Started By
Message

Barry Lyndon

Posted on 2/9/16 at 10:20 pm
Posted by Jack Ruby
Member since Apr 2014
22707 posts
Posted on 2/9/16 at 10:20 pm
On TCM right now. Son of a bitch this is a forgotten masterpiece. To me, it's the most beautifully shot film ever.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89476 posts
Posted on 2/9/16 at 10:22 pm to
quote:

To me, it's the most beautifully shot film ever.


Well, since you had one of the 8 to 10 true geniuses in the history of filmmaking set out to do that very thing - shoot the most beautiful film ever, and he had the technical expertise to do it - the end product is fairly impressive.

Have you read up on all the effort he expended to do this and how it was accomplished?
Posted by mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Member since Nov 2015
35432 posts
Posted on 2/9/16 at 10:26 pm to
It's not forgotten.

And it is great.

One of the great things about the movie...is Kubrick trying to master natural lighting and nailed it.

(Apparently scenes were obsessed over until Kubrick felt he got it just right)
quote:


Kubrick’s approach of making the actors go through a scene over and over again before even getting to his legendary multiple takes could be trying, to say the least. “He shoots a lot of takes, and you don’t get a stand-in,” said O’Neal. “We shot for something like 350 days, and afterward they had to carry me away.” O’Neal claimed that the meticulous lighting added a whole other time-consuming level to the shoot.
Posted by Jack Ruby
Member since Apr 2014
22707 posts
Posted on 2/9/16 at 10:28 pm to
Yeah, extensively, the NASA lenses and everything. I became obsessed with Kubrik visuals a while back and read all I could.

Funny thing is, I never got his movies until recently. I always thought they were pompous and meant to confuse. While they still might be little too artsy for some, Barry Lyndon totally changed my mind on Kubrick.
This post was edited on 2/9/16 at 10:31 pm
Posted by Brosef Stalin
Member since Dec 2011
39154 posts
Posted on 2/9/16 at 10:31 pm to
This movie is near the top of my list of classic movies I haven't seen
Posted by Jack Ruby
Member since Apr 2014
22707 posts
Posted on 2/9/16 at 10:40 pm to
quote:

“We shot for something like 350 days



Kubrick always used an extremely small crew (40-50) ppl so he could film for a year+ and the budget would still be in order. Other shoots use double or triple that amount of manpower.
Posted by Peazey
Metry
Member since Apr 2012
25418 posts
Posted on 2/9/16 at 10:41 pm to
I remember reading on the IMDB trivia page that Kubrick wanted to cast Robert Redford as the lead, but because of contractual obligations he was pretty much forced to cast Ryan O'Neal as the lead. What are the general thoughts of this? I think Redford was the better actor and would have probably made this movie more prominently remembered as a classic, not to say that it isn't currently a classic, but I do think quality may have suffered.
Posted by Kafka
I am the moral conscience of TD
Member since Jul 2007
141605 posts
Posted on 2/9/16 at 10:45 pm to
Posted by Jack Ruby
Member since Apr 2014
22707 posts
Posted on 2/9/16 at 10:49 pm to
Agreed, anything Redford touched from 1969-1980 was gigantic. I know O'Neal was a huge star circa 1975 also, but his acting was a little subpar. His accent is a bit all over the place in Barry Lyndon, but he still managed to portray him as a sympathetic character.

I think the studio told Kubrick he had to have a big star and gave him a list, which he didn't necessarily want.
This post was edited on 2/9/16 at 10:51 pm
Posted by mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Member since Nov 2015
35432 posts
Posted on 2/9/16 at 11:04 pm to
Redford would have to try really hard to come across as a giant douche/wimp.

O'Neal was perfect.
Posted by Sellecks Moustache
NC
Member since Jun 2014
5994 posts
Posted on 2/9/16 at 11:20 pm to
Pretty good except for dragging a bit in the middle.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
421297 posts
Posted on 2/9/16 at 11:40 pm to
i just got this on bluray monday

#can'twait
Posted by Tiger Ryno
#WoF
Member since Feb 2007
102969 posts
Posted on 2/9/16 at 11:45 pm to
Inurittu is the new Kubrick. That guy is a freaking geniusm
Posted by Bayou Sam
Istanbul
Member since Aug 2009
5921 posts
Posted on 2/10/16 at 1:13 am to
Nice breakdown of the wonderful candle scene.

LINK
Posted by Jack Ruby
Member since Apr 2014
22707 posts
Posted on 2/10/16 at 1:27 am to
Scorsese hit the nail on the head in that video. The flatness of the movie, especially wide exteriors, is exactly what Kubrick wanted. He wanted it to look like an 18th century painting and if you pause some of those big countryside shots, it almost looks animated, just like a painted...the genius in that guy, from a visual standpoint was amazing.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
421297 posts
Posted on 2/10/16 at 7:39 am to
yeah i love this movie. it's probably my favorite kubrick flick

i now own lyndon, 2001, clockwork orange, eyes wide shut, and dr. strangelove on blu ray. i don't know if i'll buy anymore
Posted by Freauxzen
Utah
Member since Feb 2006
37240 posts
Posted on 2/10/16 at 8:15 am to
quote:

To me, it's the most beautifully shot film ever.


THis. Unparalleled. After some time, it' probably my favorite Kubrick film.
Posted by Bayou Sam
Istanbul
Member since Aug 2009
5921 posts
Posted on 2/10/16 at 8:42 am to
In terms of pure cinema I think it's the best, but my favorite is still Strangelove. But he never made anything less than fantastic material as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by TigerMyth36
River Ridge
Member since Nov 2005
39727 posts
Posted on 2/10/16 at 10:23 am to
quote:

the better actor and would have probably made this movie more prominently remembered as a classic


I've never watched it and I think O'Neal is probably the reason. I bet I would have gotten around to it if Redford was in it.

Think I will finally watch this one this week.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89476 posts
Posted on 2/10/16 at 10:32 am to
quote:

Think I will finally watch this one this week.


It's watchable with the sound turned all the way down. It's like a moving painting and that was the intent.

Kubrick knew about a lens that Zeiss made for NASA, and also knew about a specific film camera body that could be modified to accept the lens, so he bought all of that model camera and had them so modified. The lighting was also key, and just took hours and hours to get right. They used all natural light or simulated natural light, rather than traditional film set lighting/diffusers.

Although I'm certain it was frustrating, time-consuming and aggravating to those involved in the production, the final product is as visually stunning a film as 2001 is, maybe more so.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram