Latest / The Kulturecast / Required Viewing 03: Barry Lyndon

Transcript

Required Viewing 03: Barry Lyndon · The Kulturecast

0:04
Speaker 1: We're in Wayne Media. mark this and come what will
0:51
Speaker 1: of it i will fight the man who pretends the
0:55
Speaker 1: hand of nora brady i'll follow him if it's into
0:59
Speaker 1: the church i'll have his blood no he'll have mine
1:10
Speaker 1: The boy must go into hiding just for a short
1:13
Speaker 1: time till matters are blown over. That poor child has
1:15
Speaker 1: never been away from home in his life. All clever
1:19
Speaker 1: young fellows who are free and able are hereby invited
1:22
Speaker 1: to step up. My name is Redmond Barry. You ruined lad.
1:30
Speaker 1: Then send me to the devil. You are a liar.
1:35
Speaker 1: You're an imposter. You're a deserter.
1:43
Speaker 2: He seems to me little more than a common opportunist.
1:49
Speaker 2: I don't think he loves my mother at all. Hello, everyone,
2:22
Speaker 2: and welcome to the CultureCast. I am your host, Chris Stashew,
2:24
Speaker 2: and I'm joined by my good friend all the way
2:26
Speaker 2: from the plains of West Texas, about as far from
2:30
Speaker 2: Ireland and England as humanly possible, your friend and mine,
2:34
Speaker 2: Professor Dr. David D.
2:37
Speaker 1: Perlmutter. Hello, Chris. Welcome to our adventure.
2:40
Speaker 2: That's right, on this episode of the CultureCast, it's technically
2:43
Speaker 2: an episode of Required Viewing, where Dr. Perlmutter and I
2:45
Speaker 2: sit and talk about film in a 360-degree approach, as
2:50
Speaker 2: opposed to the CultureCast, where I just say naughty things
2:53
Speaker 2: for an hour and a half. If you want to
2:54
Speaker 2: listen to that, you know where to find it. As
2:56
Speaker 2: for this episode, we are conquering a film that, for
2:59
Speaker 2: many people, especially people who saw it when it came out,
3:02
Speaker 2: was a big letdown. Why? Because it was a Stanley
3:05
Speaker 2: Kubrick film, and hey, this was... This was no Kubrick film.
3:08
Speaker 2: Other than the fact that it totally is. We're talking
3:12
Speaker 2: about 1975's Barry Lyndon. So the film is, like I mentioned,
3:16
Speaker 2: written and directed by Stanley Kubrick. It's based on The
3:19
Speaker 2: Luck of Barry Lyndon by William Makepeace Thackeray. The film
3:23
Speaker 2: does change the source material quite significantly. As in, there
3:28
Speaker 2: is narration in the book. As in, there's no narration
3:31
Speaker 2: in the film. Not the kind of narration in the book, anyways.
3:33
Speaker 2: There's somewhat of an omniscient third-person narrator, I guess. I
3:37
Speaker 2: don't even know. The narrator is not Barry Lyndon in
3:40
Speaker 2: the film, but it is in the book. And the
3:41
Speaker 2: book and film are both about the titular character, Barry Lyndon.
3:45
Speaker 2: who has a series of misadventures along the way, conducting
3:49
Speaker 2: misdeeds and having just all kinds of wild fun in
3:53
Speaker 2: what might consider to be the most exciting time in
3:55
Speaker 2: the last 300 years, 1750 Ireland. The film stars Ryan O'Neill,
4:00
Speaker 2: Marisa Bereson, Patrick McGee, Hardy Kruger, Diana Corner, Gay Hamilton,
4:06
Speaker 2: just to name a few. But primarily, it is a
4:08
Speaker 2: Ryan O'Neill picker-esque Stanley Kubrick film.
4:12
Speaker 1: Dr.
4:12
Speaker 2: Perlmutter, I am so very curious. Your thoughts on Barry
4:16
Speaker 2: Lyndon to kick off this episode, because this is one
4:18
Speaker 2: that you picked, and you had all the Stanley Kubrick
4:22
Speaker 2: films in the world to pick, and this is the
4:23
Speaker 2: one you went with. Why, oh why, is this the
4:26
Speaker 2: one you went with?
4:26
Speaker 1: I think probably this is the least... heavily analyzed Stanley
4:31
Speaker 1: Kubrick movie. I mean, you can go to probably hundreds
4:35
Speaker 1: of websites that endlessly discuss details, including lots of theories
4:42
Speaker 1: about what Kubrick meant. on some of his other works.
4:46
Speaker 1: This one, I think people got it pretty quickly. But
4:49
Speaker 1: the question is what it is. And in fact, this
4:52
Speaker 1: film raised at the time, because I'm old enough to
4:55
Speaker 1: vaguely remember, I did not watch this in a theater
4:58
Speaker 1: when it came out, but I watched it maybe four
5:02
Speaker 1: or five years after it came out in a film class.
5:06
Speaker 1: And by then, there had already been this discussion about,
5:10
Speaker 1: was it actually a movie? As you know, as a
5:13
Speaker 1: journalism professor, I love to just stop and say, okay,
5:16
Speaker 1: we're using this word. What does this word mean? What
5:20
Speaker 1: did it used to mean? I mean, what did it
5:22
Speaker 1: mean in the past, several iterations in the past? I mean,
5:26
Speaker 1: this is an 1844 novel set in the past of 1844,
5:27
Speaker 1: and then it's made in the 1970s, and then we're
5:35
Speaker 1: watching it today. When the film came out, it was absolutely,
5:39
Speaker 1: and I think rightly, acclaimed for the beauty of every
5:44
Speaker 1: individual shot. And we'll talk about that, like the sequence...
5:48
Speaker 1: of scenes are actually taken and inspired by famous paintings
5:54
Speaker 1: of the era, like Gainsborough, and inspired by the famous
5:58
Speaker 1: music of the era, Mozart and Vivaldi. And shock, no shock, shockingly,
6:04
Speaker 1: the film went on to win four Academy Awards, including cinematography,
6:09
Speaker 1: including score and things like that, and rightly so. But
6:14
Speaker 1: early on, there was a question raised. And in fact,
6:16
Speaker 1: This was the essay that I had to write in
6:19
Speaker 1: class in 1981, 82, I think it is, on, is
6:27
Speaker 1: this a movie? And now we just had a chance,
6:30
Speaker 1: and I don't know when this is going to air
6:32
Speaker 1: versus that. We had a chance to talk with Miranda
6:36
Speaker 1: about one of your other guests about the Akira Kurosawa's
6:40
Speaker 1: dreams and how intentionally it felt like a series of
6:45
Speaker 1: beautiful moments, not a coherent plot line, even maybe connections
6:51
Speaker 1: between the different vignettes within an anthology. And that's allowable
6:57
Speaker 1: if somebody's saying, I'm doing an anthology film of ideas,
7:01
Speaker 1: dreams that I've had, literally. But Kubrick got a lot
7:04
Speaker 1: of criticism because people were expecting from him a story
7:09
Speaker 1: that wasn't just like, here's my slideshow of incredibly beautiful things.
7:15
Speaker 1: And the most famous critic was Pauline Kael of The
7:18
Speaker 1: New Yorker, who accused Kubrick of like forgetting what a
7:22
Speaker 1: movie was. So I think that this is an interesting
7:25
Speaker 1: required viewing to talk about, like what needs to add
7:29
Speaker 1: up for us to call something a coherent story, a
7:35
Speaker 1: narrative that has the things that we usually associate with
7:39
Speaker 1: the motion picture or with the narrative associated with film.
7:44
Speaker 1: And there's so many details here because of course it
7:47
Speaker 1: is this magnificent, opulent, uh, amazing spectacle and where you
7:53
Speaker 1: can just stop freeze frame as we did in class
7:56
Speaker 1: and just look at one scene whether it's people gambling
8:00
Speaker 1: inside a luxury house or it's some vista in Ireland
8:05
Speaker 1: where they're having a duel or it's a battle in
8:08
Speaker 1: Central Europe and you can just say wow look at
8:11
Speaker 1: look at the detail look at the color look at
8:14
Speaker 1: the depth of field look at the set design but
8:18
Speaker 1: does it add up to movie.
8:20
Speaker 2: Before we talk any further, I wanted to ask you
8:23
Speaker 2: a personal question about Stanley. Thoughts on Stanley Kubrick as
8:26
Speaker 2: a director?
8:27
Speaker 1: So maybe in context, I want to say that I
8:32
Speaker 1: appreciate a lot of the work that Stanley Kubrick has done.
8:36
Speaker 1: There's no question that like in the pantheon of great directors,
8:40
Speaker 1: with the word great being defined as not only have
8:44
Speaker 1: they created the sort of masterworks that are still popular,
8:48
Speaker 1: they're still going back to them, that have become part
8:51
Speaker 1: of meme culture that new generations rediscover. I mean, if
8:55
Speaker 1: you go on Reddit or social media today, you will
8:59
Speaker 1: find 18-year-olds still voluntarily bringing up and discussing Dr. Strangelove
9:05
Speaker 1: or Eyes Wide Shut or 2001 A Space Odyssey. In fact,
9:09
Speaker 1: if you just go down the list of Kubrick films,
9:13
Speaker 1: he sort of checked the box within every possible genre
9:17
Speaker 1: of having impact. I do reserve the right to say
9:22
Speaker 1: that for myself, sometimes I feel somewhat unfulfilled watching Kubrick
9:27
Speaker 1: films that like one of the accusations is, made against
9:31
Speaker 1: him is that he makes movies as if he's never
9:34
Speaker 1: watched a movie. And for me, Full Metal Jacket was
9:37
Speaker 1: a very good example of that because he came out
9:40
Speaker 1: with a Vietnam film and he's Stanley Kubrick, right? So
9:43
Speaker 1: he had a lot of control. If the auteur theory
9:47
Speaker 1: applies to anyone, it applies to Stanley Kubrick because he
9:51
Speaker 1: was famous for like 50 takes and demanding this and
9:55
Speaker 1: just wanting to get that absolutely right. And I mean,
9:59
Speaker 1: we haven't talked about it, but like Full Metal Jacket
10:02
Speaker 1: for me was a Vietnam film that had already been made,
10:06
Speaker 1: a war film that had already been made, including partly
10:09
Speaker 1: by him because he did a much better film called
10:12
Speaker 1: Paths of Glory set in World War I starring Kirk Douglas.
