Barry Lyndon

Just saw this kino last night.

Goddamn 10/10, and not just because I like the period.

This is Kubrick's best work, prove me wrong.

Other urls found in this thread:

caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=11015&d2=11020&s1=107891&s2=107897&i=0&l=0
youtube.com/watch?v=4FHuzapjih0
youtu.be/DqmgW79JvPM?t=1h23m16s
youtu.be/6nj5G4GffWo
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

10/10 is underrating really
it's a masterpiece

It's amazing, one of his best

agree completely

the resemblance is uncanny

Although I still enjoy 2001 more, Barry Lyndon is without a doubt his most well shot and underrated film

The whitest movie ever made and by far my favorite

I always thought American Psycho was the whitest film ever made?

Also, checked

fuck, I meant check these dubs.

Also, fuck.

>This is Kubrick's best work, prove me wrong.

eyes wide shut and dr strangelove

QED

That's nice, but I said prove.

Meaning tell me WHY these films are better works of art than BL.

Barry Lyndon consistently delivers something profound to me during each viewing. It's a great film and, like all great films, must be watched in complete and total isolation.

>eyes wide shut
LOL

woah cool

greatest film ever? or at least the most "measured" one, in terms of craftsmanship? it's like there's some magic that glues me in every time i watch it. unbelievable kino.
there were two niggers in the film, during card games, like butlers or something.

wtf i hate kubrick now, wow i totally didn't know this well known fact, the saddest revelation of the decade, wtf kubrick is a hack

Good film, and delivers us the truth about the micks.

>Kubrick actually received threats from the IRA during filming

KEK

Snyder of his time
Why did he have to die bros

Because he was 70?

Boring. Couldn't even finish it.
>b-but muh moving paintings
Doesn't make up for the lack of a true plot or good characters.

Reminder to watch the new Criterion release instead of the old WB bluray. The latter is cropped and is a worst transfer, see: caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=11015&d2=11020&s1=107891&s2=107897&i=0&l=0

Barry Lyndon is the best film ever made about atheism.

Atheism? Curious, what makes you say that?

"Boring" is a state of mind, an inherent emotional response that says nothing of the work itself but rather only of yourself. Talking about your emotional response to a film doesn't constituent valid criticism. Stop spewing.

Watch Tess. And The Age of Innocence for great period customs and a compelling, tragic romance.

yup, it's only 7,5GB, the sound and picture quality are stellar

It's okay, I checked these dubs

Strangelove is overrated. Not a bad film, but it's mainly remembered because it was made by Kubrick. You wouldn't have seen it if it were exactly the same but it was made by another director. Eyes Wide Shut is a masterpiece though. Eyes Wide Shut is a strong contender against Barry Lyndon.

...

to me anyway... the narrator is just matter of factually telling this story of a guys life where nothing happens for a reason and everything is left up to random chance. A lot of Kubrick's movies feel like they are from the POV of atheism to me.

Well when the story is based off a book, it tends to feel that way because the sequence of events are already written (sort of like fatalism).

The Criterion also has the kino WB logo from 1975 instead of the bland 90s WB logo. And the original mono audio.

What’s brilliant about Kubrick’s adaptation is that he took a comedy, written in first person POV with an unreliable narrator (Barry himself) and presented the story with a detachment absent from the novel, making the events of the book seem so much more tragic. He sticks to the plot pretty closely for the most part, but by telling the story from the third person, with a narrator who is aware of everyone’s fate, it becomes a completely different kind of work, exploring themes that were not made relevant in the original presentation.

the age of innocence is coming to criterion in march. i have never actually seen that movie, the fact barry lyndon is marty's favorite kubrick picture is a major clue. i'm looking forward to it.

>to me anyway

religion is for you

what are some other films where major turns are literally announced in advance by a narrator? it seemed like a very interesting choice by both writer of the novel and kubrick himself.

The Royal Tenenbaums

eh, no wonder i forgot about it, what a shit flick

So what’s the film about like deeper down? It seems just like another period piece

...

I haven’t seen it

Why is it Kubrick's best?

It's in part a tragedy, a satire of the aristocracy of the period it's set in and can't tell what else, but watch it on your own and see for yourself. It's Kubrick, so it's bound to have a lot of depth, even though it doesn't seem so during initial viewing.

The scene where he walks along a path going to war and you see all the soldiers casually chilling by the side is GOAT. The directing there is brilliant.

>Snyder of his time
Fuck off

*a better Kubrick blocks your path*

Ah fuck... forgot my image.

>T A R K O V S K Y

Down with this sort of thing

>teleports behind you
>"heh, nothing personnel, kid"

youtube.com/watch?v=4FHuzapjih0

>teleports to a wheat field
>forgets about actors
>no one watches his films

There's a 4K blu ray of Barry Lyndon out there somewhere.

