The notes are fascinating, Tom. Thank you for the post. How did you come across the notes? > History tells us that he twice led his victorious slave army to the northern borders of Italy, and could quite easily have gotten out of the country. But he didn’t, and instead he led his army back to pillage Roman cities. What the reasons were for this might have been the most interesting question the film might have pondered. Did the intentions of the rebellion change? Did Spartacus lose control of his leaders who by now may have been more interested in the spoils of war than in freedom? I love Spartacus, and the "I am Spartacus!" scene is hands-down my favourite scene on film. But the might-have-been version that you describe above would have made an incredible movie. I'd love to see someone explore those dynamics in a film (although it wouldn't necessarily have to be in the context of a story about Spartacus). I've been talking with writer friends about adaptations lately and just had some books highly recommended. You have probably read them already, but just in case you haven't: - Film Art: An Introduction. By Dave Bordwell and Kristin Thompson. Tenth edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. (the section on adaptation) - Novels into Film. By George BlueStone. - The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing Film by Michael Ondaatje (on adapting the English Patient) > For my non-fiction script, the goal is to be LARGE without fudging the truth. It sounds like looking for the movie in the truth. I hope you'll keep us posted on how this project progresses. "The burden of truth" in adaptation, especially historical adaptation, is an important topic and I'd love to hear more from you on it, as well as how you find the challenges of adaptation in general. PS Have you ever read Ray Bradbury's interview in the Paris Review, where he talks about adapting Moby Dick and changing the ending...chutzpah! A good example of dealing with the exigencies of adaptation; maybe not so good for hewing to the source material.

"...the stakes need to be internally massive" ... love this. (Like "it's bigger on the inside," only with story!) This is a large part of what makes a film resonant, rather than flat.

OMG- a discussion about Spartacus? I have probably really seen this film 1000 times since I was 10 years old. I could watch Kirk Douglas read the stock market ratings and get something from it. But it was much later when I studied film and knew who Dalton Trumbo was and what he went through that I real appreciated this film.But I digress. I did at 10 years old READ the Howard Fast Novel and when I saw the film I remember... The Alex North Score..., the opening credit designs which alluded to the crumbling of a society...the opening V.O. of " he lived out his youth and young manhood in the mines of Libyia" ...I was 10 and considered that fate. Then there are the Romans. First we get Batiatus, the linista...gladiator trainer in the form of Peter Ustinov.A man who we will later find out to be a man who changes from greed to ...almost understanding when he spirits Virinia away at the end.His arc is huge. Spartucus is saved from the vultures by Batiatus to become a Gladiator...an old arc-type of a Navy Seal. The training was grueling and the prospects of death overwhelming. But Spartacus fights and survives!Yet...when he sees Virinia his love shadows his mortality. Marcellus the lead trainer plays on this to the point of sadism...He sees Spartacus' weakness is love. He tries to humiliate Spartacus in front of the other Gladiators and fails. Spartacus makes friends and except for Draba the Ethiopian,is respected: Draba puts the reality to him: Gladiators don't make friends. If we are matched in the arena I'll have to kill you. Spartacus has no understanding of this until it's too late. Enter the Primo Roman! Marcus Licinius Crassus...the Great General and Patrician ( read Republican)out for a weekend of death and pleasure. The calm in the school is destroyed when he offers an exorbitant amount of money for 2 pairs to the death!!! Think a pick up basketball game ...to the death!!! The selection scene is classic...Batiatus tries to save his best but the perfumed and not very attractive ladies from Rome pick, 4 which ignite the school: Draba and Spartacus are included. If I were to ever have to do an acting scene where I had to cry I would think of the arena scene. With only V.O. of background noise, Draba makes a decision and Spartacus does too...But Draba's is the fuse which lights the keg!!! The fight is still one of the most dramatic in film!!! And the ending? Spartacus closes his eyes and waits for death, but Draba has made his own decision. He attacks Crassus and is dispatched. Again Alex North's music is key here!!! Marcellus' detachment and coldness to Draba's death doesn't really penetrate the stunned Gladiators...until the next morning. As agreed by Crassus and Batiatus, Virinia is to be sent to Rome!!! When Marcellus tells Spartacus this news, Spartacus replies," to Rome", and Marcellus strikes him with the whip in the face! That pushes him to the edge...Spartacus grabs him and the other Gladiators see the opportunity and Marcellus is drowned in a hot pot of SOUP!!! Then they win against the fat and stupid school guards and scatter to Vesuvius. Virinia is sped away with the cowardly Batiatus and they speed to Rome. This first sequence sets up Soooo much conflict and stakes and hope!!! Would you like me to continue with the story???