10:16
Speaker 1: And so sometimes people I just wonder whether Kubrick didn't
10:20
Speaker 1: have the ability to tell these smooth stories that we
10:26
Speaker 1: sometimes demand of film. And I think this is probably
10:31
Speaker 1: the best example of that accusation. So I want to
10:34
Speaker 1: make it clear that I'm not like anti-Stanley Kubrick. I
10:38
Speaker 1: think his achievements are legend, but every fortress has a flaw.
10:43
Speaker 1: And I just felt the storytelling was what he always
10:47
Speaker 1: seemed to struggle with. And this is one of the
10:50
Speaker 1: films where I and a lot of other people feel
10:53
Speaker 1: that comes to the fore. Because after all, a movie
10:55
Speaker 1: is the sum of its parts. It is not just
10:59
Speaker 1: a series of set piece sequences, unless that's what you're
11:02
Speaker 1: intending with an anthology film or a series of vignettes.
11:08
Speaker 1: So all praise to Kubrick, but dot, dot, dot.
11:12
Speaker 2: As someone who considers himself a cinephile and watches a
11:15
Speaker 2: fair amount of cinema and film and everything I would
11:18
Speaker 2: say in between, from both high-end auteur pieces to films
11:24
Speaker 2: that are made solely for the intent of entertaining, which
11:28
Speaker 2: is to say there's nothing wrong with that. I mean,
11:30
Speaker 2: those intentions can be... mutually exclusive or take place within
11:34
Speaker 2: the same thing a film can be an auteur piece
11:36
Speaker 2: that is meant to be a you know piece of
11:39
Speaker 2: I wouldn't it's just weird because in this day and
11:42
Speaker 2: age like so much of our engagement with film and
11:44
Speaker 2: TV show is transactional and Barry Lyndon is almost the
11:47
Speaker 2: like antithesis of that in a way. Because it is
11:50
Speaker 2: three hours long. It is meandering at times. It is
11:55
Speaker 2: plodding at other times. It has a lot of setup
11:59
Speaker 2: for what I would say is very little payoff in
12:03
Speaker 2: a lot of ways. But it is a lot of
12:04
Speaker 2: payoff in other ways. And I think my initial reaction
12:10
Speaker 2: to your statement on Stanley Kubrick and my shared feeling
12:15
Speaker 2: on Stanley Kubrick is he is a great filmmaker. But
12:18
Speaker 2: for me, a lot of his films are not... It's
12:20
Speaker 2: like you said, at times I wonder if he even
12:23
Speaker 2: has ever seen a film before, or anyone else's film,
12:26
Speaker 2: where it's like, I'm just going to do it my way,
12:28
Speaker 2: and in doing it my way, it becomes so iconoclastic
12:32
Speaker 2: that my way of doing it is... therefore so unique
12:35
Speaker 2: and unto itself that that in in and of itself
12:38
Speaker 2: becomes the thing and like I appreciate that but I
12:42
Speaker 2: guess I never resonated with any of his movies enough
12:45
Speaker 2: for it to be something where I would like when
12:48
Speaker 2: people would have a conversation about a bill well well
12:50
Speaker 2: you know my favorite Stanley Kubrick film is you know
12:52
Speaker 2: Barry Lyndon or And again, or Fear and Desire, or
12:56
Speaker 2: The Killing, or Passive Glory, or Spartacus. I've never had
13:00
Speaker 2: that resonance with him as a director. And I think
13:04
Speaker 2: for me, watching Barry Lyndon this time, because I have
13:07
Speaker 2: seen this before a couple years ago, maybe once. six
13:11
Speaker 2: seven years ago this is the first time where I
13:15
Speaker 2: watched this film and I feel like I somewhat got
13:18
Speaker 2: it as much as Stanley Kubrick would want me to
13:20
Speaker 2: get it which is to say he wouldn't want me
13:22
Speaker 2: to get it any more than he allows you to
13:24
Speaker 2: because again like you said about Kubrick as a director
13:27
Speaker 2: he was very controlling and specific and meticulous and there's
13:30
Speaker 2: nothing wrong with that per se but imagine a three-hour
13:35
Speaker 2: movie where the director is meticulous with every single shot
13:39
Speaker 2: and that sounds like a nightmare to anybody who knows
13:42
Speaker 2: about making film especially when they were making this film
13:45
Speaker 2: in 1975 with real film with actual celluloid printed film.
13:51
Speaker 2: People take for granted now that you can just delete
13:53
Speaker 2: and edit on your phone, which is more than anyone
13:56
Speaker 2: was able to do up until pretty much the last decade,
13:59
Speaker 2: let's call it. And that's the thing about this movie
14:02
Speaker 2: that's so impressive is that this film was made in
14:05
Speaker 2: a time where... If you were to make this film now,
14:08
Speaker 2: it's impressive. In 2026, just the sets and the scenery
14:11
Speaker 2: and the blocking and all the acting and just everything
14:15
Speaker 2: is just so well done and so intentional and meticulous.
14:19
Speaker 2: If you made this film in 2026, you'd be applauded.
14:21
Speaker 2: You and I have talked privately about The Revenant and like, oh,
14:24
Speaker 2: it's fine. It's a Leonardo DiCaprio film that has a
14:27
Speaker 2: lot of the same traits as this film in terms
14:30
Speaker 2: of like natural lighting. And, you know, it's very naturalistic
14:34
Speaker 2: and you have a lot of these, you know, kind
14:36
Speaker 2: of outdoor shots that are being done without anything other
14:39
Speaker 2: than just the outdoor lighting and the technical prowess of
14:43
Speaker 2: the film is kind of what it stands on. And
14:45
Speaker 2: I would say Barry Lyndon should have some of that
14:47
Speaker 2: criticism leveled against it because, yes, it is somewhat of
14:51
Speaker 2: a blowhard of a movie because it is three hours long.
14:54
Speaker 2: But you know what? I don't mind that because I
14:58
Speaker 2: think if you want to boil it down to its
15:00
Speaker 2: most basic elements, sure, you could put this on in
15:03
Speaker 2: the background and have it act as a moving screensaver.
15:06
Speaker 2: which is to say anything that's on your screen that's
15:09
Speaker 2: being used for any purpose other than you looking at
15:12
Speaker 2: your screen is a screensaver, which is to say you
15:14
Speaker 2: could put this on in your kitchen, turn the audio off,
15:17
Speaker 2: and look at it every couple minutes and see something
15:19
Speaker 2: interesting and enjoy it in that moment, which is not
15:23
Speaker 2: the case in every film you watch. Not every film
15:26
Speaker 2: is this meticulously crafted by someone who knows exactly what
15:29
Speaker 2: they want, and that's intentional because most directors don't have
15:32
Speaker 2: the stomach for it, and I don't blame them because...
15:35
Speaker 2: Grown Ups 3 doesn't need this level of directorly influence
15:39
Speaker 2: and editorial process that a film like Barry Lyndon does
15:42
Speaker 2: not every director is looking to make Barry Lyndon and
15:46
Speaker 2: that's okay because I don't think if the expectation is
15:49
Speaker 2: that every director should be making Barry Lyndon anyone would
15:52
Speaker 2: want to work in film because it to have made
15:55
Speaker 2: this film is a monumental undertaking. And this was like
15:59
Speaker 2: the case on every single one of these Kubrick films,
16:02
Speaker 2: which is the crazy part. It's just, they were all
16:04
Speaker 2: monumental undertakings of a different variety. They didn't always have
16:08
Speaker 2: the same, like, flavor and smell to them when they
16:11
Speaker 2: were a monumental undertaking.
16:13
Speaker 1: But.
16:13
Speaker 2: Pretty much, I would say post, I don't know, maybe Spartacus.
16:17
Speaker 2: But I think it goes back to as far as
16:19
Speaker 2: like fear and desire with Kubrick. Like every Kubrick film
16:22
Speaker 2: has been an undertaking, partially self-inflicted because it's Stanley Kubrick
16:26
Speaker 2: making the film. And he's just, you know, long time ago,
16:29
Speaker 2: I interviewed Jonathan Frake, who is notoriously known as one
16:33
Speaker 2: take Frake, Riker from Star Trek.
16:35
Speaker 3: Yeah.
16:36
Speaker 2: Kubrick is not one take Frakes. Stanley Kubrick is like
16:40
Speaker 2: one million takes Kubrick because we have to placate the genius.
16:44
Speaker 2: And I'm not saying that that's not warranted, a film
16:47
Speaker 2: like Barry Lyndon. The fact that a film like Barry
16:49
Speaker 2: Lyndon is, like you alluded to, his least talked about film,
16:53
Speaker 2: is insane because the rest of his films are masterpieces
16:57
Speaker 2: or classics in their own right in almost every genre
17:00
Speaker 2: that they're part of including this one even if people
17:02
Speaker 2: want to refuse or pretend like it's not because again
17:06
Speaker 2: like you already alluded to and I you know you
17:08
Speaker 2: beat me to it the Pauline Kael of it all
17:10
Speaker 2: like you know I mean, you know, she pretty much
17:14
Speaker 2: took it to task and called it a three-story, a
17:16
Speaker 2: three-hour slideshow for art history major. One of the vainest movies,
17:20
Speaker 2: one of the vainest of all movies. It's like, really?
