Kubrick is one of the few major directors who left behind almost no formal essay on screenwriting craft, yet his production history and interviews reveal a consistent set of habits. He did not think of a screenplay as a finished literary object. He thought of it as the current draft of an idea that would keep changing until the negative was cut.
The script was a draft, never a blueprint
On most Kubrick productions, pages kept changing during shooting. The Shining is the most documented example: Diane Johnson and Kubrick wrote a script, but dialogue and even scene intentions shifted on set, partly through improvisation with Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall. Full Metal Jacket went through extensive rewriting with Michael Herr during and after principal photography. Kubrick's public comments consistently frame the written script as a starting position, not a contract he felt bound to honor once cameras rolled.
This matters for how you read his films as craft models. The clean, symmetrical dialogue you see on screen is often the result of iteration during production, not a single elegant first draft. Writers who study only the shooting script and assume it arrived that way are missing half the process.
He worked with novelists, not career screenwriters
Kubrick's key collaborators, Jim Thompson on The Killing, Arthur C. Clarke on 2001, Diane Johnson on The Shining, Michael Herr on Full Metal Jacket, were novelists or journalists first. This was not incidental. Kubrick has described preferring writers who thought in prose and character psychology over writers trained in industry beat sheets. He wanted people who could generate dense material he could then cut down, rather than people who arrived with a structure already locked.
What this meant in practice
Sessions with these collaborators often produced far more material than made it to screen: alternate scenes, extended backstory, dialogue that was later stripped to almost nothing. Kubrick's method leaned on over generation followed by aggressive subtraction, which is closer to how a novelist revises than how a spec screenwriter is often taught to outline first and write lean from the start.
Structure followed theme, not a formula
Kubrick's films do not map cleanly onto three act templates. Full Metal Jacket is split into two distinct halves with different settings, casts, and tones. 2001 has almost no traditional dialogue driven midpoint. Barry Lyndon is structured as two long parts separated by a literal narrator's intertitle. This was not carelessness. Kubrick talked about wanting structure to emerge from the material and the idea he was exploring, rather than forcing material into a pre set shape.
This is a real point of disagreement among screenwriting teachers. Structure focused approaches, the kind associated with Syd Field or Blake Snyder, treat beat placement as close to a rule. Kubrick's practice suggests structure can be discovered through drafting and even through editing, and that a film can hold together on tone and idea rather than on midpoint and act break mechanics.
Ambiguity was a deliberate choice, not a failure to explain
Kubrick was famously resistant to explaining what his films meant, including 2001's ending and The Shining's supernatural logic. In interviews he argued that a film should work on an audience emotionally and viscerally before it works intellectually, and that over explaining collapses that effect. For screenwriters, the craft lesson is not simply be vague. It is that Kubrick built ambiguity through withheld information and unresolved visual motifs, while still keeping the underlying mechanics of each scene, who wants what, what changes, functioning normally underneath.
Adaptation as demolition, not fidelity
Nearly every Kubrick film is an adaptation, and he was open about treating source novels as material to strip down rather than texts to honor. He changed Stephen King's ending in The Shining. He compressed Anthony Burgess's more moralizing final chapter out of A Clockwork Orange for the theatrical cut. His stated position was that a novel's interior psychology has to be translated into image and behavior, and that fidelity to plot events matters far less than fidelity to the underlying feeling he wanted the film to produce.
How this compares to more conventional screenwriting advice
| Principle | Conventional screenwriting guidance | Kubrick's documented practice |
|---|---|---|
| The script | Should be locked before production to control budget and schedule | Treated as unfinished through shooting and editing |
| Structure | Follow act breaks and midpoint beats as reliable scaffolding | Let structure emerge from theme, sometimes ignoring standard beats entirely |
| Exposition | Clarify stakes and backstory early for audience orientation | Withhold explanation deliberately, trust image and behavior |
| Adaptation | Preserve the spirit and often the plot of the source | Extract one core idea, discard the rest, rewrite endings if needed |
Neither column is simply right. Locking a script early protects a production budget in ways Kubrick, working with unusual creative control and time, did not have to worry about as much. A newer writer without that leverage still generally needs a script that reads as finished to get financed at all.
Where this leaves a working screenwriter
Kubrick's method is genuinely hard to imitate directly because it depended on control most writers never get: final cut, long shooting schedules, and the ability to keep rewriting after a studio would normally expect delivery. What is transferable is the underlying discipline: generate more material than you need, cut hard, resist explaining what a scene can show, and treat structure as something the story earns rather than something imposed on page ten regardless of content.
If you want to test how Kubrick's logic holds up against a more structure first mentor, a tool like Movie Mentors lets you put a Kubrick style persona in the same conversation as someone built on stricter structural principles and watch where their notes actually conflict on your pages. That kind of direct disagreement is useful for spotting where a script is relying on ambiguity as craft versus using it to cover a scene that simply is not working yet, though no chat based tool can replace watching the scene performed to find out for certain.
Originally published at https://www.moviementors.ai/answers/kubricks-screenwriting-philosophy.html.
Written by the team behind Movie Mentors.
