Stanley Kubrick’s brutal trick to film one of the most terrifying scenes in ‘A Clockwork Orange’: making it real

In the 70s, the world of cinema experienced a period in which some directors pursued realism in ways that are unthinkable today: scenes were filmed without doubles, with extreme practical effects and with days that dozens could be repeated (or even more than a hundred) times until the desired result is achieved. That obsession with authenticity left unrepeatable moments… and also stories that are difficult to believe today. Real pain. At that time in history, the sector was going through a period of radical experimentation where some directors were willing to take its actors to the limit in order to capture something authentic on the screen. In that context, one of the most disturbing scenes of modern cinema, a sequence that not only sought to make the viewer uncomfortable, but ended up transferring that suffering directly to the body of the leading actor. Thus, what should be a representation of control and violence ended up becoming a extreme physical experience that would forever mark the person who played it. Along the way, he would extend the legend of a director: Stanley Kubrick. When perfectionism is risk. Stanley Kubrick was already known for his obsession with detail, but in this case he crossed an extremely dangerous line. As? Instead of simulating the most famous scene of Clockwork Orangedecided to make it as real as possible: the devices that kept Alex’s character’s eyes open They were not propsand the medical procedure wasn’t a cinematic illusion either. In other words, the search for absolute authenticity led to a situation in which actor Malcolm McDowell’s security was compromised. in the background compared to the final image, reflecting a way of directing where the result justified practically any means. The impossible scene: hours of open eyes. Yes, McDowell was literally tied to a chair with his eyelids forced to remain open while he watched violent images during long days of filming, exactly as happened to the character he played. a real doctorin charge of keeping his eyes hydrated, had to constantly apply drops to avoid irreversible damage. However, the situation became complicated when that same doctor received instructions to act on the scenedividing his attention between his medical function and his improvised role. The result was a disastrous environment where control was diluted just when it was needed most. An avoidable injury. The failure was as simple as it was disturbing: while the instruments kept the actor’s eyes open, the eyelids began to slide out of their position. directly scrape the cornea. Plus: under anesthesia, the actor could not feel the damage at that moment, which made the situation even more dangerous. When the effect wore off, the pain was immediate and extremeto the point of requiring urgent treatment with morphine. The most shocking thing was not the injury itself, that too, but its character completely avoidable: it was enough that the doctor had been focused on his role or that the scene had been filmed with simulated effects. The price of perfection. Far from stopping, filming continued. The director, dissatisfied with some plans, demanded to repeat the sceneforcing the actor to once again face an experience that he already knew was painful. That decision turned an accident into a conscious process of sufferingone where the anticipation of pain was as harsh as the physical damage itself. In short, if the scene that the viewer perceives was uncomfortable, it was because, to a large extent, he was not alone in front of a sublime performance (which also, of course), he was in front of a real reaction in an extreme situation. Kubrick and his actors. The truth is that the episode was not an exception, but part of a pattern. Kubrick’s method was based on countless occasions in repeating takes until the actor’s emotional defenses are broken and more authentic reactions are obtained, as also happened in another case famous with actress Shelley Duvall in The Shining. His way of working has been celebrated for the results, but also questioned for the human cost which it implied. In this case, the line between demanding management and unnecessary risk became especially blurred. The final paradox. For years, McDowell himself came to resent the film for what it had cost him, physically and emotionally. Over time, however, ended up accepting that had been part of an unrepeatable work. The great irony here is that one of the most iconic scenes in modern cinema owes part of its force to a suffering that should never have happened. If you will, it is also an uncomfortable reminder that, sometimes, behind cinematic perfection there is not only talent, but also errorsrisks and decisions that today would be difficult to justify. Image | Warner In Xataka | The wildest race on the Olympic tracks in Cortina was in 1981. A man launched himself dodging bullets and assassins on a motorcycle In Xataka | One of the best comedies in history turned this simple scene into the most expensive. 9/11 and a highway were to blame

Years ago the series had more scenes. The platforms are cutting them without warning