17:23
Speaker 1: Yeah, just on that one point, it's worth, for people
17:26
Speaker 1: who have not watched the film, I do not have
17:30
Speaker 1: a copy of my undergraduate essay on is Barry Lyndon
17:36
Speaker 1: a movie?
17:37
Speaker 4: But I do remember one discussion point was that uh
17:41
Speaker 4: you know you've heard of the situation of like you're
17:44
Speaker 4: trapped on a desert island and you only have 10
17:47
Speaker 4: books right and well there's a.
17:48
Speaker 1: Science fiction version of that is that aliens come and
17:52
Speaker 1: their plan is to destroy humans because of all of
17:55
Speaker 1: our destructiveness this is sort of like a star trek
17:57
Speaker 1: episode i think it is a couple of star trek
17:59
Speaker 1: episodes And the humans have to prove their worth, like
18:03
Speaker 1: why keep us around. And I would show 10 movies
18:07
Speaker 1: to show what we can achieve artistically. And Barry Lyndon
18:11
Speaker 1: would be one of them. And that sounds like a
18:13
Speaker 1: complete contradiction to everything I just said before and everything
18:16
Speaker 1: I'm going to say in the future. But if I
18:18
Speaker 1: wanted to show aliens from another planet who, I guess,
18:23
Speaker 1: could see in the visible light spectrum, unlike Rocky in...
18:27
Speaker 1: the delightful little Rocky in, uh, uh, project hero, Mary,
18:32
Speaker 1: if I could show it, I could say, well, look,
18:34
Speaker 1: you know, this is among the most beautiful things because
18:37
Speaker 1: this movie compacts basically, yeah, 200 years of art history,
18:42
Speaker 1: 200 years of, of romantic classical music into one movie,
18:47
Speaker 1: a one three hour movie and the colors, the depth
18:51
Speaker 1: of field, the lighting, just like Again, stop randomly at
18:55
Speaker 1: any scene and just look at it and go, yep,
18:58
Speaker 1: that is among the most beautiful scenes ever put in
19:02
Speaker 1: a film. And so we're using the term 360 here
19:06
Speaker 1: because we want to say that we want to say
19:08
Speaker 1: like this is among the loveliest, especially today, where it
19:13
Speaker 1: just seems like every single film and TV show is
19:17
Speaker 1: filmed through a coffee filter and is sepia out and
19:21
Speaker 1: browned out and everybody is drab and like people of
19:25
Speaker 1: the future and people of middle ages all wear the
19:28
Speaker 1: same brown costumes just to see a film. That is, remember,
19:33
Speaker 1: one of the television networks when I was growing up
19:36
Speaker 1: and he said, in living color, because color television was
19:39
Speaker 1: a relatively new thing. Like, I remember looking at this
19:42
Speaker 1: movie and my eyes popping from the spectacle in color.
19:46
Speaker 1: It really does deserve to be on a giant screen.
19:48
Speaker 1: So it fulfills. this massive requirement of spectacle, but it's
19:54
Speaker 1: not an epic movie. Like Lawrence of Arabia that would
19:58
Speaker 1: be praised as such. And so it has this imbalance,
20:02
Speaker 1: if I want to use a negative word, or he
20:05
Speaker 1: chose a balance if I wanted to say something positive.
20:08
Speaker 1: But it is absolutely one of the top 20 most
20:13
Speaker 1: gorgeous movies. And so fulfills that part of why you
20:18
Speaker 1: want to go see something on a big screen.
20:20
Speaker 2: What makes me laugh when you talk about that is
20:23
Speaker 2: the idea that now what this film looks like is
20:27
Speaker 2: the Odyssey, directed by Christopher Nolan. If we're talking about
20:30
Speaker 2: a big, epic film... that's made and is attempting to
20:35
Speaker 2: be epic and tell an epic story, but is trying
20:37
Speaker 2: to do it in that grandiose scale. And I would
20:41
Speaker 2: challenge anyone who went and saw The Odyssey to watch
20:44
Speaker 2: this film and see what a film that's actually shot
20:47
Speaker 2: for real with actual technical prowess looks like. Not to
20:50
Speaker 2: say Chris Nolan doesn't have technical prowess, but he has
20:53
Speaker 2: all the modern day implements that make things easier. And
20:56
Speaker 2: he's decided to make things harder on himself because... I
21:00
Speaker 2: guess he wants to cost himself more money. That's the
21:03
Speaker 2: thing that's hard with filmmaking from 1975 that I think
21:07
Speaker 2: we as people who watch films now take for granted.
21:10
Speaker 2: Films like this don't exist anymore because they don't make
21:13
Speaker 2: films like this anymore because times have changed. and things
21:16
Speaker 2: have gotten more economical. You don't have to shoot on
21:20
Speaker 2: film anymore. Film is not really economical to shoot on.
21:24
Speaker 2: You know, you can't reuse film once it's shot on.
21:27
Speaker 2: That's how that works. So if you're shooting on actual
21:30
Speaker 2: real celluloid, you just go through the real, and that's
21:34
Speaker 2: why it was so cumbersome and expensive and all these
21:37
Speaker 2: other things.
21:38
Speaker 1: And.
21:39
Speaker 2: To make that harder on yourself intentionally to try and
21:42
Speaker 2: recapture this time and place in filmmaking, I understand because
21:47
Speaker 2: there is a very welcoming, warm nature to this filmmaking
21:53
Speaker 2: that is unreplicatable in this day and age, like genuinely.
21:57
Speaker 2: You can't get these results anymore, no matter how hard
21:59
Speaker 2: someone like Chris Nolan tries or Sam Mendes or any
22:02
Speaker 2: of these other directors that try to do this. naturalistic
22:05
Speaker 2: storytelling style, and they throw as much Vaseline on the
22:09
Speaker 2: camera as they can to make it glowy, but they
22:11
Speaker 2: can't replicate it. It's because there's just, the intentionality was different.
22:16
Speaker 2: There was an intentionality behind something like Barry Lyndon that
22:19
Speaker 2: doesn't exist with something like The Odyssey. I don't know
22:22
Speaker 2: what The Odyssey is about to Chris Nolan. I know
22:25
Speaker 2: what The Odyssey is about to me. And I've seen
22:27
Speaker 2: The Odyssey at this point. This isn't coming from someone
22:29
Speaker 2: that didn't watch it. I didn't want to spend a
22:31
Speaker 2: three-hour episode with someone else talking about it because I
22:34
Speaker 2: would rather spend three hours talking about this film because
22:37
Speaker 2: it actually deserves the praise because it's made at a
22:40
Speaker 2: time and a place where this is the only kind
22:42
Speaker 2: of filmmaking you're making. This isn't, I'm going to make
22:45
Speaker 2: an IMAX film because I want to know what it's
22:47
Speaker 2: like to be a filmmaker in 1975 who has to
22:49
Speaker 2: work on film. Like, I get it. And you're keeping
22:53
Speaker 2: like one specific niche angle of filmmaking alive, which is
22:57
Speaker 2: filming on real film in a format that nobody makes anymore.
23:02
Speaker 2: And so you're having to essentially recreate this industry or
23:05
Speaker 2: create this industry on your own, which, okay, fine. You're
23:09
Speaker 2: allowed to do that. It's just what an epic film,
23:12
Speaker 2: like you said, looks like now. There is so much
23:14
Speaker 2: more pomp and circumstance and grandeur given to it. And
23:19
Speaker 2: this is what I perceive to be the mold for
23:22
Speaker 2: an epic film of a certain kind. And I think
23:25
Speaker 2: of something like The Favourite, which I think owes a
23:28
Speaker 2: lot to this film. I think Yorgos Lanthimos even talks
23:30
Speaker 2: about it. the candle scene in this film inspired a
23:33
Speaker 2: lot of the interior candle lighting in that film, which, again,
23:37
Speaker 2: if you look at the look of that film, just stylistically,
23:41
Speaker 2: I understand, to go back to the Pauline Kael of
23:44
Speaker 2: it all, the, like, her kind of criticism towards the film.
23:47
Speaker 2: But I think to your point already that you've made,
23:51
Speaker 2: if one makes the case and takes the thesis of
23:54
Speaker 2: the intentionality of Kubrick are all the things that people
23:57
Speaker 2: are fomenting disapproval of, how can one really have anything
24:02
Speaker 2: to complain about other than subjective issues? If the intentionality
24:06
Speaker 2: of Kubrick is to make a film where every shot
24:10
Speaker 2: is reminiscent of a painting and you're able to watch
24:13
Speaker 2: the film, not just as a film, but also as
24:15
Speaker 2: a series of interconnected, still moving images that are so
24:20
Speaker 2: well constructed that it's like, these are static shot compositions
24:23
Speaker 2: that should, like you said, be praised everywhere in every
24:27
Speaker 2: opportunity I mean these moments where the narrator comes on
24:30
Speaker 2: and starts narrating and you have just like essentially again
24:33
Speaker 2: a static camera composition where you have the camera being
24:36
Speaker 2: set in one spot and you have him riding on
24:38
Speaker 2: his horse or you know whatever the soldiers marching in
24:41
Speaker 2: and out of frame that to me is just Again,
24:45
Speaker 2: if you don't understand what that means and what that
24:48
Speaker 2: takes to get to that point in 1975, let me,
24:52
Speaker 2: as someone who does, give you just a short example.
24:54
Speaker 2: That is hard to do now, let alone 50 years
24:58
Speaker 2: ago when people are... Again, it's just there's a lot
25:02
Speaker 2: of things we take for granted now that in 1975
25:05
Speaker 2: they did not have a good answer for. Like the
25:07
Speaker 2: camera in this film that they used to film the
25:10
Speaker 2: indoor candlelight. That was literally a NASA camera.
