Why did Stanley Kubrick predominantly adapt pre-existing novels?
There are certain filmmakers who only ever direct ideas they’ve conjured up themselves, proving themselves to be incredible writers as well as directors. It’s one thing to direct well, but to come up with a completely original idea in the process is another feat in and of itself. Take Céline Sciamma, for example, who has written all of the films she has directed, like the acclaimed Portrait of a Lady on Fire, as well as proving her skills with screenwriting credits on other people’s movies, like the stunning My Life as a Courgette.
Yet, if a director predominantly adapts their work from pre-existing novels and stories written by others, does that make them any less of a filmmaker? Some might be inclined to suggest that a filmmaker who constantly borrows their ideas isn’t as talented as one who comes up with their own, but if Stanley Kubrick is anything to go by, then that’s just not the case.
Kubrick was a truly revolutionary filmmaker, and he often collaborated with other screenwriters to create incredible pieces of cinema that brought pre-existing stories to life. While some filmmakers take a novel and try to cram in as much of the story as possible, creating rather lacklustre adaptations that soon fade into the cinematic abyss, Kubrick took a story and transformed it into a visual spectacle that pushed the limits of the material, allowing a story to surpass the confines of a paperback.
The filmmaker’s first two attempts at directing didn’t exactly hold a torch to what he’d make later in his life, but with his second feature, Killer’s Kiss, he co-wrote an original screenplay with Howard Sackler, who’d penned his first film, Fear and Desire. Evidently, he wasn’t initially against working purely from his imagination, but by the time it came to his third feature, The Killing, Kubrick would consistently refer to pre-existing pieces of source material for the rest of his career.
Kubrick believed that by doing so, he would have a more objective understanding of a story compared to if he’d come up with it himself, once explaining, “There’s one great advantage taking it from literary material, and that is that you have the opportunity of reading the story for the first time.” If he could study a pre-existing text, he was able to map out his film more easily, and the results were incredibly detailed narratives where everything had its place and nothing went to waste.
In some instances, he adapted a story himself, while at other times he collaborated with another screenwriter or simply gave them free rein, as was the case with Vladimir Nabokov and Lolita. Yet, how faithful his films were to their original texts varied from movie to movie, and in some instances, Kubrick brought some of his own ideas to the table and blended them together.
Take A Clockwork Orange, for example, which Kubrick adapted himself from Anthony Burgess’ book of the same name. While Kubrick kept the essence of the novel and adapted it pretty faithfully, he made certain changes, like the ending. The final film reflects the genius of the book while also encapsulating the filmmaker’s style, with its incredible set design and preoccupation with digging deep into the depths of human nature, especially the fight between good and evil. Thus, Kubrick might have relied on pre-existing material, but he clearly thrived best when he was able to take someone else’s idea, build on it with his expansive cinematic toolkit, and transform it into something entirely new and exciting.
Eyes Wide Shut is another great example of Kubrick taking a novel and doing what he did best, and completely transforming it. Teaming up with Frederic Raphael, the pair penned the movie, set in ‘90s New York, by looking at the novella Traumnovelle by Arthur Schnitzler for inspiration. Kubrick and Raphael extracted key narrative and thematic elements before transplanting them into a modern setting, and in doing so, demonstrated that a pre-existing story only has to be a starting point – where a filmmaker goes with it and how they interpret it is a testament to their creativity and skill.
Kubrick might not have ever sat down and penned a whole movie that didn’t relate back to another novel or short story in some way, but his strong artistic vision and ability to reshape these stories into captivating and unforgettable worlds – like the epic nature of 2001: A Space Odyssey or the horrors of The Shining – proved he understood the art form like few others. He was a master storyteller of other people’s stories, allowing them to become whole new entities.
