The Stanley Kubrick Archive: A Filmmaker’s Legacy

On a corner of the relatively unknown convergence of five major London roads that is Elephant and Castle stands the London College of Communication. The building, a 1960s modernist construction of steel, glass and concrete is fittingly reminiscent of the world inhabited by Alex DeLarge in Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971); fitting because the college is now home to the archive of that infamous film’s creator. On the ground floor, at the back of one of the college’s galleries stands the University of the Arts London’s Archives and Special Collections Centre. Secure in its temperature and humidity controlled strongroom sit an array of archive collections from the worlds of filmmaking, graphic design, sound arts and printing. The largest and by far the most popular is the Stanley Kubrick Archive. Filling over 800 linear metres of archive shelving and consisting of millions of individual documents, photographs, letters and objects, the Stanley Kubrick Archive is both extensive and comprehensive. Comprehensive in that it contains materials relating to the whole of Kubrick’s career from his early days working as a photojournalist for the magazine Look all the way through to his final film Eyes Wide Shut (1999). [1] The Archive also includes posthumous materials because the business of Stanley Kubrick continued after his death. Comprehensive also because not only does the Archive contain materials from almost all of Kubrick’s motion picture productions, in many cases it features archive materials from the entire production process for them as well; from the adaptation of a novel into a screenplay and its continued development throughout production, all the way through to distribution and marketing. With the many boxes of press cuttings and fan letters the Archive also documents the films’ reception. The Stanley Kubrick Archive essentially comprises the records of the filmmaker’s working life. Here you will not find home movies, or reams of documentation about family matters, however scholars, budding filmmakers and fans can learn a great deal about how this master filmmaker adapted novels, planned and executed film shoots, and organised the films’ sale and publicity.

The Archive Post-Kubrick
Following Kubrick’s death the Archive had remained at his house virtually untouched. It occupied outbuildings and portacabins, dominating much of the estate; in the words of Kubrick’s brother-in-law “half the house was filled with boxes and trunks”; the family not quite knowing what to do with the relics of the filmmaker’s career. [2] As the boxes and papers began to show signs of ageing, Christiane Kubrick found them increasingly melancholic, but she could not get rid of them; “to just throw the stuff away would have been like burying Stanley again”, but what could be done with them? [3] Several events conspired to promote the notion that these materials may be of interest beyond the walls of Childwickbury and could serve a new purpose by being made available to the wider public. The Deutsches Filmmuseum in Frankfurt curated the hugely popular Stanley Kubrick Exhibition borrowing the vast majority of the exhibition pieces from the director’s own collection. The exhibition opened in March 2004. At about the same time the publishers, Taschen, began their close relationship with the family having engaged Alison Castle to start researching for two publications using the Archive: The Stanley Kubrick Archives and Stanley Kubrick’s Napoleon, The Greatest Movie Never Made. [4] The latter concentrates on the immense research and planning materials created during the pre-production of the never-completed Napoleon epic so dear to Kubrick’s heart. Alongside the film museum and publishers, the writer and documentary filmmaker Jon Ronson visited the house and initially wrote an article about the Archive for The Guardian’s Weekend Magazine. He later developed and expanded on the stories explored in the article in the documentary film Stanley Kubrick’s Boxes. [5] Having realised the great interest in Kubrick’s archive, the family started to reach out, looking for a potential home where the archive could be cared for and made available to interested researchers. Serendipitously, University of the Arts London were at the same time considering the establishment of a new central research and study centre. What better way to crown this new centre than accessioning the archive of one of the 20th Century’s leading filmmakers? The University made a competitive pitch, promising to establish a secure space in which to protect, preserve and give access to the archive, using it not only to encourage research into Kubrick and his films but also to inspire new artists studying there to pursue their creative potential to the full. Perhaps this inspirational role for the archive appealed to Christiane Kubrick, herself a painter who had come from and also raised a family of artists. Whatever the reason an agreement between the major stakeholders was made and in early 2007 the archive was packed up into over 1,000 large crates and transported to University of the Arts London’s purpose built Archives and Special Collections Centre. [6]

