I was fortunate enough to see 'Barry Lyndon' in a theater when it was originally released. To say I was 'blown away' is to understate my reaction. It is definitely one of my top favorite films of all time - it's beautiful (each scene is like a painting), technically unparalleled, and engrossing. I know many in the audience felt it was too long, too 'artsy', etc., but it's a film I can watch time and again.
I’ve seen it in an art house movie theater, some 20 years ago. It was an unforgettable evening, watching it on the big screen with the dramatic Sarabande, slightly wobbly image and just a handful of other film enthusiasts to share in the delight. I hope they screen it again sometime.
I saw this in the theater when I was a teenager. At the time, I wanted to be an oil painter and I could not get enough of the oil painting books at the library. Watching this on the big screen was AMAZING: every frame WAS like an oil painting. And the music was haunting. And as the parody in Mad Magazine pointed out: he was hero in the first half of the movie, and a the bad guy in the second half. Such a fantastic movie. (And I DID become an oil painter.)
I WAS at Art School when Barry Lyndon came out and it exhilarated me to heaven! Unfortunately, I took a young woman who was not impressed in the least. It was our only date. Still, it remains one of my favorite movies of all time.
I saw this film when it came.e out and I was amazed at it's beauty. I would love to see it a second time on the big screen so I could marvel at the artistry.
I came across this film, by accident, one afternoon over twenty years ago. I did't know anything about it, and watched it 'cold'. It took my breath away. Having seen Paths of Glory, Dr Strangelove, 2001 and A Clockwork Orange, I, for some reason, was not aware of this masterpiece. It's cleverness and picaresque nature allied to it's sheer beauty makes it utterly absorbing. If ever one had to produce evidence that cinema is art, this is it.
Make it Rembrandt's NIGHT WATCH, you fools. MONA LISA has a mystery, yes. But no great story. BL absolutely has. For me it is the perfect time travel machine to the 18th century.
@wolfcrow i think i first fell in love with Barry Lyndon the first time i really noticed what that ending text was saying. The film is one of my favorites for all the reasons you mention, plus, it is the story of a social climber and his ultimate fall, one story of billions lived on this planet, Barry was a interesting lad, Stanley did us all so well by putting so much work into this masterpiece. Great review. Why is Barry Lyndon a great film? It’s exceptionally made.
This movie was absolutely breathtaking. It was engrossing from beginning to end and I highly recommend it to anyone who has not watched it yet. Truly a masterpiece.
I was young enough and lucky enough to see Barry Lyndon in its first run, 70mm theater release. It was breathtakingly beautiful in every sense of the word. Stunning, exquisite, sublime, are all words that attempt to do this film justice. If it is ever shown again in its original theatrical form, I will be first in line. Thank you for giving this movie the attention it deserves.
I know the advertisement of the Pacific's Cinerama, but I have never heard from a laboratory processed a 70mm print, unfortunately. 70mm direct prints of the original negative were used for the spectacular sharp screenings of "Spartacus" and "2001: ASO", I saw hundred times.
@@johnburns8660 …I remember back in the day the term was: “70 Millimeter Panavision”. It was an actual technique where the director would use two 35mm cameras simultaneously. Kubrick used this in Barry Lyndon and in 2001 ASO among other projects. More recently, Quentin Tarantino is known to use this technique. Only certain high-end theaters had the screen capacity to show a film in this form. So in fact, it WAS an actual technique, regardless of your doubts about its authenticity or your theater’s inability to make good use of this outstanding technique. czcams.com/video/aW_SkpWbE9g/video.htmlsi=OFAf7O1oKu7TKcrR
The paradox, for me, is that at the time of its release, the film seemed on the surface to be just a historical film not really part of the modern world, and therefore, sort of dated. It was set in the past and somehow alien or even dated. Only it was dealing with far deeper 'Truths' than those that appeared on the surface. Barry Lyndon, as a character doesn't really dominate the film like a 'Star', he's not the Sun and everything revolves around him. He is though, the centre of the movie, but more like a Black Hole, than the Sun. It's the world around him, which he moves through, despite his lack of any sunstantial qualities, that's the interesting part for Kubrick. Ryan O'Neal's 'blandness' is perfect for his role. He's hansome and has ambition, but not much else. If he has any lasting quality, it's just luck. He's lucky, or fortunate that he lands on his feet, rising seemingly without effort, up the social ladder, from the bottom to the very top. Like a modern reality tv star. All surface and no real substance. And here the film now seems far more 'modern' than it used to. The vastly unfair social and economic structure of the 18th century, now resembles our own society far more than it did when Kubrick made Barry Lyndon half a century ago. Our social and economic sturcture, even our wars, have collapsed 'modernity' back into the 18th century. We've recreated the colossal wealth gap that existed in the 18th, with society ruled by a tiny social/economic elite with the mass of the people having virtually no real say or influence on the direction of society. Paradoxically, I think Barry Lyndon, was Kubrick's most futuristic film, made at the end of one era, the liberal democratic one, and on the cusp of the return of an old one, neo fuedalism.
I'm shocked you didn't mention the musical contribution of the Irish band, The Chieftains. Not only did their music firmly place the context of the protagonist's home and station, but the tune, The Women of Ireland, perfectly expressed the tender longing and agony of young Redmond Barry for his first love. This movie introduced me to The Chieftains, and Irish traditional music, a love I hold to this day.
The maker of this is a film nerd. Did you not hear his monotone, inflectionless voice? He does not appreciate any of the music, and scarcely mentions it.
The greatest masterpiece. Divine music by the Chieftans too. Just mind blowing. The fact that it wasn’t well received at first, is just a reflection on how shallow and dense the critics and populace were at the time.
♥ I also saw Barry Lyndon in the theater as soon as it was released. The experience of it all, forced me to go BACK to the theater to see it again and recommend it to others, who were not as appreciative as I was and STILL AM. One of the greatest experiences of my life was BARRY LYNDON. ♥
There were trees in the background that could act with more animation and were more entertaining than Ryan O’Neill. That might have something to do with the public reaction.
thank you, if it hadn't been for your video i would never have watched this film. it was like watching a series of moving paintings from the 18th century like Gainsborough. just fantastic.
This was a very personal project for Kubrick. It was the only film for which he wrote the screenplay himself, with no collaborators. Also, it gave him a chance to use some the research he never got to use for his Napoleon Project.
I love and have seen this movie several time. I must respectfully remind you of this..William Makepeace Thackeray, The Memoirs of Barry Lyndon, Esq. written by himself
For the people who find this film boring and for the people who think there is a hidden meaning they are too lazy to look for: there is no hidden meaning and when you get the meaning of the film it is not boring. The movie is about a man struggling with extreme social conventions and etiquette of that particular period in time and place but also in any period in time where humans are living together. Every human act is molded in an extreme and suffocating ritual behavior that Kubrick so beautifully captures with his static camera use and the pace of the Sarabande. Only 3 times the camera ( a handheld one then) and thus the main character shakes and runs wildly all over the place when all the cultural varnish falls off and nature ( so not culture) bursts out. Your boredom is the very essence of the film. Personally I say this is the best film ever made and shows that film can be art in the sense that is is as complete an auteur- movie as can be because it is the work of just one person ( a criterium often used in the debate of what is art where often it is said that art is only art when it is a work that is made by just one person) Barry Lyndon is a work made by Stanley Kubrick and every aspect of it is exactly coming to us the way Kubrick envisioned it.
