- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Barry Lyndon
Posted on 2/9/16 at 10:20 pm
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 on 2/9/16 at 10:22 pm to Jack Ruby
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 on 2/9/16 at 10:26 pm to Jack Ruby
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)
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 on 2/9/16 at 10:28 pm to Ace Midnight
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.
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 on 2/9/16 at 10:31 pm to Jack Ruby
This movie is near the top of my list of classic movies I haven't seen
Posted on 2/9/16 at 10:40 pm to Brosef Stalin
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 on 2/9/16 at 10:41 pm to Jack Ruby
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 on 2/9/16 at 10:49 pm to Peazey
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.
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 on 2/9/16 at 11:04 pm to Jack Ruby
Redford would have to try really hard to come across as a giant douche/wimp.
O'Neal was perfect.
O'Neal was perfect.
Posted on 2/9/16 at 11:20 pm to Jack Ruby
Pretty good except for dragging a bit in the middle.
Posted on 2/9/16 at 11:40 pm to Jack Ruby
i just got this on bluray monday
#can'twait
#can'twait
Posted on 2/9/16 at 11:45 pm to Jack Ruby
Inurittu is the new Kubrick. That guy is a freaking geniusm
Posted on 2/10/16 at 1:13 am to Jack Ruby
Posted on 2/10/16 at 1:27 am to Bayou Sam
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 on 2/10/16 at 7:39 am to Jack Ruby
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
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 on 2/10/16 at 8:15 am to Jack Ruby
quote:
To me, it's the most beautifully shot film ever.
THis. Unparalleled. After some time, it' probably my favorite Kubrick film.
Posted on 2/10/16 at 8:42 am to Freauxzen
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 on 2/10/16 at 10:23 am to Peazey
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 on 2/10/16 at 10:32 am to TigerMyth36
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.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News