The Catalogue
In order to prepare the archive for transfer, a rudimentary organisation of the materials took place at the estate. Throughout the years since the archive arrived at the University the professional archivists have learned more about the contents and their history; how it was originally assembled and used by Kubrick and his staff. Informed by conversations conducted with Kubrick’s family and individuals who had worked with him by researchers in the Archive, and by personally studying the materials themselves, the university’s archivists refined, developed – and on many occasions completely changed – this preliminary organisation generating a professional archive catalogue using international archival standards. In general, once a film project was complete, the materials generated and collected together during the development and production process were placed in (often purpose built) boxes and set to one side. Therefore, in order to resemble something of an ‘original order’ the Archive is arranged roughly chronological by project, with each section containing the materials related to the development, production and initial release of one feature film. This leaves a separate business and personal papers section where materials not specifically related to individual films or not contemporary to their initial release are organised. Here one can find some of Kubrick’s memorabilia: luggage tags for a voyage on the Queen Mary from New York to Southampton before beginning the filming of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968); ping pong bats, membership cards and “Stanley Kubrick” headed note paper where he had once typed and handwritten “this is how it types … this is how it takes ink”. [7]

Within the individual film sections the archive materials are organised by their functions and placed within specific phases of filmmaking: Development, Preproduction, Production, Post-Production and Distribution. Development holds all the treatments and screenplays for the film. True to their original order this series holds all the screenplay materials from initial notes on the source novel (where such exist) through to postproduction and release scripts. After completion of a film it seemed Kubrick made no distinction between stages of screenplay development; his boxes entitled “Clockwork Orange Scripts” for example held all such versions of the written film with no markings to indicate the stage of the writing, nor the chronology of the documents. However to facilitate research, the archivists have initiated one change to this original order, as much as possible each item within the Development series has been organised chronologically. This was a difficult job when scripts or loose sheets of screenplay modifications often bear no date or several dates. In fact, sometimes very different versions of the same screenplay carry the same date, despite their contents showing development from one to the other. The next function is Pre-Production, often the largest part of a film section in this archive. Here you will find extensive location research, historical research, sometimes concept artwork and the odd storyboard. [8] The Production phase includes the mass of bureaucratic documentation created in order to keep track of filming such as call sheets and continuity reports. It is also where the Archive describes some of the more museum-ready pieces of the collection, props and costumes. Post-Production is populated by materials related to the editing of the films, recording and adding soundtracks and managing the production of dubbed versions for the European market. Distribution consists of the materials related to the marketing and release of the films, where you will find press releases, correspondence regarding release schedules, poster art development, press packs and press books and documentation regarding the use of quotes in the films’ marketing.

Where groups of files show that they were originally placed together but the contents do not fit into the neat production function based arrangement, the Archive has kept the series separate, creating an “Indexed Papers” series for most of the films. Here are all manner of interesting materials, mainly correspondence documenting the process of production and sometimes the limitations faced by the director. In these files you will sometimes also find series of fan letters, once again keeping to the original order. These “Fan Letters” series are often organised geographically with a file for each town from whence a fan letter was written. Press cuttings with copies of press announcements, advertisements for the films and reviews are kept in the series entitled “Publicity”. For many of the films we hold awards and correspondence/documentation regarding the many award campaigns for which the films were often submitted. Usually “Financial Papers”, such as below the line budgets, cost comparisons and insurance documentation were kept separate from the rest of the production materials, hence they have their own home within the organisation of each film section. Finance was ever present and of great importance to Kubrick. You will find correspondence regarding finances, bills and accounts across the many series within each film section of the Archive and often Kubrick was involved in conversations regarding the film’s financing. The final and often very large part of each film section is “Photographs”. Here are the many contact sheets produced by official stills photographers and prints taken from those stills, both behind the scenes shots and film stills. Transparencies and slides give added colour. In some film sections there are also collections of personal snapshots taken on set and/or in production offices and documenting the work going on to make each film. The creators of these personal photographs are unfortunately long since forgotten. With 30 boxes of photographs just for 2001 alone, these extensive collections of contact sheets, stills, slides and other transparencies belie the myth that ‘Stanley didn’t allow photography on his set’.

