Barry Lyndon

Guy Meachin · June 2, 2004

Just watched Barry Lyndon for the fifth time this year. It never fails to amaze me! I'm now convinced this is Kubricks finest piece - a very bold statement I'm sure will cause much constanation on the forum. I think it's his most complete piece, the story is one of the best I have come across together with the score, cinematography, costume and the VO, this is truely masterpiece, not to mention his most under-rated!

The only draw-back I have is the quality of the DVD. I experience alot of flickering on my copy. My DVD player is top draw so I'm hoping it's not that. Anyone know what this could be down to?

Off to watch Paths of Glory now which I purchased today for a mere £6. Get in!

Ilya Stone · June 12, 2004

I absolutely agree. I watched Barry Lyndon on DVD for the first time a couple of weeks ago. Had been putting it to the back of my "must see" list for a while. I was ASTOUNDED how good it was. Definitely an underated film.

IMHO some Kubrick films are overated. I found Full Metal Jacket to be very disappointing...the second half of the movie is terrible. In one scene, a killed soldier is clearly breathing! Kubrick's "perfectionism" has always been overstated though (for example, how 'bout that helicopter shadow at the beginning of The Shining!). Regardless, technical SNAFU's are of no real consequence - his films are great for their tone, not some supposed wizardry. To me, Kubrick's overall style appeals most to younger people. His films are bold and exciting, and he was my absolute fave as a teenager.

Back to BL. The movie is beautiful, and the story is engrossing. Ryan O'Neal is perfect in the title role. He's both a niave man AND an aggressive thug - and very convincing as both. How did he ever "fade away"? He was also perfect in Paper Moon. Anyway, EVERYONE should see BL, ASAP! I think it ranks right up there with 2001 and Clockwork.

Matt Pacini · July 4, 2004

I hate to be a party pooper, but I just don't get it.

I mean, yeah, some of the cinematography is really nice in Barry Lyndon, but I thought it was just a so-so movie.

ANd don't any of you DP's out there ever get pissed the Kubrick always gets the credit for EVERYTHING that is good about his films?

Why is it that you don't hear the DP ever mentioned?

It's not like Kubrick did everything, you know.

And I don't see that he was a perfectionist, I think he most likely had obsessive-compulsive disorder, and I'm not kidding.

You don't spend a week, take after take, for one scene, for any reason other than you have some mental problem!

He did this alot, including on Eyes Wide Shut. If you can't get a scene in the can in a day, then something is wrong, and that something is NOT that you need to spend another 4 straight days shooting that one scene over and over.

I like a lot of Kubrick, don't get me wrong, but I just think he, and specifically, this film, is overrated. I just don't think the fact that he had lenses specially made to shoot in candlelight, had any real significant contribution to the quality of that film.

It's just turned into legend now, and in reality it was an extra expense that was totally unnecessary, if you ask me.

He must have driven producers stark raving mad!

Yeah he did some brilliant work, but I don't think that excuses whatever insanity a person engages in to get there, and I think that he could have made the films he made without the stupid things he did.

But hey, what do I know?

Matt Pacini

bouncybabybucket · July 4, 2004

Kubrick did over-assist his cinematographers though. I think Robert Altman was excellent and was trusted by Kubrick to do his job.

I can't find fault with the majority of Kubricks work. You either like it or hate it, it's down to personal taste - though you can be sure of one thing, nothing on his films happened by accident or luck. Each movie was his own vision, they were exactly what he wanted them to be, except Spartacus of course!

eddiefruchter · July 4, 2004

Kubrick used to speak quite eloquently about the defining moments in cinema not consisting of "Talking Heads," but a mixture of music and image, resulting in a state of perception unmatched in any other medium. I suppose that 2001 is the proof of Kubrick's thesis (and I still haven't found Matt's), and Barry Lyndon is the logical extension of that, instead employing narrative (and no, i'm not joking, although I tend to the subversive) storytelling. Spielberg aptly compared it to "getting lost in the Lourve without lunch." The amazing element of the cinematography- one of the three best shot films IMHO, the other two consisting of Cries and Whispers and Citizen Kane- is that, for the majority of the film, you are immersed in a kind of realistic, or, better put, naturalistic world that is exactly as it was. Not to say that he didn't cheat in some lighting here and there, but, in the sense of the entire composition, it's probably the most elegant, real lighting you'll ever see. It reaches a point that has been missed by films today, with all that bullshit MTV editing. Look at the last scene, and imagine one of these kids today- and you know what I mean: coked out on Ritalin, pants hanging off of their asses, drooling over reality television. It requires dedication to form, something the americans and canadians- as an audience, and I know this is a generalization, but look at the cumulative box office and the titles occupying the #1 spot, and you have no fault with my argument- never wanted to display that dedication, and got left behind in the international wave. Oy, I didn't intend to get off on a critique of contemporary society, but I am at my most prolific when fully contrarian. This is the antidote for the poison of Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino and the other myriad Dilettantes raping our most sacred of national art forms. Watch it again. Then take some milk plus.

