A Few Words About A few words about...™ Barry Lyndon -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Rob LoVerde]

As told to me by editor Robert Lawrence, to help SK relax during production, he would pitch a hardball.  On many occasions, Lawrence became the catcher, and the playing field was a long office hallway.  Workers knew better than to simply walk out of their offices.  When they heard the ball hit the glove, they would peek out of their doorway to see if movement was save, as they didn't want to be in the line of fire. RAH
  

Thank you for sharing that, Mr. Harris. I appreciate how it brings out the human aspect of Mr. Kubrick, which so many memories shared by those that worked with him never seem to do.By the way, I screened the Blu-ray of BARRY LYNDON last night and was simply thrilled. It was a relief to see film grain intact and the fact that whomever performed the transfer resisted any possible urge to sharpen the image, which would have ultimately diminished its presentation and impact.

 

[Charles Smith]

Blast from the past. (Been scanning some old slides and snapshots.)

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

That photo is fantastic, Chas. Makes me wish I could walk up and buy a ticket to the show.

 

[Rachael B]

Pacific's Theatre looks like a giant Golf ball. Are ya'all sure there's not a Driving Range out back?

 

[Richard--W]

His omnipotence ended for me with Barry Lyndon. Either Stanley was so ahead of me (lots of opinions out there defending Eyes Wide Shut as being a 'groundbreaker') that I still haven't caught up with him or he lost it, I don't know. The movie The Shining captured none of the bleak, oppressive atmosphere of a book that scared the living you-know-what out of me. SK may have had his own vision for it, but the result falls flat, while Jack doing the Here's Johnny bit was one of those spur of the moment (I hope) bits of puerile humor that serve only to take one out of it, fatal where one's involvement is paramount.

I don't share your high opinion of the novel. It didn't scare me in the least. The novel is obsessively pedantic, predictable, pretentious, bombastic, tedious, and verbose. The content is too insubstantial to justify the word count. Pages and pages of words that tell no story. There might 80 pages of a lean mean ghost story in there if you cut the unnecessary words. Delete the filler, chop the padding. This is what Stanley Kubrick did. The film boils the story down to its essence and shows us what's important. It's a pity he didn't have the technology to bring the hedge maze to life in the third act, but the story, up to that point and after it, is extremely well told, and very engaging. Jack Nicholson is a joy to watch. The way a realization comes to him and a thought trickles down from his brain to his tongue and outward to his hand gestures. He's a one-man riot. The character on the page is barely there compared to how Nicholson brings him to life. It is an edited performance. Kubrick was judicious in stacking takes that escalated the combination of emotions he wanted from Nicholson. Additionally, I revel in the symmetry and elegant mathematics of Stanley Kubrick's lensmanship. The film is everything the novel should have been.

I'll give it another shot one of these days, but only the first half of FMJ works for me, while the Eyes Wide Shut that we have can only be explained by those who (here we go again!) claim that had SK lived, he would have reedited, changed or added to it. From a purely technical point of view, the scene in the poolroom(?) with Tom Cruise and Sidney Pollack is excruciating to watch. An actor folding his arms is usually a sign that he's uncomfortable and doesn't know what to do with himself. Here we have both 'actors' with arms folded standing facing each other for an interminable amount of time. Because it's Kubrick, one looks for reasons. Did he deliberately keep actors who are untrained in stagecraft (no hiding behind tight shots or cross-cutting there!) in a long shot for so long a time in order to make them uncomfortable on the set and capture that? That might be an explanation, except that the Pollack character is in his own home and supposedly in control of himself and the situation. The scene comes across as awkward and amateurish and I feel that Kubrick just didn't know how, or was too ill to think clearly (or take the trouble) to block/stage) it more effectively. The king may, in this instance at least, be wearing no clothes.
By contrast, there isn't a frame of his earlier movies that fails to delight and astonish me. A master in full control of his craft.

There isn't a frame of Eyes Wide Shut that fails to astonish me. This film demonstrates the maestro in full control of his craft.
I doubt if Kubrick would have re-edited, changed, or added to the film if he had lived, since these methods would not have addressed the problem.
The only flaw in Eyes Wide Shut is the central performance by Tom Cruise. Stanley Kubrick did the best he could with him, trying different approaches and putting him through endless retakes, but in the end, the actor is responsible for his performance, and Cruise just didn't have the juice. His emotional range is too narrow to pull off the character. Cruise is shallow, uncomprehending, and boorish. His very presence trivializes the story. Scene after scene is deflated by his monumental incompetence. But SK was stuck with him. An actor the calibre of Jack Nicholson (The Shining) or Richard Dreyfuss (who played a similar character in Inserts (1975) ) could have mined the subtext and brought the interaction with Sydney Pollack and other actors to life. There is nothing wrong with Eyes Wide Shut that a change in casting wouldn't solve. What a shame Todd Field, who played Nick Nightingale the piano player, could not have swapped roles with Cruise. For that matter my aunt Fanny would have made a better Dr Harford than Tom Cruise.
Let us now return to Barry Lyndon.