Alongside the production materials for the films Kubrick completed, there is also the detritus of abandoned projects and ‘never quite got off the mark’ projects. By far the largest to date is Aryan Papers. Comprised of several draft treatments, a great deal of contemporary location research plus historical research (mainly visual), the Aryan Papers holding fills 272 boxes alone. This does not include the many shelves of books and printed sources for research. Space in the strongroom is currently set aside for the materials from the Napoleon project which still remains in the custody of Kubrick’s widow, Christiane, recently perused by Steven Spielberg as he begins to turn aspects of Kubrick’s vision into reality for HBO.

At the time of writing the Archive catalogue is approximately 90 percent complete – but no archive catalogue is ever totally completed. As more people use the materials, researching different topics in-depth, looking at the materials with fresh eyes and armed with new perspectives, or differing background knowledge, the Archive team learns more contextual information that can be added to the descriptions, or sometimes highlights errors in the descriptions and/or the arrangement. The Archive staff is always open to furthering their knowledge and amending the catalogue in order to aid the researchers of the future.

Discoveries From Across the Film Production Series
From the catalogued materials a great deal of information about how Kubrick worked and the decisions he made has already been made public, sometimes corroborating and sometimes conflicting with orthodox views. Every series within the Archive have much to reveal to the scholar and fan. The 27 draft scripts and loose sheets of script modifications for Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) present in the Development series show there were actually three distinct storylines contemplated for the film: an initial serious adaptation of the source novel, Peter George’s Red Alert; followed by a biographical comedy documenting the rise of a “Nuclear Wise Man” (called Dr. Strangelove) to fame and sexual conquests; then finally the “nightmare comedy” equally based on Red Alert but this time using satire to expose the absurdity of the arms race. The latest and final iteration recycled the title character from the ‘Rise of Dr. Strangelove’ storyline. [9]

Location research photographs of Beckton Gasworks for the Preproduction of Full Metal Jacket (1987) were modified with collage pieces and pencil drawings to plan the transformation of this abandoned industrial complex into the ruined Vietnamese city of Huế. Much emphasis for this transformation was given to advertising bill-boards informed by extensive research into Vietnamese newspapers from the time of the war. [10] Production notes and documentation highlight that Kubrick had a greater influence on the production of Spartacus than is generally acknowledged. Although just one man amongst a myriad of powerful people exerting their influence on the film, the fingerprints of Kubrick’s decisions concerning the script and choice of what to film can be found in this documentation. [11]

Sounds recorded by Wendy Carlos and her partner Rachel Elkind were sent to Kubrick on 12 inch vinyl records, and they now sit in the Postproduction section of The Shining (1980). These records sport track titles such as ‘Ghosties’ and ‘Vocal Dzzrrhhr’s’, ‘Vocal, Piano, Mallet & Mixed Solos’ and ‘Wind & Textures’ evincing that Carlos and Elkind were more deeply involved with Kubrick in the process of designing sounds for the film than the literature suggests. [12] Notes from Kubrick on the record sleeves and the titles themselves indicate that Carlos and Kubrick had a dialogue concerning the development of these sound effects and that their aim was to create a layered “soundscape” for the film “rather than discrete layers of music and sound effects”. This indicates that Wendy Carlos’ role was more of a sound designer rather than, as indicated by the end credits, just one of five composers whose works had been employed in the film. [13]

Many of the press releases in the Distribution series for Paths of Glory (1957) expound Kubrick’s attention to detail and insatiable quest for information. They reveal how, from very early on, the ‘character’ of Kubrick was developed as a brand to sell his films. [14] This marketing theme continued and by 1964, the director’s ‘distinctive approach to filmmaking’, the ‘Kubrick Touch’ was a recognised saleable commodity, thus demonstrating that specific elements of Kubrick’s persona were exploited and potentially exaggerated to promote his films, creating a mythological vision of the director that persists today. [15]