Also, to respond to the comments about Kubrick's personality and eccentricities: Woody Allen and Roman Polanski both share interests, shall we say, out of the everyday, but the community recognizes that is insignificant, and judges them on the quality of their art. To attack an artist on his or her personal life is the act of a Philistine, and a thinly disguised one, at that.

Nate Downes · July 4, 2004

Kubrick did over-assist his cinematographers though. I think Robert Altman was excellent and was trusted by Kubrick to do his job.

I did not know Robert Altman was involved in BL's production. (Or was he involved in another film of Kubricks?)

eddiefruchter · July 4, 2004

To clarify, John Alcott shot Barry Lyndon (and won an oscar). He also shot A Clockwork Orange.

Matt Pacini · July 6, 2004

I'm not saying I don't like Kubrick films, because mostly, I do.

I'm just saying, that the insanity he engaged in, to bring those films to the screen, has become this sort of urban myth, with newbie filmmakers the world over cherishing the thoughts of someone going through untold wasted money and time, because it fits nicely into this romantic image that many have, that the "tortured, misunderstood by lesser mortals" artist, is somehow more of an artist, than an artist who understand that SOMEBODY is paying for this, and there just "might" be a more efficient way to do this, and end up with the same exact result, AND be able to bring even more art to the world, because people will be more likely to continue funding your work.

the best evidence I have to back up what I'm saying, is the fact that almost every other genius in film who has created all the other masterpieces we love, does not go bonkers-nutso like Kubrick did, driving producers, actors, and anyone else involved in the picture totally insane.

Let's be serious, he shot Eyes Wide Shut for almost TWO YEARS!!!

Do you really think it was worth it?

Matt Pacini

Ilya Stone · July 6, 2004

I agree with nearly all you are saying Eddie...most importantly that Lost is Translation is total crap! That film makes me angry on so many levels!!! But I digress.

BTW...you forgot to add Michael Jackson's "Bad" video to Scorcese's sell out list.

Spider · July 6, 2004

I would like to comment upon Kubricks insanity or genius. I believe all his films to be great films because they are all films with a very strong message that related to something in his own life. He has made relativly few films and all of them differ so much from each and other.

I don't think young filmmakers are fascinated by the thought that they too are 'artists misunderstood', but by the dedication one would go through to achieve ones goal - to tell what is on your mind.

I think Kubrick wanted to tell, like any descent director, something in his mind and in his heart - and he succeeded in every case. His films cannot be misunderstood - that is what the young filmmaker is looking for.

Battles are fought by those with the courage to believe. And sometimes the believer has a very unforgiving blade! To you Matt, I don't think that directors like Ingmar Bergman or T.H. Dreyer were always too easy to work with either - and they are afterall directors that will be remembered for there work for a long time yet - and I believe Kubrick is in that category too.

Anyhow I can always watch a Kubrick film over and over again, and that is what makes him such a great director.

Matt Pacini · July 7, 2004

Criticizm of an artist is off limits?

Since when?

First of all, since there is a remnant of freedom of speech left in the world, I can say whatever I want, just as you do (criticizing Lost in Translation, for instance.)

There's a huge difference between criticizing a director's personal life (the child molesters you mention) and criticizing the process of that directors filmmaking, which is what I am doing.

You can't logically say that Kubrick ALWAYS acheived his artistic goals, AND say EWS was crap because he "caved in" to Hollywood, which is ludicrous.

All his films were studio funded films, ie; "Hollywood" films.

Just because you like some more than others, doesn't make them NOT studio films.

I'd have to say spending almost two years to shoot (not finish, but JUST THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION SHOOTING) for a film like Eyes Wide Shut is in no way caving in to the Hollywood system, in fact, they really went out on a limb to fund Kubricks insanity to make that film.

Kubrick only made 5 films from 1968 - 1999. Thirty one years, five films!

I guarantee you, if he had not lost his marbles and kept wasting everyone's time & money, he would have made 3-4 times that many films, and I have no doubt they would have been at least as good.

His "brilliance" only caused him to deprive the world of more of his art.

He only made 16 films in an almost 50 year career, and mostly, it was because almost nobody was willing to risk their money on some project guarenteed to go over time, over budget, and "maybe" eventually make a profit.

I don't care who you are, the fact remains that filmmaking is the worlds most expensive art form, and the people who fund pictures, do it for one reason; to make a profit.

There's no escaping that, no matter how distasteful it is to you "true artists" out there.

