the book, but a film should be. You live with a book over a period of days or weeks, but you take in the entire story through a movie in just 90 minutes or 2 hours or whatever. So of course, for the sake of pacing, things need to be changed around or dropped altogether.

I love the desolate, snowbound atmosphere of the movie. When you're snowed in on a winter's night and there's no place you can go, then it makes for especially great viewing--with John Carpenter's The Thing as a double feature.

I recently bought The Shining on DVD, and it has a special feature on the making of The Shining, in which we find out about Jack Nicholson's rice and noodles and we watch him brush his teeth....





And here's an extended doc on making The Shining, titled Staircases to Nowhere.

I had never seen that first documentary. Wow that was amazing! Thanks so much! I agree with everything you said about The Shining.

Has anyone here seen Room 237 (a documentary about The Shining)?

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
Has anyone here seen Room 237 (a documentary about The Shining)?

I did. It was... interesting. It was cool to see people dissect the film that way with their different theories, although at least half of them were or seemed bogus. It was stuff like "hm, I never knew Jack was reading a playboy, and that is pretty funny that he just leaves it there in plain sight for his boss to see. But does that really have to do with the Holocaust or the genocide of the Native Americans?" Weird stuff like that, although it was an enjoyable hour and a half. Stuff like noticing the carpet changed direction or that a chair was removed from shot to shot was pretty interesting seeing as Kubrick was so meticulous its weird that stuff would slide. I saw it by myself and had fun. I took my dad a few weeks later, who loves the Shining, and he fell asleep. He thought it was too much bogus stuff. Guess it depends how you feel about that sort of stuff thats just conjecture.