 

[WinstonCely]

There might 80 pages of a lean mean ghost story in there if you cut the unnecessary words.
The only flaw in Eyes Wide Shut is the central performance by Tom Cruise. For that matter my aunt Fanny would have made a better Dr Harford than Tom Cruise. Barry Lyndon.

I totally agree about the novel The Shining. Far too long for the meat of the story, and frankly most of King's work is the same way, IMHO.
I don't think Cruise's performance is bad at all. In fact, with a few "Cruise mannerisms" aside, it's one of his better performances. I find it quite difficult to watch him in most of his leading rolls, because he seems so unwilling to give up his mannerisms and trademarked style. I'm not saying it was a wonderful performance, and those times he lapses into Cruise territory do tend to stick out (much of his dialogue in the final scene with Kidman comes to mind) but overall, it was a fine performance.
Most of the negative comments on Cruise remind me of the negative comments of O'Neal in Barry Lyndon. They each provide subtle characteristics in their performances that only benefit the story and their respective narratives. Granted, if I were to choose between the two on a purely performance basis, I would choose O'Neal, but I certainly don't think Cruise (or Kidman for that matter) deserves the massive amount of negative reviews that they got.

 

[Richard--W]

Ryan O'Neal is fine in Barry Lyndon.
I see no analogy between O'Neal and Cruise.
O'Neal is a much better actor, and he carries Barry Lyndon very well..

 

[WinstonCely]

Ryan O'Neal is fine in Barry Lyndon.
I see no analogy between O'Neal and Cruise.
O'Neal is a much better actor, and he carries Barry Lyndon very well..

I'm not saying their acting is anything alike, just noting how they're both (in their respective times) highly popular actors that were both panned for their performances in a Kubrick film, and in my opinion they are not deserving of such criticism. I think they are both actors (especially later in their career) that are plagued by public perception that clouds or at least focuses attention on these actors faults rather than their strengths. However, just my opinion/thoughts.

 

[Richard--W]

It is not a matter of public perception.
Again, there is no comparison between the two actors performances. None. As for the public's perception ... the public doesn't always know what the weak spot in a film is. You blame the problems in Eyes Wide Shut on public perception? Wrong. The problem is the central performance. It is the vital thread that unravels the entire suit of clothes. You mention Sydney Pollack. If he had done his scenes with a different actor, he'd come across much better than he does. Like most actors with a narrow range but plenty of charisma, Cruise is best utilized in roles that do not require a deep emotional range. He doesn't have it. He knows it, too. Watching him in the film is like passing by an empty house. The lights are on, but nobody is home. His failure and inability to carry Eyes Wide Shut invites criticism.

 

[WinstonCely]

In the words of the Dude, "Well, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man." Lets agree to disagree. I don't think his performance hurts the film, but you do. Fine by me!
Oh and I don't mention Eyes Wide Shut having problems. There are some minor issues I have, but I wouldn't call them problems, and I don't find anything wrong with any of the actors performances in the film. I'm talking about the public perception of actors interfering with how they are judged in their performances. Or Sydney Pollack. I didn't mention him either, but maybe that was directed at someone else. Oh well. No worries.

 

[marsnkc]

The novel is obsessively pedantic, predictable, pretentious, bombastic, tedious, and verbose. The content is too insubstantial to justify the word count. Pages and pages of words that tell no story.

Does this mean you didn't like it?

It is not a matter of public perception.
Again, there is no comparison between the two actors performances. None. As for the public's perception ... the public doesn't always know what the weak spot in a film is. You blame the problems in Eyes Wide Shut on public perception? Wrong. The problem is the central performance.

Your posts, here and in Mr. Harris's Citizen Kane thread make me nostalgic for Hyde Park Corner! (I wonder what they stand on these days? Soap boxes must surely be cardboard now).
I didn't mean to give the impression that King was a threat to Shakespeare, or that his novel deserves a place beside Hamlet. The Shining is the only book of King's I've ever read, and you'll just have to take my word for it that it scared me (you know, the ol' subjective thing, that bane of, and incovenience to, your average punter afflicted with 'peremptoritis').
I tossed it as soon as I was through, and if I were to read it again it might not have the same effect. I read it on a night-time return trip from Vegas, so the horrors of that place may very well have influenced things (kidding!).
As to verbosity, the need to delete filler and chop padding, how many of Will's 'lesser' plays have you read or sat through that you didn't feel could benefit from a little pruning? Ditto the vast majority of books, plays and screenplays visited on us over time.
If Kubrick had captured even a few of those '80 pages of a lean, mean ghost story' you refer to, his movie might have done something for me. Even the pathetic remake of The Haunting had at least the saving grace of some music and sound effects that managed to raise a few hairs on the back of my neck, and had it been available at the time, I would have expressed a DVD copy of The Innocents to Mr. K as a prime example of the atmosphere of dread that The Shining presumably aimed for but, for my money, failed to achieve. Shyamalan pulled it off with Sixth Sense, but that was the only one of his I cared for (of the few I've seen!).
The thing that did scare me was ol' Jack's performance! Whatever bit of atmosphere Kubrick did manage to convey in other scenes, they were ruined by a performance that gives the expression 'overacting' a bad name. Bad over-the-top as opposed to good over-the-top, a necessary component of farce. There's nothing 'lean' about the scene where NIcholson comes after Shelley Duvall as she backs her way up the staircase, an instance where your modern scissors-happy cutter would have proved useful. There should have been a special Oscar struck for Duvall for the look of horror that she had to maintain for what seems like an eternity. (On the other hand, it might have come easily to her, in the "what have I gotten myself into with this movie" sense, or simply disbelief at Jack's excesses). I don't believe for one second that I'm watching anything other than Nicholson doing his trademarked thing, in this or any other scene. God be with the glory days of Chinatown, but like another hero of mine, Peter O'Toole, he got hammier as time went on (with the exceptional good outing under a strong director).
As for Mr. Cruise, with exceptions like The Firm, my opinion of his acting is characterized by my placing the word 'actors' in scare quotes (no pun!). Mr. Pollack is included because he had no pretence to being an actor, though he's been effective under other directors, including himself. That awkward scene in the pool-room could be improved in any number of ways, not least by some judicious cutting (adding back close-ups etc. that presumably hit the floor) or different staging; anything to cover the inadequacies of the actors. This was Kubrick's responsibility. The fact that even a director of Pollack's talent falls back on the arm-folding crutch proves that.
Anyway, as Winston suggests, and Robin Khan (Darth Yotsuya) over at RAH's Citizen Kane thread was blue in the face repeating, much of what impresses us or not is simply subjective, and dismissing others' opinions is simply an exercise born out of arrogance. No amount of persuasion on my friend's part can convince me that James Dean was a genius. On the other hand, I have to live with Bosley Crowther's dismissal of Lawrence of Arabia as a 'camel-opera.'
(I suggested in another thread that all critics/reviewers should start their pieces with the injunction, "In my opinion," with the late Mr. Crowther injecting the word, "humble" between "my" and "opinion".

 

[Richard--W]

Marsnkc,
I've never been to Hyde Park Corner, but the next time I cross the pond, I'll try to drive past the place.
Would I find you there, standing on a soapbox as tall as your post above?
Are you comparing Stephen King to Shakespeare?
I wouldn't go there, if I were you.
Pruning the text has been going on in the theater and in films for a long, long time.
It is not arrogant for a grown-up to disregard a child's opinion when that opinion is naive and the grown-up knows better.
Cruise stinks in Eyes Wide Shut.
Everybody on the production knew that he stunk and knew that he was sinking the ship, but professional etiquette and the hierarchy of authority forbade them from saying so.
Everybody who acts or directs knows that he stinks in the film, including Cruise himself.
He should have had the professionalism to stand down and withdraw, but you know how ego gets in the way.
By the way, I respect and admire Barry Lyndon.
I read the novel and I studied up on Thackeray before going to see the film in 1975.
But I did not see in the novel the film that Stanley Kubrick saw.
What he saw, and how he accomplished it on film, took my breath away the first, second, and third time in 1975.
It still does.
It is a very special film.
Buy the Blu-ray.

 

[AdrianTurner]

Marsnkc,
I've never been to Hyde Park Corner, but the next time I cross the pond, I'll try to drive past the place.

