An action can appear twice without having happened twice. A consequence can also be known before its causes. Comparing these movements makes it possible to describe chronology without confusing every time jump with a memory.
Two different orders that the viewer relates
The order of the story corresponds to the sequence of events within the represented world. The order of the narrative is the sequence in which the film lets us learn about them. They can coincide for long stretches and diverge later. The distinction is useful because a change in presentation alters understanding without necessarily changing what the characters did at the time.
Order and duration must also be distinguished. Skipping several hours to move to the next morning maintains a chronological direction. Returning to that morning after showing the afternoon alters the order of presentation. Both techniques can coexist, but they raise different questions. In one, what matters is which interval is missing; in the other, why we learn about an event after its consequences or after later actions.
A retrospective reference is not necessarily a dramatized memory. To speak of a character’s memory, there must be clues attributing the images to that character’s experience. The organization may depend on an external narrative agency. The narrators and their positions help identify this difference: a voice can situate the past without becoming the consciousness of the person onscreen.
The construction of time through editing makes these relationships visible. Repeating a time, returning to an action, or introducing a title card are signals, but the viewer must connect them to the events. The result does not have to be an unsolvable puzzle. It can make coordination clearer precisely by abandoning a strictly linear presentation.
The Killing: returning to the same time to follow another participant
The Killing distributes the preparation and execution of the heist among people with different roles. When the narrative returns to an interval already covered, it changes our access to the action. Something that seemed like an isolated event takes on a different causal relationship. Temporal repetition makes it possible to show how separate tasks depend on one another, without requiring all locations to remain in continuous rotation.
The external voice provides reference points that guide these shifts. Its chronological precision organizes the audience’s reconstruction. It should not be confused with Johnny’s ability to know all of his accomplices’ actions. The narrative can connect actions that the plan cannot control. Knowing when something happens and making it happen as intended are different kinds of control.
The study of the chronology in The Killing explores the specific progression. What matters in the comparison is that each return provides new information. Seeing another part of the same interval can reveal a dependency, a conversation, or an initiative that was missing before. It is not the same as erasing what we have seen and starting another story: it requires us to reconsider the whole based on an added piece.
Unequal access to information also creates expectations. The viewer may learn of a threat to the plan while certain participants continue to act as if their agreements are enough. Tension arises from comparing these positions. The film does not need all the characters to share the same explained chronology for the audience to recognize the collision between their actions.
Lolita: an early consequence reorganizes the background
Lolita opens with the confrontation between Humbert and Quilty, then develops the story that leads up to it. The change in order does not eliminate causality. It shifts it into a retrospective search: relationships and appearances later in the film’s presentation can function as antecedents to the event already known. The question of the outcome coexists with questions about how motives and interpretations took shape.
This changes how we pay attention to Quilty. The audience has a reference point that does not match what Humbert understands at each moment. An encounter can carry different weight for the viewer and for the person experiencing it within the narrative. The opening information does not provide every detail, but it prevents certain appearances from seeming unconnected to the conflict introduced.
The reunion with Dolores and the chronology of Lolita helps place the final section without confusing the order of presentation with the sequence of actions. Explanations provided near the ending can clarify what came before the opening. This recognition does not prove that the character always knows his own story in full or that his justifications should be accepted as the definitive version.
Returning to an earlier period does not require showing the opening in its entirety again, either. A narrative can reach its context and assume that the already-presented event is known. This economy depends on the viewer’s memory. The film retains an action as a point of reference while new conversations transform our understanding of it; repeating it literally might add little when the main change has been in what we know about its participants.
A final title card adds another temporal position: it can tell us what happens after the last dramatized action. Epilogues are therefore not simply additional scenes. They change the horizon from which a life is viewed. In both films, describing the order requires identifying what is shown, when it happened, and who could have known about it at the time. Keeping these questions separate prevents us from turning every omission into a flashback or every repetition into a new event.
Films discussed: Stanley Kubrick, The Killing (1956); Lolita (1962).
View all articles in Narrative, Screenplay, and Adaptation in Kubrick