I don't think so. It's a character study, similar to Thackeray's better known Vanity Fair. Barry wants to be a great man, and for Barry, that means acquiring wealth. What does he do when he obtains it? He doesn't do anything honorable, like be a decent father or husband, write a novel, or make a scientific contribution. He's just another hedonistic parasite. Social conventions of the time weren't remarkably different than at any other time. If Barry had done his duty, he could have done anything he wanted within reason, as long as he was discrete. Thackeray is a realist. He really doesn't expect much from his characters. If they are just ordinarily decent, he is very kind to them, but if they are fools or villains, he subjects them to ruthless satire.
You are definitely wrong, and the first commenter that replied to you is correct. Barry Lyndon is a character study, and Barry is a Narcissist who’s machinations are all self serving, superficial, and underneath it all, the man is an empty human being. He chose Ryan for his lack of acting skill, and he often looks blank, and his dialogue is little to worthless, like his character.
It's a question of agency, not the social conventions. His father dies at the beginning of the movie. At the time it was possible for a person to go from minor landed gentry to Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor and Regent. (under much suffering, though not in mind to status) 1st Earl Hardwicke. Philip Yorke. Whig Faction during George II. There are religious factors at play, and the mercy of God. Not George III though being unfortunately "groomed", Tory Faction controlling like 99% of all the economic wealth. The only short lived antagonist in the movie, being based on the Tory Faction Leader.
Just got done watching for the first time. Films like this feel like a window, or a portal even, into another time and place. And it’s not only the incredible attention to detail in the costumes and sets/locations, or even the authentic approach to lighting, but rather the slow pace, the lingering in space and time that allows for you to become enveloped by the scenes. Films that feature frequent cuts throughout, tend to break my connection, and push me away.
This is my favorite movie of all time! I also got to view the movie in the theatre when it was first released. It is a phenomenal undertaking and a wonderful experience. I never get tired of watching it. Great review.
One reason Barry Lyndon failed at the box office (as you pointed out) was context and competition. Not only was it competing with the likes of Three Days of The Condor, Dog Day Afternoon, and Jaws, but it was unfavourably compared to The Three Musketeers/Four Musketeers franchise -- essential a swash-buckler comedy.; it was (and still is) long, and therefore cinemas lost a screening every day; and for all it's beauty it is essentially a static film, with very little "action". It also broke Kubrick's winning streak, and shook his confidence -- why else would he choose a horror movie as his next endeavour. Yet it endues, long past the point where it's technical achievements are now taken for granted, and all that is left is it's artistry. I would also argue that Kubrick has never been given due credit for his writing skill. While he always preferred collaborating, he wrote both Barry Lyndon and Clockwork Orange alone (no mean feat for a boy from the Bronx), and his skill with language was truly exceptional. Until Kubrick started shooting with candles, no one has seen the eighteenth century on film before -- everything prior was a simulation.
Barry Lyndon has a cool detachment. Many critics took issue with the film's slow pace and restrained emotion. It defies us to care, it asks us to remain only observers of its stately elegance. Many of its developments take place off-screen. There is very little emotion in it, things happen to Barry rather than him doing them. And it's a very long movie. Of course, one has to be bright to love it and that is one appeal of Kubrick to the "brights" but that doesn't mean many intelligent people would be bored. Good not great. It's much better than Eyes Wide Shut, Full Metal Jacket (particularly the second half of the movie). I like a good story with twists and turns and fewer details and I don't care about the great Lighting of candles. Much better movies: L.A. Confidential/Rear Window/ 12 Monkeys/ and even Die Hard.
Not sure what is meant by "Kubrick's winning streak". Since "Spartacus", none of Kubrick's films won upon initial release, except possibly Strangelove. They were all controversial, and had mixed reactions from critics and audiences. They only win through their longevity, as they all acquired notoriety and fandom over time.
Actually they were all "commercial successes", from Lolita on, although 2001 didn't become a "hit" until a rerelease in 1971. Of course this was is an era where movies could play in cinemas for literally years. Barry Lyndon was his first commercial failure domestically.@@aliensoup2420
“Kubrick never made a big budget film again” I dont understand this statement. Eyes Wide Shut had 6x the budget of Barry Lyndon. Full Metal Jacket also had a higher budget, not by a lot, but these are two movies that came after Barry Lyndon that had a larger budget.
Kubrick is rarely appreciated by popcorn munchers, but as the years pass and theatrical films as based on CGI, his legacy will grow proportionately as will Barry Lyndon.
I mean how far can his legacy go at this point? He's widely considered to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of all time, and so are his movies. 90% of them are among the greatest movies ever made. I think his legacy's already well established, it's hard to go further than #1 if you already are at the very top in the first place. I'm sure as new generations will grow, the genius of Kubrick blow them away just like it did with us.
I think the thing that adds to it’s re-watchability is the story; before I watched it for the first time I knew it had a huge history and I’d looked at frames of it before viewing it. The story is bonkers! For some reason I thought it was going to be more, serious? Maybe that’s the wrong word, but I laughed so much more than I thought I would. Unbelievable, gripping storytelling, the ultimate in highs and lows, one of the many reasons it’s entertaining. And of course the way it looks and sounds. A great insight, thank you sir ✌🏼
@@caesarpizza1338 Especially Captain Feeny and his son robbing Barry. "Good day to you sir!" "I am afraid I can not let you keep your horse. In our line of work, we must be able to travel faster than our clients." "You can lower your arms now, Mr. Lyndon."
It's an incredible piece of art....one of the best films ever made. Not for meat heads who only want a kill count and car chases. Saw it in the movie theater in NYC when it came out and have watched it at least a dozen times since. It's a masterpiece.
I cannot understand why this film wasn't bettered received. It had a great story and the scenes do like they are paintings. One if the most enjoyable films I have ever seen
Barry Lyndon is also my favourite film of all time and I enjoyed your video very much. I was slightly surprised that, when referring to the wonderful music, you omitted the Schubert piano trio in E flat which became the emblematic music clip from the movie. For me perfection in this matching of music to the drama was not only the sad and haunting emotional element but also how it slowed down the perceived pace of the movie itself. It seemed to me that what Kubrick was doing was trying to put the audience into the much slower pace of life in the 18th century. He did this partly through the music and partly through the extremely long camera shots before cutting to the next scene. Sometimes over a minute would pass as the camera panned without any cut. In a modern movie it's about 10 seconds. In my view this was a very important technique in transporting the audience into the past.
If he was born earlier Kubrick would have been a great silent film director. His films were very visually driven and dialogue was a necessary evil. He stated in an interview that making a silent film can be very instructive to a young filmmaker, learning how to tell a story visually rather than having t the rely too heavily on dialogue. One could almost image Barry Lyndon as a silent film with its own sparse dialogue being conveyed by intertitle cards. Kubrick probably wouldn't have been able to film those scenes by candlelight but he would figured out another method of capturing that time period without it looking too phoney. I'd now rank Barry Lyndon in my top ten favourite films of all time. I have watched it numerous times over the decades and have yet to be bored by it. I know the story but it retains the power to engage my imagination every time. It's unfortunate that it never found a greater appreciation on its initial release but he must have known that the film was going to appeal to a somewhat limited audience. It's not some swashbuckling style period piece with a dashing and romantic hero, when in fact there is really no likeable characters and the tone is unrelentingly sombre. It's not a film that I would recommend to a person unfamiliar with Kubrick. Although the story itself is very simple and easy to understand it is the pacing and the film's length which might discourage some. For me those three hours fly by. Period films are hard to pull off and not look at all modern. It's obvious that he did an enormous amount of research to get the look just right,especially with costumes and the decor. It brings this era to life.
