by Allan Fish
(UK 1975 187m) DVD1/2
Saraband for Embalmed Lovers
p Stanley Kubrick, Bernard Williams d/w Stanley Kubrick novel “The Memoirs of Barry Lyndon” by William M.Thackeray ph John Alcott ed Tony Lawson md Leonard Rosenman m Franz Schubert, W.A.Mozart, George F.Handel, J.S.Bach, Antonio Vivaldi, Giovanni Paisiello, Frederick the Great, Irish folk music art Ken Adam, Roy Walker, Vernon Dixon cos Milena Canonero, Ulla-Britt Soderlund
Ryan O’Neal (Redmond Barry/Barry Lyndon), Marisa Berenson (Lady Lyndon), Patrick Magee (The Chevalier de Baribari), Hardy Kruger (Captain Potzdorf), Leon Vitali (Lord Bullingdon), Gay Hamilton (Nora Brady), Leonard Rossiter (Captain John Quin), Murray Melvin (Rev.Samuel Runt), Godfrey Quigley (Captain Grogan), Arthur O’Sullivan (Highwayman), Diana Koerner (German girl), Marie Kean (Barry’s mother), Frank Middlemass (Sir Charles Lyndon), André Morell (Lord Wendover), Philip Stone (Graham), Steven Berkoff (Lord Ludd), Pat Roach (Cpl.Tool), Ferdy Mayne, Bernard Hepton, Anthony Sharp, Michael Hordern (Narrator),
As the Radio Times put it, a.k.a “1789: A Georgian Odyssey”. How can I put into words my feelings for this incredibly savage film? Taken on face value, it is probably the most pictorially beautiful film ever made; a series of breathtaking painterly images put together with the barest threads of plot, with several exquisite uses of candlelight and sunlight that remain unsurpassed for their beauty, shot by Orange lenser Alcott with equally spectacular clarity and through natural light (and with the help of the groundbreaking lenses of Carl Zeiss). Some have said that as a narrative it’s too drawn out and far too slow. On that score alone they are absolutely right. However, though neither was quite as long, the same could also be said of Kubrick’s two previous visions of the future, 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange. He was forgiven there because they were prophecies of the future that must, by their very definitions, be symbolic to a point. Those who praise A Clockwork Orange praise it not for its plot but for its savage (in more ways than one) damnation of society. That is where people have made an understandable but fatal mistake with regards to this Thackeray adaptation.
Barry Lyndon should not be taken primarily as a story. (For what it’s worth, in the 1770′s and 80′s, an Irish gentleman of fortune, after several adventures in Europe, settles down to marry a Lord’s widow, but has affairs, treats his step-son harshly, and lives to regret it.) Nor is it about its performances (Barry needed Errol Flynn, but Kubrick came along forty years too late, though Michael Hordern’s narration is a constant delight). Kubrick has never been interested in telling stories, but in people and society in general. Thackeray’s plot is thus used as a clothes horse on which to drape an ornate critical autopsy on a former society, in this case Georgian Europe. Yes, it’s funereal, represented by the cortège following the white coffin of Barry’s dead son. But it’s meant to be, right down to the use of the music. As Alex was turned into a ‘clockwork orange’ to gain society’s acceptance, Barry also has to follow society’s conventions to gain acceptance. He must conform, but he fails to do so, symbolised by his failure to kill his stepson in the fateful duel. To conform as a gentleman he should have killed him to save his honour, but he is run by the same emotions for which there can be no place.
The film still divides opinion to this day. But I am one of the converted and like Martin Scorsese, who opined as such in his Century of Cinema documentary, I find it one of the most emotional films in movie history. Kubrick wasn’t just satisfied with bringing the period movie into the 20th century like Tom Jones, he sent us back in time to the rhymes and rhythms of the period (no wonder audiences soon to slobber over Star Wars didn’t get it). Love it or loathe it, the film also has one of the funniest scenes in film history, as Leonard Rossiter marches at the head of his company and makes faces to make stone smirk. Fans of TV drama will note that the Lyndon estate was filmed at Castle Howard, later immortalised as the Marchmain mansion in Brideshead Revisited.
Easily my favorite Kubrick film. Nice summation of what makes the film so memorable. There’s a hypnotic charm about the film, and as you mention in this fine review, the use of special lenses to capture the natural lighting, and the beautiful music that captures those “rhythms” (as you call them) is what makes this films such a splendid reverie. You’re right…there’s nothing quite like it.
I’m with you and Marty on this one.
