Napoleon and Barry Lyndon raise shared questions about history, rank, and visual representation. Their materials, however, belong to different stages: an unfilmed project and a completed 1975 film.
Continuity of interest does not prove a literal substitution
The proximity of the two works invites a convenient explanation: Kubrick could not make Napoleon, so he turned the material he had prepared into Barry Lyndon. That claim confuses continuity with equivalence. An interest in Europe’s past and the experience of researching it can carry over from one project to another without one becoming a shortened version of the other. To establish a specific transfer, evidence of that element is needed—not merely a general resemblance.
The source material already establishes a difference. Napoleon follows the life of a historical figure amid political and military events; Barry Lyndon adapts a novel by William Makepeace Thackeray about a fictional character. The first centers on a life associated with government and war. The second examines a social ascent shaped by institutions, money, and personal relationships—forces the protagonist cannot fully control.
The cancellation of Napoleon was not followed by an immediate end to Kubrick’s interest. Correspondence with David Chandler preserved in SK/14/6/28 begins in 1976, after Barry Lyndon, and revisits the possibility of a collaboration related to Napoleon. This makes it difficult to present the 1975 film as a substitute that definitively exhausted the earlier project.
A more limited documentary connection is defensible: both works belong to a practice of historical research that turns questions about a period into production challenges. The research assembled for Napoleon and the completed production of Barry Lyndon make it possible to compare that practice. They do not justify claiming that every book, image, design, or technical solution passed unchanged from one file to the other.
Looking at the past does not always produce the same story
Barry Lyndon makes rank perceptible through forms of address, positions within a room, and access to certain circles. Redmond learns how to present himself, but he cannot decree that everyone will recognize his legitimacy. In the Napoleon screenplay, political authority occupies a different place: the protagonist has public instruments of decision-making, though these do not eliminate emotional difficulties. The comparison is more precise when it preserves this imbalance of power.
The planned relationship between Napoleon and Josephine offers a way to examine intimacy shaped by political demands. In Barry Lyndon, marriage to Lady Lyndon changes property, access, and social standing. These are not two versions of the same couple. A comparative reading can explore how private relationships affect public presentation without reducing different characters to interchangeable examples of ambition.
The viewer’s position also changes. Barry Lyndon has a soundtrack, framing, and pacing that can be examined in the film itself. What survives of Napoleon is a text with directions and other preparatory materials. Comparing their narrators requires recognizing that a written voice does not determine how it would have been interpreted once recorded. The completed film allows us to study an effect; the screenplay offers a structure and a set of possibilities.
The visual materials for Napoleon show processes of classification and design. The costumes in Barry Lyndon can also be examined in relation to bodies acting within spaces. This difference prevents us from judging the two appearances as equivalent results. A frontal drawing of a uniform and a dance scene address different questions, even when both show an interest in clothing, rank, and forms of behavior.
Technical connections require their own evidence
The production of Barry Lyndon makes it possible to study decisions that were actually tested during filming. Applying them to Napoleon without documentation would introduce retrospective certainty. The fact that Kubrick may have considered available light or historical interiors for an earlier project does not prove that he had already chosen the same lenses, camera modifications, or procedures later used. Similarity of intent does not establish a specific technical solution.
This caution does not rule out learning. Preparing a film can generate knowledge about archives, specialists, locations, and problems that proves useful later. But the general claim that one project leaves behind experience must be distinguished from a specific material transfer. Saying that a particular costume, set, or shot was reused requires tracing that object or document between the two projects and verifying that it is the same one.
In particular, there was no footage from a Napoleon feature film that Kubrick re-edited to turn it into Barry Lyndon. The designs and tests belong to the preparatory stage, not to a completed film awaiting a new title. Presenting Barry Lyndon as a recovery of lost images would confuse development documents with completed narrative sequences and obscure the work involved in its own adaptation, performances, and editing.
The visual comparison also does not establish a single intention. Wide landscapes can place a person within an order larger than themselves, but that reading depends on how each scene is constructed. In Barry Lyndon, it can be discussed on the basis of the film; for Napoleon, discussion must be limited to the surviving directions. We should not fill in what is missing by using a later work as a template.
The most useful connection therefore preserves two things at once: continuity of questions and difference in answers. Kubrick remained interested in how to represent periods, hierarchies, and individual trajectories. Barry Lyndon resolved those questions in a specific film, while Napoleon remained a body of proposals and materials. Studying them together reveals a working practice without erasing the distinctiveness or documentary status of either project.
References: Stanley Kubrick, Napoleon, screenplay dated September 29, 1969; Barry Lyndon (1975), based on the novel by William Makepeace Thackeray. University of the Arts London, Stanley Kubrick Archive, SK/18/1 and correspondence with David Chandler, SK/14/6/28. Bonhams, Designing an Empire: The John Mollo Archive, lots relating to Napoleon and Barry Lyndon.
View all articles in Kubrick’s Napoleon: Development of an Unmade Project