Excellent review. The 1973 version of The Three Musketeers adopted a similar style and had really striking visuals, that resembled period paintings. Unfortunately the recent 1080P BD release is a very poor transfer (the DVD release was better).
have taught it, have worshipped it, have studied it dozens and dozens of times. it's like cooking or drinking: I don't trust people who don't do the aforementioned; and I don't trust anyone who doesn't love this film.
I am soooo glad this magnificent work of art is finally been given the appreciation it deserves. Like Blade Runner (no comparison, of course) it for some reason didn't capture the imagination of cinema goers at the time of release, but, as there seems to be SOME justice in the world, time has been kind to it, and it is now, a tad belatedly, taking its rightful place among the greats in cinema history.
My guess is that much of this new appreciation is due to Warner Bros' numerous Kubrick boxsets and numerous revivals of his films over the years since his passing. I wish other magnificent titles from the 70s would get as much appreciation today. Coppola's *The Conversation* for example, is still mainly only loved by critics. Tarkovsky's *Mirror* is another one.
Both of the movies mentioned suffered good welcoming from audience for their long period, i really think modern audience should develop more patience in watching movies, this is even more prominent with the latest release of The Batman, it gives the director more flexibility and context character development etc. Of course long movies shouldn't really be a common thing since budget issue and sometimes people just want something light or easy to follow before sleep.
@@deckofcards87Barry Lyndon got its revival through late night cinema and constant television showings. It was actually most shown Kubrick movie on television(citing Jan Harlan, Kubrick’s brother in law and long-time producer). So no, it had nothing to do with Warner Bros✌️
Holy shit, and Indian fan of Barry Lyndon, like me fr. On a serious note this movie is so amazingly well made, from the camera shots to the locations and period reenactment and the integration of music (Handel and Schubert in particular), to top it all of the story is entertaining and engaging too. The only thing most people complain about is its length, but that never bothers me especially because I love long movies especially when they are good. Easily my favourite Kubrick film, especially because of its premise and the time I watched it.
I saw this movie for the first time, of all places, in a shitty little seat screen during an eleven-hours flight over the Atlantic. Hard to believe this was included in the airline’s roster of films, but there we were. I enjoyed it greatly and latter saw it again in a proper screen. It must have been incredible, truly an experience, to watch this on theaters back in the day.
I’ve been a Kubrick fanatic my entire life. I’ve owned and watched all of his films countless times. After seeing for the first time, it instantly became my favorite. So many people here on this thread, obviously feel the same. It is astonishing to me how “critics” could have missed the obvious greatness. They were literally staring at a moving Mona Lisa. And yet they were obsessed over a shark? Nothing seems to have changed.
Excellent video. I personally tried to watch the film every decade since it's release. I failed miserably because I couldn't immerse myself into aristocracy themed films. Staying awake was a chore to say the least. I recently viewed it and now can't stop praising it. The scene at the card table and then on the veranda are perfection. How could anyone not fall in love with Lady Honoria? Labeling the film great is an understatement to say the least.
Music in this movie really is not just something in the background, it plays foreground role in the most important scenes. And what's critical, Kubrick did not cut the music to the image, but cut the image to fit the music - which is something almost never done, because it's against the typical principles of cinematography and hard to pull off.
I like to watch Barry Lyndon every three or four years. Never fails to blow me away. I wish they would show it more often in the cinema as that is the best way to see it.
I, too, saw the movie on a huge screen in NYC when it first came out. I remember being immensely disappointed. This well-meaning video tribute reminds me of how repellent I found the film (and I’m a great admirer of most of Kubrick’s other films): how cold, how unnaturally slow, and - for all the vaunted authenticity of its lighting and furnishings and costumes, blah blah blah - how often the cast seemed to strike self-conscious poses, like a collection of waxworks. Perhaps that’s what comes from relying too closely on paintings of that era.
I agree with 100% of what you said, and I have the same reaction to the movie: the more I watch it, the more I appreciate it. I was also already aware of the candle and the lighting before watching the movie, but even then, the more I watch the movie, the more I appreciate the visuals, the rhythm, the mood, the dialogs, and the music from Schubert is magnificent. It's interesting that Kubrick chose Schubert as a stylization, rather than to add detail to the era portrayed, as Schubert was not contemporary.
I came to this movie quite late, even as a Kubrick fan. Always thought that the period piece genre is not for me. At my first viewing, I was surprised that I quite like it. In later viewings I was able to fully appreciate the intricacies and finesse even more. Barry Lyndon really grows on you. Poetic, that his possibly finest work is among the least known of his canon.
I was in Hollywood when BL premiered and got video of Ryan and Tatum O'Neal standing atop the Cinerama Dome's marquis (the theatre where BL first screened in L.A.) being interviewed by Rona Barrett. As a press member, I saw the film about a month before it opened. I was the only one of my group who was blown away by the film. But that's typical of Kubrick's works. It takes time for most folks to "get" them. It remains my second favorite Kubrick, next to 2001 which, at age 71, I still think the greatest movie ever made.
4:15 If you read a quote from him to this effect, tell us where it's from. It's perfectly possible that he did consider it his best film when he made it, but the only instance I'm aware of of him giving his opinion on this question are the well-known reports from his family that he believed 'Eyes Wide Shut' was his best work as he was completing it.
Isnt it interesting that the execs blew-up at him to the point of almost physically fighting? lol To me that movie was the biggest "F-U" to whomever 'inspired' him to make that movie.
I first saw this on a 16mm projector at my college lecture theatre in London in 1980 and was in awe of the beauty of it. I've seen it several times since and visited Lavenham in Suffolk, where a number of scenes were shot.
One of my top ten favorites, yes. If I could take only 5 films for a year on this "remote island" - BL would be one of them. But "makes you a better person"...?? What nobody says: besides being a great romance film, a great "rise-and-fall"-film - it is also a GREAT WAR FILM. This shocked me the most when seeing it for the first time: the absurdity of walking in a straight line into enemy gunfire!
A superb treat for the eyes, I treasure this film, it is everything you say it is. I visited Wilton House where some of the scenes were taken, my elder brother was a footman there, so lucky to work amongst all of that splendour and art. A truly wonderful backdrop to the cinematic scenes taken there, an inspiration to the film makers and actors.
I recommend this film to folks I meet who are newly into history, as a perfect example of a bygone era that captures not only is sound, its light, its language, and its culture, but its PACING. It is slow. Depicting a time when the pace of life was very much slower. That horses and people traveled most place at a walk. That distractions were for the most part quiet and patient. Social mobility for the most part inaccessible, and only really achieved thru very rare luck, or chicanery.
I think Kubrick wanted to do a film on Napolean, but two other movies about Napolean did not impress studios, so another was rejected. Kubrick, after having spent years researching every detail, went to another subject, the book about an Irish rogue who lived about the same time period. I think this is how Kubrick made his Napolean film, just changing the story about 18th century royalty and an Irish opportunist. But the look is what Kubrick was after, whether it be about Napolean or some other cutthroat.