25:14
Speaker 1: Yeah, can we talk about that? Because the parallel with
25:17
Speaker 1: Christopher Nolan is interesting, right? So there's this story going
25:20
Speaker 1: around that Tom Holland was on the set of The Odyssey,
25:25
Speaker 1: and he was confused at first because Christopher Nolan kept
25:29
Speaker 1: yelling cut, like really quickly, right? And Matt Damon explained, yeah,
25:34
Speaker 1: you know, the IMAX camera only has... Three minutes, I think,
25:38
Speaker 1: because it's such a gigantic frame. It only has three
25:40
Speaker 1: minutes of film. So, you know, that doesn't allow for
25:44
Speaker 1: very long takes or the actor to sort of warm
25:47
Speaker 1: up in the scene and say, OK, let me just
25:49
Speaker 1: do that again or something like that. So there is an...
25:53
Speaker 1: One of the parts about film that we want to
25:55
Speaker 1: emphasize that maybe occasionally gets attention like this issue with
26:00
Speaker 1: the IMAX and, of course, raising the issue of, OK, 99.9%
26:04
Speaker 1: of people can't see an IMAX film because they don't
26:08
Speaker 1: exist nearby to them. And they haven't made an IMAX
26:11
Speaker 1: camera in, what, 50 years or something like that. The
26:14
Speaker 1: technology is lost, sort of. But so Kubrick had it's
26:20
Speaker 1: not true that he had lenses, cameras created like from scratch,
26:27
Speaker 1: but he was adapting, as you said, other other existing
26:30
Speaker 1: cameras and lenses. And I remember looking this up in 1980X,
26:36
Speaker 1: and I remember looking it up just recently. The Zeiss,
26:40
Speaker 1: the famous Zeiss lenses, you know, super clear. My dream
26:46
Speaker 1: as a photo student was to have a Zeiss lens,
26:49
Speaker 1: you know. The Zeiss Planar 50mm f0. 7 lens. With a
26:56
Speaker 1: ridiculously shallow depth of field, which added to the stillness effect,
27:01
Speaker 1: because if you moved just a few inches forward or backward,
27:05
Speaker 1: you were out of focus, right? So the actors and actresses,
27:09
Speaker 1: even within, as you said, like a battle, had to
27:12
Speaker 1: maintain absolute rigidity. And that's why not only do they
27:17
Speaker 1: feel stiff, like they're in a period movie. But like,
27:21
Speaker 1: I mean, we've been saying like stillness, like a painting,
27:25
Speaker 1: but it's almost like a daguerreotype, you know, like the
27:27
Speaker 1: lenses back then you had to pose. You've seen those
27:30
Speaker 1: old pictures where people were fuzzy because they didn't stand
27:33
Speaker 1: still long enough for the camera to take its picture.
27:36
Speaker 1: And we have to be honest and true that we've
27:39
Speaker 1: said that we will talk about whether a film is
27:42
Speaker 1: successful or not and what it's trying to do, not
27:45
Speaker 1: saying there's some objective standard. Stanley Kubrick mission accomplished of
27:49
Speaker 1: trying to show, and I guess if you want to
27:52
Speaker 1: get into morals and themes. And he was showing an
27:55
Speaker 1: extremely rigid caste class society with very limited roles that
28:01
Speaker 1: you could play depending on your wealth and your status
28:04
Speaker 1: and your birth and your gender and where you came from.
28:09
Speaker 1: And boy, that was well encompassed by the movie. So
28:14
Speaker 1: the criticism of the movie, as you're saying, could also
28:18
Speaker 1: be the praise of the movie because he did accomplish
28:21
Speaker 1: what he set out to do.
28:22
Speaker 2: Well and that's I you know that's the thing for
28:24
Speaker 2: me that I feel like with all the criticism that
28:27
Speaker 2: I read about the film is that it's just you
28:29
Speaker 2: know oh well this it's just you know it's boring
28:32
Speaker 2: and it's slow and it's plodding and not much happens
28:35
Speaker 2: it's like well yeah but it's also a like the
28:38
Speaker 2: story itself that it is based on is a story
28:42
Speaker 2: about a, a, it's a coming of age story about
28:46
Speaker 2: a boy becoming a man in a world that has
28:49
Speaker 2: no need for such, I don't know. It's like for,
28:52
Speaker 2: for such triviality, I feel like it's just, it's the
28:55
Speaker 2: world of Barry Lyndon. I wouldn't say it's Shakespearean because like,
28:58
Speaker 2: there's so much of this, like Barry Lyndon can't get
29:00
Speaker 2: out of the way of things, you know, early on
29:02
Speaker 2: in the film, he, he, he, he thinks he kills Barry,
29:06
Speaker 2: The man who's courting his cousin's hand, which, you know, great.
29:10
Speaker 1: Awesome.
29:10
Speaker 2: You want to marry your cousin. All right. First off. Secondly,
29:14
Speaker 2: so he's on this path. He's leaving where he used
29:18
Speaker 2: to live to get away to go to Dublin. And
29:21
Speaker 2: instead of stopping to eat, he continues on the path.
29:24
Speaker 2: And the people that asked him to stop and eat
29:26
Speaker 2: end up robbing him. I think he would have been
29:28
Speaker 2: robbed either way, whether or not he had sat and
29:30
Speaker 2: ate with them or whether or not he had gone
29:32
Speaker 2: up along the path, which is what he ended up doing.
29:34
Speaker 2: There's some level of just not fadedness, but lack of autonomy.
29:40
Speaker 2: in one's choices and a film like that where it's
29:43
Speaker 2: just kind of like the characters just kind of bumbling
29:45
Speaker 2: from one set piece to another of no fault of
29:48
Speaker 2: their own and it just kind of seems like they're
29:50
Speaker 2: on a string being drug through things and they're not
29:53
Speaker 2: able to control anything That makes sense with this kind
29:55
Speaker 2: of film. And like you said, if that's what Kubrick
29:57
Speaker 2: was going for, 100% success. But it's almost there was
30:02
Speaker 2: a there's a board game channel I watch on YouTube.
30:06
Speaker 2: And my girlfriend and I play a lot of board games.
30:08
Speaker 2: And we had played this board game recently. It's called
30:11
Speaker 2: Moon Colony Bloodbath. With a title like that, one can
30:14
Speaker 2: assume what it's about.
30:15
Speaker 1: And that is an incredible hit. Right. It is. It's
30:18
Speaker 1: like the game of the year, right? Millions of copies sold.
30:21
Speaker 2: Right. And the company that I watch on YouTube did
30:25
Speaker 2: not like it. And their complaint was, it's too punishing
30:28
Speaker 2: of a board game. Too many bad things happen. And
30:31
Speaker 2: I'm like.
30:32
Speaker 1: Too many notes?
30:33
Speaker 2: Well, it's just one of those things where it's like,
30:35
Speaker 2: if you're subjectively upset about something achieving what it's trying
30:39
Speaker 2: to achieve... but that's not what you like about the film,
30:42
Speaker 2: that is a subjective issue. And so much of what
30:45
Speaker 2: I have seen as the criticism of this film at
30:48
Speaker 2: the time is, A, it's boring, which I don't agree with.
30:53
Speaker 2: I mean, again, it's an epic drama. So if you're
30:56
Speaker 2: expecting Transformers and robots flying out of the sky and
31:00
Speaker 2: all kinds of stuff, A, I don't know what director
31:02
Speaker 2: you're watching in 1975, but B, also.
31:06
Speaker 2: It's just, I feel like the film is achieving exactly
31:09
Speaker 2: what it is setting out to do, which is be, again,
31:12
Speaker 2: not a vibe. I think the term vibe film is
31:15
Speaker 2: one that we would use now, but it's just, it's
31:18
Speaker 2: a very specific time and place. And the film evokes
31:23
Speaker 2: that in every single scene. And I don't understand why
31:27
Speaker 2: that is not a success for the people that were
31:29
Speaker 2: watching the film in 1975 when someone watching in 2026 said,
31:34
Speaker 2: is well aware as to why this film is successful
31:36
Speaker 2: and what this film is doing successfully. because I think
31:39
Speaker 2: that's the other thing about this film that we haven't
31:42
Speaker 2: talked about on any kind of any other films that
31:44
Speaker 2: we've talked about. And I mean, maybe a little bit with,
31:46
Speaker 2: with water world, but this film has found its audience
31:49
Speaker 2: in the years since it's come out and has been
31:52
Speaker 2: heavily reappraised in the 50 plus years since it's come
31:56
Speaker 2: out as one of Stanley Kubrick's best films, which is
31:58
Speaker 2: to say like all of his films are that way. So,
32:01
Speaker 2: you know, for the most part, like each of his
32:03
Speaker 2: films is a seminal film from the director who, who
32:07
Speaker 2: it's not that he did or didn't make a good or,
32:09
Speaker 2: you know, a single bad film, but each of his
32:11
Speaker 2: films had something worth watching. This one included. I, I
32:15
Speaker 2: just really appreciate, you know, having done the research now for,
32:18
Speaker 2: you know, this episode that, you know, This film is
32:21
Speaker 2: similar to Blade Runner and other, you know, The Thing
32:24
Speaker 2: and other films that came out in, you know, the
32:27
Speaker 2: 70s and 80s, you know, late 70s, early 80s that
32:30
Speaker 2: people just didn't get. They weren't ready for.
32:32
Speaker 1: Yeah, I sort of half agree. Well, maybe two thirds
32:35
Speaker 1: or four fifths agree. This film, you could argue it's
32:39
Speaker 1: a genre of one. I mean, first of all, as
32:41
Speaker 1: you point out, like, nobody could make a film like
32:43
Speaker 1: this anymore. And I don't think any studio would accept
32:47
Speaker 1: this cut anymore either, right?
32:51
Speaker 2: Three hours and five minutes? No.
