A statement by Kubrick may have been made years before it was published or may appear abridged in a collection. The date, interviewer, and question help establish what it was responding to before it is turned into a general definition of his filmmaking.
The publication date is not always the date of the conversation
Robert Emmett Ginna places his interview with Kubrick in 1960, after Spartacus and while Lolita was in preparation. He explains that the conversation was conducted for Horizon but was not published at the time. Selections from that material appeared in 1999. Reading those answers as statements made at the end of Kubrick’s career would change the context in which they were spoken.
The difference even affects the questions the text seems to answer. A reader in 1999 knows about films that did not yet exist in 1960. That reader may recognize connections in retrospect, but should not assume that every early answer was intended to explain later works. Kubrick’s interest in a writer, for example, may be documented at a particular date without automatically turning it into a settled plan to adapt that writer’s work decades later.
Joseph Gelmis offers another example of the gap between conversation and publication. The Film Director as Superstar appeared in 1970, while the meetings and exchanges that led to the interview took place in 1968 and 1969. The bibliographic reference should identify the book; historical analysis also needs to establish when the answers were given. Both details serve different purposes and can be retained together.
A digital reproduction adds a third date: the date it was published online. That date does not update the interviewee’s views or turn a historical interview into a recent statement. Nor does it guarantee that all the original material is reproduced. For evaluating a source , the stated provenance, publication medium, and scope of the available selection all matter.
The questions define what an answer is doing
Tim Cahill’s conversation, published in Rolling Stone on August 27, 1987, took place around the time of Full Metal Jacket. In it, Kubrick challenges the demand to sum up a film in a brief explanation. That answer addresses a particular kind of question; it does not mean he refused to discuss every work-related decision. The exchange goes on to address specific issues.
The distinction between asking about the overall meaning of a work and asking about a particular decision is methodologically useful. The first invites a general synthesis; the second may produce a more focused description. Rejecting the first does not necessarily invalidate answers to the second. Before presenting the two as a contradiction, it is necessary to check whether they were actually answering the same question.
It is also important to preserve who is proposing an interpretation. A question may suggest a similarity between films and receive an answer that qualifies or rejects it. Citing only the similarity and later attributing it to the director reverses the situation. The dialogue makes it possible to distinguish the interviewer’s reading from Kubrick’s explanation and from any conclusions a later researcher may draw.
This care is especially important when discussing collaboration in writing. A director’s answer about the origin of a scene expresses his account of a shared process. It can be compared with scripts, credits, and other testimony; it should not, by itself, be treated as proof that no one else was involved. Attribution preserves both the value of the statement and its limits.
The preparation of a film raises a similar problem. A retrospective explanation may organize decisions that did not form such a neat sequence while the work was underway. Production documents make it possible to compare that account with the record. The point is not to declare testimony false because it came later, but to distinguish remembering an experience from keeping a contemporaneous record of each step.
Editing, translation, and comparison across time
Published interviews are often presented as conversations organized for reading. When the source itself states that it offers excerpts, that qualification must be preserved. A jump between two answers does not necessarily mean the interviewee abruptly changed the subject. It may reflect an editorial selection. Nor does the absence of a question from a reproduction authorize reconstructing it with an invented sentence.
Translation introduces further choices. A term relating to work, emotion, or control may carry different nuances depending on the sentence in which it appears. A paraphrase should be presented as a paraphrase; a quotation in quotation marks must faithfully follow an identifiable version. Joining separate passages to produce a more forceful sentence changes the testimony, even if each passage comes from the same interview.
Comparing different periods makes it possible to ask more precise questions than simply looking for a permanent tenet. We can examine how the interviewer’s question changes, which film is finished, which project is still underway, and what production experience lies behind the exchange. A change in an answer does not always need to be resolved as an inconsistency: it may reflect a different situation. Nor should we claim absolute continuity without considering those differences.
The retrospective accounts of his methods require the same kind of comparison. Grouping statements from different decades under a single label may be useful as an index, but not as proof of a rule that was always applied. The task is to preserve dates and subjects: a statement about editing one film does not automatically describe casting choices for another.
Interviews also contribute to discussions of the director’s public image and engage with later family portraits. None of these forms of testimony offers an unmediated voice. The most precise reading keeps the interviewer, occasion, and editing visible, so that a statement remains a situated response rather than a quote available to justify any interpretation.
Sources: Robert Emmett Ginna, The Artist Speaks for Himself, a conversation the interviewer dates to 1960 and published in excerpts in 1999; reproduced in Archivio Kubrick. Joseph Gelmis, The Film Director as Superstar, 1970, interview with Stanley Kubrick and introductory note. Tim Cahill, The Rolling Stone Interview: Stanley Kubrick, August 27, 1987.
View all articles in Kubrick’s Public Life, Relationships, and Portraits