In the Napoleon screenplay, the relationship with Josephine makes it possible to compare public authority with an emotional dependence that authority cannot resolve. This analysis concerns the text dated September 1969, not filmed scenes.
Two different experiences within the same relationship
The relationship between Napoleon and Josephine is not reduced in the screenplay to the love story of a ruler. Its dramatic function is to introduce a space where power does not guarantee reciprocity. Someone who seeks to organize campaigns and public decisions cannot order another person to feel the same way. This difference allows intimacy to be read as a difficulty in its own right, not as a respite between military events.
The text dated September 29, 1969, uses letters and voices to contrast the characters’ perspectives. The intensity of Napoleon’s words does not automatically match Josephine’s willingness. The reader receives information that prevents accepting one person’s version as a complete description of the couple. This distribution of perspectives matters more than deciding which of them sums up an alleged thesis about all marriages.
A letter also requires distance. The writer tries to reach someone who is not present and cannot control what will happen when the letter is read. The screenplay can place that declaration alongside an activity that contradicts the writer’s expectations. The intended result is a difference between what the character believes they are sustaining through words and what the reader knows about the situation. It is not yet possible to determine the specific effect a voice or film edit would have produced.
The structure of the Napoleon screenplay examines the narrative as a whole. Here, the focus is on a more limited operation: the couple does not share a single consciousness. Each character acts according to their own desires, information, and expectations. That asymmetry can produce jealousy, calculation, or a mistaken interpretation of gestures, without requiring every private decision to be explained as a symptom of a historical figure’s personality.
Intimacy enters the representation of power
The contrast between campaigns and private life does not establish two completely independent worlds, either. An intimate relationship can affect how a ruler is presented in public; a political demand can alter what happens within a marriage. The screenplay makes use of this interplay. The same person must respond as lover, husband, and authority figure, even though those roles do not allow him to demand exactly the same things.
The imperial divorce written into the text offers a concrete example. The divorce is presented through a ceremony before the court and family, with declarations that turn a couple’s decision into an official event. When Josephine cannot continue her statement and someone else completes it, personal words become part of a procedure. The written scene makes it possible to observe a tension between the public form of the act and the cost it exacts from those who take part.
There is no need to resolve that tension by attributing a single emotion to everyone in attendance. A ceremony’s organization can impose an order of speaking and an appearance of continuity even when its participants hesitate. The presence of protocol does not eliminate affection, but neither does it protect affection from political needs. The analysis of power and institutions makes it possible to compare this situation with other forms of authority without conflating their contexts.
Josephine’s position also changes. Reading her only as the cause of Napoleon’s difficulties would reproduce the perspective of someone who considers himself wronged. The text gives the characters distinct voices, behaviors, and situations, making it possible to ask another question: how much room does each character have to negotiate a relationship shaped by unequal power? Answering that question does not require idealizing either of them or turning the dramatic depiction into a historical verdict on their entire lives.
What can be analyzed in a relationship that was never filmed
The screenplay preserves encounters after the separation, including ones set at Malmaison. Their dramatic interest lies in the fact that the institutional change in the relationship does not immediately erase its emotional history. The conditions of access, forms of interaction, and public standing change, while memories and expectations persist. Marital status can be established through an act; shared experience cannot be reorganized as quickly.
This difference offers a point of connection with desire and jealousy in Kubrick’s other works, but the type of evidence must be kept in view. In a finished film, we can study a silence, a glance, and its duration. In Napoleon, we examine the words and directions in a document. A written pause opens up possibilities for interpretation; it does not determine an actor’s voice, the camera’s distance, or the timing an editor would have chosen.
The same is true of settings and costumes. A room, a ceremony, or a visit can organize the characters socially, but the text’s directions are not enough to reconstruct a definitive staging. The project’s design materials are another source and should be considered carefully. Not every preparatory image corresponds to a specific scene, and not every written scene has a surviving visual solution.
The relationship can be read as a conflict between the ability to act and the ability to receive recognition. Napoleon has public instruments at his disposal that do not guarantee intimate assent; Josephine takes part in a relationship whose effects extend beyond the private sphere. This is an interpretation of the dramatic construction, not a documented statement of the director’s intent. It allows for other readings that give greater weight to dependence, social performance, or the couple’s changing positions.
The historical documentation assembled for Napoleon makes it possible to investigate the origins of certain episodes, but it does not make the transition from history to screenplay transparent. Selecting, shortening, and juxtaposing already alter a relationship. The interest of these written characters lies precisely in that arrangement: the intimate bond introduces uncertainty where public power seems to promise control, without either sphere fully explaining the other.
References: Stanley Kubrick, Napoleon, screenplay dated September 29, 1969, sequences involving correspondence, marriage, imperial divorce, and Malmaison. University of the Arts London, Stanley Kubrick Archive, Napoleon section, SK/18/1. The interpretations refer to the written document and do not presume a completed staging.
View all articles in Kubrick’s Napoleon: Development of an Unmade Project