I was never a convert towards this film. I loved this movie from the first time I ever saw it (this is the film in the film in the No. 1 position on my own personal list). From a visual point of view this is the Kubrick film with no peer (the use of Zeiss lenses on rear projection cameras causing no depth of field make a period piece like this look like 18th century painting come to life). The minute details are all authentic of the century and the combination of imagery and music is superlative. But, its the trick of the master director to use every visual arsenal he has to tell a tale so cold as to pull the emotional rug out from the viewer. This could not only be my favorite Kubrick film of all, but MY FAVORITE MOVIE EVER. If there is such a thing as a perfect film then this would be my choice. This movie is astounding in every way.
And Bravo for mentioning Scorsese and his love for this film as well. I once saw an interview with him on PBS where he was talking about film. When the discussion came to “perfect visual story-telling” he just went nuts over this film. The interview was an hour and Scorsese easily spoke of BARRY LYNDON for 45 minutes easy. When a guy like Scorsese praises a film you can take it to the bank!
YeaN Kubrick may have changed the medium forever with 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. But, I think he perfects the form with BARRY LYNDON. Allan,your also right; Micheal Horden’s narration is the icing on this grand cake of a film!
Allan, I just watched this last night, and I must say that I loved the movie and that I’m pleased (and surprised) that you ranked it so highly. The pictorial values you discuss and meticulous attention to period detail (including the music) are apparent. But unlike many people I had no trouble with the plot (it’s a classic picaresque bildungsroman story, but in period mood–quite a contrast to “Tom Jones,” which I also love but which has a very different, flippant modern sensibility), the performances (O’Neal was much better than I anticipated, and his low charisma-quotient was for me actually a plus–a more charismatic actor might have turned into his show), or the pacing. Life in those times was slower and more evenly paced, and I think the movie suggested this quite well. I’m sorry I didn’t see this movie before now; I was put off by one prominent critic’s description of it as a “coffee table” movie. Having seen the film, I don’t think that was fair or accurate. I’m not a big fan of Kubrick’s work after “Dr. Strangelove,” but this one proved the exception. The great Michael Hordern’s narration added a lot to the movie, and your praise of it was most apposite. And the supporting actors were brilliantly cast not only for their ability but also their features. They look like they could have stepped out of a painting of the period.
What a tremendous comment, R.D. Amazing.
I wonder if Kubrick REALLY thought this was going to be his biggest hit, or if he was just saying that to journalists to hype up the film. At any rate, it certainly deserved to be. I also thought he made O’Neal’s relative blankness rather moving.
Agreed, even though he wasn’t first choice, only got the role because Malcolm McDowell had other commitments, though ironically I think McDowell would have been better as Bullingdon. If asked to choose I’d have taken Michael York as Barry and Julie Christie as Lady Lyndon.
The pacing and the length were never a problem for me. I think. Mr Finch hit the nail on the head that the methodical timing of this movie was indicative to life and manner of the period. I always thought this film was a story in two parts: the light and the dark. Like the afforementioned TOM JONES (again, brought up by Mr. FInch), the first “chapter” of this film is almost a comedy of circumstances. Kubrick wisely chose to keep this first part airy, almost as if it were the circumstancial “misadventures” of this wild Irish rogue. But, true to Kubricks form and fascination with the darkest corners of human experience, he ever so carefully slides the film into the polite cruelties of this mans greedy opportunism. Like Welles MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS this is a meticulously beautiful film that juxtaposes beauty for the coldest deprications and inhumanities. Basicsally, that all perfection and beauty has a gritty/dirty under-belly. Ryan O’Neil pulls this off brilliantly in performance as well.
I agree this is a very great film. For me it may rank as high as second behind A CLOCKWORK ORANGE among Kubrick’s movies. I enjoyed reading the enrichments provided here by Dennis, R.D. Finch, Kevin Olson, and Movie Man, but I’ll leave Allan to add further if he so desires.
O’Neil may not have been first choice for the main character but he is the best choice. Micheal York, in his natural manner was far too austere to pull off the innocence and rogueishnes of the character that is key to the first half of the film. O’Neil, on the other hand was young ernough and exuded enough muted sexuality to warrant the desription by Mrs. Barry and Nora as “merely a boy.” Likewise, McDowell was too young to play the aging Barry in the second half of the film and the memory of his performance in CLOCKWORK ORANGE would have doomed the character to the audience as being too sadistically playful. McDowell, at the time, was also an overtly sexual pretty-boy and his presense would have been more of a whoreish gay twink amongst a room full of line-backers. He would, I agree with Allan, been more suited to play the effeminate Bullingdon.