32:54
Speaker 1: I could imagine, like... Uh, in anyone really in a
32:58
Speaker 1: movie studio going like, wait a minute, like 20 minutes
33:02
Speaker 1: have gone by and they, he took a handkerchief and
33:05
Speaker 1: then he looked in that other direction that was there. So,
33:09
Speaker 1: but it has entered the museum, right? It like it,
33:13
Speaker 1: like people refer to this film. I don't think it's
33:16
Speaker 1: talked about in the sense of like, well, what was
33:19
Speaker 1: Stanley Truber trying to say? Uh, in the photograph, in
33:22
Speaker 1: the shining, in the final scene, is that actually the
33:25
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve Board? I mean, really, with a lot of.
33:29
Speaker 2: You've seen Room 237, then, clearly, I assume.
33:32
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I mean.
33:33
Speaker 2: No, that's, I mean, it's overanalyzed into the ground, seemingly
33:36
Speaker 2: for no reason. I mean, I get it. Kubrick was
33:39
Speaker 2: very meticulous, but... Being meticulous doesn't mean every single thing
33:42
Speaker 2: has meaning. Some people are just perfectionists, and that's the
33:46
Speaker 2: way they are.
33:47
Speaker 3: And that's why I said I don't know enough about
33:51
Speaker 3: Kubrick to make judgments like that. I just find it
33:54
Speaker 3: interesting that this is a film that is not....
33:59
Speaker 1: It's entered the art museum, and it's up there on
34:01
Speaker 1: the wall, and people will talk about, like, oh, Stanley
34:05
Speaker 1: Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, one of the most beautiful films ever made, but...
34:09
Speaker 1: they're not going to that sort of social media era
34:12
Speaker 1: of like endless analysis of what was he trying to
34:15
Speaker 1: say here? Because part of it is there is this
34:18
Speaker 1: narrator in the book, by the way, which I read
34:21
Speaker 1: in the 80s as well. And I don't think I
34:23
Speaker 1: want to reread. This is a situation where I do
34:27
Speaker 1: think Like The Godfather, the movie is better than the
34:30
Speaker 1: source material. The book has Barry Lyndon as a narrator.
34:35
Speaker 1: And there's a two or three times in the movie
34:37
Speaker 1: where Barry Lyndon's book voice comes through because in the book,
34:41
Speaker 1: he's boastful. He lies to you. He's the perfect almost narrator. knuckle-headed,
34:49
Speaker 1: unreliable narrator in the book. And in the movie, you
34:52
Speaker 1: talk about one scene. He's leaving his home in Ireland
34:56
Speaker 1: because he thinks he's killed his rival for his Irish
35:01
Speaker 1: girlfriend's love. And He meets up total strangers at an
35:06
Speaker 1: outside tavern or tavern and starts boasting to them. Right.
35:10
Speaker 1: And that gets him in trouble. And then you fast forward.
35:13
Speaker 1: He's escaping disguised as a British officer and he meets
35:17
Speaker 1: a German officer who takes him to dinner and he
35:20
Speaker 1: starts boasting. And that gets him in trouble again. So
35:23
Speaker 1: that's the time where his flawed, failed, ridiculous character, which
35:31
Speaker 1: so completely doesn't fit his ambitions to be a wealthy
35:36
Speaker 1: lord and have a castle and have a princess and
35:39
Speaker 1: all these things. But it is interesting how I don't
35:43
Speaker 1: think that there are hidden meanings in this film. There's
35:46
Speaker 1: no conspiracy associated with this movie. But it has entered
35:52
Speaker 1: the museum and we can respect it for that.
35:54
Speaker 2: Well, in this one shot in Barry Lyndon, I believe
35:57
Speaker 2: it's actually talking about Negro League baseball and Satchel Paige
36:00
Speaker 2: being able to throw a curveball. No, I don't. I agree.
36:03
Speaker 2: Like I've seen Room 237 as clearly you have. And
36:07
Speaker 2: I appreciate that there are films in Kubrick's library of films,
36:12
Speaker 2: his filmography, as it were, that are like that. Maybe
36:17
Speaker 2: I have such conflicting feelings about something. like Room 237
36:22
Speaker 2: and Kubrick, because I think it's kind of unintentionally infected
36:26
Speaker 2: the groundwater of like analysis into his films because it
36:29
Speaker 2: makes everything like, well, what's the secret hidden meaning? It's like, what?
36:33
Speaker 2: Just because like 10 people on the planet wanted to
36:36
Speaker 2: go in front of a camera and talk about their,
36:40
Speaker 2: I wouldn't say unhinged beliefs, but definitely conspiratorial beliefs about
36:45
Speaker 2: Room 237, or I guess The Shining and how it
36:47
Speaker 2: applies to astronauts or the moon landing or westward expansion,
36:53
Speaker 2: I believe is one of them in there. It's kind
36:56
Speaker 2: of turned, like you said, everything into this question of like, well,
37:00
Speaker 2: what is actually going on? I don't think, I think
37:03
Speaker 2: Barry Lyndon is as intentionally vapid as the character of
37:08
Speaker 2: which it is based on the title. Barry Lyndon is,
37:12
Speaker 2: and I think this is the thing that really resonated
37:14
Speaker 2: with me this time around, Barry Lyndon is a horrible person. Like,
37:18
Speaker 2: he's terrible. He would fit this, you know what, this
37:22
Speaker 2: would be perfect for This would be perfect for an
37:25
Speaker 2: HBO series. We talked about this with Miranda a couple
37:29
Speaker 2: times ago on the CultureCast. This would be perfect for
37:32
Speaker 2: an HBO series because we are ripe now for shows
37:36
Speaker 2: about terrible people. In a post-Sopranos world, we are ripe
37:39
Speaker 2: for a thing about a terrible character who's unrepentantly terrible.
37:44
Speaker 2: I wouldn't say all the way until the end because
37:46
Speaker 2: I think Barry Lyndon, by the end of his story,
37:49
Speaker 2: redeems himself. But to be fair... That's also a Kubrickian invention,
37:53
Speaker 2: the ending of the film, as it were, with him
37:55
Speaker 2: firing the gun into the ground and not, in fact,
37:58
Speaker 2: shooting his stepson. I just I think the point of
38:02
Speaker 2: this film is to show how someone who has ambition
38:07
Speaker 2: and is also kind of a terrible person can in
38:10
Speaker 2: the end. not only get what they deserve but get
38:13
Speaker 2: what they had coming to them because again like Barry
38:15
Speaker 2: Lyndon yeah he's he's in the book he's an unreliable
38:18
Speaker 2: narrator but in the film he's just he's not a
38:20
Speaker 2: great character he's immensely flawed which makes him an interesting
38:24
Speaker 2: lead but I also can see watching this film and
38:27
Speaker 2: going like well it's a film about a terrible character
38:30
Speaker 2: who's terrible for more or less three hours and by
38:33
Speaker 2: the end of it the only thing we have to
38:34
Speaker 2: take away is we're all equal in the eyes of God.
38:37
Speaker 2: And it's like, all right, like, whoa, man. Like, and
38:40
Speaker 2: there's nothing like, and like you said, like there's so
38:42
Speaker 2: many other Kubrick things that could just be picked apart
38:45
Speaker 2: to death and have been Barry and Lyndon. It's not
38:47
Speaker 2: like immune to it, but it's almost like intentionally idiot.
38:51
Speaker 1: Yeah. That brings up something, Ryan O'Neill. So I am
38:56
Speaker 1: now going to say my one allotted, I'm old enough
38:59
Speaker 1: to remember line for this podcast. I'm allowed to say
39:04
Speaker 1: once per, episode. I'm old enough to remember Ryan O'Neill
39:08
Speaker 1: being a mega star. And Ryan O'Neill played very adequately,
39:13
Speaker 1: Ryan O'Neill, in every movie that he was in. He
39:15
Speaker 1: was not one of those adaptive English actors who, you know,
39:21
Speaker 1: they lose themselves in the part. I don't think he
39:24
Speaker 1: was a method actor. I think he was a star.
39:26
Speaker 1: He was a very handsome star who was cast in
39:30
Speaker 1: star vehicle movies. And I don't completely know the story
39:36
Speaker 1: of him being Barry Lyndon. I mean, the actual Barry
39:40
Speaker 1: Lyndon from the story is a shallow story. boastful guy.
39:44
Speaker 1: And I don't know, Brian O'Neill had a lot of, um, issues,
39:47
Speaker 1: which today would be so, so much in social media
39:51
Speaker 1: about his relationship with, with his family. But that was
39:54
Speaker 1: true of a lot of stars back then, you know, you,
39:56
Speaker 1: you heard all these things, but, but in terms of
39:59
Speaker 1: the screen, uh, I'm going to make an obscure literary
40:02
Speaker 1: reference here, but, but, but it is a 19th century one.
40:05
Speaker 1: So I guess it makes some sense. Uh, The great
40:08
Speaker 1: French novelist Flaubert, he wrote Lady Chatterley's Lover, probably something
40:14
Speaker 1: that's still repeated today. You can still see like a
40:17
Speaker 1: BBC production or something of that. But he also wrote
40:20
Speaker 1: probably considered to be in the top five historical novels
40:24
Speaker 1: of all time. Salambo, which is set in ancient Carthage.
