There is no 1.66:1 DVD of Barry Lyndon.
It is entirely possible that Kubrick was specifically and repeatedly calling for 1.75:1 when asked about the subject as it was the widest acceptable (and perhaps narrowest practical) aspect ratio for theatrical presentation. The semantic distinction between "filmed in" and "composed for" is worth considering both in the context of this discussion and when reviewing the statements and documents on record about the presentation of the film. If 1.75:1 was considered acceptable, then the difference between that and 16:9 is trivial enough that I cannot get too hot and bothered about it, especially when it is compounded by the fact that I cannot personally detect any deficiencies in the composition and the Blu-ray presentation is superior to its standard definition precursors in several non-subtle ways.
I know how he feels...
AdrianTurner said:
"British phlegm is an excuse for sheer apathy" - David Thomas, The Telegraph, 16th February 2003. Ouch!I don't doubt for a second that you guys know how Stan is feeling. Next time you communicate with him, please remind him that, though this subject may be wearing a little thin, it's usual on a forum to extend the same courtesy to others as we expect for ourselves. These little sarcasms (the condescending 'insider' culture more appropriate to a PM than an open forum) are more worthy of the guy whose contribution to the discussion was the hugely enlightening "aspect ratios, blah, blah, blah" - not to people like yourselves. They tell us nothing, except to serve as a postscript to the implication in Adrian's initial post that we should be as satisfied as he with any reasonable ratio for the BD. Anything more would apparently be anal-retentive. There's a handy tool called a 'delete' button that most email carriers provide. That's what I use if something no longer interests me, or I feel a discussion is 'beneath' me (it always fascinates me when people who like to imagine themselves above it all feel compelled to take the trouble to tell the rest of the world). Just hit that button and let us plebs get on with it. I for one am hugely indebted to RAH and Torsten and all those who state positions pro and con and go to the trouble of explaining them. Otherwise where's the debate, and how do we learn? I've said it before; this forum is literally a free liberal education for non-sophistos (as Alex might have said) like myself, and I'm extremely grateful for it, and for the (as I've also said before) supernatural patience exhibited by Mr. Harris when dealing with even the most obtuse and antagonistic among us. (None of this should be construed as having any effect on my admiration for Adrian's books, especially his definitive, hugely entertaining bio of Robert Bolt).John Hodson said:
Extremely talented gentleman, but quite human.
That's nice to know that he was involved with SPARTACUS, despite having ambivalent feelings about it.On that note, I take it you've heard the rumours that Criterion are to release it on Blu. Don't suppose you care to comment..... ?Robert Harris said:
No comment. And not meant to be cagey. I know nothing.
I quite like his Photo Essay of Chicago:Anthony Neilson said:
Not a Yankee fan myself, but nice to know he got to see them win a few World Series again in 1996 and 1998 before he passed.
Bloody Lancastrians, nicking our sayings.John Hodson said:
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.Anthony Neilson said:
The sweetest remembrance of Stanley Kubrick that I've ever heard.Robert Harris said:
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.