Barry Lyndon is Kubrick's best film.
Dr. Strangelove is my favourite film.

If you like the aesthetics of Barry Lyndon I STRONGLY recommend Fanny and Alexander by Bergman.

It might not be as visually extreme. But instead it's a lot more subtle and imo a lot prettier.
Not to mention that it's a properly good fucking film.

anyone have the costumekino chart or something? i got so far:
>lyndon
>amadeus
>the age of innocence
>the patriot
>ben-hur
>quo vadis
>the last of the mohicans
>braveheart
>cleopatra
>lion in winter
>excalibur

In line with Age of Innocence, maybe Kundun or Gangs of New York. When Scorsese goes period his costume and set decoration are impeccable.

Theatrical or television version ?

I've only seen the TV version. But from what I've heard it's the only version. Even Bergman hated the shorter cut.

Coppola's Dracula was stunning in terms of costume and set design.

Some modern ones:

>The Fifth Element
>The Great Gatsby
>Kill Bill
>The Phantom Menace
>Moulin Rouge
>Marie Antoinette
>Gladiator
>The Great Budapest Hotel
>Anna Karenina
>House of Flying Dggers

kys

>nearly all feature inaccurate period dress

it's embarassing when Disney animations are more accurate than multi-million dollar blockbuster pieces.

>accurate
it's called fiction, they're not documentaries. kys. you're probably in your 30s and still have no fucking clue what the point of filmmaking even is. once again - kys.

I think the word you are looking for is nihilism and before you say otherwise no atheism isn't nihilistic at all.

>atheism isn't nihilistic at all.
Why?
If being a atheist is that you do not believe in any kind of god-like entity or force, doesn't that automatically make you a nihilist?

But I don't know. I'm not that into that shit. And philosophy is a pointless hobby for people with nothing better to do.

Just because you don't believe in higher power, doesn't mean you think life has no value and that anything you do is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Atheism can lead to nihilism, but it doesn't have to.

>philosophy is for people who have nothing better to do
Reading some of the classics, Dostoevsky for an example, helped me with some tough shit and also changed my life for the better, so I wouldn't say it's a pointless hobby, as long as you know how to get something useful out of it, like with most things.

tfw you've briefly handled Cleopatra and Ben-Hur props and jewelry.
It's nice to know it's all in a very safe place on the Paramount lot desu.

It's Fargo but in 18th-century England

youtu.be/DqmgW79JvPM?t=1h23m16s

>Just because you don't believe in higher power, doesn't mean you think life has no value and that anything you do is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Isn't that exactly what it is, tho? Because something has to say what it is that holds value. And if that's a supernatural force, you're not a atheist. Not that the value still can't exist, but if it's not from a unexplainable or supernatural force then doesn't that turn you into a nihilist?

>as you know how to get something useful out of it
Agreed. But thinking on things is pointless unless you also apply it and see what happens. And philosophy-fags have a tendency of doing a lot of thinking, talking and not much else. Or at least the ones I've met. Myself included at times.
Like how people on /ic/ argue over which book is the best to learn figure drawing, but then none of them actually pick up any of the fucking books and learn how to draw.

>Because something has to say what it is that holds value
I think you're that someone. Each us has to find something to strive for that makes our life worth living, something like Sisyphus's plight, though I think what I've written here is a mess because I haven't really thought it out that well, but I hope you can see where I'm going with this.

>Like how people on /ic/ argue over which book is the best to learn figure drawing, but then none of them actually pick up any of the fucking books and learn how to draw.
It's the same with /lit/ when it comes to reading the Greeks, many people get pumped about it and ask for various charts, but not a lot of 'em actually go through with it. People should act more than they think when it comes to this sort of shit, because otherwise they end up in a constant loop.

Is Solaris comparable to 2001 ? I'm about to watch it

>I think you're that someone.
I think so too. I like what I like and dislike what I dislike. But I'm not a god (or am I?), so then the basis for my values comes from something mundane (myself) and not supernatural. Which should make me a nihilist.

I don't think it makes a nihilist, just because you think you are the only person who can give yourself meaning. Society plays a big role in deciding what ideas are acceptable and what not, through dialogue and interactions in general each of us gets to see how their thoughts and ideas do in practice. Dostoevsky explained it much better in C&P, than I did here.

I think Solaris is a billion times better than 2001.
Possibly because I found it a lot more comprehensible (I think I got 2001, but it felt like it didn't want me to get it and was confusing for the sake of being confusing. I've got similar issues with The Shining)

But they are different in style. I feel that Solaris is not really about the science or fiction, but more about bringing forth a philosophical thesis. While 2001 is about, fuck. I don't even know what Kubrick wanted with that movie. (I still like 2001, but more for the horrorish mood. He knows how to show isolation, that's for sure)

Not to mention that Tarkovsky shits on Kubrick when it comes to visuals.