Kubrick’s avid collecting of press cuttings and reviews reveals a great deal about how his films were critically received around the world. The Publicity section for A Clockwork Orange (1971) shows how the film’s reception differed internationally and how the press in the US and the UK found it to be controversial, initially, for very different reasons. [16]

Correspondence between Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley in the Indexed Papers series of 2001 highlight Kubrick and Clarke’s concerns about how human nature could escape its “self destructive tendencies in the atomic age”. [17] The same correspondence files highlight the two creators’ differing views on the nature of human evolution, with Kubrick leaning towards the more violent ‘Killer Ape’ theory introduced by Raymond Dart and developed by Robert Ardrey, whereas Clarke’s draft novel texts borrowed from both the ‘Killer Ape’ theory but also leaned towards the more peaceful ‘Man the toolmaker’ or ‘Man the hunter’ theory of Louis Leakey. The difference of opinion between these two luminaries led to a debate over the development of the novel and the screenplay and may well have contributed to the ultimate decision to remove the narration from the film. [18]

Fan Letters importantly help undermine the myth of 2001 alienating elder viewers upon its initial release. Far from being misunderstood by older audiences and being wholly unsuccessful until a younger, more ‘hip’ generation ‘discovered’ the film (with the heightened effect the film could have when experienced under the influence of psychedelic drugs), the letters and press cuttings show us that the film appealed to a broad spectrum of people, young and old, and men and women from the outset. [19] Financial Papers for Barry Lyndon (1975) depict the substantial impact that filming in Ireland had on that country and, correspondingly, how large the economic loss was when the production left prematurely due to assumed IRA threats. [20] Even Kubrick’s library books indicate a great deal about the man and his films. Annotations in Bruno Bettleheim’s The Uses of Enchantment demonstrate how the psychoanalyst’s work and his ideas about Fairytales greatly influenced Kubrick’s thoughts whilst working with Diane Johnson to adapt Stephen King’s The Shining. Highlighted passages relating to child characters and ‘bad’ characters abound. [21]

The Archive also includes an extensive collection of books on World War II and the Holocaust, which far outnumber any other subject in Kubrick’s library. This concentration of written and image-led sources on World War II provides an insight into one of Stanley Kubrick’s enduring fascinations and his stature as a polymath. [22] Some caution must be noted, however, since the library of Kubrick’s books that were delivered to the Archive represent only the books that Christiane Kubrick was willing to part with. [23] A quick perusal of the library shelves at Childwickbury reveal many books with tell-tale Post-It Notes containing Kubrick’s handwriting, indicating that they too were once read by the director and perhaps used to inform film projects.

Using the Archive for Pedagogy
The fundamental purpose of cataloguing the Kubrick Archive is to know what is available in order for staff to provide meaningful access to the materials enabling their use as a key University resource. Every year the Archives and Special Collections Centre welcomes visitors from around the world. The most recent academic year was no exception, from August 2015 to end of July 2016, there were nearly two thousand visitors; of them 90 percent viewed the Kubrick Archive in some way. [24] Just over 50 percent of them were internal, i.e. students or staff members of University of the Arts London. Many of these people attended Archive introductory tours where they are introduced to materials from across the Archive, presenting a cross section of films and types of documents and objects. Multiple examples are often presented, say a selection of or even a box of location research photographs, a file of correspondence; the idea is to create something of a curated archive experience rather than mimic a museum where the visitor views individually selected items from a distance. Students have the opportunity to sift through original archive materials selecting what is of interest to them. Thus tours act both as introductions to the Kubrick Archive and give an insight into archival research. The intention is to advertise the University’s collections, to raise awareness of archives in general and to encourage primary source research wherever it may take place.