It’s my favorite movie. And not in just some shallow pretentious way. I remember the first time I saw it it just sucked me in. I think I’ve watched it 6 times now. It’s the mixture of a “Scorsese” like character who has a rise and a fall, with the out of this world Kubrick visual style. No other Kubrick movie hits me like Barry, not even close.
Mysterious is right. It is utterly stunning in it's artistry, breathtaking in it's execution of the techniques of filmmaking, however, the narration mixed with Ryan O'Neil's performance is hypnotic and oddly blank. But it works. Period pieces such as this are usually over the top in their melodrama, performance, and general opulence in it's design. Barry Lyndon almost plays like a litmus test for your thoughts and feelings on the film and subject manner your watching. It forces us to stop, pause, look and listen, to take it in and be as detached as Kubrick designed it to be. I love Roger Ebert's thoughts on this film in his Great Films series, "'Barry Lyndon' isn't a great entertainment in the usual way, but it's a great example of directorial vision: Kubrick saying he's going to make this material function as an illustration of the way he sees the world."
I agree with you about O'Neil's performance but I don't think it works. A better more carousing performance may have spoiled the images Kubrick was trying to create however. Nevertheless it stops the film from being great imo.
Excellent commentry about the film. Another aspect of the film is the underlying humour. The gambling scenes in particular are great fun, though not for the loser!
Barry Lyndon was one of the greatest films ever made .... and yet I never heard of it before about 3-4 years ago and I was a frequent theater goer when it was released. Still never seen it.
5:58 'Barry Lyndon' was made with twelve million dollars. 'The Shining' was nineteen million. 'Full Metal Jacket' was somewhere between sixteen and thirty million. 'Eyes Wide Shut' was sixty-five million. What are you talking about, Sareesh?
Ahah I made a comment to say the same. I even showed the imposture by saying: "In this piece, you kinda blame others for going to what is explicit rather than diving to what really made the work so good. According to your argument, this happen because is so much easier to hook people with big words. And then you do the same..."
You could argue that in some cases 'big budgets' are the death of the film. When truly big bucks come in to play, you start to get people involved in the story telling that should never be involved in the story telling side of things. I think this is why I personally love indi films so much. Many lower budgeted films have been so good and the smaller budget forces the story telling.
I found this film to be the most boring film that I couldn’t turn my head from. It was wooden, the characters were dull, and yet I loved every moment of it. Truly an amazing work of filmmaking that I loved and hated so much.
I'm just happy that I stumbled over it and was intrigued, not by some names nor by some praise. I bought it, watched it, watched it again and again and again. While I value acting, style, details and overall how it draws attention in basically every scene. Technical Production and effort taken to aim for perfection I, as usual underestimated significantly. Well, except the gauntlet conducted by the Prussian Army being depicted. Frederick II got rid of it already in 1740.
Your thoughts and analysis and comleteley spot on! All (well most) of his films are amazing feats....But BL really is his crowning achievement....."Never have 3 hrs cinema moved so swiftly".
This is Kubrick's best film, but even so, every reviewer goes on and on about those damn candles and Panaflex lenses. Maybe it is more appropriate to call Kubrick a great cinematographer and a pretty good director. This is the only film he has made where the characters are relatable and viewers are aware of the story line. And it is a very beautiful, very sad film. It is gratifying to see Ryan O'Neal given a serious role, and he plays it to perfection. But as for depicting this era and European society even more realistically, I recommend you watch "The Draughtsman's Contract" (1982), directed by Peter Greenaway. Set a few decades earlier than Lyndon, it gives the viewer an eerie sense of being in the time. Similarly, when someone tells me 2001 was the greatest science fiction movie of all, I ask them what it was about. As they think about that, and I’ve never heard the right answer yet (I read the book), I ask them if they can name a character from that film. The only one most people can come up with is HAL. By comparison, Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" is a far more involving story, and more evocative in its prediction of the time we live in now. When I say it is my favorite sci fi film, others claim the scenes from 2001 with space ships dancing in time with a Johan Strauss waltz make it superior. But pretty pictures do not necessarily add up to a meaningful film. Especially when it is impossible to decipher the story the director is telling.
I never saw this in a theatre, only on the small screen. I pray I have the chance to see it on the big screen some day. The star in this movie, ultimately, is Kubrick. Gorgeous movie.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Barry Lyndon' in a theater when it was originally released. To say I was 'blown away' is to understate my reaction. It is definitely one of my top favorite films of all time - it's beautiful (each scene is like a painting), technically unparalleled, and engrossing. I know many in the audience felt it was too long, too 'artsy', etc., but it's a film I can watch time and again.
I thought The Duelists was right up there with BL...??
@@kristianmurphy4308 It is a great film, and sadly overlooked. :)
I’ve seen it in an art house movie theater, some 20 years ago. It was an unforgettable evening, watching it on the big screen with the dramatic Sarabande, slightly wobbly image and just a handful of other film enthusiasts to share in the delight. I hope they screen it again sometime.
A true masterpiece, I love every single second of this movie.
@@ET3Roberts Me, too. :)
I saw this in the theater when I was a teenager. At the time, I wanted to be an oil painter and I could not get enough of the oil painting books at the library. Watching this on the big screen was AMAZING: every frame WAS like an oil painting. And the music was haunting. And as the parody in Mad Magazine pointed out: he was hero in the first half of the movie, and a the bad guy in the second half. Such a fantastic movie. (And I DID become an oil painter.)
I WAS at Art School when Barry Lyndon came out and it exhilarated me to heaven! Unfortunately, I took a young woman who was not impressed in the least. It was our only date. Still, it remains one of my favorite movies of all time.
I saw this film when it came.e out and I was amazed at it's beauty. I would love to see it a second time on the big screen so I could marvel at the artistry.
Please post some of your paintings.
I came across this film, by accident, one afternoon over twenty years ago. I did't know anything about it, and watched it 'cold'. It took my breath away. Having seen Paths of Glory, Dr Strangelove, 2001 and A Clockwork Orange, I, for some reason, was not aware of this masterpiece.
It's cleverness and picaresque nature allied to it's sheer beauty makes it utterly absorbing. If ever one had to produce evidence that cinema is art, this is it.
"Barry Lyndon is a film version of the Mona Lisa." You couldn't have said it better!
Make it Rembrandt's NIGHT WATCH, you fools. MONA LISA has a mystery, yes. But no great story. BL absolutely has. For me it is the perfect time travel machine to the 18th century.
One of my favorites. I saw it in the theater when it came out and was mesmerized.
@wolfcrow i think i first fell in love with Barry Lyndon the first time i really noticed what that ending text was saying. The film is one of my favorites for all the reasons you mention, plus, it is the story of a social climber and his ultimate fall, one story of billions lived on this planet, Barry was a interesting lad, Stanley did us all so well by putting so much work into this masterpiece.
Great review.
Why is Barry Lyndon a great film? It’s exceptionally made.
This movie was absolutely breathtaking. It was engrossing from beginning to end and I highly recommend it to anyone who has not watched it yet. Truly a masterpiece.
I was young enough and lucky enough to see Barry Lyndon in its first run, 70mm theater release. It was breathtakingly beautiful in every sense of the word. Stunning, exquisite, sublime, are all words that attempt to do this film justice. If it is ever shown again in its original theatrical form, I will be first in line.
