147).".
It is therefore established, that Kubrick had no intention to change the story in order to create his own Alex, but that he was simply following the shortened American version of the novel. However, this does not deny the possibility that a difference between the protagonist in the book to the one in the film was intended. Though the intention behind the cutting of the novels last part was not to be found in the secondary sources, the author makes his own statement on what had become of the story. Burgess, originally well disposed towards the movie, also expressed dissatisfaction: "A vindication of free will had become an exaltation of the urge to sin (depth of field p. 147)." After this direct quote of Burgess, Gehrke claims that this radical transformation from the book to the film was not only the result of missing chapters, and that some of the film's most vivid images, the chanting of Singing in the Rain during the rape scene for example, was never part of the book. The amplification of the horror provoked by Alex's crimes is therefore clearly an instrument of Kubrick's. This proves that perhaps the changes Alex is making to his lifestyle are missing accidentally in the film, but Kubrick independently had the intention of making Alex as evil as possible. It is quite understandable that the result of a processing like this might change a story in a way that does not please its originator. Burgess's criticism was confirmed later, Gehrke reports several copycat crimes that stood in direct relation to the film, a gang of youths raping a girl while bellowing Singing in the Rain or a group of teenagers dressed as Alex beating an old homeless person to mention just two examples (cf. depth of field p. 148). These acts attest to a distorted reception of the movie as Burgess claimed, the crimes in the movie were committed in a celebrating manner which might cause false impressions of violent acts and their consequences on some viewers, as not all of them are able to detect the criticism intended.