Archives and special collections across the University are also used in teaching and the Kubrick Archive is no exception. Tutors make use of the Archive in many different ways, as for example students from BA Interior Design at Chelsea College of Art are set a brief each year to create a set and shoot a short film. The Kubrick Archive acts as their introduction to production design. The students attend a tailor made introduction to learn how Kubrick and his team researched locations and sets and how that research was then put into practice through planning, design and creation. Other briefs may require more in-depth research. These can be facilitated by lectures from Archive staff, providing exclusive access to the Archive during the period of the project and close interaction with Archive staff. Such project briefs can vary greatly including using the Archive to inspire students to design new pieces of work or specifically connecting a design brief to archival materials. For instance, designing new posters or publicity campaigns for a Kubrick film or producing detailed research projects considering a specific aspect of a single film, filmmaking or Kubrick.

From 2008 to 2013 the Archive conducted its own 10 week Elective course for BA 2nd year students of the London College of Communication. ‘Inspired by Kubrick’ brought students together with experts on Kubrick and his work, individuals who had worked with Kubrick and others who had created projects using the Archive. The students had designated research time in the Archive and, at the culmination of the course, groups presented a project proposal based on or inspired by their research. Over the six years it ran, more than 200 students took the course from disciplines as diverse as Sound Arts, Sports Journalism and Photography. A wide variety of artistic works were presented from short films and comic books to a soundscape and a robotic sculpture. The university ceased offering elective modules in 2013 but the Archive team has used this experience to develop similar contributions to the university’s academic program.

University of the Arts London is at the forefront of using Object Based Learning to educate and inspire people to think and work in different ways. We promote the methodology through workshops across the university for staff, students and colleagues across higher education. [25] ‘Researching Skilfully in Archives’ sessions held at the Archives and Special Collections Centre use items, objects and files from the centre’s Archives, often with a strong representation from the Stanley Kubrick Archive. Staff provide discussion-based workshops concerning the theories and practice of archive research techniques, object analysis and material culture. Students are encouraged to “examine their own learning processes and purposes” through investigating archive materials and sharing their findings in small groups and with the wider group. [26] Since the sessions are voluntary and separate from specific courses, the groups are always multi-disciplinary and multi-levelled, including masters, doctoral and undergraduate students. This mix enables participants to understand how individual dispositions can affect the research that people do and the conclusions that they draw from a given object. As Joe Cain has explained, such Object Based Learning sessions can form part of an “open ended, student centred learning experience” with very positive outcomes for student attainment. [27]

External Loans
UAL also facilitates access to the Kubrick Archive outside of its own premises through loans to exhibitions. The largest iteration of such is the aforementioned Stanley Kubrick Exhibition, which has been on display in 15 major cities world-wide after its initial exhibition at the Frankfurt museum. To date it has been shown in national museums across Europe, North and South America, Australia and South East Asia. By the time the iteration at the Jewish Museum in San Francisco closed at the end of October 2016 it had been seen by nearly 1.2 million people. Whilst ownership of the majority of the materials in the exhibition has transferred to UAL, the Deutsches Filmmuseum continues to manage the ongoing programme, communicating with prospective venues, organising the transfer of materials, and the installation and de-installation of each show. Despite using the same pool of objects, every new venue has their own iteration of the exhibition. For instance, at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) fewer objects were deployed than usual but more large screens showing audio visual clips; whereas at the National Museum Krakow the exhibition was displayed in a much more traditional fashion, with all of the objects and archive items on display. At the Museu da Imagem e do Som in São Paulo emphasis was given to the mise en scène of the exhibits with objects and materials displayed in rooms decorated and dressed as sets for the films themselves. [28]

Alongside this major exhibition, Kubrick Archive materials have been loaned to smaller venues, some solely focussed on Kubrick, or the Archive itself, and others dedicated to specific themes which either Kubrick tackled or Archive materials illustrate. Since 2008 loans have been made to 20 external organisations ranging from large national and international institutions such as the Australian Centre for the Moving Image in Melbourne (‘Star Voyager: Exploring Space on Screen’, September 2011 to January 2012); the British Library (‘Terror and Wonder: The Gothic Imagination’, October 2014 – January 2015) and the Imperial War Museum (‘Real to Reel: A Century of War Movies’, July 2016 – January 2017) to small and local institutions such as St Albans Museum (‘Kubrick: A Film Makers Odyssey’ March – September 2010); Bath Spa University (‘Student Final Year Exhibition’ February 2011) and De Montfort University (‘Stanley Kubrick: Cult Auteur’ May 2016).

