Kubrick’s Napoleon had a screenplay, location research, casting proposals, and production plans. These materials make it possible to assess its preparation without turning a negotiation into a completed shoot.
From the Historical Archive to the Work Sites
The material preparation for Napoleon required turning an extensive biography into feasible workdays. A palace might be appealing for its architecture yet impractical because of travel, permits, or lighting. A landscape suitable for a campaign did not, by itself, solve the problems of lodging, costumes, or moving an army of extras. The project had to coordinate these issues, not simply assemble attractive images of Europe.
The Stanley Kubrick Archive holds a section on production preparation, SK/18/1/1, with documentation on casting and locations. Its subdivisions include studies of Romania and places considered for battles. The existence of these files demonstrates organized work; it does not mean every photographed place was a contracted location. A folder may contain alternatives that were being compared precisely because no final choice had yet been made.
It is useful to distinguish this search from the work of historians. Napoleon historical research provided timelines, references, and questions about the characters. Location scouting had to address a different question: where to create an image that met those needs. A real setting and a substitute location could compete for the same cinematic purpose, without choosing the latter meaning that all historical requirements had been abandoned.
The production plan did not remain static, either. An October 1971 memo proposed separating small interiors, medium-scale exteriors, and large troop movements. This phased organization helps show how much calculation had gone into the project. It also shows that work was still being reorganized after the initial financing difficulties, rather than following a single schedule that had been permanently set.
A proposed cast is not the same as a cast that performed
The names associated with the project relate to different circumstances. In his 2019 interview with Lynsey Ford for Cineaste, Jan Harlan recalled David Hemmings as the choice for Napoleon, with an agreement contingent on the production moving forward. Harlan placed the discussions about Jack Nicholson at a later stage. These were not two actors replacing each other during a shoot: no such shoot ever took place.
Audrey Hepburn’s letter, preserved as SK/18/1/1/1/1 and dated November 17, 1968, is a different kind of evidence. The actress declined to participate because she wanted to stay away from work at the time. The catalog identifies the likely role as Joséphine. The distinction matters: a documented response exists, while the character identification retains the caution of the archival description.
A declined offer should not be added to a cast list as though it resulted in a performance. Nor does an actor’s expressed interest prove an unconditional contract. Availability, financing, dates, and acceptance of the terms could all still be unresolved. This distinction is especially important when popular lists group names from different years under the same photo of a supposedly finalized cast.
Retrospective accounts add information that may not appear in an isolated letter, but they have their own perspective. Harlan took part in the planning and explained the plans from that experience. His recollections can be clearly attributed without treating them as a surviving contract. Kubrick and Jan Harlan’s collaboration helps place that coordinating role in context, distinct from the artistic decision-making for each character.
The Scale Depended on How the Film Was Organized
The 1971 memo envisioned performers’ contracts allowing work to be divided into stages. That provision affected the production as a whole: if actors had to return after a break, their availability would shape the schedule and could change the budget. Finding a suitable lead was not enough. The working conditions had to fit a film spread across locations, seasons, and very different needs.
The planned armies introduced another level of organization. Different numbers of soldiers and horses appear in recollections and publications about the project. Repeating one of them as the definitive complement would obscure those variations. What is useful from the documentary record is the identification of efforts to secure support for large crowds and the role Romania played in those plans—not the assertion that a certain number of people actually worked in front of Kubrick’s cameras.
The distinction between an offered capacity and an available resource also applies to costumes. A proposal might estimate clothing for large groups without all those costumes having been made. Uniform studies and tests made it possible to evaluate appearance and cost, but their existence does not confirm that a complete order was fulfilled. The process moved forward through partial decisions that depended on one another.
Preparation should not be measured only by what was missing. A phased schedule, an actress’s response, and a location file are concrete results of the preparatory work. Each answers a different question: how to organize the shoot, who was available, and which spaces could be used. Together, they describe a production studied in detail, though they do not prove that every version of it was only days away from starting.
The story of Napoleon’s cancellation explains why that planning did not become a film. For comparison with a historical project that did make it to production, the production of Barry Lyndon offers a different case. Its actual decisions should not be retroactively applied to Napoleon: the connection between the research does not erase the difference between planning a shoot and carrying it out on location.
References: University of the Arts London, Stanley Kubrick Archive, SK/18/1/1 and SK/18/1/1/1/1. Jan Harlan, interview by Lynsey Ford, “Stanley Kubrick’s Napoleon, The Greatest Movie Never Made,” Cineaste, Fall 2019. Stanley Kubrick, memo dated October 20, 1971, reproduced in Eva-Maria Magel’s study of the project for the Stanley Kubrick exhibition catalog.
View all articles in Kubrick’s Napoleon: Development of an Unmade Project