This week sees the release on DVD of the Warner Home Video Director's Series: Stanley Kubrick, which collects newly remastered editions of 2001, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and the U.S. premiere of the uncensored version of Eyes Wide Shut.  All are two-disc special editions loaded with copious new bonus features (except for Full Metal Jacket, which keeps all the extras on one disc), such as feature length commentaries from the actors and/or technicians involved, and extensive behind the scenes documentaries. Jan Harlan, Kubrick’s longtime Executive Producer (and brother-in-law) graciously answered some questions via e-mail about this most exacting, enigmatic, and profoundly influential director.

With this box set, the films are being released in their theatrical aspect ratios. The big differences this time around are the widescreen presentations of The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut, which had previously only been released on video and DVD in the full-frame (TV square) format.  Did Stanley have a preference as to what aspect ratio these films should be viewed in for home video?

His preference would naturally have been the ratio used in the cinema. But he adjusted his framing over the years to the tendency to smaller and wider cinema screens, which is also reflected in the wider TV sets. 16:9 is now the standard and we all considered the topic of ratio very carefully asking ourselves always “how would Stanley have decided?” in the light of a changing and fast growing home movie market.

Why has it taken so long for the uncensored cut of Eyes Wide Shut to appear in the US?

A more appropriate question would be: Why was it censored at all? The censors and Stanley Kubrick looked at the scene to be censored from very difficult angles. The censor follows self-imposed rules based only on what can be seen and not what it means, and therefore judges the form and not the substance. Kubrick was interested in the substance first and then gave it a visual form as a subjective, artistic expression. The so-called “orgy” in Eyes Wide Shut is a stylized look into a reality of modern society.

Given his penchant for carefully managing the release of info about his pictures, would Stanley be comfortable with the new running commentaries and making of documentaries that are included in this box set?

Probably not. Stanley did not like explanations and interpretations and ambiguous scenes or endings were so for good reason. The viewer should find the answers alone and these might well vary, but no fixed explanation should be given. To illustrate the point I would suggest comparing the ending of Paths of Glory to the ending of Full Metal Jacket, and detect the same attempt to express a fundamental desire of any man in his longing for his loved ones. No explanation is needed, and different viewers, different age groups and audiences with different backgrounds will take different impressions away from these endings. Stanley’s films were always stimulating for a listening audience that did not insist on orderly answers to complex and sometimes philosophical questions. On the other hand: If people are helped by these commentaries and a new audience is won over, as may be the case sometimes, then these commentaries serve a purpose. After all, nobody has to listen to it.

Are there any future plans to remaster Barry Lyndon for HD with extras? It was a great success when Leon Vitali showed a restored print at Film Society of Lincoln Center (NYC) this past summer.

I don’t know. I hope so. The film is a great masterpiece and was recognized as such in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, for example. From a technical point of view the film forms a milestone in the history of cinematography. One day, I am sure, Warner Home Video will re-master Barry Lyndon for HD.

On the great, unfinished projects, Napoleon and Aryan Papers, there were plans at one time to release the script of Napoleon as a book illustrated with a selection of Stanley’s archive material. Is that still in the works? Are there plans to release any of the Aryan Papers material?

The Napoleon Project will be very comprehensively published by TASCHEN in 2008. I have seen the design and it is dazzling. It will be as great a book as the large TASCHEN book The Stanley Kubrick Archives. The same brilliant woman from upstate New York, Alison Castle, has also edited Stanley Kubrick’s Napoleon. A facsimile copy of the script will be one of many items in this richly illustrated publication.

There are no plans to publish the pre-production material for Aryan Papers yet – I highly recommend your readers to get a copy of Louis Begley’s book Wartime Lies on which this film would have been based.  However, there is a plan for a book with the amazing and most revealing drawings by Chris Baker for A.I. Artificial Intelligence. The book is designed and ready for print with a wonderful foreword by Steven Spielberg, but we don’t have a publisher yet.

You’ve had great success in Europe with the traveling Stanley Kubrick Exhibition, which presents material from Stanley’s extensive archives.  Are there plans to bring this to the States?

We would be most happy to bring this to the USA, but “It needs Two- to-Tango”. As far as the Kubrick family is concerned the exhibition should have first opened in New York, Stanley’s hometown. But so far no organizer from America has been interested enough or managed to get a venue. The exhibition has been hugely successful in four major cities in Europe and in Melbourne, Australia. In October this year The Stanley Kubrick Exhibition will re-open the old exhibition palace at the centre of Rome, Italy. Other major cities are interested; one of these is Haifa in Israel, which would be most exiting.

Having been his Executive Producer for many years, what was he like to work with?  You were also his brother-in-law. Did he cut you any slack on the job?

I had known him for a decade before I started working with him in 1970 because he was my brother-in-law. I joined him on Napoleon, thinking this might be for a year or so. Little did I know how this would change my life. It was a great challenge working with him, not easy at times, but great fun nevertheless, otherwise I would not have lasted. No, no slack. But he didn’t cut any slack for himself either.

Given the serious subject matter of Stanley’s films, the humor found in his movies, and in Stanley himself (based on interviews), is sometimes obscured. Is it true he was a big fan of The Jerk with Steve Martin? If so, did he have any special “Kubrickian” take on it, or did he just find it silly and funny like everybody else?

He loved good films made by others. He did not look for “similar” films – he loved Woody Allen – I remember he saw Radio Days twice within a week. He loved Steven Spielberg, because he is so different, or Carlos Saura, or Edgar Reitz, or Martin Scorsese, or Sydney Pollack or Ingmar Bergman, or, or, or – he was a cineaste, he truly loved movies and was not as critical about other director’s films as he was about his own work. I remember The Jerk– Stanley laughed his head off – isn’t this enough?

Did Stanley have an opinion on why his films provoked so much debate?

Not really. He got used to the fact that he split audiences and critics alike. He had no choice. An artist paints as good a picture as he is able to do, he can’t work “to order”, he can’t try to please and seek approval while he is working. Afterwards, yes, Stanley was very happy when people responded positively to his films and he was not indifferent to criticism, but there was nothing he could do to influence this, let alone consider this while making the film. If someone didn’t understand the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey, he could not help it. It was clear to him, but this not to be expressed in words. Or he might escape into a funny line like “I never try to explain something that I don’t understand myself.”

What would have surprised Stanley about the world in 2007 (if anything)?

That predictions come true…..that paranoia meant you figured out what’s going on…..and still hoping that he hadn’t inadvertently made a documentary with Dr. Strangelove.