Film scholarship
The primary mission of the Archive is to facilitate researchers within the archives centre studying Kubrick and his films. Scholars come from far and wide to use the Archive, sometimes attending for just one day, others booking long periods in order to access and absorb as much information as possible. Since opening in 2007 the Archive has received over 1,800 individual academic researchers many of whom have made repeat visits. [29] Recent scholarly pursuits include the depiction of mental health in Kubrick’s films, the philosophy of film, the crossover between Ken Russell and Kubrick, the reception of Dr. Strangelove in communist countries, and architecture in science fiction films. For many researchers the Stanley Kubrick Archive has become an essential resource for their work and they return again over and over. As an indicator of the Archive’s intrinsic value, of the 32 speakers at the May 2016 Stanley Kubrick Retrospective Conference at De Montfort University, 14 presenters had conducted research in the Archive and three of the four keynotes had researched there prior to delivering their papers. [30] Similarly, the Kubrick Archive has made a major contribution to Kubrick studies and screen studies in general. Of the nine contributors to the recent Adaptation Journal special edition on Kubrick, five writers had researched in the Archive, three of whom were long-term researchers who had attended the Archive regularly over six to nine years.

The Archive is not only a research resource because of the material it holds, but the space acts as a catalyst for interaction between scholars. In direct contrast to the 2001 lounge of the Hilton Space Station where the American scientist Heywood Floyd plays verbal chess with his Russian counterparts – trying to remain civil without divulging information – the red and white furniture of the Archives and Special Collections Centre’s search-room has become a crucible for discussion between researchers, sharing ideas and suggesting sources and directions for work. This interaction is positively encouraged by Archive staff who learn much more about the Archive through active interaction with the researchers. Such collegial interaction led to the publication of Stanley Kubrick: New Perspectives in 2015. [31] The editors of this publication met at the Archive and, inspired by the interaction with other Kubrick scholars within the Archive’s premises, decided to produce a book where each contributor would produce a chapter in which archival research was the foundation of the work. The resulting book consists of 17 illustrated chapters covering Kubrick’s entire career and considering subjects such as the outtakes from Dr. Strangelove and how Kubrick’s edits changed the very nature of the film from its shooting script; a description and analysis of the interaction between key NASA figures and the 2001 production; and a fresh take on Kubrick’s directorial style using evidence from The Shining section of the Archive. Stanley Kubrick: New Perspectives is but one of many books published in the last few years that have relied substantively on archival research to herald new discoveries about Kubrick and deepen our understanding of his works and working methods.

While the Stanley Kubrick Archive is not the only repository holding primary source material that can support the study of Kubrick and his films, it is by far the largest and most comprehensive. Because Kubrick was almost uniquely involved in every aspect of filmmaking, the Archive is equally a valuable source for any study of filmmaking in the latter half of the 20th Century. The collection’s donation to the University of the Arts London, its subsequent cataloguing and the opening of the Archive centre has allowed for this resource to become publicly accessible to scholars and fans alike. Through loans to exhibitions and the publications created by Archive researchers, it has enhanced the ability of people around the world to encounter archive material which expose Kubrick’s working methods. Using the holdings within the university’s pedagogical programs has raised awareness of Kubrick and his oeuvre to a new generation of artists, some of whom may well be inspired to make new works of art by their interaction with the Archive. All of this activity contributes to preserving the name of Stanley Kubrick, and to keeping the allure of his works alive. Hence, the Stanley Kubrick Archive is demonstrably a key component in maintaining the filmmaker’s creative legacy.

