Kubrick’s Development Work on One-Eyed Jacks

The collaboration took place before the film we know

One-Eyed Jacks was based on Charles Neider’s novel The Authentic Death of Hendry Jones. The American Film Institute catalog traces a development process involving several writers and schedule changes. Kubrick joined as the planned director, but left the project before Brando took over directing. The finished film has a longer development history than its cast and final credits suggest.

In a 1969 interview with Joseph Gelmis, Kubrick recalled spending six months working on the script with Marlon Brando and Calder Willingham. This describes his own involvement; it is not a claim that he directed scenes that were later retained. A considerable amount of time can be spent writing without producing any narrative footage filmed by that director.

The script development process makes it possible to distinguish responsibilities that brief accounts often lump together. Proposing a structure, discussing characters, and preparing to direct are related tasks, but they are not identical. Kubrick’s presence at that stage explains his historical association with the title; it does not automatically change who directed the film later or make him a credited writer of every scene.

The credits for the 1961 film identify Marlon Brando as director and Guy Trosper and Calder Willingham as writers. They are the reference point for crediting the finished work. The earlier development can be studied alongside them, but not used to replace them based on the assumption that a famous figure must have been responsible for the images that interest viewers most.

Accounts of the departure should remain attributed

Kubrick told Gelmis that the relationship ended amicably, a few weeks before Brando began directing. That description comes from a retrospective interview with one of the participants. It can be cited as Kubrick’s account without treating it as proof that there were no disagreements during the preceding months. A parting presented publicly as cordial can still follow a period of tense work.

The AFI cites November 1958 reports that offer another level of evidence. The official explanation referred to a scheduling conflict and Kubrick’s work on Lolita; at the same time, the press mentioned creative differences. It is important to preserve the distinction between an announced reason and the rumors circulating at the time. Those rumors should not be turned into a reconstructed confrontation scene with invented dialogue.

The phrases “he was fired” and “he left” can condense different accounts of the same professional outcome. Choosing between them requires a specific source and an assessment of what it knows. It is not enough to pick the more dramatic version because it fits an image of Brando or Kubrick. The documentation supports the fact of Kubrick’s departure and the context of disagreement; more detailed claims about the private circumstances need equally precise attribution.

The relationship between Kubrick and Kirk Douglas offers another example of negotiation among acting, production, and directing, but it does not by itself explain what happened with Brando. An actor who also controls aspects of production and a planned director may disagree about characters, the script, and authority. That general possibility does not prove what was said in every discussion about One-Eyed Jacks. It helps distinguish a documented professional disagreement from an invented psychological explanation.

The finished shots are not proof of what Kubrick would have done

Brando’s film can be analyzed in terms of its landscapes, pacing, and relationships among characters, but those qualities should not be attributed to Kubrick based on resemblance. A wide shot or a prolonged pause is not an exclusive signature. To establish a specific contribution from the earlier development, one would need to connect an identifiable instruction to the decision carried out—and even then, distinguish the idea from its execution.

Nor can an alternate version be reconstructed simply by removing from the film whatever seems most characteristic of Brando. Directing shapes performances, staging, and the selection of material throughout the process. A film shot by Kubrick would not necessarily have been the same set of images with different editing. That hypothesis goes beyond what the surviving sources can demonstrate.

The case differs from Burning Secret, where Kubrick’s project resulted in a screenplay but not a feature film produced under that project. One-Eyed Jacks, by contrast, is a later film connected to the development, with established responsibilities. The comparison helps explain why not every title associated with the director should be grouped under an undifferentiated list of lost films.

It also differs from Lunatic at Large, whose original form is associated with a treatment. In one case, a collaboration ended but continued toward a shoot with another director; in the other, the material did not follow that same path during Kubrick’s time. The historical category should follow the evidence for each project, not the expectations its title might raise.

Kubrick’s verifiable contribution to One-Eyed Jacks belongs to months of development and discussion before his departure. Brando later took over directing, as confirmed by the credits and the film. Holding both facts in view acknowledges the earlier work without claiming the completed film, and preserves the different accounts of the disagreement without turning them into a single anecdote more certain than the sources allow.

References: Stanley Kubrick, interview by Joseph Gelmis (1969), published in The Film Director as Superstar (1970). American Film Institute, One-Eyed Jacks (1961) entry, production timeline based on 1958 press reports. The Criterion Collection, One-Eyed Jacks credits: directed by Marlon Brando; written by Guy Trosper and Calder Willingham.

View all articles in Other Screenplays and Projects by Stanley Kubrick