Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Watched Barry Lyndon yesterday

Gunleik Groven

Gunleik Groven

REDuser Sponsor
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
13,465
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
Norway
Website
quine.no
And what did I see?

Blown highlights, soft focus, inconsistent colors, low saturation in indoor shots (bad or no lightning?), colors that didn't really pop in my face. Zooms. They are TV, right? Intercut images with different filmlook (DOF) - how could he use different filmlook in different intercut shots? And the HDR stuff... Man that was bad! And even some shots looked like he hadn't used a mattebox. Is that legal?

Is it shot on RED? Looks like. But I guess the post guys just messed up?

I think someone should give this stanley guy some basic training in cinematography and storytelling asap, or he will never make another movie again.













\end rant
 
lightning? did he shoot during thunderstorms? ;-)
 
Funny...
I remember the first release. I had a student job as film projectionist. Barry Lyndon was a real challenge, because Stanley Kubrick delivered a whole book with instructions to make sure the film looks on screen like he wanted. The distributor had a test person. If you failed they would not let you show the film in your cinema. Only certain film theatres with the right technical background got a copie. There was no additional light used with Barry Lyndon. Kubrick developed a high speed lens (I think with Zeiss) with an aperture 0,75 to shoot the movie.
Did you see it on DVD?
Marc
 
to bring some cospiracy in it.

stanley did get the super lens, because he promised to shoot a movie for the NASA first...the landing on the moon :)
 
gunleik said:
And what did I see?

Blown highlights, soft focus, inconsistent colors, low saturation in indoor shots (bad or no lightning?), colors that didn't really pop in my face. Zooms. They are TV, right? Intercut images with different filmlook (DOF) - how could he use different filmlook in different intercut shots? And the HDR stuff... Man that was bad! And even some shots looked like he hadn't used a mattebox. Is that legal?

Is it shot on RED? Looks like. But I guess the post guys just messed up?

I think someone should give this stanley guy some basic training in cinematography and storytelling asap, or he will never make another movie again.

\end rant
Click to expand...

Barry Lyndon is an example that "avant-garde" thinking was and hopefully still exists in a movie making industry worldwide (writing, directing, acting, editing, cinematography, sound, music, post, vfx,...etc).
 
trac(k)ing the classics humm?.. ehehehehe
 
Mr. Kubrick was a bit of a control freak. Many years ago, when I was in charge of Broadcast QC for Showtime we ran Clockwork Orange. I rejected the copy they sent us because the opening titles and such were full of video scratches recorded in from the master. The studio had to get permission from Kubrick to retransfer the film to video and then get his approval on the transfer before I could get a copy. He held final approval for everything he did.
 
Gunleik, please, define the term "unfilmic"? I certainly don't get it. Unless you really meant to say "against conventional film industry doctrine" instead?

Any which way, "Barry Lyndon" is a work of art in my book. Like most of his work, definitely not for everyone, though.

I personally don't think that any type of art should be measured against a generally accepted notion of how art should be.

Can you imagine?
 
When D. W. Griffith made his first close-ups the investors said "you cant have peoples heads floating around like that in a film"... guess they also thought they knew whether something was filmic or not.
 
Tico said:
Gunleik, please, define the term "unfilmic"? I certainly don't get it. Unless you really meant to say "against conventional film industry doctrine" instead?

Any which way, "Barry Lyndon" is a work of art in my book. Like most of his work, definitely not for everyone, though.

I personally don't think that any type of art should be measured against a generally accepted notion of how art should be.

Can you imagine?
Click to expand...

It's always risky to do ironic posts. I know... But sometimes I cannot help myself.

There's so much talk about "film look" and what technical solution makes a film look like a "Film"on all these boards... I'm pretty familiar with the myths and truths surrounding Barry Lyndon, and really enjoyed watching it.

It was also very entertaining with all the talk about "film look" being defined by shallow DOF and some particular color/contrast scheme.

One of my most favoured films is RAN by Akira Kurosawa. Deep DOF and very conservative (but defined) use of colors - for the most part. Still one of the films I've seen and loved the most.

As is "The Wall" by Alan Parker.

I just think the whole "it does/it doesn't" look like film thing is quite eh.... uninformed @ times.

I really like some of the Chaplin movies, but according to these rules, they simply are not films.

I don't like conformity much - even though I'll be the first to admit that "different" isn't neccesarily "better". But conformity is no success - parameter either...

I wouldn't agree that Barry Lyndon is avant-garde, though. But it's done with a thorough idea and aestethic thought. And then the tools are chosen.

This forum is exactly the right place for technical geekery, but when technicalities (which are important to control) are put out as dogmatic aestethical statements, I sometimes find it amusing...

Cheers!
 
Dear Gunleik, Barry Lyndon is my favorite Kubrick, and one of my very favorite films. It has moved me deeper for each time I've seen it. I need to watch it again soon, thanks for reminding me.
 
gunleik said:
One of my most favoured films is RAN by Akira Kurosawa. Deep DOF and very conservative (but defined) use of colors - for the most part. Still one of the films I've seen and loved the most.
Click to expand...

You thought the colors on "Ran" were conservative? What do you mean by that? I thought the use of colors was extremely overt and powerful.

Ran2.jpg


I am also a big fan of the look of "Ran," though I thought the ending dragged on too long.
 
gunleik said:
It's always risky to do ironic posts. I know... But sometimes I cannot help myself.

I really like some of the Chaplin movies, but according to these rules, they simply are not films.
Click to expand...

Your post may be even more ironic than you ntended, because in one of his interviews, Kubrick actually came out and said that if you have a narrative worth paying attention to, it doesn't matter much how you shoot it or what it looks like. And he cited Chaplin as an example of a great filmmaker (in his estimation) who's indifferent to the visual realization of the material.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top