Thank you for giving this movie the attention it deserves.
I know the advertisement of the Pacific's Cinerama, but I have never heard from a laboratory processed a 70mm print, unfortunately. 70mm direct prints of the original negative were used for the spectacular sharp screenings of "Spartacus" and "2001: ASO", I saw hundred times.
I travelled to a major city to see it first run and it wasn't 70 mm.
@@johnburns8660 …I remember back in the day the term was: “70 Millimeter Panavision”. It was an actual technique where the director would use two 35mm cameras simultaneously. Kubrick used this in Barry Lyndon and in 2001 ASO among other projects. More recently, Quentin Tarantino is known to use this technique. Only certain high-end theaters had the screen capacity to show a film in this form. So in fact, it WAS an actual technique, regardless of your doubts about its authenticity or your theater’s inability to make good use of this outstanding technique.
czcams.com/video/aW_SkpWbE9g/video.htmlsi=OFAf7O1oKu7TKcrR
The paradox, for me, is that at the time of its release, the film seemed on the surface to be just a historical film not really part of the modern world, and therefore, sort of dated. It was set in the past and somehow alien or even dated.
Only it was dealing with far deeper 'Truths' than those that appeared on the surface. Barry Lyndon, as a character doesn't really dominate the film like a 'Star', he's not the Sun and everything revolves around him. He is though, the centre of the movie, but more like a Black Hole, than the Sun. It's the world around him, which he moves through, despite his lack of any sunstantial qualities, that's the interesting part for Kubrick. Ryan O'Neal's 'blandness' is perfect for his role. He's hansome and has ambition, but not much else. If he has any lasting quality, it's just luck. He's lucky, or fortunate that he lands on his feet, rising seemingly without effort, up the social ladder, from the bottom to the very top. Like a modern reality tv star. All surface and no real substance.
And here the film now seems far more 'modern' than it used to. The vastly unfair social and economic structure of the 18th century, now resembles our own society far more than it did when Kubrick made Barry Lyndon half a century ago. Our social and economic sturcture, even our wars, have collapsed 'modernity' back into the 18th century. We've recreated the colossal wealth gap that existed in the 18th, with society ruled by a tiny social/economic elite with the mass of the people having virtually no real say or influence on the direction of society. Paradoxically, I think Barry Lyndon, was Kubrick's most futuristic film, made at the end of one era, the liberal democratic one, and on the cusp of the return of an old one, neo fuedalism.
In these days not very often you meet someone that understands the times that they are living. Chapeau!....
A bit like Forrest Gump…!
He never quite made it to the top though. Fake friends, his own ambition and prejudice did him in.
I'm shocked you didn't mention the musical contribution of the Irish band, The Chieftains. Not only did their music firmly place the context of the protagonist's home and station, but the tune, The Women of Ireland, perfectly expressed the tender longing and agony of young Redmond Barry for his first love. This movie introduced me to The Chieftains, and Irish traditional music, a love I hold to this day.
The maker of this is a film nerd. Did you not hear his monotone, inflectionless voice? He does not appreciate any of the music, and scarcely mentions it.
The music is mentioned at the 4.30 mark.
The music is mentioned, yes, but not the massive contribution of The Chieftains.@@pussycats456
This film brings you right into the 18th Century and keeps you there for three hours. It's unbelievable.
The greatest masterpiece. Divine music by the Chieftans too. Just mind blowing. The fact that it wasn’t well received at first, is just a reflection on how shallow and dense the critics and populace were at the time.
Well Put DD!
♥ I also saw Barry Lyndon in the theater as soon as it was released. The experience of it all, forced me to go BACK to the theater to see it again and recommend it to others, who were not as appreciative as I was and STILL AM. One of the greatest experiences of my life was BARRY LYNDON. ♥
This is Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece. Such a shame it gets overlooked by the general public and even some Kubrick fans believe it or not.
It's a nice painting.
There were trees in the background that could act with more animation and were more entertaining than Ryan O’Neill. That might have something to do with the public reaction.
Kubrick himself dubbed it his greatest failure!
It's the only Kubrick.movie that I've never have seen.
@@vandalorianvandalorian4769How was it a failure?
thank you, if it hadn't been for your video i would never have watched this film. it was like watching a series of moving paintings from the 18th century like Gainsborough. just fantastic.
One of the absolute masterpieces of the art of cinema
This was a very personal project for Kubrick. It was the only film for which he wrote the screenplay himself, with no collaborators. Also, it gave him a chance to use some the research he never got to use for his Napoleon Project.
I love and have seen this movie several time. I must respectfully remind you of this..William Makepeace Thackeray, The Memoirs of Barry Lyndon, Esq. written by himself
The world is a lesser place because of the lack of Kubrick's Napoleon project/movie (especially in light of Ridley Scott's recent Napoleon disaster).
Ridley Scott used to be a great director
@@philrussell5258Then he grew old
For the people who find this film boring and for the people who think there is a hidden meaning they are too lazy to look for: there is no hidden meaning and when you get the meaning of the film it is not boring. The movie is about a man struggling with extreme social conventions and etiquette of that particular period in time and place but also in any period in time where humans are living together. Every human act is molded in an extreme and suffocating ritual behavior that Kubrick so beautifully captures with his static camera use and the pace of the Sarabande. Only 3 times the camera ( a handheld one then) and thus the main character shakes and runs wildly all over the place when all the cultural varnish falls off and nature ( so not culture) bursts out. Your boredom is the very essence of the film. Personally I say this is the best film ever made and shows that film can be art in the sense that is is as complete an auteur- movie as can be because it is the work of just one person ( a criterium often used in the debate of what is art where often it is said that art is only art when it is a work that is made by just one person) Barry Lyndon is a work made by Stanley Kubrick and every aspect of it is exactly coming to us the way Kubrick envisioned it.
I don't think so. It's a character study, similar to Thackeray's better known Vanity Fair. Barry wants to be a great man, and for Barry, that means acquiring wealth. What does he do when he obtains it? He doesn't do anything honorable, like be a decent father or husband, write a novel, or make a scientific contribution. He's just another hedonistic parasite. Social conventions of the time weren't remarkably different than at any other time. If Barry had done his duty, he could have done anything he wanted within reason, as long as he was discrete. Thackeray is a realist. He really doesn't expect much from his characters. If they are just ordinarily decent, he is very kind to them, but if they are fools or villains, he subjects them to ruthless satire.
@@evelynwaugh4053Barry was a great father - the one true love of his life was to give to his son.
@@steffenbach3580 How do you think his son would have fared if he had grown older? Having love for your kids isn't enough to be a decent parent.
You are definitely wrong, and the first commenter that replied to you is correct. Barry Lyndon is a character study, and Barry is a Narcissist who’s machinations are all self serving, superficial, and underneath it all, the man is an empty human being. He chose Ryan for his lack of acting skill, and he often looks blank, and his dialogue is little to worthless, like his character.
It's a question of agency, not the social conventions. His father dies at the beginning of the movie. At the time it was possible for a person to go from minor landed gentry to Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor and Regent. (under much suffering, though not in mind to status) 1st Earl Hardwicke. Philip Yorke. Whig Faction during George II. There are religious factors at play, and the mercy of God.