40:29
Speaker 1: And if you read the novel, it's this unbelievable spectacle
40:34
Speaker 1: of like Carthaginian armies and mercenary revolts and elephants charging
40:39
Speaker 1: and battles. And at the center of it, there's this
40:43
Speaker 1: Carthaginian young woman who falls in love with a mercenary general,
40:48
Speaker 1: and her name is Salambo. And one of the criticisms
40:51
Speaker 1: of the book at the time, which Flaubert reacted to,
40:56
Speaker 1: and then, this happens every once in a while, he
41:00
Speaker 1: wrote summing up the criticism, and his summing up of
41:04
Speaker 1: the negative criticism of his own book became more famous
41:07
Speaker 1: than the negative criticism. He said, I understand that people
41:10
Speaker 1: think that Salambo is a gigantic, ornate pedestal with a
41:16
Speaker 1: tiny statue because the actual character of Salambo, the young woman,
41:21
Speaker 1: is very underdeveloped. She hardly gets to say anything and
41:24
Speaker 1: do anything, but she's surrounded with this massive spectacle. But
41:28
Speaker 1: that was his choice as an author. And again, you
41:32
Speaker 1: have to say, okay, Kubrick, I mean, he had just
41:36
Speaker 1: done 2001. And by the way, he picked actors there
41:39
Speaker 1: who were not known and never became known for their
41:43
Speaker 1: massive charisma. And he picked an actor who was a good,
41:49
Speaker 1: an okay American actor, a star vehicle actor, surrounded this
41:53
Speaker 1: actor with these amazing British, mostly British actors. Some of
41:58
Speaker 1: which we've seen, we see again and again in our
42:00
Speaker 1: famous British character actors and so on. And he gets
42:04
Speaker 1: lost in all this because he, I don't know how
42:07
Speaker 1: to put it in any other way, but like I'm
42:09
Speaker 1: uninterested in his fate.
42:11
Speaker 4: Yeah.
42:11
Speaker 1: And he's dull. So it is like watching this amazing
42:15
Speaker 1: spectacle and you're like, wow, what a battle. And wow,
42:19
Speaker 1: look at that room and with all the paintings and
42:23
Speaker 1: the candles and look at that vista of Ireland. And
42:27
Speaker 1: there's this little tiny guy there who just I'm not
42:31
Speaker 1: particularly interested in his story. I'm not particularly interested in
42:34
Speaker 1: his point of view. And any charisma Ryan O'Neill had
42:40
Speaker 1: is sort of drained completely because of the staticness and
42:44
Speaker 1: stillness of the movie. So again, Kubrick is succeeding in
42:48
Speaker 1: what he wanted to do, but I think that that
42:51
Speaker 1: did contribute to this being less of what we would
42:54
Speaker 1: consider to be a movie than some of the other
42:57
Speaker 1: films that he's done.
42:59
Speaker 2: I don't dislike the casting of Ryan O'Neill in this film.
43:03
Speaker 2: And I think that the casting of Ryan O'Neill, again,
43:05
Speaker 2: if you wanted to have someone doing this exact kind
43:08
Speaker 2: of role and the expectation is this is what you're
43:10
Speaker 2: getting out of them, why not cast one of the
43:13
Speaker 2: biggest 70s American actors? who you are trying to get this,
43:18
Speaker 2: if this is the intention behind this kind of film
43:21
Speaker 2: and this performance, how can you say anything other than
43:23
Speaker 2: bravo to perfect casting? That's my whole issue with a
43:27
Speaker 2: lot of the, again, a lot of the criticism that
43:29
Speaker 2: was being leveled at this film. And I think that
43:31
Speaker 2: this film is a success in the post tense, because again, like,
43:36
Speaker 2: like you've already alluded to so much of what makes
43:39
Speaker 2: this movie amazing is the fact that it is ryan
43:41
Speaker 2: o'neill opposite all these great british character acts not really
43:45
Speaker 2: much to do with ryan o'neill himself but that in
43:48
Speaker 2: and of itself is kind of the point he is
43:50
Speaker 2: kind of so inconsequential in his own story because he
43:53
Speaker 2: again like so much of this is just faded he
43:55
Speaker 2: just bumbles from one thing to another and he can't
43:58
Speaker 2: stop anything from happening like you said he eats with
44:01
Speaker 2: the people that end up robbing him Or he doesn't
44:04
Speaker 2: eat with the people that end up robbing him. And
44:06
Speaker 2: if he had eaten with them, they probably would have
44:07
Speaker 2: robbed him right then and there anyway. Like, it's just
44:10
Speaker 2: that nothing of what he does has any consequence. And
44:12
Speaker 2: he literally bumbles from one thing to the next. And that,
44:15
Speaker 2: I think, helps reinforce this idea of just because Stanley
44:20
Speaker 2: Kubrick robs Barry Lyndon of being the narrator of his
44:23
Speaker 2: own story, it turns this into less of a rogue
44:27
Speaker 2: trying to lie to you all the time. but the
44:30
Speaker 2: director kind of making a condemnation of this kind of
44:33
Speaker 2: character and this kind of behavior and acting this way. And,
44:36
Speaker 2: you know, ultimately taking the side of Barry Lyndon in
44:39
Speaker 2: the end that I think Barry Lyndon is not in
44:41
Speaker 2: the right as it were, but, you know, he makes
44:44
Speaker 2: a promise by the end and he sticks to it,
44:46
Speaker 2: which the other character, you know, his stepson cannot say
44:50
Speaker 2: the same for himself. But I think for most of
44:53
Speaker 2: the film, Stanley Kubrick is condemning Barry Lyndon Because again,
44:56
Speaker 2: like he's just he's so flippant with everything around him.
45:00
Speaker 2: And I think that again, like we don't have that
45:02
Speaker 2: narration allowing us to understand the unreliableness of Barry Lyndon.
45:06
Speaker 2: We don't get his interior monologue, but we do get
45:10
Speaker 2: a kind of third party, third person narrator condemning him.
45:15
Speaker 2: and doing kind of other things and kind of robbing
45:18
Speaker 2: him of any agency, not that he had any to
45:20
Speaker 2: begin with. And I like that about the story. It
45:22
Speaker 2: really does make the film seem a lot more literary
45:26
Speaker 2: and novel-esque than if it had just been Barry Lyndon
45:29
Speaker 2: narrating his own story.
45:31
Speaker 1: Yes, Ryan O'Neill does, I'm sure, because Kubrick wouldn't have
45:36
Speaker 1: allowed it otherwise, what Kubrick intended. And you could argue
45:41
Speaker 1: that maybe in terms of narrative, that makes sense, because
45:44
Speaker 1: this is somebody who physically is very capable. I mean,
45:49
Speaker 1: when he's in a fistfight, he wins the fistfight. When
45:52
Speaker 1: he's in the duel, he could win. He does win
45:56
Speaker 1: one duel. It's just his family history. just made sure
45:59
Speaker 1: that he didn't actually kill the guy. And then he's
46:02
Speaker 1: in another duel. He actually chooses not to win the duel.
46:05
Speaker 1: So like he's physically capable. He, he, he, he does
46:09
Speaker 1: fight as a successful soldier. You know, the, the, The
46:13
Speaker 1: warfare of the time was sort of famous for rigidity,
46:16
Speaker 1: you know, with soldiers being treated as automatons and you
46:20
Speaker 1: just lined them up and they fire and you wanted
46:24
Speaker 1: to get a high rate of fire with these muskets.
46:27
Speaker 1: And then in that one battle scene... He does take
46:32
Speaker 1: action and he saves his commander. And then he gives
46:36
Speaker 1: this little speech there when he's getting, I like the
46:38
Speaker 1: fact that he didn't get a medal. He got, got
46:40
Speaker 1: a gold piece, you know, that he's, you're thinking, well,
46:42
Speaker 1: he's going to spend that all on wine and song.
46:46
Speaker 1: uh and other things but he gives this little speech
46:49
Speaker 1: which is a good speech about like well you know
46:51
Speaker 1: i know you're accusing me of being a wastrel who
46:54
Speaker 1: maybe just did one heroic act but i've really never
46:57
Speaker 1: had a chance and of course he's lying he had
47:00
Speaker 1: lots of chances he was he was a favored son
47:03
Speaker 1: of a middle-class family there he could have just kept
47:07
Speaker 1: living in ireland uh and lived a reasonable life as
47:12
Speaker 1: a minor gentry. It wasn't like he didn't come from
47:15
Speaker 1: extreme poverty, but there's just an emptiness in his core.
47:21
Speaker 1: And I think one of the challenges for the movie
47:23
Speaker 1: when it first came out was people kept saying about
47:26
Speaker 1: how beautiful but empty it was. And I think that
47:29
Speaker 1: that's an interesting question to ask now. If you're making
47:33
Speaker 1: a movie, right? I would say most, most filmmakers, whether
47:37
Speaker 1: they're making like a proof of concept movie for YouTube
47:41
Speaker 1: or a studio has given them a hundred million dollars
47:45
Speaker 1: would not take it as a compliment. If somebody said
47:48
Speaker 1: your movie was beautiful, but empty. And I, I, I
47:51
Speaker 1: didn't identify or care about the fate of the main character.
47:55
Speaker 1: That's sort of, considered to be a terrible failing today.
47:59
Speaker 1: I did get the feeling that maybe Kubrick was just
48:03
Speaker 1: fine with it, but he was the only person who
48:05
Speaker 1: could get away with it. And you could also say
48:07
Speaker 1: he didn't actually get away with it because the film
48:10
Speaker 1: did not do very well. It had some revenue, but
48:14
Speaker 1: it Not it wasn't a big hit. Let's put it
48:18
Speaker 1: that way. But like he did accomplish the empty vessel
48:22
Speaker 1: as the hero.
48:22
Speaker 2: Well, and that's I think for me, what the film
48:25
Speaker 2: deserves to be lauded as is as a success on
48:29
Speaker 2: its own terms for the terms that it's set, which
48:32
Speaker 2: is to be a film about a vapid vein of.
48:36
Speaker 2: empty not soulless because I think he does have a
48:39
Speaker 2: soul but he has no agency of his own other
48:42
Speaker 2: than like maybe that moment where he saves his commander
48:45
Speaker 2: that's about it like he's not completely beyond reproach I
48:48
Speaker 2: guess is what that scene is attempting to give us
48:51
Speaker 2: as the audience but he is a character that creates
48:56
Speaker 2: a lot of his own undoing. I mean, his undoing
49:00
Speaker 2: is his own. He buys the horse that his son
49:03
Speaker 2: ends up riding and dies. And he does that. He
49:07
Speaker 2: couldn't wait to buy it. He couldn't control himself around
49:10
Speaker 2: his stepson. So that ends up being the undoing. There's
49:13
Speaker 2: a lot of things in this film that are Barry
49:17
Speaker 2: Lyndon's own undoing. He can't control himself at the beginning
49:21
Speaker 2: of the film with the captain around his cousin like
49:23
Speaker 2: there's just a lot and it's like, you know what?