Maybe the fact that Kubrick basically spit in the face of the financiers, is exactly why you guys romanticise his wasteful techniques so much.

Personally, I find it a waste, and a shame.

Matt Pacini

David Mullen ASC · July 8, 2004

Kubrick made some of the greatest films of all time, most of his films were financially successful, and he compensated for his long shoots by using very small crews generally, so he was not as financially out of control as you want to make him out to be. The fact that he managed to make intellectually stimulating films within a studio system and generally earn a profit from them already puts him way ahead of most filmmakers. Not to mention that most directors never make a "2001" in their entire careers, yet he made that AND "Dr. Strangelove" and "Clockwork Orange".

Considering he was my idol growing up, and that "2001" is one of the movies that made me go into this business, I can only take so much of this constant beratement from you before I feel the need to speak up. However, it's probably pointless -- Kubrick certainly doesn't need defending. His work speaks for itself.

You complain about Kubrick's eccentric techniques while nutjobs like Michael Bay get to smash film equipment when they have a fit on set... heard a few days ago about him flipping over an entire video playback cart. Every day out there you have major directors working with a tenth of Kubrick's talent and intellect and not particularly practical or financially pragmatic directorial approaches either. Nor are studio executives themselves the most cost-effective people either. Kubrick was always concerned about how well his films did financially at the box office because he knew that his power at the studios was maintained by those figures. He supervised the releases of his own films, down to the posters used, the local adds, even sending people to check out the theaters where the movies were playing. And most studio chiefs said that he was actually good at the work, smarter than their own advertizing departments.

So give me a break and lay off of Kubrick for a little while! I've had enough...

Matt Pacini · July 8, 2004

Wow, I didn't mean to piss anyone off.

I was under the obviously mistaken impression we were havng a freindly intellectual discussion & disagreement in an open setting where the free exchange of ideas was welcome.

Perhaps not.

You guys are totally misunderstanding me here.

I'm not really railing on Kubrick so much.

I love his work, (including Spartacus), and consider much of his work to be masterpieces, and him a genius, just like you guys do.

(And David, I'm with you about Michael Bay)

My point is, it seems towards the end of his career, he started his idiocyncracies, (spending a week shooting one scene, etc.), and this was AFTER he had created the masterpieces.

He certainly didn't do this his entire career, and I never suggested he did.

(I was referring mostly to Eyes Wide Shut, which I've yet to hear anyone say was a masterpiece, or even really, really good).

So now we have an entire generation of film school dweebs, who because this behavior fits into the image of being "anti-Hollywood" or whatever, think that he created his masterpieces BECAUSE of this stuff, and I'm saying (IMHO) that his best work was before he got obsessive, so it's irrelevant.

I don't care if he had his actors come back several days in a row, doing the same scene over and over, without telling them to do anything different (as I read in one interview about EWS).

Fine, blow a million feet of film. Whatever it takes, man.

I'm not annoyed at Kubrick, I'm annoyed at having to hear for the 1,200th time, how cool it is that he had special lenses made so he could film in candlelight on Barry Lyndon.

Big freakin' deal?

Does anyone really think THAT is why Kubrick made great films, or that's what made his films great?

These guys do, and I just happen to disagree, that's all.

I think all the attention give to this aspect of Kubrick does a huge disservice to the real genius of Kubrick, so I'm criticizing the guys who just gush over this irrelevant stuff, because it justifies their own "bucking the system" attitude, which more times than not, is just them throwing temper tantrums because they think following established filmmaking and film-business techniques, is "selling out to Hollywood".

Kubrick's genius was in his treatment of the story, his uncanny sense of aesthetic, pacing and timing, and not because he was some gearhead who had special equipment made so he could brag that he shot a scene at T1.0!

Matt "I love Kubrick because he was a great storyteller, not a noncoformist tortured artist" Pacini

Bill DiPietra · July 9, 2004

I'm not annoyed at Kubrick, I'm annoyed at having to hear for the 1,200th time, how cool it is that he had special lenses made so he could film in candlelight on Barry Lyndon.
Big freakin' deal?

Does anyone really think THAT is why Kubrick made great films, or that's what made his films great?

Kubrick's genius was in his treatment of the story, his uncanny sense of aesthetic, pacing and timing, and not because he was some gearhead who had special equipment made so he could brag that he shot a scene at T1.0!

It's part of what made HIM great.

And I think it was more like a T0.7

eddiefruchter · July 9, 2004

It takes longer to get the 18th century feel of LYNDON than to light the War room and watch Sellers go ape-poop.

Andy O'Neil · August 4, 2004

I found Full Metal Jacket to be very disappointing...the second half of the movie is terrible. In one scene, a killed soldier is clearly breathing! - Ilya Stone

I think Full Metal Jacket is a solid movie, beginning to end.