Not George III though being unfortunately "groomed", Tory Faction controlling like 99% of all the economic wealth. The only short lived antagonist in the movie, being based on the Tory Faction Leader.
Just got done watching for the first time. Films like this feel like a window, or a portal even, into another time and place. And it’s not only the incredible attention to detail in the costumes and sets/locations, or even the authentic approach to lighting, but rather the slow pace, the lingering in space and time that allows for you to become enveloped by the scenes. Films that feature frequent cuts throughout, tend to break my connection, and push me away.
This is my favorite movie of all time! I also got to view the movie in the theatre when it was first released. It is a phenomenal undertaking and a wonderful experience. I never get tired of watching it. Great review.
Great description ' Barry Lydon is the film equivalent of the Mona Lisa' totally agree.
One reason Barry Lyndon failed at the box office (as you pointed out) was context and competition. Not only was it competing with the likes of Three Days of The Condor, Dog Day Afternoon, and Jaws, but it was unfavourably compared to The Three Musketeers/Four Musketeers franchise -- essential a swash-buckler comedy.; it was (and still is) long, and therefore cinemas lost a screening every day; and for all it's beauty it is essentially a static film, with very little "action". It also broke Kubrick's winning streak, and shook his confidence -- why else would he choose a horror movie as his next endeavour.
Yet it endues, long past the point where it's technical achievements are now taken for granted, and all that is left is it's artistry. I would also argue that Kubrick has never been given due credit for his writing skill. While he always preferred collaborating, he wrote both Barry Lyndon and Clockwork Orange alone (no mean feat for a boy from the Bronx), and his skill with language was truly exceptional.
Until Kubrick started shooting with candles, no one has seen the eighteenth century on film before -- everything prior was a simulation.
Barry Lyndon has a cool detachment. Many critics took issue with the film's slow pace and restrained emotion. It defies us to care, it asks us to remain only observers of its stately elegance. Many of its developments take place off-screen. There is very little emotion in it, things happen to Barry rather than him doing them. And it's a very long movie. Of course, one has to be bright to love it and that is one appeal of Kubrick to the "brights" but that doesn't mean many intelligent people would be bored. Good not great. It's much better than Eyes Wide Shut, Full Metal Jacket (particularly the second half of the movie). I like a good story with twists and turns and fewer details and I don't care about the great Lighting of candles. Much better movies: L.A. Confidential/Rear Window/ 12 Monkeys/ and even Die Hard.
You mean “for all its beauty“ not it’s, which means it is.
Not sure what is meant by "Kubrick's winning streak". Since "Spartacus", none of Kubrick's films won upon initial release, except possibly Strangelove. They were all controversial, and had mixed reactions from critics and audiences. They only win through their longevity, as they all acquired notoriety and fandom over time.
Actually they were all "commercial successes", from Lolita on, although 2001 didn't become a "hit" until a rerelease in 1971. Of course this was is an era where movies could play in cinemas for literally years. Barry Lyndon was his first commercial failure domestically.@@aliensoup2420
“Kubrick never made a big budget film again”
I dont understand this statement. Eyes Wide Shut had 6x the budget of Barry Lyndon. Full Metal Jacket also had a higher budget, not by a lot, but these are two movies that came after Barry Lyndon that had a larger budget.
Kubrick is rarely appreciated by popcorn munchers, but as the years pass and theatrical films as based on CGI, his legacy will grow proportionately as will Barry Lyndon.
I mean how far can his legacy go at this point? He's widely considered to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of all time, and so are his movies. 90% of them are among the greatest movies ever made. I think his legacy's already well established, it's hard to go further than #1 if you already are at the very top in the first place. I'm sure as new generations will grow, the genius of Kubrick blow them away just like it did with us.
I think the thing that adds to it’s re-watchability is the story; before I watched it for the first time I knew it had a huge history and I’d looked at frames of it before viewing it. The story is bonkers! For some reason I thought it was going to be more, serious? Maybe that’s the wrong word, but I laughed so much more than I thought I would. Unbelievable, gripping storytelling, the ultimate in highs and lows, one of the many reasons it’s entertaining. And of course the way it looks and sounds. A great insight, thank you sir ✌🏼
That's.. interesting, I guess, but it's really not supposed to be a comedy but good for you
@@BBBJOT divine comedy
@@BBBJOT although not seem like a comedy, it's based on a comedic novel. and there some moments and scene that are delightedly funny, good sir!
@@caesarpizza1338 Especially Captain Feeny and his son robbing Barry. "Good day to you sir!" "I am afraid I can not let you keep your horse. In our line of work, we must be able to travel faster than our clients." "You can lower your arms now, Mr. Lyndon."
You mean its watchability, not it’s, which means it is.
It's an incredible piece of art....one of the best films ever made. Not for meat heads who only want a kill count and car chases. Saw it in the movie theater in NYC when it came out and have watched it at least a dozen times since. It's a masterpiece.
Ummm I like kill counts and car chases. And I like Barry Lyndon.
You speak truth to every point you make!
I cannot understand why this film wasn't bettered received. It had a great story and the scenes do like they are paintings. One if the most enjoyable films I have ever seen
I’m 39 and first saw this film on Showtime or HBO when I stayed home from school two weeks sick in the 6th grade. I’ve loved it ever since.
Saw Barry Lyndon at BAM with a live orchestra. Epic.
I was captivated by this movie as a teenager in the 80s. It still never gets old and I’m awestruck by it every time I watch it.
It is also ironic that the actor who played Barry Lyndon was a similar aHole in real life. Who recently passed away as well.
Barry Lyndon is also my favourite film of all time and I enjoyed your video very much. I was slightly surprised that, when referring to the wonderful music, you omitted the Schubert piano trio in E flat which became the emblematic music clip from the movie. For me perfection in this matching of music to the drama was not only the sad and haunting emotional element but also how it slowed down the perceived pace of the movie itself. It seemed to me that what Kubrick was doing was trying to put the audience into the much slower pace of life in the 18th century. He did this partly through the music and partly through the extremely long camera shots before cutting to the next scene. Sometimes over a minute would pass as the camera panned without any cut. In a modern movie it's about 10 seconds. In my view this was a very important technique in transporting the audience into the past.
If he was born earlier Kubrick would have been a great silent film director. His films were very visually driven and dialogue was a necessary evil. He stated in an interview that making a silent film can be very instructive to a young filmmaker, learning how to tell a story visually rather than having t the rely too heavily on dialogue. One could almost image Barry Lyndon as a silent film with its own sparse dialogue being conveyed by intertitle cards. Kubrick probably wouldn't have been able to film those scenes by candlelight but he would figured out another method of capturing that time period without it looking too phoney. I'd now rank Barry Lyndon in my top ten favourite films of all time. I have watched it numerous times over the decades and have yet to be bored by it. I know the story but it retains the power to engage my imagination every time. It's unfortunate that it never found a greater appreciation on its initial release but he must have known that the film was going to appeal to a somewhat limited audience. It's not some swashbuckling style period piece with a dashing and romantic hero, when in fact there is really no likeable characters and the tone is unrelentingly sombre. It's not a film that I would recommend to a person unfamiliar with Kubrick. Although the story itself is very simple and easy to understand it is the pacing and the film's length which might discourage some. For me those three hours fly by. Period films are hard to pull off and not look at all modern. It's obvious that he did an enormous amount of research to get the look just right,especially with costumes and the decor. It brings this era to life.
