An idea by director Stanley Kubrick is being hailed as the greatest unfinished film of all time, writes critic Nicholas Barber. His writing is presented in full by Telegrafi below.
The Stanley Kubrick exhibition, now open at the Design Museum in London, examines the making of every film by the extraordinary director. But the opening section is devoted to one film Kubrick did not make: the biopic about Napoleon Bonaparte. As strange as it may seem, Kubrick fans are as enamored with Napoleon - here used as a working title - as they are with anything else in his astonishing oeuvre. Critics are calling it the greatest unfinished film of all.
Moreover, the story of how "Napoleon" was ready and not made illustrates Kubrick's lofty ambition, his ardent intellectual curiosity and obsessive planning.
"We put the screen in front because it's a beautiful illustration of the process," says Adrienne Groen, the exhibition's co-curator. "You can see the methods and the amount of material he collected before he started working."
The exhibition consists of photographs, sketches and documents, including a letter from Audrey Hepburn rejecting the role of Napoleon's wife, Josephine (Joséphine de Beauharnais). David Hemmings was the director's choice for the lead role. Meanwhile, there is a collection of 276 books about the French emperor, including Felix Markham's biography, which is annotated with footnotes, underlining and notes: "Who killed Tsar Paul? How exactly did politics work?" Most intriguing of all is the wooden filing cabinet, which Groen's co-curator, Deyan Sudjic, calls "an analogue Wikipedia."
"Pick any day in Napoleon's life, open the right drawer, take the appropriate card, and there's information there covering everything," says Sudjic, "from what he ate for breakfast to what Josephine wore to dinner."
But the Design Museum's exhibition presents only a "small part" of Kubrick's collection for "Napoleon."
Among the materials on display at the Design Museum is a letter written by actress Audrey Hepburn, rejecting the role of Napoleon's wife
It all began as he was finishing his science fiction masterpiece, “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968), when he decided that the next subject would be, in his words, “one of those rare men who move history and shape the destiny of their time and of generations to come.” He sent researchers across Europe to find Napoleon’s footprints. One of those researchers was his brother-in-law and executive producer, Jan Harlan.
"I was in Zurich in 1968 and 1969," says Harlan, now 82, "looking for materials, books and drawings, everything I could find on the period from the French Revolution to the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Other people traveled for weeks through Germany, France and the United Kingdom, on the same mission."
No detail was unimportant to Kubrick, from the color of the ground on a battlefield to the shape of a nail in a horseshoe.
"He loved study and research," says Harlan. "Preparation was his pleasure, while making the film was a necessity."
In 1969, Kubrick completed his research and study into a 148-page script. As Harlan says, “his scripts were often more different than the final film.” But it is clear that the biopic would not be limited to just one part of Napoleon’s life, but would follow him from his birth in Corsica in 1769 to his death on the remote island of St. Helena in 1821. The emphasis would be on the battles that Kubrick called “massive ballets of death,” as well as Napoleon’s love for Josephine, “one of the greatest passions of all time.” Above all, the film would not be a “historical masquerade,” but an authentic evocation of life as it was in the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries.
Making a film like this about the “little corporal” was a huge undertaking, but Kubrick seemed relaxed when discussing it in interviews. Production, he told a reporter, would take “significantly less” time than “2001.” “The exterior shooting — the battles and other locations — should be completed in two or three months. After that, the studio work shouldn’t take more than another three months.”
Kubrick believed that there was no need for studio sets, as everything would be shot on location in France.
He wanted to borrow "at most 40 infantry and 10 cavalry" from the Romanian Army, while adding that recreating Napoleon's campaigns "was not as difficult as it seemed." He didn't even worry about the budget. Many of the uniforms for the Romanian soldiers would be made from a special type of paper, much cheaper than cloth, but indistinguishable on camera. And, there would be no need to build detailed sets in the studio.
"Many of the palace interiors could be shot on real locations in France, where the furniture and interiors were ready-made, and where a small documentary crew could move around."
The result would be unprecedented. Until then, Kubrick said, there had been "no great historical film" and "no good or accurate film" about Napoleon. Even director Abel Gance's five-hour 1927 saga, much adored by critics, was dismissed as "terrible"... a crude film. Unlike all of them, his "Napoleon" would be "the best film ever made."
That was possible. If nothing else, Groen believes that “Napoleon” could be “Kubrick’s most iconic film,” combining “the slow pace of ‘Barry Lyndon,’ the attention to detail of ‘2001,’ and the massive battlefields of ‘Spartacus.’” Harlan, meanwhile, believes it would be the perfect vehicle for Kubrick’s preoccupations: “Self-destructive actions by intelligent people, the poison of jealousy and revenge, the ways in which glamour, success, and power can go hand in hand with ego, the refinement and abuse of such power… these were themes that always interested him. Think of ‘Lolita,’ ‘Paths of Glory,’ and ‘Dr. Strangelove.’”
Unfortunately, the studio that financed "2001" was not convinced.
"Stanley had a pre-production agreement with MGM," says Harlan, "an agreement to do a plan, a schedule, and a budget. Those elements were delivered, but MGM didn't take it to the next stage."
To recreate Napoleon's campaigns, he wanted to borrow 40 infantry and 10 cavalry from the Army of Romania
Time was running out for Kubrick. Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer had just changed owners who were more interested in building casinos than financing monumental historical dramas with 50,000 soldiers. Meanwhile, Dino De Laurentiis’ epic “Waterloo” (1970) offered “no encouragement.” To paraphrase ABBA, Kubrick finally faced his Waterloo in more ways than one.
It was a sad ending that Harlan describes as “two years of total dedication,” but one that didn’t deter Kubrick. After tackling an adaptation of Arthur Schnitzler’s 1926 novel, “Traumnovelle” — which became “Eyes Wide Shut” three decades later — he went on to make “A Clockwork Orange.” In the circumstances, it’s almost unbelievable that this film was released just three years after “2001.”
Then came "Barry Lyndon" (1975), which incorporated some of Kubrick's research into "Napoleon" and many of his innovative ideas about period dramas: using e.g. ultra-fast 50mm lens so that the scenes were lit by candles, oil lamps and sunlight. It was not "Napoleon", but it was "a great historical film" that no one else had achieved.
Was Kubrick ever tempted to return to his heart project?
"Seriously not," says Harlan, "because he knew he couldn't get his vision right unless he had the time and a big budget. Television wasn't an option. But that's changed now."
Indeed, television in recent years has changed so much in terms of cost and scope that Kubrick's friend, director Steven Spielberg, has talked about producing a mini-series based on the "Napoleon" script. In 2013, Baz Luhrmann was mentioned as a possible director, as was Cary Fukunaga (who is currently shooting the latest Bond film). Harlan is convinced that now is the right time.
"Technically, television is doing well, and a series with many hours and chapters is the ideal format for Stanley Kubrick's 'Napoleon,'" he says. "That would happen!" /Telegraph/
A TV series inspired by Kubrick's unfinished work is rumored to be in development by director Steven Spielberg.
