Kubrick's Keeper

Saturday, Jun. 16, 2001 By BY JESS CAGLE

Article Tools

"It's a bit of cinema history. I remember seeing it and thinking this is a repeat of '2001.' Some people will walk out and hate it. Never mind."
—Jan Harlan

Cagle: What's something that Steven added that wasn't there in Kubrick's vision?

Harlan: The Gigolo Joe character, Steven turned it into a light-hearted colorful figure, very funny, very witty. Stanley's Gigolo Joe was a very very serious and dark robot. Had Stanley made this film, telling exactly the same thing, it would've been rated R. Stanley's Gigolo Joe, forgive the double entendre, did go all the way.

Where was the script when Steven stepped in?

There are two stages. Stanley bought the short story in '83, "Supertoys Last All Summer Long," from Brian Aldiss. So then he worked with Brian, he worked with Watson, he worked, mainly, himself. Very slowly. This was a long project. He wrote a script. It wasn't a treatment, it wasn't a conventional script. Before it was finished, he had spoken to Spielberg about all sorts of things. They were telephone pals. In the mid '90s, he offered Steven to direct "A.I." He completely opened up to Steven, gave him the story, gave him what he had, showed him over 600 conceptual drawings that he had already. He said to Steven, you have the better knack for this. It was monumental fairy tale that Stanley wanted, and Stanley always had these kind of black notes, very dark elements. They're completely different.

Stanley said this would be a Stanley Kubrick production of a Steven Spielberg film. But they drifted apart, there were other things to do. Stanley had planned to build a boy robot, failed in his attempt because the robot was totally unattractive. It's a totally important ingredient that this boy is very very attractive. At that time we had very rigid child labor laws and we had terrible trouble with Danny Lloyd in "The Shining." The authorities were breathing down our neck every day.

He also didn't consider a boy because he takes so long. If you take a year, a young boy can really change. He decided to put it off, do "Eyes Wide Shut." Then Stanley died. I didn't think about "A.I." at all. After all this was done and the dust had settled, I looked at "A.I." and realized there was this treasure that was about to collect dust. I called Steven Spielberg and Terry Semel and started the ball rolling. I tried now over a thousand drawings, two huge boxes full of material. I had to find it all because Stanley wasn't a very good file clerk. I met with Steven, I gave him absolutely everything I had with the total unlimited authority to do whatever he wanted to do. I knew that Stanley, who never let anyone interfere with his direction, would not have interfered with Steven. I felt totally authorized and justified in doing this.

Then Steven invited me to read, months later, his script, in his office. I was flabbergasted. He stuck basically to Stanley's storyline and still every page had now Steven Spielberg in it. It's a true amalgamation of the two. The two are so different, but what connects them is talent.

Is there a particular scene in "A.I." that looks exactly like the drawings of Chris Baker and Spielberg?

The whole Flesh Fair business. Steven was so taken with these drawings that he hired the same guy, Chris Baker, a black guy, real charming. The whole Flesh Fair thing, the apartment, comes from Chris Baker. I was so astonished when I saw the film the first time. In fact, it was very much Stanley's concept. The whole thing with the opening in the factory where the guy gives the speech and an employee is selected and he takes the boy home and the mother makes her first tremendous apprehension, and then the coding. All this was there.

Did Steven see this film as completing a vision by another artist?

I don't think so. He loved the story and he understood why Kubrick was fascinated. But there's no doubt that he had to make it his own. He's saturated with good ideas. He can't look over his shoulder. He may say he respected Stanley Kubrick's ideas. That's not a contradiction. Stanley's a great artist himself. But it really is a Steven Spielberg film. The same story would've looked different had Stanley made it.