My dad really enjoyed it surprisingly, he basically hates Kubrick and most movies I reccomend lol
A bookend film to Barry Lyndon is "Amadeus" by Milos Forman.
Exceptional film analysis. I was listening to Chopin Nocturnes, and thought of the soundtrack of Barry Lyndon and saw this. Thanks for posting.
Just re-watched this cinema masterpiece again last night after not seeing it for like 25+ years💯🙏😎
A truly great movie. No better cinematography exists. Beautifully made and compellingly told. A masterpiece.
Your analyses are SO PERFECT and complete! Thank you!
Excellent review. The 1973 version of The Three Musketeers adopted a similar style and had really striking visuals, that resembled period paintings. Unfortunately the recent 1080P BD release is a very poor transfer (the DVD release was better).
The TM & FM were the best. When I learned to really appreciate Oliver Reed
have taught it, have worshipped it, have studied it dozens and dozens of times. it's like cooking or drinking: I don't trust people who don't do the aforementioned; and I don't trust anyone who doesn't love this film.
It's in my top 5 and a lot of people I've told have thought I was crazy. It's a masterpiece.
Stanley Kubrick was a genius. I have seen this movie so many times. Absolutely genius!!!!!!!!
I have seen it a dozen times and it never gets old,,,only better. Oh, you can see the movie light outside the window in the restaurant scene.
I'd LOVE to see this on the big screen.
I am soooo glad this magnificent work of art is finally been given the appreciation it deserves. Like Blade Runner (no comparison, of course) it for some reason didn't capture the imagination of cinema goers at the time of release, but, as there seems to be SOME justice in the world, time has been kind to it, and it is now, a tad belatedly, taking its rightful place among the greats in cinema history.
My guess is that much of this new appreciation is due to Warner Bros' numerous Kubrick boxsets and numerous revivals of his films over the years since his passing. I wish other magnificent titles from the 70s would get as much appreciation today. Coppola's *The Conversation* for example, is still mainly only loved by critics. Tarkovsky's *Mirror* is another one.
Both of the movies mentioned suffered good welcoming from audience for their long period, i really think modern audience should develop more patience in watching movies, this is even more prominent with the latest release of The Batman, it gives the director more flexibility and context character development etc. Of course long movies shouldn't really be a common thing since budget issue and sometimes people just want something light or easy to follow before sleep.
@@deckofcards87 Mirror is amazing!
@@deckofcards87Barry Lyndon got its revival through late night cinema and constant television showings. It was actually most shown Kubrick movie on television(citing Jan Harlan, Kubrick’s brother in law and long-time producer). So no, it had nothing to do with Warner Bros✌️
Holy shit, and Indian fan of Barry Lyndon, like me fr. On a serious note this movie is so amazingly well made, from the camera shots to the locations and period reenactment and the integration of music (Handel and Schubert in particular), to top it all of the story is entertaining and engaging too. The only thing most people complain about is its length, but that never bothers me especially because I love long movies especially when they are good. Easily my favourite Kubrick film, especially because of its premise and the time I watched it.
I saw this movie for the first time, of all places, in a shitty little seat screen during an eleven-hours flight over the Atlantic. Hard to believe this was included in the airline’s roster of films, but there we were. I enjoyed it greatly and latter saw it again in a proper screen. It must have been incredible, truly an experience, to watch this on theaters back in the day.
I’ve been a Kubrick fanatic my entire life. I’ve owned and watched all of his films countless times. After seeing for the first time, it instantly became my favorite. So many people here on this thread, obviously feel the same. It is astonishing to me how “critics” could have missed the obvious greatness. They were literally staring at a moving Mona Lisa. And yet they were obsessed over a shark? Nothing seems to have changed.
Visually the movie is magic. Everything about this movie w=is sublime. Costume, lighting, costume, storyline and music are as great as will ever be.
Excellent video. I personally tried to watch the film every decade since it's release. I failed miserably because I couldn't immerse myself into aristocracy themed films. Staying awake was a chore to say the least. I recently viewed it and now can't stop praising it. The scene at the card table and then on the veranda are perfection. How could anyone not fall in love with Lady Honoria? Labeling the film great is an understatement to say the least.
Music in this movie really is not just something in the background, it plays foreground role in the most important scenes. And what's critical, Kubrick did not cut the music to the image, but cut the image to fit the music - which is something almost never done, because it's against the typical principles of cinematography and hard to pull off.
From a visual standpoint Kubrick is unmatched. The low light shots in Barry Lyndon are atill unequaled a half century later.
I like to watch Barry Lyndon every three or four years. Never fails to blow me away. I wish they would show it more often in the cinema as that is the best way to see it.
This movie will age like fine wine, or artwork that you'd see in the Louvre. Beautiful beyond belief.
I, too, saw the movie on a huge screen in NYC when it first came out. I remember being immensely disappointed. This well-meaning video tribute reminds me of how repellent I found the film (and I’m a great admirer of most of Kubrick’s other films): how cold, how unnaturally slow, and - for all the vaunted authenticity of its lighting and furnishings and costumes, blah blah blah - how often the cast seemed to strike self-conscious poses, like a collection of waxworks. Perhaps that’s what comes from relying too closely on paintings of that era.
I agree with 100% of what you said, and I have the same reaction to the movie: the more I watch it, the more I appreciate it. I was also already aware of the candle and the lighting before watching the movie, but even then, the more I watch the movie, the more I appreciate the visuals, the rhythm, the mood, the dialogs, and the music from Schubert is magnificent. It's interesting that Kubrick chose Schubert as a stylization, rather than to add detail to the era portrayed, as Schubert was not contemporary.
I came to this movie quite late, even as a Kubrick fan. Always thought that the period piece genre is not for me. At my first viewing, I was surprised that I quite like it. In later viewings I was able to fully appreciate the intricacies and finesse even more. Barry Lyndon really grows on you. Poetic, that his possibly finest work is among the least known of his canon.
I was in Hollywood when BL premiered and got video of Ryan and Tatum O'Neal standing atop the Cinerama Dome's marquis (the theatre where BL first screened in L.A.) being interviewed by Rona Barrett. As a press member, I saw the film about a month before it opened. I was the only one of my group who was blown away by the film. But that's typical of Kubrick's works. It takes time for most folks to "get" them. It remains my second favorite Kubrick, next to 2001 which, at age 71, I still think the greatest movie ever made.
great memories...ty
wolfcrow, I love your intelligent description of everything that makes great cinema. Thanks.
You make my love of movies more accessible and rewarding.
4:15 If you read a quote from him to this effect, tell us where it's from. It's perfectly possible that he did consider it his best film when he made it, but the only instance I'm aware of of him giving his opinion on this question are the well-known reports from his family that he believed 'Eyes Wide Shut' was his best work as he was completing it.
Isnt it interesting that the execs blew-up at him to the point of almost physically fighting? lol To me that movie was the biggest "F-U" to whomever 'inspired' him to make that movie.
There are some movies you can watch over and over - Barry Lyndon, for me, is that movie, more than any other. Thank you Stanley Kubrick!
I first saw this on a 16mm projector at my college lecture theatre in London in 1980 and was in awe of the beauty of it. I've seen it several times since and visited Lavenham in Suffolk, where a number of scenes were shot.
