The surviving images of Napoleon belong to different kinds of work: research, design, testing, and planning. Reading them as if they were frames from a finished movie erases the decisions that were still open.
Historical images and working drawings answer different questions
A period reference can help identify a garment, a pose, or a difference in rank. It does not automatically offer a solution for dressing an actor. A preparatory drawing must select information and make it usable: how the pieces are arranged, what can be recognized from different angles, and which parts of the body are covered. The passage from historical document to film costume involves translation, not simple reproduction.
Bonhams’ catalog devoted to the John Mollo Archive reproduces, as lot 5, designs related to the unmade Napoleon. The illustration of a soldier from the 10th Regiment of Dragoons shows the same uniform from the front and back, with the equipment arranged around the body. It is not a narrative scene. Its layout makes it possible to compare surfaces that a single view would conceal and to locate the relationship between clothing, straps, and weapons.
The double view also prevents confusing the drawing’s function with a character portrait. It does not aim to describe a particular emotion of Napoleon or Josephine. It treats the body as a support for elements that must remain recognizable and coherent as the figure changes orientation. This information could serve different crafts, although the illustration alone does not prove which garments were made or who would ultimately have worn them.
The project research included a much broader range of references. Here, the focus is on the transition to a specific visual instruction. A historical painting may be of interest for its composition; a front-and-back drawing organizes a different kind of knowledge. Calling both materials inspiration without distinguishing how they were used makes it harder to understand what problem each document was meant to solve.
The uniform establishes distinctions before movement begins
The reproduced illustrations show that a uniform is not an undifferentiated surface. Hats, collars, bands, and accessories distribute signals across the body. Even without reconstructing the entire military code, we can see how certain distinctions are concentrated in visible areas. The drawing makes them easy to compare consistently, whereas a future film image would have introduced distance, movement, lighting, and overlapping figures.
Color serves to distinguish elements here. It helps separate pieces and show which areas contrast with others. It is not enough to establish how they would look under a particular light or in a theatrical release print. The printed reproduction of the drawing also involves its own mediation. It would be inappropriate to turn its tones into a definitive palette for the feature Kubrick would have made.
The equipment views also show the relationship between appearance and use. A strap crosses the torso; a weapon occupies one side; a bag changes the shape of the back. These arrangements affect how a body can be read in a group. The analysis does not require us to imagine a movement test that we have not seen. It is enough to recognize that the design prepares a complete figure, not just the part that would look most striking in a front-facing portrait.
Camera distance would have created different requirements. An accessory useful for recognizing rank up close may disappear in a wide shot. This is a production question that helps explain why detail and scale must be studied together, not a claim about definitive shots. The preparation for filming Napoleon documents the material context in which those questions had to become decisions.
A test provides evidence without completing the film
The same catalog describes another group of letters and documents that includes photographs of costumes taken at Kubrick’s home. This reference makes it possible to distinguish designs on paper from the existence of certain material tests. It does not justify claiming that all the planned costumes were completed. A test may be intended precisely to reject, adjust, or compare a solution before reproducing it on a larger scale.
The difference between designing one piece and approving a set is important in a project with large groups. The first operation studies a solution; the second requires reproducing it, adapting it to different people, and maintaining consistency. The document consulted does not provide a complete inventory of garments made. The surviving material is therefore valuable for what it lets us examine directly, not for filling in the missing steps through imagination.
The costume design in Kubrick’s films can be studied in finished films through the relationships among clothing, gesture, and social position. In Napoleon, that final encounter with performance never took place in a feature film. A designed uniform can signal classification and belonging, but it does not contain an interpretation in itself. Likewise, a reference for a female figure does not determine the dramatic behavior of Josephine in the screenplay.
A comparison with the costumes in Barry Lyndon must begin with this difference in the available evidence. There, we have garments photographed in scenes, bodies in motion, and changing situations. Here, we have preparatory materials. We can relate questions about period and hierarchy, but we cannot evaluate both works as if we had two complete films or infer that every earlier design was reused.
Looking at these illustrations as working tools makes it possible to appreciate specific decisions without inventing a finished aesthetic. The orientation of the body, the visibility of accessories, and the separation of pieces can be observed. Shot duration, performers’ behavior, and integration into a sequence cannot. Between those two levels lay the filming that never came to resolve them, and that distance is part of the images’ documentary meaning.
References: Bonhams, Designing an Empire: The John Mollo Archive, catalog dated December 11, 2018, lots 5 and 6, pages 14–16; reproductions and descriptions of materials. University of the Arts London, Stanley Kubrick Archive, Napoleon preparation, SK/18/1/1.
View all articles in Kubrick’s Napoleon: Development of an Unmade Project