Your musings on philosophy in conjunction with your writing style is making me laugh.

>shits on Kubrick
Haven't seen his other so can't really talk about him, but what I've seen in Stalker hasn't blown me away like some of the shots in 2001 or Barry Lyndon. The whole film felt overindulgent and I thought most of the shots were needlessly long.

I'm sad! Life is so sad! Wait, it's not that bad! Credits

I read that 2001 was related to Nietzsche's theory of the superman which makes sense now that I think of it but it wasn't clear to me either when I watched it. But thanks for your honest answer I think I'm gonna enjoy it.

But outside influences still goes through the filter of you. Your own experiences will affect whatever way you translate what the rest of the world say and do. So if you don't believe in a supernatural force that chooses those values for you, then it all your values should come from within. Which I think makes you a nihilist.

I really should read Dostoevsky at some point. Got a chart?

English is not my native language. So that might have to do with it.

It does go through the filter of you, but that doesn't mean everything will go as planned. I think the saying "Failure is the best teacher" kinda works here. Also, just because you necessarily disagree with what others approve of or stand by, doesn't mean you're in the right. As I've already mentioned, just read C&P because Dostoevsky explained it way better.

I haven't got one, but here's how I read his work:
Crime And Punishment -> Notes From Underground -> Idiot -> Demons -> Brothers Karamazov

why? too many red coats wondering around the Irish hillsides?

Barry Lyndon is in my opinion without a doubt the prettiest of Kubrick's work.
But if you compare it to Stalker it feels quite forced, where Stalker has a more subtle approach to its visuals. It makes Lyndon more striking, but also a bit less believable.
But then it's quite obvious that the directors wanted some very different things regarding the visuals of the movies. And they both achieved what they were going for.
Worth mentioning is also that I think Lyndon is a better film than Stalker. But I still think Tarkovsky is way better with the visuals than Kubrick.

And with 2001 it just felt like Kubrick tried too hard. And he certainly matured with later movies.

What you said for Stalker is applicable on 2001, since to me it also had subtlety you're speaking off and never did it feel forced for me, but I do agree he matured on his future projects, my favorite being EWS. I also agree both were quite successful and what they were trying to accomplish. Gonna have to see more of Tark's work to develop my opinion on him, but Stalker didn't do much for me.

...

>It does go through the filter of you, but that doesn't mean everything will go as planned.
Yeah, but that's a different thing, isn't it? Shit always changes and even if you sometimes can influence it, it happens the way it happens. If you think it's good or not still comes from you and your experiences.

And of course I might not be right about things but that's kind of moot. Which I sort of think is the positive aspect of nihilism? That things doesn't matter, but you still do what you can because you want to.


And the chart thing was a joke, but thanks anyway. I'll order C&P later today. Just for you, user

You wrong bro. First half is funny as hell and second half is insanely cathartic.

Tess wasn't pure.

A bald assertion isn't an argument. I've already refuted your representation based arguments. Give me something else.

>prove me wrong
>the shining
>full metal jacket
>eyes wide shut
Done.

Oh look, it's Kubrick fans in their Barry Lyndon phase. It's like film school again.

The conflict at the end felt hamfisted

I don't think it's that different, it's kinda similar but not exactly the same. As for what's nihilism and what defines it, I don't really know to talk about it in-depth and still have a lot to read, but nihilism for me is a rejection of any sort of responsibility because it's easier, than to suffer through all the hard work to achieve something and make yourself a better person.

>I'll order C&P later today. Just for you, user
If this isn't another joke, I'm glad you will and, like it or not, I do hope you'll find it at least interesting in the worst case scenario. If you dig Dosto's shit, read Nietzsche after you have finished with him..

This 100%

I have seen 10.000 movies, studies cinema for years, seen at least 3000 of them more than twice and gone full circle

This is better than Barry lyndon
youtu.be/6nj5G4GffWo
And I am 100% serious.

I watched the television show this Christmas and honestly... there are some stuff he could have left out.

I can kind of see the link to Barry Lyndon, even if the time periods and settings are completely different, especially during the Christmas party in the first act.

Nihilism for me is the rejection of a absolute morality. So any kind of enjoyment and responsibility in life needs to come from yourself. And you yourself need to strive towards becoming a better person, if that's what you want.
So you can't blame the gods for your situation in life. Shit just happens.

But I have to go now, so can't discuss this any further.

But it was fun. Have a nice day.

Likewise and godspeed, user!

Fellini's Casanova