
Kubrick's ‘Barry Lyndon,’ a masterclass in bringing a filmmaker's vision to life - walterbell
http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/stanley-kubricks-barry-lyndon/
======
acqq
If you consider buying a Blu-Ray version of "Barry Lyndon" currently
available, note that it has a wrong format. Apparently, the film was made in a
5:3 format which would, if transferred correctly to the current TV aspect
ratio (16:9) leave black stripes to the left and the right of the picture. But
it would be true to the original. And the only current offer unfortunately
cuts off the upper and the lower part of the picture to "fill" the TV screen.

The apparent result is that, for example, the scene for which the filmmaker
waited weeks before the sky "looks right" almost doesn't contain the sky
anymore.

I know there are customers who just want the "full" picture even if nothing
looks how it should (shorter people or missing parts of the content) but those
who want to get what author made should probably wait for (hopefully) some
later different edition, if it ever happens ("blah blah average customer
etc"). But I guess the current format is a partial reason why those disc are
untypically cheap. The real fans who want to own the film could care. Others
don't want to watch it more than once and don't particularly even need to buy
the disc.

~~~
dexterdog
[http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/barry-lyndon-aspect-
ratio/](http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/barry-lyndon-aspect-ratio/)

~~~
acqq
Thanks. Worth for seeing the Kubrick's typography decisions for his 1975
letter (I know that he didn't decide anything just for that letter, but I'd
still like to know what was that that produced such fonts?) and his explicit
instructions regarding the subject.

As an example for everybody to evaluate if they consider left-out pixels
significant for them, this "Barry Lyndon" snapshot is 16:9 (1280:720)

[https://stillsfrmfilms.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/121.jpg](https://stillsfrmfilms.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/121.jpg)

In that resolution, what's missing is "just" 72 pixels total above or under
the picture. The difference would be that there's no "cut" of the stones of
the fire.

On another snapshot

[https://stillsfrmfilms.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/421.jpg](https://stillsfrmfilms.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/421.jpg)

the foot that misses the sole would be whole.

Seem to be small differences. There are certainly enough films which were
shoot with the intention not to project everything that's in the frame (that's
why the mics are often "in frame" in "wrong" transfers -- the idea was that
the last correction was during the projection, and there actually keeping
everything is against the director's intention). But "Barry Lyndon" is exactly
the movie that went to extraordinary lenghts for the photography aspect of it.
Think about it: it's technically hugely inconvenient not using modern lights
during shooting of the whole movie, but that was one of the major decisions of
the director. The piece of the object cut off the photograph when not intended
is the photographer's nightmare.

But I can really understand that people who wouldn't care honestly wouldn't.

By the way, the "exact" transfer to the TV HD would give 1800 instead of 1920
pixels wide image, that is, 60 pixels left and right would be black. Would
some customers complain as "not wanting black pillars" too? Probably. But the
fans?

------
wobbleblob
Every time this film is mentioned, I'm reminded of the old fairly tale, the
emperor's new clothes.

Everyone, absolutely everyone who has good taste and knows something about
movie making seems to worship this film. Only those who are unfit for their
positions, stupid, or incompetent don't like it.

Let me then be the one to admit I'll be the stupid, incompetent one, but
willing to learn. Why is this film brilliant? I found it unbearable. Half the
story is told by an omniscient narrator (a device that simply doesn't work in
a film), the story advances at a glacial pace, the protagonist is completely
unlikable. Of course the backstory would feel somewhat pompous and dated,
based on a 19th century book, but in my uninformed, incompetent opinion
bringing this old fashioned feel unchanged to a 20th century medium didn't do
either of them any favors.

Kubrick made a number of classics that have either aged very well or become a
cherished document of the time when they were made. Can someone please explain
to me why this movie belongs up there with the Shining, 2001 and Dr.
Strangelove?

~~~
sordina
I watched this film without any previous exposure to sentiments about it, or
Kubrick. I chose to watch it based purely on the title. I still came to the
conclusion that it is one of the greatest films ever made.

* The photography is singular, this is self-evident * The acting is outstanding

Complaints usually then come down to story and direction.

I interpret the direction as perfectly executing my understanding of Kubrick's
intended impact: Contrast between character (developed through the story) and
sentiment.

A sentiment engineered with all the available emotional tools:

* The tone of the narration * Slow pacing * Divine Music * Lavish Costume

All intended to convey the message - "Take this very seriously". Imparting a
gravity to every word and action. Be it glory, or tragedy.

What then of the contrasting element - Character?

As you say - The protagonist is unlikable. This wasn't a mistake. He's a
selfish, spineless, jerk, of no inherent merit, who raises himself to mediocre
heights through questionable behaviour, morals, and company only to be struck
down again. A parody of the Greek tragic form.

What does that leave us with? A comedy!

It's a simple proposition, a farcical contrast between story content, and
story form. Told completely straight-faced and dry. In this light I find it to
be one of the most original and daring pieces of cinematic story-telling I
know of.

The punchline to the joke, however, seems to be that I've never found another
person who shared this perspective, and most seem to take the the sentiment
seriously and at face value... You seem like you might be someone who enjoys
looking at it from this angle.

I haven't yet read or watched any reviews of this film or the book it was
based on, and was surprised to see the film being discussed on Hacker News, so
in the tradition of a good internet commenter, I'm writing this comment before
having read the article.

I'll go ahead and read OP's link now and see if any of my ideas are vindicated
:)