Although I haven't seen Kubrick's earlier films, I'm sure that he is unmistakable in his style. By the time he was given Spartacus, he had developed some of the clearest ideas on film making and the kind of ideas he wanted to express. I think that Kubrick found no irony in Spartacus, except in the subplots. And although it is a good movie, it is different from every subsequent Kubrick movie in it's lack of irony. What you mentioned about where Kubrick wanted the script to go makes sense to me and not just from the historical perspective. I think Kubrick generally regarded reality as a treacherous conspiracy of powerful forces wherein the truth is often lethal and never liberating. He would have been drawn to Spartacus for that reason and he would have chosen a suitable way for Spartacus and his revolution to be undermined. Even if this idea is buried in sentiment in the final film, I suppose that Kubrick intended Spartacus's girlfriend/wife, Varinia, to betray him upon a guarantee that his child would be free. Such an addition to the movie would have taken only a few scenes, and the ending in which she encounters him crucified and says how his son would grow to be a free man would have been extremely ironic. As it stands, the ending is moderately flawed because it seems that the rebellion succeeded in liberating only the wife of the leader and his son. That is ironic but it isn't played that way. I had the same kind of uneasy feeling after watching the recent War of the Worlds. In that movie, it seems that 1.5 billion people have to be slaughtered in order for Tom Cruise to become a good father. Otherwise I was aware of a hero complex that was an elitist "all the best people" flaw. Kubrick was a director with a social conscience, and he would have railed against such a perspective. An Aside My guess is that Ron Howard would not give a lead actor so much latitude to dictate the tone of a movie. But then again his ideas never boiled down to the the dichotomy of the form Douglas versus Kubrick. And to a large extant, he can thank you for giving him a script that made him a virtual star behind the camera. I met him in 1992. I was in the d'Orsay Museum in Paris looking at a symbolist painting about the Franco Prussian War. I was spending time trying to take in this painting by Gustave Dore called the Enigma. A few minutes of perplexed contemplation had passed when I heard two people come up behind me, English speakers, a man and a woman. The man was expressing some doubt about the meaning of the painting, and at that moment, I realized the voice could only belong to one person. I immediately turned around and said to him, "You're Ron Howard!" I didn't blurt out "YOU'RE RICHIE THE C!", which is exactly what I was thinking. He seemed slightly taken aback that I had nailed him so quickly without even seeing him. I had forgotten that he had made Cocoon. He was a nice guy, with a really nice girlfriend, or wife, or friend, or assistant, or whatever. I didn't ask him why he was in Paris, but I assumed he was on vacation. I told him as much as I knew (actually mostly good guesses) about the painting, and that I had seen Backdraft: I complimented him on the movie being very entertaining and on the realistic fire CGs that must have taken ages to to make. He immediately responded that he had a new movie coming out. I asked him, "What is it about?" He replied "It's called Apollo 13 and it has Tom Hanks in it." I thought, "Oh shit, that's great moment in history, more dramatic than even my namesake's landing on the Moon." I said "Great, I think I'd really like to see it." I didn't want to bother him any further so I left and found my girlfriend amidst the impressionists. I said, "You'll never guess who I just met." I remember that she didn't give a damn when I told her. She was an artist.

I find myself really looking forward to Tom's weekly column now...sort of the pepper next to the salt (Scott). Thanks for taking the time to pen your self for us once a week...asking too much for twice a week? I think I told you this before, but three Kubrick movies yet to be made. That's really something...gray. http://collider.com/three-stanley-kubrick-scripts-to-become-major-productions-by-philco-films/22827/

Thanks for your comments. I am working on a book review of a book about the making of the movie and ended up going online into the U of Wisconsin archive where a portion of Trumbo's actual typed notes are in PDF. Then, I just started looking around for things about Kubrick's point of view and found that quote. I just looked at the Bradbury interview. Thanks for suggesting it. I have read the Bordwell book, haven't seen the Bluestone book but the Walter Murch book is something I have been meaning to read forever. As for my project, I will keep the blog up to date. I am convinced that point of view and the thematic concerns of the writer end up trumping truth in the film form. Still, I do feel this impulse to remain factual where it most matters with my script.

We get into the heads of the people on-screen. I think film actors who function well(movie stars, etc.) do so because, given the right material, we empathize, get into their pov totally as we watch a film. Elementary, perhaps.

Given the right material in their heads, the right emotional conflicts and story, we are living it ourselves as we watch. Some actors are so good they are able to create this internal story that keeps us in the film even when the story isn't really doing much.

I am going to the 70mm screening at the Academy Theatre on Aug 13. Your close description gives me strong anticipation! Thanks.

Good point about War of the Worlds. Kubrick's films were so thoughtfully conceived. He may have over-considered things later in life, but can you really ever do that if you are in the creative process? There is room for another great Gladiator film. I always thought Spartacus wasn't really a Kubrick film, but had not been aware of the details of the shooting before. It is instructive to my writing process.

Good old Ron!!Ha... at the Louvre. Wow.

Thanks, Phil. I am enjoying this writing, trying to establish a rhythm of regularity, which is difficult but seems to be happening. I didn't know Kubrick had a Mosby project. Have you seen the script or short story?

I'd love to get tickets to that, Tom!! Enjoy!

I think if there is any "excess irony" aside from the fact that the gladiators were created by the Romans and nearly toppled the fragile empire because of the fact that there were more slaves in Rome than Romans,there are several other examples. I believe this is NOT a typical "auterist" film by Kubrick, but rather a delicate work of collaboration between Trumbo, Douglas, and Kubrick. Irony? Crassus wants the wife of Spartacus to near madness. Graccus, the slovenly enemy of Crassus is the instrument to allow Virinia freedom, even though he knows his life is toast. More but I've run out of time !!! Nice talking to you!!!

No, I have not, but did read several articles about "DownSlope." One producer I queried wrote back and said they were doing their own Ghost film, which was disappointing and a shock, so the race is on! Can't recall now if it was Kubrick's version or another. I think the former, but have to check my query notes. Anyway...write more! Always interested in what you thunk.

Tom, I'm currently working on adapting a feature-length script I wrote which is based on a 3000 year-old historical epic character and story. After five rewrites, many notes from other writers, and YEARS spent researching, pondering, struggling, wrestling, all while having my soul turned inside out (a good thing to do at least once in your adult life, in my opinion), I finally came to realize that this project wants to be told in a different medium. So I'm now in the process of adapting the script into a pilot for an original TV series. This has been truly liberating - as this story is massively epic, fraught with major battle scenes and set pieces, multiple characters (way too many for a feature), large timeframe (over a dozen years in the main character's life), and simply way too much story to cram into 120 pages. I've essentially taken the entire script and broken it up into a 10 episode arc of the first season, at least I have the major plot points worked out. I'll spend time only writing the pilot spec, and after putting it out there, wait to see what happens, see if this will help me get signed to an agent, etc. But I will tell you from my own personal experience that it took me years to give myself permission to write the "historical" story outside of the bounds of actual "history". It might sound a bit weird to say this, but history itself is a constantly moving target, containing multiple layers and versions of many truths. And our responsibility and opportunity as writers is to take each story, regardless of basis, and put it through our own unique lens and experience, and wrestle and extract OUR OWN truth from it, giving our personal perspective to the world as we've earned it through our own struggle with the material. History is a collection of truths written by a collection of voices. When we adapt we simply add our own to the mix. "How can I take a very old historical event and characters and make it and them relevant to a modern-day audience?" By making it relevant to you and you alone. By jumping into the Great Abyss of timeless myth and passion, without thought of ego or danger or time itself. With each journey we take we need to become "no man." Only then does history begin to unravel and speak to us, and only then can we clearly see the truth - that the voices of history are us. They always were. I wish you the best on your own journey, Tom. I'm still discovering myself in mine. Best, Jason