A line can emerge during a rehearsal and reach the set as memorized dialogue. Discussing improvisation requires identifying when a contribution was made and what we know about its incorporation into the film.
A spontaneous contribution can end up in writing
In his 2013 interview for DGA Quarterly, James B. Harris explained that while working with Kubrick, they recorded ideas that came up during rehearsals and later incorporated them into the script. The process he recalls separates discovery from execution: the material might originate in a spontaneous contribution, but the actors would then receive prepared pages to work from.
That distinction avoids an overly simple opposition between freedom and control. A revised text can preserve an actor’s idea; an apparently freewheeling take can rely on dialogue that has already been set. A contribution doesn’t disappear just because it has been written down. It changes form within the collaborative process and becomes available to other actors, so they know when to respond, step in, or remain silent.
The distinction affects how we read a performance. A verbal hesitation may seem accidental but be carefully calculated; a perfectly articulated line may have come from an idea improvised days earlier. The result lets us analyze the pacing, the relationship between characters, and the information conveyed. Reconstructing its origins requires testimony or preparatory materials that identify that specific stage.
It also matters what counts as a contribution. It might be new words, a physical action, a change in delivery, or a way of connecting two existing lines. Collaboration on the script isn’t limited to adding memorable lines. An idea can change a scene’s length or power dynamics without introducing a line that the audience remembers on its own.
Sellers and Ermey: Contributions in Different Contexts
The appearances of Clare Quilty in Lolita offer a chance to observe shifts in social persona within a single performance. Sellers changes the way he speaks and approaches Humbert depending on the situation. The repetitions, detours, and apparent difficulty getting to the point prolong the discomfort. We can study this effect without deciding, based on Sellers’s ease, which words he made up in front of the camera.
In the hotel encounter, the conversation seems to keep veering away from any clear objective. Humbert tries to maintain one version of his situation while his interlocutor knows more than he lets on. The comedy depends on the imbalance between them, not simply on one of them talking a lot. Any verbal variation works only within that relationship: it can edge toward what Humbert fears without stating it completely outright.
The study of Sellers as Kubrick’s collaborator explores his characters and the specific accounts of his work. Here, the important thing is to preserve the distinction between interpretive flexibility and where the text came from. The same actor can produce very different results with prepared material. Attributing an entire scene to a flash of inspiration would erase both the scene partner’s response and the construction of the dramatic situation.
In Tim Cahill’s 1987 interview published in Rolling Stone, Kubrick credited R. Lee Ermey with a substantial part of Hartman’s dialogue, which emerged during tryouts with prospective cast members. He also described how he prepared the dialogue. The account makes it possible to distinguish the creation of material from its later performance, without turning every one of the drill instructor’s lines into a surprise that happened during the take used in the film.
Hartman uses his insults to sort people into categories. He changes names, demands answers, and turns an individual trait into a public spectacle. The recruits have less freedom to interrupt or rephrase. The verbal content reinforces his control of the conversation. Ermey’s contribution to the material doesn’t change that inequality within the fiction: the character wields an authority that the scene makes audible.
The Film Preserves a Selection, Not Everything That Happened
An idea that works during a rehearsal still has to find a place in a sequence. It may need an earlier setup, a clear reaction, or a length that doesn’t unnecessarily stall the story. That integration distinguishes a useful suggestion from an amusing anecdote about the shoot. The film presents the selected and organized material, not the full range of possibilities that may have been tried.
The other actors’ reactions are part of the construction. When a character seems bewildered, we can’t conclude that the actor didn’t know what they were about to hear. They may be portraying that bewilderment precisely. Likewise, a quick response doesn’t prove that everything was set from the first draft of the script. The character’s surprise and the actor’s knowledge belong to different levels.
The rhythm of the performance helps us study what remains observable. We can identify an interruption, an extended pause, or a change in pace. We can also observe whether a line caps off an exchange or opens it up again. These are perceptible choices whose effectiveness doesn’t depend on assigning them a spontaneous origin. Improvisation is one possible way of creating material, not an automatic guarantee of quality.
When script versions exist, comparisons must take their dates into account. The fact that a line doesn’t appear in an early version doesn’t prove it originated during filming: it may have been added in an intermediate revision. And the fact that it appears in a transcript published after the film’s release doesn’t prove it was written before filming. The document must be placed within the process to support a conclusion about authorship or when the material was incorporated.
Accounts of the Full Metal Jacket cast’s work help pin down some of those stages. In other cases, the available information only takes us as far as the finished result. Respecting that limit allows us to recognize the actors’ initiative without replacing collaboration with a story of instant genius. The productive question is what a contribution changed and how it became part of a shared scene.
Sources: F. X. Feeney, interview with James B. Harris, “In the Trenches with Stanley Kubrick,” DGA Quarterly, Spring 2013; Tim Cahill, “The Rolling Stone Interview: Stanley Kubrick,” August 27, 1987. Films discussed: Lolita (1962) and Full Metal Jacket (1987).
View all articles in Directing Actors and Staging in Kubrick