Not every text called a screenplay describes the same stage. Some propose what will be filmed; others revise a proposal or record dialogue that is already part of a film being prepared for circulation.
Identify the Document Before Comparing Its Words
Reading screenplay versions requires starting with the document itself. The film’s title is not enough: you need the date, provenance, stated authorship, and relationship to other documents. Two copies may contain the same text but have different annotations. A bound version is not necessarily the latest, and a loose sheet may belong to a localized revision rather than a complete screenplay.
The Kubrick Archive record SK/10/1/21 describes a screenplay for Lolita dated May 10, 1960, and attributed to Vladimir Nabokov. It distinguishes a bound copy from an unbound copy with deletions. This is a description of materials, not a transcription of their differences. It supports the claim that physical variants exist; it does not allow the content of the deletions to be reconstructed without examining the pages.
This example shows why the word complete needs context. A text may be complete as a writing proposal and still not match the finished film. The document’s completeness does not mean all its scenes were shot or that they retained the same order. The film adaptation of Lolita requires distinguishing the written work from the audiovisual result so that one version does not become the sole measure of fidelity.
The collaboration with screenwriters calls for another note of caution. The final writing credit and the authorship of an annotation do not answer the same question. Someone may be credited for the screenplay without having written every change visible in a copy. Conversely, a handwritten change does not prove that the person who made it was solely responsible for the entire scene.
Partial Revisions and Pages That Should Not Be Assembled Arbitrarily
Another Lolita record, SK/10/1/8, catalogs typed inserts, probably prepared during production, with changes in Kubrick’s hand on some pages. The word probably reflects the scope of the description and should be preserved. Replacing it with an exact filming date would add certainty that the record does not provide.
These inserts pose a different problem from that of a complete draft. To understand their function, it would be necessary to establish which pages they replace, whether they change the numbering or continuity, and which copy they should be associated with. It is not appropriate to join any loose fragment to any screenplay for the same film and present the result as a historical version that actually circulated among the participants.
The sequence of revisions cannot be inferred from the number of corrections alone, either. A clean copy may postdate an annotated one because it incorporates its changes; it may also be a parallel copy intended for another purpose. The text, dates, and provenance must be compared. A more polished appearance does not, by itself, establish a chronology.
The written development of A.I. is a reminder that a project can pass through different authors and stages before reaching its final form. Comparing proposals requires preserving those attributions rather than constructing a supposed single intention of the director from fragments produced at different times. The project’s name remaining the same does not erase the differences among its materials.
The archival description helps locate these distinctions, but it has limits. A record may group several items without detailing every change. The analysis should state when it relies on the catalog and when on direct examination of the original. Claiming that a specific person crossed out a phrase requires more specific evidence than the mere presence of their name in the collection.
A Text Created After Filming Is Not a Promise of What Was Going to Be Filmed
Eyes Wide Shut offers an example of documentation classified as postproduction material: series SK/17/4/4 includes annotated transcripts for editing, dialogue timing records, and a combined dialogue, continuity, and subtitle list. The record describes tools related to material that had already been worked on. They should not automatically be read as instructions that preceded the filming of each scene.
The direction of time matters. A preparation screenplay can help establish what had been planned; a transcript can help identify what was said in a working version. The fact that both contain similar words does not prove that they are interchangeable. To study a change, it is necessary to know whether the comparison is between a proposal and a result, or between two later records of different results.
The continuity and shot identification documents can establish connections, but they do not justify bypassing the film. A written line may not have been performed, may have been filmed in several ways, or may have been left out of the edit. The correspondence must be checked against identified scenes and versions, without treating the absence of a line as automatic proof of a reason for removing it.
It is also necessary to separate dialogue from staging. A film may preserve the words while changing their effect through pauses, framing, performance, or sound. Textual comparison detects certain differences, but it does not exhaust the screenplay’s film adaptation. An analysis that only lists added and deleted lines leaves out decisions that transform the same conversation without changing its verbal content.
The discarded material ultimately requires precise terminology. A written alternative is not a filmed scene, and a filmed scene is not necessarily part of a released cut. Screenplay versions can trace possibilities and revisions when their relationships are known. On their own, they do not provide a complete alternative film or a reliable explanation of every change between the writing and the release.
Sources: Stanley Kubrick Archive, University of the Arts London, SK/10/1/21, Lolita, May 10, 1960; SK/10/1/8, Script inserts, circa 1960; SK/17/4/4, Dialogue and Film Editing, 1998–1999. Analysis of catalog descriptions, without attributing readings of unconsulted manuscripts.
View all articles in Kubrick’s Working Method, Documents, and Archive