The seasons of the series streaming They are increasingly shorter, and not always by creative decision. Behind the cuts are skyrocketing production costs, subscriber retention strategies and, sometimes, decisions made from the accounting department and not from the writers’ table. The phenomenon is so broad that it also affects altered versions of classic series, eliminating scenes and changing soundtracks without warning. This episode is not how I remembered. You are reviewing a series that you already know and something goes wrong: a scene that you remembered clearly does not appear. Or the opening credits song sounds different. Or the final episode ends earlier than it should. It is not always a failure of your memory. Often, the version you see in front of you is not the same as the one you saw back in the day. This phenomenon has gained visibility in recent months thanks to users who document on social networks the differences between versions, and its scope is greater than it seems. The platforms of streaming They offer, in many cases and without realizing it, degraded or cut versions of series and movies. The reasons behind these decisions are multiple. Sustained contraction. Before entering into the phenomenon of cuts without notice, it is worth remembering some facts. According to the firm Parrot Analyticsthe average number of episodes per season on free-to-air television fell from 16.2 in 2018 to 11.8 in July 2024. On streaming platforms streamingwhich already started from shorter seasons, have also contracted: from 10.7 episodes on average in 2018 to 9.3 in the same period. Some studies talk that production companies and platforms are increasingly stingy when it comes to renewing or ordering series: they simply ask for fewer episodes. One last piece of information about this reduction: in 2025, the number of original series streaming fell by 11% year-on-year. Beyond those series that suffer, against the will of their creators, cuts in the number of their episodes (as it happened at the time with ‘The House of the Dragon’), there are cuts from series already broadcast. For example, the final episode of ‘Friday Night Lights’, which is now on Filmin (in its shortened version) had a duration of more than 60 minutes. When it moved to NBC for free-to-air broadcast, it was cut to less than 45 minutes to fit with advertising. Complete scenes are missing from this mutilated version. Here we can see a similar case with an episode of ‘The Bill Cosby Hour’ streaming. Music, another point of friction. The licensing rights for musical themes do not always extend to all platforms or expire after a period of time, which requires replacing original songs with others. When ‘The Wonder Years’ arrived on Netflix in 2011 after years of being blocked by rights issues, numerous songs had been replaced, including Joe Cocker’s iconic version of ‘With a Little Help from My Friends’ that opened each episode. In ‘Dawson Grows’, Paula Cole’s original tune was replaced in streaming by a Jann Arden song; The fan outcry was so intense that Cole ended up re-recording his own song. It is a common problem, which has meant that legendary series like ‘Luz de Luna’ or ‘Búscate la vida’ have spent years without being able to be seen, not even in domestic formats (in the case of Chris Peterson’s legendary series, we are still waiting). The war of the formats. We’ve already talked about itbut it is not bad to remember that the image format has been manipulated on countless occasions to adapt it to widescreen televisions. The case of ‘The Simpsons’ is perhaps the most popularsince many jokes with the original square format of the first seasons were lost. Also The case of ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ is popular‘, which in its panoramic format and retouched colors makes the illusion of night scenes from the original series disappear and allows the filming crew and sets to be seen. A disaster that can only be solved by going to the first editions on DVD before their “remastering”. What to do to solve it. One more time: do not completely rule out the physical format. Until now we were certain (video game fans have been suffering from this for years) that fluctuations in catalogs, even of material that you have purchased and that is theoretically yours, can play tricks on you. We are now convinced that the fact that a film is in a catalog today streaming It does not assure us that it will be within a year: reasons as spurious as saving fees or storage space for platform owners can lead to the elimination of thousands of movies and series. The only way to preserve a movie or series without anyone modifying it, to make sure that no one is going to cut it because they think you are not prepared to pay enough attention to it, is to have your own copy. In physical or digital form, but in a safe place. Until recently, keeping our DVDs, our CDs with games, our cartridges and our vinyl, our records with backup copies was something for nostalgic and paranoid people. Now it is a matter of preserving what the platforms continue to mutilate. In Xataka | Generation Z has found the remedy to streaming subscription fatigue: buying DVDs again

Reddit, nude scenes and an out of control forum. This is how a Dane ended up being convicted in a case that marks a precedent

We have all seen a clip from a movie circulating online as if it were a loose object, separated from the story to which it belongs. In Denmark, a case has shown that this decontextualization can have very real consequences when what is shared are nude scenes and, in addition, other protected content. A Reddit moderator has been convicted in a case involving both the dissemination of sequences of actresses in Danish films and series taken out of context and the massive exchange of audiovisual works. The forum that triggered the case, “SeDetForPlottet”, was not a marginal space within Reddit: it brought together thousands of users and maintained constant activity around nude scenes taken from Danish productions. There, cut clips were shared and described with the name and surname of the actresses, which generated concern among several professionals in the sector. Your complaints They arrived on a local radio programwhich focused on how these images circulated converted into sexualized content. A case that ends in a criminal conviction. The public exposure of the subreddit led to the Rights Alliance will report the matter in 2023 on behalf of actors, directors, producers and two major Danish networks. The police then opened an investigation that identified the moderator, who was arrested in September 2024 after it was confirmed that he had shared hundreds of edited clips and additional material on a private platform. The accused admitted the facts and, in November 2025, received a sentence of seven months of suspended prison, a figure that avoids entering prison if the imposed conditions are met, in addition to 120 hours of community service. When the problem is not just money. The Danish ruling is based on an unusual concept outside the legal field: the right to respectwhich seeks to protect the integrity of a work and those who participate in it, and which in this case is applied for the first time in a criminal conviction in Denmark. The court understood that extracting the scenes, cutting them and presenting them with a sexualized approach altered their original meaning and harmed performers and creators. Prosecutor Jan Østergaard stressed that the case shows that these violations are taken seriously, while copyright expert Alina Trapova explained to the BBC that the matter is “unusual” for focusing on damage to artistic integrity rather than economic damage. What is protected when a scene is shot. For associations of actors and directors, the failure represents an explicit recognition that the decontextualized use of nude scenes directly affects those who appear in them. In the statement published by Rettighedsalliancenthe director of the Danish Association of Actors, Maria Ventegodt, welcomed that the ruling recognized the violation suffered by its members and reinforced confidence that the authorities will act in these cases. In that same text, the directors’ spokesperson, Søren Balle, highlighted that altering and redistributing these scenes harms both the performers and the integrity of the work. On the Internet we live daily with fragments of films converted into memes, parodies or small clips that serve to comment on a scene. This clip culture has normalized the fact that works travel without context, something that usually goes unnoticed when the objective is to play with the original reference. But the Danish case had a decisive nuance. There, the dynamic was different: users organized the material by specific names, requested specific scenes and received them through links from a pornographic page. A warning for the era of AI and deepfakes. The Danish case is known at a time when artificial intelligence tools allow you to alter videos with increasing ease. In this context, the head of Rights Alliance, Maria Fredenslund, pointed out that the ruling marks a necessary limit on how images of actors and creators are used and warned that this type of protection will be relevant in a scenario with more content generated and manipulated by AI. As we say, the sentence is set in the form of a suspended prison, so the accused will not enter prison as long as he meets the conditions imposed. With that part already resolved, the case moves to civil proceedings, where the rights holders have requested between 15,000 and 30,000 Danish crowns for each clip broadcast (between 2,000 and 4,000 euros). Images | Brett Jordan | Screenshot | appshunter In Xataka | For the EU, our privacy has always been more important than AI. Until he understood that he was left behind

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.