One of my top ten favorites, yes. If I could take only 5 films for a year on this "remote island" - BL would be one of them. But "makes you a better person"...?? What nobody says: besides being a great romance film, a great "rise-and-fall"-film - it is also a GREAT WAR FILM. This shocked me the most when seeing it for the first time: the absurdity of walking in a straight line into enemy gunfire!
A superb treat for the eyes, I treasure this film, it is everything you say it is. I visited Wilton House where some of the scenes were taken, my elder brother was a footman there, so lucky to work amongst all of that splendour and art. A truly wonderful backdrop to the cinematic scenes taken there, an inspiration to the film makers and actors.
I recommend this film to folks I meet who are newly into history, as a perfect example of a bygone era that captures not only is sound, its light, its language, and its culture, but its PACING. It is slow. Depicting a time when the pace of life was very much slower. That horses and people traveled most place at a walk. That distractions were for the most part quiet and patient. Social mobility for the most part inaccessible, and only really achieved thru very rare luck, or chicanery.
I think Kubrick wanted to do a film on Napolean, but two other movies about Napolean did not impress studios, so another was rejected.
Kubrick, after having spent years researching every detail, went to another subject, the book about an Irish rogue who lived about the same time period.
I think this is how Kubrick made his Napolean film, just changing the story about 18th century royalty and an Irish opportunist.
But the look is what Kubrick was after, whether it be about Napolean or some other cutthroat.
Kubrick improved the story. Thackery did not want to write this book and it showed. One of my favorite films.
Favorite Kubrick movie ,watched this when I was a teenager,a real classic
Thomas Gainsborough, among others, brought to life.
It’s my favorite movie.
And not in just some shallow pretentious way. I remember the first time I saw it it just sucked me in. I think I’ve watched it 6 times now. It’s the mixture of a “Scorsese” like character who has a rise and a fall, with the out of this world Kubrick visual style. No other Kubrick movie hits me like Barry, not even close.
This is a highly intelligent critique of a superb movie! One of the best films ever made. Bravo!
Mysterious is right. It is utterly stunning in it's artistry, breathtaking in it's execution of the techniques of filmmaking, however, the narration mixed with Ryan O'Neil's performance is hypnotic and oddly blank. But it works. Period pieces such as this are usually over the top in their melodrama, performance, and general opulence in it's design. Barry Lyndon almost plays like a litmus test for your thoughts and feelings on the film and subject manner your watching. It forces us to stop, pause, look and listen, to take it in and be as detached as Kubrick designed it to be. I love Roger Ebert's thoughts on this film in his Great Films series, "'Barry Lyndon' isn't a great entertainment in the usual way, but it's a great example of directorial vision: Kubrick saying he's going to make this material function as an illustration of the way he sees the world."
I agree with you about O'Neil's performance but I don't think it works. A better more carousing performance may have spoiled the images Kubrick was trying to create however. Nevertheless it stops the film from being great imo.
Yeah, your video really made me remember how much it is a really great piece of cinema.
Great work wolfcrow , thankyou for all you do !
Excellent commentry about the film. Another aspect of the film is the underlying humour. The gambling scenes in particular are great fun, though not for the loser!
Kubrick had a great eye for interiors, no one else has come close other than Tom Hopper with John Adams.
RIP Ryan. You did well enough and we will strive to keep you going…lucky man with a great smile. 😉
❤
One of my all time favorites. Unfortunately (don't hate me) I never liked Ryan O'Neal, But the flawless beauty of Miss Berenson is breathtaking!
Thank you for such a wonderful video. This is likely my favourite movie!
My brother, God willing You will get a million subscribers by the end of this year. ❤ I absolutely love this channel
I love Historical movies .The costumes are magnificent. Great movie .
Barry Lyndon was one of the greatest films ever made .... and yet I never heard of it before about 3-4 years ago and I was a frequent theater goer when it was released. Still never seen it.
5:58 'Barry Lyndon' was made with twelve million dollars. 'The Shining' was nineteen million. 'Full Metal Jacket' was somewhere between sixteen and thirty million. 'Eyes Wide Shut' was sixty-five million. What are you talking about, Sareesh?
Ahah I made a comment to say the same. I even showed the imposture by saying: "In this piece, you kinda blame others for going to what is explicit rather than diving to what really made the work so good. According to your argument, this happen because is so much easier to hook people with big words. And then you do the same..."
Barry Lyndon 4K Criterion has to be at the top of most-requested physical releases.
You could argue that in some cases 'big budgets' are the death of the film. When truly big bucks come in to play, you start to get people involved in the story telling that should never be involved in the story telling side of things. I think this is why I personally love indi films so much. Many lower budgeted films have been so good and the smaller budget forces the story telling.
I simply love this film
I found this film to be the most boring film that I couldn’t turn my head from. It was wooden, the characters were dull, and yet I loved every moment of it. Truly an amazing work of filmmaking that I loved and hated so much.
I'm just happy that I stumbled over it and was intrigued, not by some names nor by some praise. I bought it, watched it, watched it again and again and again. While I value acting, style, details and overall how it draws attention in basically every scene. Technical Production and effort taken to aim for perfection I, as usual underestimated significantly. Well, except the gauntlet conducted by the Prussian Army being depicted. Frederick II got rid of it already in 1740.
Thank you sir for this beautiful summary
Phenomenal film, one of the best of its time so good
Your thoughts and analysis and comleteley spot on! All (well most) of his films are amazing feats....But BL really is his crowning achievement....."Never have 3 hrs cinema moved so swiftly".
This is Kubrick's best film, but even so, every reviewer goes on and on about those damn candles and Panaflex lenses. Maybe it is more appropriate to call Kubrick a great cinematographer and a pretty good director. This is the only film he has made where the characters are relatable and viewers are aware of the story line. And it is a very beautiful, very sad film. It is gratifying to see Ryan O'Neal given a serious role, and he plays it to perfection. But as for depicting this era and European society even more realistically, I recommend you watch "The Draughtsman's Contract" (1982), directed by Peter Greenaway. Set a few decades earlier than Lyndon, it gives the viewer an eerie sense of being in the time.
Similarly, when someone tells me 2001 was the greatest science fiction movie of all, I ask them what it was about. As they think about that, and I’ve never heard the right answer yet (I read the book), I ask them if they can name a character from that film. The only one most people can come up with is HAL. By comparison, Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" is a far more involving story, and more evocative in its prediction of the time we live in now. When I say it is my favorite sci fi film, others claim the scenes from 2001 with space ships dancing in time with a Johan Strauss waltz make it superior. But pretty pictures do not necessarily add up to a meaningful film. Especially when it is impossible to decipher the story the director is telling.
I never saw this in a theatre, only on the small screen. I pray I have the chance to see it on the big screen some day. The star in this movie, ultimately, is Kubrick. Gorgeous movie.
I'm not sure if I'm a better person or not, but I've also loved Barry Lyndon.
Tarkovsky once said, if I'm not mistaken, that thinking cinematography (art) as an entertainment is almost offensive
one of the best movies i've seen from one of my favorite directors
You are the best in Film topic, PLEASE keep going
I just watched this today, crazy synchronicity
I was the film that made me appreciate period clothing. Its was a fascinating film, but it seems to have a lesson to be learned.
It is pure art! Fabulous.
The storytelling side of this movie is so often overlooked due to the gorgeousness of the cinematography.