I don’t like Stanley Kubrick very much but when I did, Barry Lyndon was my favorite. It isn’t paced much differently from his other works so if you like 2001, Eyes Wide Shut and what not your reluctance seems strange. Are you sure it isn’t the combination of slow pacing and period drama that makes you wary?
Barry Lyndon isn’t slow paced at all. As Mike said, it’s in the same vain as Eyes Wide Shut. Now, 2001, that’s a slow paced film, and frankly, kind of boring. Barry Lyndon is my favorite Kubrick, and kept me yearning for more when I saw it.
Possibly. The subject matter, setting, and style of a film also has a hand in my pre concieved notion of whether or not I will enjoy it.
But just that phrase “slow paced” just honestly turns me off to a film. (So does 184 minute run time) Not that I dislike slow films AFTER I’ve watched them, but I find them hard to actually START watching. It’s like a huge book, that you want to read but when you look at all the pages you just think “Oh god, here we go, I’ll be here awhile.”
Some of my favorites are 2 1/2 to 3 hour movies so please don’t get me wrong.
I know that exact feeling, and I think your actually finding the running time more daunting. It takes great mental preparation for me to watch a film that’s even two hours, but once I get into them, time flies. Like I said, Barry Lyndon is a great film, and is well worth your time.
Watch Fassbinder’s 15 hour Berlin Alexanderplatz and then watch Barry Lyndon right after and it’ll breeze by:)
Is Alexanderplatz ALL in one 15 hour film? or is it in parts? Cause god 15 hours! That’s unreal! I’ll probably procrastinate on watching that movie till I"m on my death bed! (Though I do like Fassbinder)
It’s in parts, 8 I think but it’s been a while.
No, it’s 13 parts and an epilogue. I was thinking of Rivette’s Out 1 before.
Ahh then that’s more understandable. ha.
Edit: I was going to correct mike but I was to late.
Yeah, really. Watch Satantango or the aforementioned Berlin Alexanderplatz and you’ll have a better concept of “slow-paced” – but a lot of people pronounce this term with a bad connotation. It’s not a term I tend to use because of this connotation, but since that’s the title of this thread, I’ll break my rule.
Barry Lyndon is a great film. I didn’t appreciate it as much the first time as the second time (and actually, it took a third viewing for me to really appreciate it as much as it deserved), but it’s definitely one of Kubrick’s best (it ranks up there as maybe his third or fourth best film IMO; it would’ve been higher but I can’t ignore Dr. Strangelove and The Shining). Even if the story doesn’t grab ya (it’s not an action film, so keep that in mind, no espionage nor intrigue either – but it is intriguing), there’s the wonderful technical aspect of the film to consider. Just sit back and bask in the beautiful natural lighting and flawless composition.
Here’s a discussion thread (there’s more out there, but this one is fairly recent) that might help you better appreciate the film (read after you’ve seen the film, there’s spoilers): here
Oh and hey, a nice little double bill: Barry Lyndon and The Duellists. ;)
Thank you very much. And Ok I’ll try the double bill but after a 3 hour movie I’m usually ready to go to bed. haha.
And I do love Strangelove aswell. By far my favorite Kubrick, a little off topic.
Perhaps another thing for me is the trailer (YouTube)…It just doesn’t look good. It doesn’t make the film look good. And though I know that’s no way to judge a film …
I didn’t think I would enjoy Barry Lyndon for the exact same reasons, and I LOVED it. Don’t think too much about it beforehand, just sit down and watch it, and I’m sure you’ll realize what a special film it is.
Thanks for the good advice. Some of my all time favs were films I either no close to nothing about or was expecting to not enjoy them. Low expectations is the key to enjoying most films, I’d say.
Anyway I will do as instructed, as far as Barry Lyndon goes, and tell how it went.
I used to think of pace in terms of the difference between Weerasethakul and Mellville, but then I found Wang Bing.
Over seven hours (and this is not his longest film by half) I was subjected to as true a reality of the film’s subjects as is possible without my actually living among them.
Some films are meant to entertain, and fit neatly into 75, 90, 120 minute frames. Others seek to engage you on other levels—in the case of Wang it’s to make the spectator so much a part of the daily lives of his subjects that your experience is as close to theirs as cinema allows.
Yes, Barry Lyndon is worth watching—it’s gorgeous (though not Kubrick’s best). More important is the consideration that running time has less to do with your entertainment than your immersion in an aspect of the human condition.
Barry Lyndon is must watch.
I don’t even remember it being that long. I found the story to be evenly paced and it’s photographed beautifully. There’s something different about this film from his other films but it’s still very Kubrick.
Good god. I just finished watching Barry Lyndon. I didn’t find it slow paced or slow moving, and it’s run time wasn’t nearly as daunting to me as some other 3 (or 2 for that matter) hour films.
All together I thought it was beautiful, compelling, at times exciting, and at times haunting.
After some days of thought this may take it’s place as my favorite Kubrick.
The scene where Barry (spoilers) beats his step son senceless gave me chills from head to toe. That and the duel between the two of them are two of the greatest scenes in cinema history without a doubt.
I’m immensely greatful to all of you for pressing me to see it.
I resisted BARRY LYNDON for a long time, thinking it would be snail’s paced, but found it not to be. In fact, I think there’s a lot going on…it’s funny from the get go and there are plenty of action scenes along the way.
Exactly. I found it to be one of those films I didn’t want to end. It was eventful, anything but slow paced. Also, narration usually does the trick for making a film glide by with ease.
I didn’t think I would enjoy Barry Lyndon for the exact same reasons, and I LOVED it.
it’s pretty boring, yeah. not exactly raiders of the lost arc.
I resisted BARRY LYNDON for a long time, thinking it would be snail’s paced, but found it not to be. In fact, I think there’s a lot going on…it’s funny from the get go and there are plenty of action scenes along the way.
So you like the film for undermining its supposed “slowness” with humor and violence?
I just don’t understand why some people are viewing slow pace as a vice…
I resisted BARRY LYNDON for a long time, thinking it would be snail’s paced, but found it not to be. In fact, I think there’s a lot going on…it’s funny from the get go and there are plenty of action scenes along the way.
So you like the film for undermining its supposed “slowness” with humor and violence?
I just don’t understand why some people are viewing slow pace as a vice…
Hidden Behind the Screen
I really like Stanley Kubrick, but the only film of his I haven’t ever been able to bring myself to watch yet is Barry Lyndon. Perhaps the reason for this is I’ve heard it described several different times as “slow paced” and “calm” and things of that sort, and from the footage of it I’ve seen thus far, here and there (not much) I can honestly just see myself falling asleep during it. (I can only watch movies late at night). So my question is, 1) is Barry Lyndon worth sticking it out and watching, and 2) Do you also find slow paced films to be hard to wanna watch.
And please consider, I don’t particularly dislike them, and there are quite a few I really enjoy but my problem is it takes alot for me to wanna bring myself to watch it.