A film can preserve an episode while completely changing the perspective from which we experience it. Kubrick’s adaptations offer a way to study these transformations between book, screenplay, and editing—not merely to count what was cut or added.
Changing the narrator changes the relationship with the protagonist
The comparison between Thackeray’s novel and Barry Lyndon offers a clear example. The literary narrative gives Barry a voice from which he presents his own story; the film introduces an outside narrator. This change affects who can justify a decision and who places it within a broader perspective. Even when some actions remain recognizable, readers and viewers are not necessarily given the same invitation to trust.
The image also gives duration to a gesture, a space, and a reaction. A description can sum up a character’s attitude; a scene can show how they try to maintain it in front of others. The study of Thackeray’s transformation into Barry Lyndon develops the specific choices involved. As a comparative principle, it helps to distinguish what is told from the agent presenting it and the conditions under which we can observe it.
In Lolita, retaining Humbert’s lines does not mean reproducing the experience of his prose unchanged. The performance, framing, and other characters’ responses put his explanations alongside clues he cannot control verbally. The film can let us hear a self-serving version while giving us reasons to question it. This result cannot be measured solely by asking how many lines from the book made it into the dialogue.
Narrators and voice-overs are one possible solution, not a requirement for every adaptation. An internal passage can become a conversation, observable behavior, silence, or withheld information. Each alternative redistributes access. Removing an explanation does not always mean simplifying: it can also require the audience to infer a relationship that the text stated explicitly.
Structure reorganizes causes, expectations, and trajectories
The opening of Lolita places a decisive action before the background that will help us understand it. This choice changes the question that follows us through the story. The audience is not only watching to see where a relationship will lead; it is also trying to understand how things arrived at the outcome presented. The transformation affects the order in which we make discoveries, even when many episodes remain recognizably connected to the literary source.
Eyes Wide Shut retains relationships and situations from Dream Story while placing them in a different context. The city, social codes, and everyday objects are part of the adaptation. They are not merely scenery around an otherwise unchanged story. A professional credential, a payment, or an invitation takes on meaning within a particular social world and changes how access or exclusion is experienced.
The comparison with Schnitzler makes it possible to examine these transformations without treating every difference as a loss. A cinematic equivalent does not have to preserve the exact same object, line, or location. We should examine which dramatic relationship it preserves, which it changes, and what consequences the change produces. Equivalence can be functional and partial: a device may serve a similar purpose while introducing a different tone or a new uncertainty.
Editing and ellipses contribute to this reorganization. A book can move forward through summary and pause within a consciousness; a film distributes time among bodies, sounds, and spaces. Condensing an interval does not require speeding up the entire story. It can free up time for a scene that helps us understand a relationship without explaining it through a series of consecutive episodes.
A novel, screenplay, and film are not interchangeable documents
A screenplay is part of the transformation process, but it does not, by itself, certify what appears in the finished work. A written scene can be modified, removed, or given a different function during production. To study a difference, we need to identify which versions are being compared. A draft, a published text, and the dialogue heard in a copy of the film do not automatically have the same status.
Lolita credits Vladimir Nabokov as screenwriter; that credit should be distinguished from the study of drafts and the decisions incorporated into the film. The relationship between Nabokov, the screenplays, and the adaptation requires specific documents. Likewise, Diane Johnson’s credited involvement in The Shining makes it inaccurate to describe the writing as an activity carried out solely by the director.
2001 follows a different trajectory: development records preserve drafts of the novel, screenplays, and correspondence between Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke. It should not be presented as the simple filming of a novel already completed independently of the project. The writing of 2001 and its relationship to The Sentinel examines these connections. The publication order of two works does not, by itself, describe the order of all their creative decisions.
The work of screenwriters and collaborators also makes it necessary to distinguish the result from its attribution. The fact that a change is visible does not automatically tell us who proposed it. Formal comparison can establish what changed and make a case for its effect; reconstructing the process requires credits, versions, and situated testimony. Keeping these questions separate lets us study adaptations without reducing them to a contest of fidelity or mistaking a viewer’s interpretation for documented intent.
Films analyzed: Stanley Kubrick, Barry Lyndon (1975); Lolita (1962); Eyes Wide Shut (1999); The Shining (1980); 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Sources: William Makepeace Thackeray, The Luck of Barry Lyndon; Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita; Arthur Schnitzler, Dream Story (Traumnovelle). University of the Arts London, Stanley Kubrick Archive, SK/12/1 and SK/12/8/1/12, 2001 development records. Credits for Lolita and The Shining.
View all articles in Narrative, Screenplay, and Adaptation in Kubrick