Lady Lyndon WAS perfectly cast. Marisa Berensons age is key to the character as Lady Lyndon was obviously the object of an arranged marriage to the elderly Reginald Lyndon. As well as her years, Berenson was cast for her looks. Prior to her work on stage and screen, Berenson was a top fashion and cosmetics model and Kubrick chose her for her youthful aloofness and smoking sensual presence. Although primarily silent on screen, its Berensons physical command that suggests a regality that is ther polar opposite of O’Neils farm-boy physicality. She is dazzlingly effective in striking the restful poses that are usually the cornerstones of 18 century portraiture and I’m sure this had a lot to do with Stanley’s casting her in the role. Julie Christie, while a titan actress would have been too old and too bored for such a hamless role. Just my opinion here..
This is fact. Stanley prefered using no-name actors for his films. Unless the character was perfectly served by a big star, he preferred to mold actors that didn’t come with the stigma of glitz and glamour on there heels. O’Neil was a star at the time but not huge enough to pose a difficulty to the director. Malcolm McDowell was a veritable nobody during the shooting of CLOCKWORK and Keir Dullea, while a hailed stage actor, had done very little in the way of screen acting prior to 2001. George C. Scott was coming into his own during STRANGELOVE and Kirk Douglas was forced on the director by the studio heads for SPARTACUS and PATHS OF GLORY. Jack Nicholson was the only Mega-Star hand picked by the director. Stanley wanted him for his NAPOLEON project and got along famously. His belief in Jack as a supreme actor made him the natural choice for the tricky lead as the insane caretaker with murder on his mind in THE SHINING. Tom and Nicole came to EYES WIDE SHUT as the director needed garaunteed box office.
McDowell was a nobody to the US suits, Dennis, not in the UK where he was red hot after If… and The Raging Moon. You may never have heard of him then, but Kubrick wouldn’t even have made the film if McDowell couldn’t play it. As for O’Neal (not O’Neil, Dennis), he was pretty big after Love Story, What’s Up Doc and Paper Moon. Barry Lyndon ironically helped finish his star career.
Like all his films, the marriage of sights and sounds are impeccable. The body language in Ryan O’Neil, like a predatory cat, as he approaches Lady Lyndon on the balcony for their first kiss (perfectly timed to Shuberts trio for strings and piano). The harpsochord duet heard in the moment the ace of hearts slowly slips from the sleeve of the Chevalier for the win in the Casino sequence. Hordern’s narration quietly setting the tone as Barry’s father falls to the grounds of the meadow during the opening duel. Let’s not forget the hot windows that dominate the film.. From Barry’s marriage in the Grand Cathedral as chapter two begins to that haunting shot of the 20 foot french doors spilling light over the two small figures in the corner of the emmense sitting room of Castle Hackton as Barry lovingly reads to the doomed Little Brian. Visually, I could spend all day comparing this film with Welles CITIZEN KANE. And nobody, save students like Woody and Martin have ever married music to image better than Stanley.
Two points, Dennis…
1 That isn’t a cathedral they marry in, merely the chapel of the Lyndon estate/local church.
2 As per “Visually, I could spend all day comparing this film with Welles CITIZEN KANE” Maybe not comparing to Kane, but you have spent all day commenting on the film. Are you getting royalties from Jan Harlan?
I WAS well aware of O’Neals career prior to BARRY LYNDON Allan. But, despite films like the ones you mention he WAS NOT the sought after super-star you’re referring to. He had no clout as a bankable name and in every film you mentioned him in, save PAPER MOON, he was always considered second banana next to his leading ladies. I agree that McDowell had the chops and Stanley knew it, but despite the success of IF and RAGING MOON he was not considered a major star by WARNER BROS. Despite the listing of BARRY LYNDON as a film made in the UK it is an AMERICAN production and Stanley WAS an AMERICAN director, where the status of his actor, or lack thereof COUNTS to the DIRECTOR . Regardless to what you know, and I admit that it is A LOT, I have studied Kubrick to the point of night-sweats. He HATED big names. PERIOD. Nicholson was interesting to him as he felt Jack was the GREATEST actor alive at the time. I don’t mean to bark or cause hard feelings but I’ve read every biography and study of this directors work.
LOL!!! Well, I do appreciate Dennis’s enthusiasm, and his gleeful patronage to the site, these other textual issues notwithstanding. He has made some very good points in this torrent of commentaries, and has a remarkable passion for this film.
Cathedral, chapel.. What’s the difference? The description of the moment came across. And I could spend all day comparing this films visual dichotomy to CITIZEN KANE all day. But, currently I am at work and blogging from a Blackberry is exceedingly tedious. I’m not trying to cause a fight or break balls but I have studied up on this guy and I don’t make statements I cannot back. If Jan Harlan wants to pay me for showing enthusiasm for a film I love then he’s a fool for spending money on something I would do free of charge. Good Day, Allan.
I tell ya I own this movie, but I’ve always been apathetic about it; don’t know why. I can obviously give credit where credit is due, as all that’s been said about it visually is correct. reminds me of ridley scott’s first picture ‘the duelists’ (that isn’t nearly as good but he went for similar lightning, ect).
maybe i should watch this again… at some point i think it will click. (though i think i’ve seen it three times)
I really wish kubrick could have been able to make the Napoleon movie he always wanted to. would have been something.
Jamie: You are not alone. Allan himself, conceeded that this film split the critics. I bet it’s emotionally distancing for you, which would understandable instigate your indifference. Ah, a Napoleon film from Kubrick would be to die for.
Kubrick’s Six Greatest Films (in order)
1 A Clockwork Orange
2 Barry Lyndon
3 2001: A Space Odyssey
4 The Shining
5. Dr. Strangelove
6. Paths of Glory
Lolita and The Killing come within a hair, as both are brilliant films.
I like EYES WIDE SHUT, but the idea that it’s the director’s finest film, well, I won’t even go there.
mine:
1. Clockwork Orange
2. Paths of Glory
3. Dr. Strangelove
4. Eyes Wide Shut
5. The Shining (which makes me think, has this been named in the countdown yet? Could we have three Kubrick’s in the top 6?)
6. Lolita
7. 2001: A Space Odyssey (I admit it’s a better film then ‘Lolita’ i just like ‘Lolita’ for purely emotional reasons)
8. The Killing
9. Full Metal Jacket
10. Barry Lydon
11. Spartacus
12. Killer’s Kiss
little known Kubrick fact, he was a huge ‘Seinfeld’ fan. love that.
Great list there Jamie!
I believe THE SHINING is 1980, no?
If it were ’79, you’re darn tootin Allan would have in the top 3, maybe #1, as he recently told me it might be (in his opinion, and against all odds) Kubrick’s greatest film.
6. Dr. Strangelove. 5. A Clockwork Orange. 4. Paths of Glory. 3. The Shining. 2. 2001: A Space Odyssey. 1.Barry Lyndon
The IMDB says THE SHINING is 1980.
My short list:
1. Barry Lyndon
2. 2001
3. Paths of Glory
4. The Shining
5. Dr. Strangelove
I still have yet to see Spartacus or Lolita…sad, I know.
Oh, and Kubrick was a pretty big fan of The Simpson’s, I guess. Like Tom Cruise, he would have episodes sent to him on the set of his films. I wonder if those two ever talked Simpson’s while making Eyes Wide Shut?
Ha, Kevin, I never knew that both were big fans of THE SIMPSONS. But I bet Stanley would have liked FAMILY GUY a lot too. I predict you will like both of the films you didn’t see, but not enough to include them on the list.
THE SHINING was released in 1980. It will be in my top 10 for the decade starting in 1980.
Ah, my bad. I seem to always think it’s a 1979 film. Never again!
You may not put either of them on a short list, Kevin. But, I dare say you’ll be fascinated by both. I really love SPARTACUS in that its a meticulously presented sandal epic, far more intellectual than those before or since. It’s also the only one that DOESN’T bring religion into the story-line at all. Among other things, including Stanley’s sumptuous visual style, is the all star cast. I believe he was 26 or 27 years old when he made it and here he is corraling the likes of Laurence Olivier, Charles Laughton, Kirk Douglas, Peter Ustinov and Tony Curtis. Laughton and Olivier hated each other. Kirk broke Stanley’s horns because he was the producer and caused the director to work on his own terms from that point on. Considering every challenge, he rose to the occasion and turned a floundering film into a classic. In short: he was fearless. Totally consumed by his art and took no shit from anyone. SPARTACUS is a landmark for Stanley because, after it, the TRUE Kubrick films emmerge.
Yes Dennis I quite agree with everything you say here.
I must say I was really surprised to see this ranked so high…I believe it’s my number 2 for the decade and I thought I was in the minority there ranking it so high…it could’ve easily been number one from an aesthetics standpoint…brilliant stuff, I can’t say much more that hasn’t already been covered. Great piece and great thread!
And while I’m at it…here’s my Kubrick ranks:
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. Barry Lyndon
3. Dr. Strangelove
4. The Shining
5. Paths of Glory
6. A Clockwork Orange
7. Full Metal Jacket
8. Spartacus
9. Lolita
10. Eyes Wide Shut
*Must re-watch The Killing.
Allan just about matches my ranking of Barry Lyndon among Seventies films. It is a revelation of a film that really creates an illusion of immersion in the Eighteenth Century. It is also quite dramatic after its own fashion. The final duel with Bullingdon creates incredible tension thanks to Kubrick’s pacing and the dirge-like music.
It’s hard for me to rank Kubrick’s work because I hold so many of his films in high regard, but I’ll join the game with a list based on my current mood.
1. Dr. Strangelove
2. Barry Lyndon
3. Paths of Glory
4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
5. The Shining
6. Full Metal Jacket
7. The Killing
8. Spartacus
9. The Killing
10. A Clockwork Orange
11. Lolita
12. Killer’s Kiss
13. Eyes Wide Shut
Unseen: Fear and Desire
I must learn to proofread. I have included The Killing twice by mistake. Leave it at Number Seven.
My own personal Kubrick Top 5:
1. The Killing
2. Dr. Strangelove
3. Paths of Glory
4. Full Metal Jacket
5. The Shining
I actually have not seen Barry Lyndon yet and have been putting it off until I near that year in my own little countdown. I’m really looking forward to it, though.
Dave-i appreciate your tireless march through film history and your desire to see as much as possible. But, in the quest to see everything (a noble journey, but truly impossible), you will run across certain names of directors that require immediate and all encompassing attention and study. WELLES, CHAPLIN, FORD, RENOIR, KUROSAWA, FELLINI, FASSBINDER, BUNUEL, BERGMAN, VISCONTI etc. These are just a few off the top of my head. But, included in that list is KUBRICK. Like the others (and more), this is a director whose work should sound off an alarm. Whatever the first film of his you see, that should be enough to spearhead an all-out investigation and mass screening of his work. My first was DR. STRANGELOVE and, I remember, I tracked down all of his films over the course of two weeks after my cherry was broken. Had I done it any other way I feel I would have lost sight of him or become too preoccupied with other things. I’m glad I didn’t stray. Discovering Stanley was one of the great life altering experiences!
And Dave-KUBRICK became my favorite filmmaker ever after those first two weeks!
Also-Dave.. I suggest the documentary STANLEY KUBRICK: A LIFE IN PICTURES. This documantary is a no-holds-barred look at the infamous Stanley (warts and all) and shuffles through his life, loves and obsession with his art. Their are many myths about Stanley that made him larger than life, and I’m glad to say that this documentary proves them all true! You can get the documentary through NET-FLIX,or you can buy it as its part of the recent box set of Stanleys films. OR-I’m sure if you ask nicely, good ole Sammy would be more than happy to cut you a copy. This documentary is mandatory to anyones study of Stanley and his work. Until then, get your ass to the video store and get a copy of BARRY LYNDON ASAP!!!!!!! LOLOLOL!!!!!! I envy you seeing these films for the first time. I’d put a towel on the floor to catch your jaw when it drops.
I’ll see what I can do about this tomorrow afternoon, dennis… it’s just hard with trying to cram in any holes I’m missing in the years I’m covering on the blog right now, or even re-watching old favorites in trying to choose a #1. So many movies and so little time!
It’s available to watch instantly on Netflix, and I have the ability to watch those on my normal TV, so I might make that happen tomorrow if I have the time.
Barry Lyndon and Killer’s Kiss are the only Kubrick I have not seen… I appreciate your enthusiasm for all of his work, Dennis, as I like seeing people as passionate as some of this as I am at times. Due to your urging, I might have to take a step back from my own countdown and see this one “ASAP” as you say.
Dave-I’m pretty certain that the moment you see BARRY LYNDON you’ll understand why all the hub-bub here. The documentary has a pretty extensive section on the film and it will help you understand the labour that Stanley put into it. I agree with Allan that this might be the best and most beautifullty shot 18th century period drama ever. Stanley broke new ground and set major technical precidents with the creation of the visuals. Like his mastery of modern special effects with 2001, so can be said with the photography of BARRY LYNDON.
As for the cinematography on this or any of Stanleys films, it is well known that while cinematographers were credited for doing the photographic and lighting work on the films they were really merely just assistants to Stanley. Stanley was a renound still photographer by the time he was 17 and the youngest and most brilliant staff shooter in the history of LOOK magazine. Many people in the industry believe that if he hadn’t become one of the greatest directors in film history he would have been the greatest cinematographer in film history.