~~~
abecedarius
Extremely well put. I was going to say it shows humans as not heroes or
villains but hypocrites, from the point of view of an amused god -- like
Feynman once said of being put up in a super-fancy hotel with gold trimmings
in the bathroom, as if something grand and marvelous took place there.

------
l33tbro
I don't think Kubrick needs any more mythologizing or celebrating, but dammit
if Barry Lyndon isn't a ridiculously great piece of film-making. While I think
his Napoleon film (which provided all the research for the Lyndon world-build)
would have put every other historic pic to shame, I dare say it would have
been as focused and understated as this remarkable film.

~~~
ghaff
Barry Lyndon is probably an example of a film that has become admired over
time. Although, to be fair, it was admired when it was released--a lot of
people just didn't love it all that much. It was quite the technological tour
de force with respect to the authenticity (e.g. shooting by candlelight) and
cinematography but it was, with some justification, criticized for being a
rather "cold" film, as Kubrick films tend to be.

------
kbouck
The epilogue from this film really got me:

    
    
        It was in the reign of King George III
        That the aforesaid personages lived and quarreled; 
        Good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor
        They are all equal now

~~~
dkh
Yes. This gave me chills. It still does.

------
pimeys
There are not so many movies in my life I want to watch for several times.
Kubrick made eight of them. Barry Lyndon is my favorite.

------
gjkood
For those of you budding Kubricks, you may even be able to recreate his
amazing candlelight scenes (yes, no other artificial lighting was used) using
Kubrick's specially made lenses. The f/0.7 prime lenses were originally made
for NASA for the Apollo space program. They are now available for rent.

[http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9811242514/kubrick-
s-f-0-7-...](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9811242514/kubrick-
s-f-0-7-lenses-now-available-for-rent-but-start-saving-up)

~~~
thenomad
Or you could use a Sony a7S, which is perfectly capable of shooting films on
normal lenses with no other lighting but candle light.

A significant portion of my short film "HOWTO: Demon Summoning"
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZoiva3DfI8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZoiva3DfI8))
was shot with nothing but candle light last year. Four tealights, to be exact.

We just used a regular f/1.4 50mm Contax/Yashica lens on the a7s body, running
at 40,000 ISO or therabouts.

The footage was a bit noisy as it came out of the camera, not aided by my
shooting in LOG format without exposing as high as I should have done, but
once we ran it through the Neat Video noise filter plugin it looks great.

I wrote a bit about the process over here:
[http://www.strangecompany.org/lessons-i-learned-from-my-
firs...](http://www.strangecompany.org/lessons-i-learned-from-my-first-live-
action-short-after-nearly-20-years-of-animation/)

------
skyhatch1
My first memory of real cinema. We learnt at school about how 18th century
aristocrats lived, but to see it in vision via Barry Lyndon made the whole
franchise seem as exuberant as our history teacher had said. Strangely, one of
the slowest moving films I've seen, but it grips your attention with a vice.
Worth watching.

------
wyclif
This is a great read. The notion of "six kinds of light" is an important one
for aspiring filmmakers to understand.

Is this new? I am not a fan of the recent trend of refusing to date posts. It
seems like that is done to milk advertising, but it makes it impossible to
know when something was written.

------
dkh
Such a brilliant, beautiful, and haunting film.

~~~
sordina
I think this is true, but that the beauty is meant to serve as a farcical
contrast to the triviality and lack of meaning in Barry's story. The point was
really driven home with the final scene of the story being accompanied by
Handel's Sarabande, a work of monumental gravitas implying transcendent
tragedy, when in reality Barry was a nobody, a jerk with no morals or
conviction hardly deserving a second thought.