Try is the operative word. Stanley did it in a Porsche. At 30mph. Wearing a Full. Metal. Helmet.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Sorry to intrude but just a couple comments.
On Jack's performance in The Shining, it was what Kubrick wanted. Kubrick did ask his actors at times to push things over the top, Patrick Magee would have told you that. Sometimes subtle was not what Kubrick wanted in a performance.
On Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut, I don't think he ruined the movie but he certainly was the wrong man for the job. The scene that I would point to is when Bill and Alice return home from the party and are smoking pot in their bedroom and Alice decides it is time to reveal some things about her secret inner life. This is really the moment that sets Bill off on his little sexual odyssey and Cruise plays the scene like he has a bad case of indigestion. It's kind of funny though that Kubrick also once considered Steve Martin for the part. I mean he also seems a poor choice.
On Ryan O'Neal in Barry Lyndon, I thought his performance as the adult Barry was great but felt Kubrick should have cast another (younger) actor to play Barry in the early portion of the film as the drama with his cousin and Captain Quin played out.

 

[WinstonCely]

The scene that I would point to is when Bill and Alice return home from the party and are smoking pot in their bedroom and Alice decides it is time to reveal some things about her secret inner life.

That scene, in particular the fact that pot is used as the catalyst for this revelation from Alice, is one of the few issues I have with the film. I've always hated the way films many times will use alcohol or nowadays pot as some form of truth serum. It's the one crutch that - more often than not - is contradictory to how we behave in reality. Drugs and alcohol (although I enjoy both from time to time) don't make you suddenly prophetic; usually it's the exact opposite.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I didn't really think it was the pot that was the catalyst for Alice's confession. I thought it was that she felt her husband was not being honest with her, he was hiding behind a mask of smug hypocrisy and that caused her to let loose on him. She confronted his BS with brutal honesty. I felt like the pot was used in the scene to do a couple of things, show a sort of intimacy with this married couple that we are voyeuristically watching in their bedroom in this private moment and to give Bill something to (incorrectly) blame his wife's behavior on. I did not really feel watching it that the dope was a truth serum in the scene.

 

[WinstonCely]

I can see that, and I think you hit the nail on the head about Alice reacting to Bill's BS. However, to me the way the scene is edited, it feels as though they would not have begun that conversation without the pot. Bill even mentions that the pot is making her aggressive. Although she denies that, the scene previous to this, they both seem so bored, that aggressive actions would seem to be the last thing on their minds, let alone thinking about the previous night at the party. This leads me back to the pot being used as a type of jumping off point for their conversation. Then again, I'm probably over thinking it anyway. LOL
Wow, this thread got waaaaay off target. Sorry about that.

 

[DeeF]

I'm pretty fascinated by this debate. I don't know anything about projection, but I have a question, for anybody who would like to answer.
On DVDs (and presumably Blurays), when a movie's AR is 1.66:1, there are black areas left and right, presumably to protect the height of the film, since the monitor is 16:9. It isn't exactly a "letterbox," but it does amount to a kind of matte, again, left and right.
If Mr. Kubrick had wished, could there have been similar black areas on the actual projected versions in 1975? It seems to me, if he wanted to protect the height of his desired 1.66:1 film, which he knew would be projected in 1.85:1, he'd have to add black areas on the side, making the projected image ever so slightly smaller, but retaining the height.
By the way, I watched this movie tonight and was, once again, truly amazed by it. The impact of those images is still tremendous.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

It could have been done, and has been done in recent years when showing films in a 1.37:1 aspect ratio in cinemas, since most megaplexes are set up for two ratios only: 1.85:1 and 2.35/2.40:1, and even their accuracy then has been spotty. Examples would include Metallica: Some Kind of Monster and The Good German. The problem with this method is that you wind up with an image dead centre in the frame that has been compromised in terms of resolution. While the compromise would have been considerably less in the case of Barry Lyndon, it would have been a shame that they would have to do this just to appease theatre owners who couldn't be bothered to spend the money on a 1.66:1 aperture plate.

 

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by DeeF /t/311684/a-few-words-about-barry-lyndon-in-blu-ray/150#post_3855669
On DVDs (and presumably Blurays), when a movie's AR is 1.66:1, there are black areas left and right, presumably to protect the height of the film, since the monitor is 16:9. It isn't exactly a "letterbox," but it does amount to a kind of matte, again, left and right.

The technical term for this matting on the sides is "pillarboxing," as the mattes look like pillars on the sides of the image.

The process Stephen_J_H described, which results in matting on all 4 sides of the film frame, is called windowboxing, although typically the image ends up looking pillarboxed on a WS theater screen.