In an instance to solidifye the charge, he practically tore famed cinematographer Lucien Ballard a new asshole on the set of THE KILLING because the Oscar-winning photographer thought he was smarter than Stanley. Case be told, Ballard, thinking that Stanley was just a precocious “kid” director and wouldn’t understand the difference between an easy set up (which would change Stanley’s desired perspective of a shot) and a difficult one (that would give Stanley exactly what the scene required visually). When the mistake was called by Kubrick, he politefully called Ballard aside and told him to redo the shot HIS way or GET THE FUCK THE SET AND NEVER COME BACK. I feel this story is a great illustration of the early seen perfectionism and professional craftmanship that was not only budding as early as his 20′s, but the titan director that was about to emmerge and set standards.
BARRY LYNDON, once you see it, will not only most likely be included on your list of the best of 1975 and the decade, but absolutely blow your eyes out of your head!
I’ve been known to say this before, but NOBODY could shoot a picture better, in history, than Stanley Kubrick.
Thanks, Enjoy,
Dennis
Hi! Allan, Sam Juliano and WitD readers,
(Shrug shoulders)
Allan, after reading your review…which is a very interesting review if I may say so…Thanks, and after doing a “little” research on this film and the leading lady…actress Marisa Berenson, I found that some critics found her performance…hmmm…not “noteworthy”
[Note; For instance, New York Times critic Vincent Canby's commented about her (actress Marisa Berenson) per`formance in Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon by stating...]
“…The tragic beauty Lady Lyndon in the 1975 Stanley Kubrick film Barry Lyndon. Though the last role has been her most well known, few reviews have commented on her performance; Vincent Canby of The New York Times merely stated, “Marisa Berenson splendidly suits her costumes and wigs.”
By the way, I’ am not familiar with critic Vincent Canby. Therefore, I’ am not sure if he is/or was being snide, or snarky, (which of course can almost mean the same thing…) or just being a plain “smart-aleck?!?” …by merely commenting on actress Marisa Berenson’s costume in this film that can be classified as a costumer period piece.
I have also linked a Wiki(pedia) link about actress Marisa Berenson, life, career, and her family tie(s) to the late actor Anthony Perkins. (He of Hitch’s Pyscho fame…”methinks!”)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marisa_Berenson
DeeDee
Dee Dee: Terrific reference material on Marisa Berenson!!!
Oh, and by the way Dave…. My statement about Kubrick shooting a movie better than anyone in history is, of course, my opinion (and that of Steven Spielberg who I once heard say the same thing)…
I have to make sure I’m clear on that point before I start getting ridiculous text messages on my Blackberry from SAM ridiculing MY opinion….
OOOOPPPPPSSSSS!!!!!!
There goes my Blackberry beeping!!!!! Looks like Sammy’s out to get me again!!!!!! I’m gonna get a lesson on how to form an opinion of MY OWN!
LOL!!!!!
Dennis: You are entitled to your own opinion and have just stated it. However, when you make a definitive statement like you just did I think I need to (likewise) voice my own views.
First of all, Spielberg was a professional associate of Kubrick, and he publicly venerated him. Secondly, Spielberg has also said publicly that no one in history shot a film like Kurosawa.
The way I see it, the following should at least be considered equal to Kubrick in the mastery they exhibited in shooting a film.
Powell and Pressburger
Kurosawa
Welles
Ford
Mizoguchi
Lean
Fellini
Renoir
Gance
Chaplin
Murnau
Bergman
Dreyer
Tarkovsky
Kieslowski
Tarr
Bresson
Korda
Vlacil
S. Ray
Eisenstein
Lang
and a few others.
But this is really a minor matter, as the bottom line is that (as dave recognizes) your passion at the Kubrick threads this week has been infectious. You have jump started so many discussions here and your knowlege on “Stanley” is remarkable.
Samuel Wilson, thanks very much for your marvelous posts here!!!!
Barry Lyndon is my favorite Kubrick film and possibly my favorite movie ever, with Godfather II.
My Kubrick kist
1. Barry Lyndon
2. 2001 a space odyssey
3. The Shining ( european cut, much better )
4. Full metal jacket
5. Dr Strangelove
6. Paths of glory
7. A clockwork orange
8. Lolita
9. Eyes wide shut
10. The killing
11. Spartacus
12. Killer’s kiss
9. Spartacus