49:27
Speaker 2: I think of The Sopranos where it's like, man, like
49:29
Speaker 2: you had every opportunity to go left and you went right.
49:32
Speaker 2: And it's like, I don't know how much of that
49:34
Speaker 2: is Barry Lyndon's own fault or how much of that's
49:36
Speaker 2: just like, that's the path the character is always going
49:38
Speaker 2: to go down no matter what he did, because that's
49:40
Speaker 2: just the way he is. And it's like, like I said,
49:42
Speaker 2: it's like in a lot of ways, it's like he
49:44
Speaker 2: doesn't have any agency of his own and he's always
49:46
Speaker 2: going to be making these bad choices until the end
49:50
Speaker 2: where he breaks free, you know, to quote Westworld, he
49:52
Speaker 2: breaks free of his loop at the end, and he actually,
49:55
Speaker 2: you know, makes the somewhat right decision to not shoot
49:58
Speaker 2: his own stepson. But you do wonder, like, why did
50:01
Speaker 2: Barry Lyndon make that choice to not do that? Why,
50:04
Speaker 2: oh why, now did he rise above when he hasn't
50:07
Speaker 2: really risen above any other time?
50:08
Speaker 1: Again, like, he was.
50:09
Speaker 2: you know, him blowing, uh, him blowing the cigarette smoke
50:11
Speaker 2: in his wife's face is that scene for me where
50:14
Speaker 2: I'm just like, man, this guy is just kind of,
50:16
Speaker 2: kind of a turd. And, and it's hard again, like
50:19
Speaker 2: it's not hard to want to see him have his
50:21
Speaker 2: downfall or get his comeuppance or have an arc. Because again,
50:23
Speaker 2: I am a lover of the Sopranos and other shows
50:27
Speaker 2: where the lead characters are broadly worse than Barry Lyndon is.
50:31
Speaker 2: But again, If you're not on board with that being
50:33
Speaker 2: the case, I could see why you would not resonate
50:36
Speaker 2: with this film. Because again, you've talked about the thing
50:39
Speaker 2: to reference Blade Runner. Those films also had that same
50:43
Speaker 2: criticism of like, well, I don't like it for X, Y,
50:45
Speaker 2: and Z reason. Well, it's like, well, X, Y, and
50:47
Speaker 2: Z reason are why these films were being made. So
50:50
Speaker 2: what are you supposed to do if you're not willing
50:53
Speaker 2: to meet the film where it wants to be met?
50:55
Speaker 2: I don't know. And that's such a hard thing with
50:58
Speaker 2: the older critics because the older critics... went back and
51:02
Speaker 2: reappraised things. I mean, even Ebert gave it three and
51:04
Speaker 2: a half stars originally in 75. And then, you know,
51:08
Speaker 2: in 2009, he gave it four stars. I mean, again,
51:10
Speaker 2: I don't I don't know how much that matters, if
51:12
Speaker 2: it matters at all. But as we're sitting here trying
51:14
Speaker 2: to find a reason to give this film compulsory reason
51:17
Speaker 2: for you to watch it, I don't think we need
51:19
Speaker 2: to give more than two or three. But I feel
51:22
Speaker 2: like this film has five. It's a technically impressive film.
51:25
Speaker 2: Like you've already mentioned, from an art history standpoint, it
51:29
Speaker 2: melds and mashes so many different artists into like, again,
51:33
Speaker 2: like not any one artist, but all of the artists
51:37
Speaker 2: all at once. I don't know how else to describe it,
51:39
Speaker 2: but it's, it's not any one specific artist, but it's
51:42
Speaker 2: also a bunch of different artists at the same time
51:45
Speaker 2: being kind of utilized and referenced. And again, And again,
51:48
Speaker 2: to go back to the music or the acting or
51:50
Speaker 2: all the things that make this film so interesting and
51:53
Speaker 2: appealing to me are the reasons other people didn't like it.
51:55
Speaker 2: But that's the intention of the film. If you watch
51:58
Speaker 2: this and said, I don't like that there's not any narration,
52:01
Speaker 2: the reaction is, well, the lack of narration is intentional.
52:04
Speaker 2: If you can't if you if you can have that
52:07
Speaker 2: conversation about that in 1975. Why couldn't you have a
52:10
Speaker 2: conversation about, well, he made the film like this intentionally
52:15
Speaker 2: because look at the main character. He's trying to reflect
52:17
Speaker 2: the state and mindset and existence of the main character.
52:21
Speaker 2: I don't understand why that wasn't readily apparent as well.
52:24
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think this is a great example of if
52:27
Speaker 1: I were, again, to try to prove to aliens that
52:30
Speaker 1: we deserve to exist, but also if as part of
52:34
Speaker 1: required viewing, we say, you know, you really should view this.
52:37
Speaker 1: You really should view this, aliens. You really should view this, humans.
52:41
Speaker 1: I don't think you should go through life on this
52:44
Speaker 1: earth without watching this movie. I'm not exaggerating because, going
52:49
Speaker 1: back to something I said earlier, it is a genre
52:51
Speaker 1: of one. It's unrecreatable. It's unrecreatable in terms of budget.
52:57
Speaker 1: It's unrecreatable in terms of who would get away. I
53:00
Speaker 1: guess Christopher Nolan, there's a few directors out there, if
53:04
Speaker 1: they went to a studio and pitched anything... The studio
53:08
Speaker 1: would say yes, but that's a very, very small number
53:12
Speaker 1: of directors who get to do almost anything that they want.
53:16
Speaker 1: So the time was right. He did it. It's there
53:19
Speaker 1: in the museum. You should go watch it. Like everybody
53:23
Speaker 1: should go see the Mona Lisa in person. I'm not
53:26
Speaker 1: saying it's exactly that level of of great art, but
53:30
Speaker 1: it is something that is almost unique in film experience.
53:35
Speaker 1: I mean, I do think some of the great works
53:38
Speaker 1: of Akira Kurosawa have that level of brilliance and beauty
53:43
Speaker 1: in individual scenes. His narrative films like Ran and some
53:47
Speaker 1: of the others, plus a driving story, plus deeply interesting characters.
53:53
Speaker 1: But Kubrick made this choice and I don't think it's, it,
53:57
Speaker 1: should have any controversy associated with its place in the museum.
54:02
Speaker 1: And then my other point was sort of really prompted
54:05
Speaker 1: by what something you were saying, because we have this character,
54:09
Speaker 1: Barry Lyndon, who does the right thing every once in
54:12
Speaker 1: a while.
54:14
Speaker 2: Once in a while being the key phrase.
54:16
Speaker 1: Yeah. And so you wonder, like, is there a decent
54:21
Speaker 1: human being there that if he had had different circumstances,
54:25
Speaker 1: you would see more decency than less? Or is this
54:30
Speaker 1: a cad? You know, is this a rogue, not in
54:33
Speaker 1: a good sense, who just occasionally feels a paying price?
54:38
Speaker 1: of conscience or, and I think the third choice, I mean,
54:41
Speaker 1: to me, if I were trying to do some sort
54:43
Speaker 1: of deep thematic analysis, I'd say that the whole film
54:47
Speaker 1: is shot to show the rigidity of class and money and, and,
54:53
Speaker 1: and who you are in that. And, and him trying
54:56
Speaker 1: to break through that is ultimately punished horribly in different ways.
55:01
Speaker 1: You know, we, we, in the end of the movie, I,
55:04
Speaker 1: I don't feel like giving everything away, but he suffers.
55:09
Speaker 1: And he has his moments where he has broken through
55:13
Speaker 1: some of the weight of class barriers and wealth barriers
55:18
Speaker 1: and tradition barriers. But Again, trying to be thematic here,
55:23
Speaker 1: it does raise the question of if you're saying that
55:27
Speaker 1: societal values are wrong and they're oppressive, it is incumbent
55:32
Speaker 1: upon you to say, what are you going to replace
55:35
Speaker 1: them with? Because Barry Lyndon is no revolutionary. He's not
55:38
Speaker 1: trying to reform society. He's just trying to climb to
55:42
Speaker 1: the top of it. And so I thought that was
55:45
Speaker 1: also interesting, is that he chose not to make a
55:48
Speaker 1: film about about Spartacus. He's the anti-Spartacus. Spartacus is, in
55:55
Speaker 1: the movie, we don't necessarily know what Spartacus' actual aims were,
55:59
Speaker 1: the real Spartacus, but in the movie Spartacus, Kirk Douglas
56:03
Speaker 1: quite enjoys himself making some speeches about, you know, we
56:06
Speaker 1: want freedom and we don't want an empire anymore. We
56:09
Speaker 1: want everybody to live free and things like that. Those
56:12
Speaker 1: kind of speeches that we are more familiar with from
56:15
Speaker 1: Mel Gibson movies about freedom and, you know... down with
56:18
Speaker 1: the evil king and thinks, Barry Lyndon is not any
56:21
Speaker 1: kind of revolutionary like those people. He just wants part
56:24
Speaker 1: of the action, right? And I think the comparison to
56:26
Speaker 1: Sopranos is very interesting. You know, Tony Soprano doesn't want
56:30
Speaker 1: to overturn the social order. He wants a big house
56:33
Speaker 1: and wants to live the good life.