[1] Up to 1947 Stanley Kubrick worked as a freelance photographer for Look magazine; from 1947 to 1950 he became a full time staff photographer.
[2] Jan Harlan, interviewed by Jon Ronson for Stanley Kubrick’s Boxes, Directed by Jon Ronson, 1st Broadcast on More 4, 15 July 2008.
[3] Christiane Kubrick, interviewed by Jon Ronson for Stanley Kubrick’s Boxes
[4] Alison Castle ed., The Stanley Kubrick Archives (Taschen, 2008). Castle, Alison ed.; Stanley Kubrick’s Napoleon, the greatest movie never made; (Taschen, 2011).
[5] Jon Ronson, “Citizen Kubrick”; Weekend Magazine (The Guardian, 27 March 2004).
[6] For more information on the formation of the University Archives and Special Collections Centre see Sarah Mahurter; “The Stanley Kubrick Archive at the University of the Arts London”, EVA London Conference, 11-13 July 2007;
[7] SK/1/2/1, Memorabilia, 1945-1999, Stanley Kubrick Archive, University of the Arts London (SKA); SK/1/2/7, Stationery, SKA.
[8] Kubrick rarely used storyboards and those that exist in the Archive usually depict scenes which required complicated special effects photography. See SK/12/2/4/4, 2001 Storyboards, [1964-1965]; SK/17/2/10, Eyes Wide Shut Alice’s Dream Storyboards, 1996, SKA
[9] SK/11/1, Dr. Strangelove Development – Scripts, 1959-1963, SKA. For a detailed analysis of the development of the screenplay for Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb see Mick Broderick, Reconstructing Strangelove: Inside Stanley Kubrick’s “nightmare comedy” (New York: Columbia University Press, 2017). In a 1962 interview Kubrick described his new film project as being: the “story of an American professor who rises to power in sex and politics by becoming a nuclear Wise Man”, “The East: Kubrick and Sellers’ New Film”, New York Times (6 May 1962). Kubrick was keen to stress the dark side of his film describing it as a ‘nightmare comedy’ in his interviews, see SK/11/6/14, Dr. Strangelove Publicity, 1963-1971?, SKA.
[10] SK/16/2/3/3, Set Dressing Photographs – Adaptations, [1985?], SKA; SK/16/2/3/34, Full Metal Jacket, Reference Images – Advertisements, [1985?], SKA. For an insight into the preproduction processes involved in the adaption of Beckton Gasworks see Richard Daniels, “Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket: Constructing War-Torn Vietnam in England” in Jennifer Good, Brigitte Lardinois, Paul Lowe and Val Williams, eds., Mythologizing the Vietnam War, Visual Culture and Mediated Memory (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014).
[11] SK/9/1/2/3, Spartacus Story Development,1959-1960, SKA. For insights into Kubrick’s role in the development of Spartacus see Fiona Radford, “Having his Cake and Eating It Too: Stanley Kubrick and Spartacus” in Tatjana Ljujić, Peter Kramer and Richard Daniels, eds., Stanley Kubrick New Perspectives (London: Black Dog, 2015).
[12] SK/15/4/1, Wendy Carlos, Music and Sound Effect Recordings, SKA. For discussions on the use of music and sound effects in The Shining see Christine Gengaro, Listening to Stanley Kubrick: The Music in His Films, (Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2014)
[13] Kate McQuistan, We’ll Meet Again, Musical Design in the Films of Stanley Kubrick (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).
[14] Paths of Glory Press Office Files, SK/8/3/5, SKA. For an analysis of press strategy for Paths of Glory see: Richard Daniels, “Selling the War Film: Syd Stogel and the Paths of Glory Press Files” in Stanley Kubrick: New Perspectives, Tatjana Ljujić et al. Eds. (London: Black Dog, 2015).
[15] SK/11/9/27, Letter, Nat Weiss to Lee Minoff, 30 January 1963, SKA. For more on the marketing strategies of Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb see Peter Kramer, “‘To Prevent the Present Heat from Dissipating’: Stanley Kubrick and the Marketing of Dr. Strangelove (1964)”, Inmedia; Volume 3 Cinema and Marketing (2013)