56:36
Speaker 2: And what's funny is in that show, there is always
56:39
Speaker 2: the question of why is it acceptable for well-regarded businessmen
56:43
Speaker 2: to rip people off and make money exploiting other people
56:46
Speaker 2: and they're lauded for it. And yet someone like Tony
56:49
Speaker 2: Soprano is looked down on by taking advantage of people
56:53
Speaker 2: just because of the framework of the business that he
56:55
Speaker 2: does it inside of. And it's like, well, the American dream,
56:59
Speaker 2: as perverse as it sounds, the American dream should have
57:02
Speaker 2: a seat at the table for both of those people.
57:04
Speaker 2: And yet we we constantly reject one over the other
57:07
Speaker 2: because we have been told that one is more, you know,
57:10
Speaker 2: societally acceptable over the other. And when you look at
57:14
Speaker 2: a film like Barry Lyndon, it says, well, look, it
57:16
Speaker 2: doesn't even matter if you're able to have upward mobility
57:19
Speaker 2: because the upward mobility will just look down on you
57:21
Speaker 2: either way. I mean, his stepson looks down on him
57:25
Speaker 2: and would have regardless. And that's just because of who
57:28
Speaker 2: he is. He's because he's Irish, because he comes from,
57:30
Speaker 2: you know, not as upper class stock as he does,
57:34
Speaker 2: even though he was not technically upper class stock because his...
57:38
Speaker 2: His mother seemingly married his father for his immense wealth.
57:41
Speaker 2: And it's just like the rigidity of the class structure
57:45
Speaker 2: is the joke of this movie. It is the punchline
57:48
Speaker 2: to the joke that the movie is telling. It's like, well,
57:50
Speaker 2: even if you are able to move upwards, it doesn't
57:53
Speaker 2: matter because the system will still push down on you
57:56
Speaker 2: and the system will never accept you no matter how
57:58
Speaker 2: much money you have because it only accepts its own.
58:00
Speaker 2: It has that smell on it. They can smell their
58:04
Speaker 2: own for whatever. And I mean, that ties directly into
58:07
Speaker 2: the epilogue of the film, which is like in the
58:09
Speaker 2: only equalizer in all of this is death. It's just
58:12
Speaker 2: like time is the equalizer of all. But I think
58:14
Speaker 2: that that's so important in a film like Barry Lyndon,
58:17
Speaker 2: because I think if we are to, you know, again,
58:19
Speaker 2: look into the film and make statements about what the
58:22
Speaker 2: film is trying to do and what the film is
58:23
Speaker 2: trying to achieve, I think that the film is making
58:27
Speaker 2: what it's trying to achieve obvious with that ending quote
58:30
Speaker 2: about like, You know, regardless of what they were doing
58:33
Speaker 2: at the time, once they're all dead and gone, they're
58:36
Speaker 2: all equal. So none of this ultimately matters. None of
58:39
Speaker 2: what they were dealing with on Earth mattered because at
58:42
Speaker 2: the end, we're all equal. So maybe that should be
58:45
Speaker 2: the driving force behind people treating one another well as
58:47
Speaker 2: opposed to trying to. pad your bottom line and i
58:51
Speaker 2: i think the film gets that across in multiple multiple
58:54
Speaker 2: different faceted ways if you want to go down that
58:57
Speaker 2: avenue of analysis which i think that's what the film's
59:00
Speaker 2: offering up to you but i don't think that's the
59:02
Speaker 2: only line of analysis to go down yeah if i.
59:04
Speaker 1: Were to wrap up this film for me anyway i
59:09
Speaker 1: i again i thinking about my 1981-82 self, being so
59:14
Speaker 1: impressed by the beauty of this. I wanted to be
59:18
Speaker 1: a photographer. Actually, my first book was a photographic study
59:23
Speaker 1: of a police department, and I used a Nikon 8008
59:28
Speaker 1: film camera, and I actually developed the film in the
59:31
Speaker 1: photo lab at the University of Minnesota myself. And the
59:36
Speaker 1: pictures appeared in the book, like my pictures that I've developed.
59:39
Speaker 1: And I just remember actually having these moments there. It
59:43
Speaker 1: was black and white film because I was doing a
59:45
Speaker 1: documentary and I felt it made sense to have black
59:48
Speaker 1: and white pictures. But I remember a moment there where
59:53
Speaker 1: I was going like, man, I am not shooting Barry Lyndon.
59:56
Speaker 1: In fact, it became sort of a catchphrase like this
59:59
Speaker 1: is not Barry Lyndon. Movies of this level of beauty, there's...
1:00:04
Speaker 1: There are other directors, again, Kakeru Kurosawa from China at that,
1:00:09
Speaker 1: I think just about to start making films at that time.
1:00:12
Speaker 1: Zhang Yimou made just an astonishing series of films, which
1:00:19
Speaker 1: Siskel and Ebert really loved and talked about, in fact,
1:00:22
Speaker 1: comparing the two, The Satchman. the saturation color of the
1:00:26
Speaker 1: film that he used, where just the reds were overwhelming,
1:00:29
Speaker 1: the yellows were overwhelming. And I almost think that this
1:00:33
Speaker 1: film could also be called a time capsule to an
1:00:38
Speaker 1: era when Hollywood felt that the color, the scale, the
1:00:43
Speaker 1: dazzliness of imagery was part of visual language. And you
1:00:49
Speaker 1: could lament that maybe that just doesn't seem to be
1:00:53
Speaker 1: the the case today so definitely we require you viewing
1:00:58
Speaker 1: this but for different reasons that maybe some other films
1:01:02
Speaker 1: which of course that is the reason we look at
1:01:04
Speaker 1: many films and.
1:01:06
Speaker 2: I think to your point and kind of the point
1:01:08
Speaker 2: of a film like this look if if you want
1:01:11
Speaker 2: to go watch the kubrick films that you've heard so
1:01:13
Speaker 2: much about that are the ones that everyone can't stop
1:01:15
Speaker 2: talking about Go watch The Shining. Go watch A Clockwork Orange.
1:01:19
Speaker 2: Go watch Eyes Wide Shut. Those, you know, go watch
1:01:21
Speaker 2: 2001 A Space Odyssey or Full Metal Jacket. Those films
1:01:24
Speaker 2: are all as amazing as you've heard they are. Like,
1:01:26
Speaker 2: they are. Like, they are as good, or even Dr. Strangelove,
1:01:29
Speaker 2: or anything even pre-Dr. Strangelove. Like, you know, any of
1:01:32
Speaker 2: his films. I think this is a weird, odd man
1:01:35
Speaker 2: out that doesn't deserve the kind of, it deserves the
1:01:38
Speaker 2: expectation that it's, or the kind of reputation it's been given,
1:01:41
Speaker 2: but it also, I think, doesn't need to be compared
1:01:44
Speaker 2: anymore as like it is a high watermark in terms
1:01:47
Speaker 2: of making film and no films are made like this
1:01:49
Speaker 2: anymore and like you said like that that is something
1:01:52
Speaker 2: in and of itself that that needs to be kind
1:01:54
Speaker 2: of talked about and we've we've done a we've done
1:01:56
Speaker 2: a lot of talking about that about kind of the
1:01:58
Speaker 2: singularity of this film. But I also think, like you said,
1:02:02
Speaker 2: if you just watch it from other angles that were
1:02:05
Speaker 2: the ones that were being intended to be looked at from,
1:02:08
Speaker 2: I think the film succeeds in all those aspects as
1:02:11
Speaker 2: well as a as a class study, as a art
1:02:14
Speaker 2: history study, as a study of how to portray imagery
1:02:17
Speaker 2: of the time through the filmic language. Like all of
1:02:19
Speaker 2: these are things that Kubrick was doing that he succeeded
1:02:22
Speaker 2: at doing. And I think some people just looked at
1:02:25
Speaker 2: it and said, well, it's a beautiful film, but it's boring.
1:02:27
Speaker 2: And it's like, but what if the boring is intentional?
1:02:29
Speaker 2: Have you asked that? And it's like, again, it's counterintuitive.
1:02:33
Speaker 2: And we've both, I think, already talked about that as well.
1:02:36
Speaker 2: It's massively counterintuitive to think that way. But at the
1:02:40
Speaker 2: same time, it's Stanley Kubrick. So I don't know why
1:02:45
Speaker 2: that's so kind of outside of the realm of possibility.
1:02:48
Speaker 2: So yeah, another one in the books, Barry Lyndon, a
1:02:51
Speaker 2: film that I enjoyed immensely this time around. Even if
1:02:54
Speaker 2: I hadn't enjoyed it, I would say definitely give it
1:02:58
Speaker 2: a watch in terms of the things that are not Kubrick,
1:03:02
Speaker 2: like always being mentioned, but At the same time, I
1:03:05
Speaker 2: enjoyed it, so I can double-heartedly kind of suggest it.
1:03:08
Speaker 2: But this was a good one. If you want to
1:03:11
Speaker 2: hear me and The Professor talking about film in another
1:03:16
Speaker 2: setting that's technically an audio setting, but just my show,
1:03:19
Speaker 2: not the required viewing feed, you can find those episodes
1:03:22
Speaker 2: of The Culture Cast here or at weirdingwaymedia.com, where this
1:03:25
Speaker 2: show and so many other great shows can be found,
1:03:27
Speaker 2: including 80s TV Ladies, The Projection Booth Podcast... Never Tell
1:03:31
Speaker 2: Me the Odds and so many more. If you want
1:03:34
Speaker 2: to help the show out financially, patreon.com slash culturecast is
1:03:37
Speaker 2: where you can go to do that. $ 5 gets you
1:03:39
Speaker 2: access to bonus episodes like Ranking on Bond, which is
1:03:42
Speaker 2: over and is now becoming Never Tell Me the Odds,
1:03:45
Speaker 2: which is a show about Harrison Ford. So if you
1:03:48
Speaker 2: want to go hear those, go on over there. You
1:03:51
Speaker 2: know where to find it. And as always, come on
1:03:52
Speaker 2: back for the next episode of Required Viewing and the
1:03:55
Speaker 2: Culture Cast.