[16] SK/13/6/29, A Clockwork Orange Articles and Reviews, SKA. For more information about the reception of A Clockwork Orange see Peter Krämer; A Clockwork Orange (Controversies), (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).
[17] Robert Poole; “The myth of progress: 2001: A Space Odyssey”, in Alexander C. T. Geppert, ed., Limiting Outer Space: Astroculture After Apollo, (Palgrave Macmillan, in press).
[18] SK/12/8/1/10-13, Arthur C. Clarke Correspondence; 1964-1969, SKA. See Robert Poole, “2001: A Space Odyssey and the Dawn of Man” in Tatjana Ljujić et al. eds., Stanley Kubrick New Perspectives, (London: Black Dog, 2015).
[19] SK/12/8/4, 2001 Fan Letters, 17 Aug 1966-13 Feb 1972, SKA. For an analysis of the response to 2001 see Peter Kramer, “‘Dear Mr. Kubrick’: Audience Responses to 2001: A Space Odyssey in the Late 1960s” Participations, Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, Vol. 6, Issue 2, (November 2009)
[20] SK/14/11, Barry Lyndon Financial Papers, 31 Mar 1971-7 Nov 1977, SKA. See Maria Pramaggiore, Making Time in Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon, Art, History and Empire, (London: Bloomsbury, 2015) for insights into the impact the production had on Ireland.
[21] SK/1/1; Personal Library, SKA. For a detailed discussion about the uses of literature in the development of The Shining see: Catriona McAvoy, “The Uncanny, The Gothic and the Loner: Intertextuality in the Adaptation Process of The Shining” in Adaptation; Vol.8, No. 3 (December 2015)
[22] When organised at Childwickbury prior to transfer to University of the Arts London’s Archives and Special Collections Centre, all of these books were categorised as research for Aryan Papers Kubrick’s unfinished film project based on the novel Wartime Lies by Louis Begley, however further investigations have proved this to be false for many of these books.
[23] It is not fanciful to consider that Kubrick’s widow would feel uncomfortable hanging on to the director’s books on war, weapons and the mass extermination of Europe’s Jews.
[24] Figures for the previous two years were: 2014/15 = 1731 and 2013/14 = 1713.
[25] For example the recent ‘Learning through Objects: Transformative Pedagogies in Practice’ workshop day brought archivists, curators and educators from across the sector to learn how the many forms of Object Based Learning can enhance student’s work:
[26] Judy Willcocks and Graham Barton, Object-based Self-Enquiry: Material Culture as Mediator for Transformative Learning, paper given at the conference: ‘Objectively Speaking – the Value and Practice of Object Based Teaching’, British Museum 4th April 2016;
[27] Joe Cain; “Practical Concerns When Implementing Object-Based Teaching in Higher Education”, (2010)
[28] Photographs of each iteration of the exhibition can be seen here:!
[29] In this case academic researchers are counted as sit down researchers i.e. booking an individual appointment to undertake archival research, not attending a tour or introductory session or taking part in an activity or workshop. The figure can be broken down into approximately 7 percent FE students, 56 percent undergraduates, 28 percent postgraduates and 10 percent PHD researchers and academics.
[30] The 4th Keynote Speaker being Jan Harlan, Stanley Kubrick’s brother-in-law and co-worker from 1968 onwards.
[31] Tatjana Ljujić et al. eds., Stanley Kubrick New Perspectives, (London: Black Dog, 2015). The project to bring about this book began in summer 2010.

About the Author

Richard Daniels

About the Author

Richard Daniels

Richard Daniels has been Senior Archivist and Stanley Kubrick Archivist at the University of the Arts London’s Archives and Special Collections Centre since 2007 where he is responsible for managing the preservation, cataloguing and access to the University’s archive collections.View all posts by Richard Daniels →