I love this entire movie from start to finish for so many reasons. The music, the scenery , the cinematography, the history etc etc etc. Never gets old to me. Masterpiece.
You really think his performance was “wooden?” I thought he did very well, the performance seemed understated to me, not bland or uninspired. I really liked it because I didn’t recognize him and that helped widen the focus to the whole story
In a sense this statement is true as duelling ritualizes and therefore channels aggressions which otherwise have been erupted in much worse scenarios with a lot more doctors required.
@@juanzulu1318 never thought of that. Did you know that many duels were purposeful near misses or bullets at the ground to signify a warning to each other?
Captain Quinn married Nora Brady & had many children One daughter married into the Rigsby family & another married into the Perrin family. Another descendant from their union was a wealthy jet-setter with a love of Cinzano & a wife called Melissa who looked like Joan Collins
Not saying it would never be done like this, but there do appear to be a few, if not errors, then at least oddities in how this duel is carried out. There were generally a fairly strict set of rules for most duels, and there's a lot of that missing in this scene. The rules were known by several names and there were a few versions of them, but the Code Duello of 1777 which was devisd in Ireland, was generally followed throughout most of Europe, and it had a lot of rules (25 of them in fact) which covered things such as procedures for the duel itself, but also for things like seeking and giving apologies to avert the duel, what duties the seconds had and so on. As others have pointed out, the guy priming the pistol is showing some shocking trigger discipline in having it pointed at the other guy whilst in the process of arming it, and in real life I'm sure the other guy would certainly have had something to say about that, or at least moved out of the way although it is correct that he would be watching to ensure both weapons were properly loaded and primed. It's often thought that duels were a 'one shot and we're done' type of affair, but this is not the case; there could be as many as three shots each if both people missed and it was decided that things still needed to be sttled, plus in order to ensure fairness, the seconds would be armed too, so there'd certainly have been more than four guns on that table. As most people know, the other people in attendance would include the seconds, surgeons and possibly others to serve as witnesses. What most people are unaware of with seconds however, is that they would generally be armed and ready too, so that if any breaches of the rules or unsporting actions were taken by the duellists, it was in fact their duty to shoot the errant fellow, so they too would be holding weapons during the proceedings. If the seconds disagreed about stuff, they too could end up facing off against one another as well! One of the reasons for duels often being 'pistols at dawn' in pretty remote places, was because a lot of the time it was totally illegal to indulge in such activities, they being more of a gentelman's code than a lawful proceeding, so something like this probably would have been going on a lot earlier in the day than appears to be the case here, although if the place was remote enough then it could of course be any time of day, so this is more of an oddity than an actual mistake. But, what is definitely a mistake is the procedure for how the duel is carried out. There is a nod to the apology being attempted as concilliation, but in fact the procedure for this was very involved with all kinds of rules concerning what would and would not be acceptable. If no conciliation was successful, generally speaking, the duellists would face one another at a range which offered a reasonable chance of a miss as well as a hit, although this too had rules, with the challenged person choosing the range for the engagement as well as the locale, with the seconds actually arranging the time. This offered quite a good get out clause for a challenged person, since he could choose three hundred yards if he wanted too, meaning there was next to no danger whatsoever, although such an excessive range would doubtless have been frowned upon. Having met up, the duellists would typically pace off the distance, face one another, point the pistols down at the ground, and when the signal to fire was given, they would quickly raise their pistol and shoot without delay. Some duels were not as formal as that, allowing duellists to fire at liesure, but it was certainly more common to have the duellists be given a 'go' signal. There were some good reasons for all this stuff: For one thing, the duel was often something which both guys would be a bit less keen to do when it actually came to it, so the idea was that you'd already proved yourself reasonably honourable in actually turning up to take part in it and this was often enough. This is also why the rules included one where you typically couldn't issue a challenge in the evening when people were drinking and hot-headedness might have crept into the argument. As most people are aware, lots of duelling pistols had no rifling on the barrel, meaning there was no spin imparted on the ball to improve accuracy, but it wasn't actually deemed unfair to have rifling on a barrel so long at both pistols had it and the chance was the same for both duellists, however, whether rifled or not, the idea was that you would point the gun down, then raise it and take a quick shot when given the command, rather than aiming carefully. This was so that there was a good element of chance to the engagement, in the belief that God would decide how it went for the most part. For this reason, most duelling pistols did in fact not have any sort of sights on them at all, rather the grip was designed in such a way as to make them fairly easy to point, but the general inaccuracy of pistols beyond relatively close range, plus the fact that you only need to be slightly off target to completely miss anyway, meant that simply having the balls to take part in a duel with a chance you might be hit, was enough to prove onesself honourable. Thus actually deliberately aiming was deemed to be somewhat unsporting in a duel. With swords it was of course a different matter entirely, although there were a ton of rules about that stuff too.
@@thisdrinkinglife I agree with the detail of your comments but what bothers me is that Kubrick was the most detailed director who ever lived. He researched everything down to the most minute detail..and it really surprises me that he would make such a glaring set of errors! Im not doubting you but something doesnt add up. Kubrick does not make mistakes.
A wall of text, as interesting and informative as it is👍, won't change the fact that young inexperienced Barry was fooled into thinking he was actually partaking in a duel, but his pistol was loaded with a blank, which almost everyone else at the scene knew, (except Quinn?!!!) (I guess there's your oddities), so actual duelling rules were of less importance. PS! If you haven't watched the movie, please indulge yourself,- you won't regret. It's a masterpiece. 😁
This duel is in the 1750's in Ireland, decades before the supposed qualification of the Code Duello. Also I expect the actual conduct of Irish duels, that Thackery describes, was more rough and ready than the elaborate English rules. Even among the Anglo-Irish.
Quinn was clearly more terrified of the duel here as he had more to lose. His life at this stage in comparison to Barry's was worth far more - his commission and his approval by Barry's cousin. Well acted scene.
Not really, since Barry's gun wasn't loaded and Quinn knew. He knew he wasn't going to die, but being aimed and shot at still made him shit his kubricks.
A rural family losing out on the economic support of their daughter marrying an army officer, all from a childish bout of jealousy, would be quite a frustrating thing back then.
@@The_OneManCrowd That's just your every day, garden variety family feud, larceny, or random revenge taking - Scots/English border tradition going back almost a thousand years.
Slight error in the scene Ryan O'Neal is left-handed as you can see in the close-ups The scenes from a distance, he's aiming with his right hand. I assume it was the actor's stand-in for those scenes
I don't recall a lot about the film, but the seconds seem to be related to Redmond. The mention of their loss of commission from serving a noble family should've been enough incentive for the servant family to gag and subdue Redmond before he could commit his foolish and prideful attempt at revenge. It seemed to be in no one's interest to carry on with the fuel.
Duels were generally fought not simply to kill their opponents but mainly to protect their participants' honour and prove they were willing to risk their life for it. If both duelists survived a round, they could agree to end the duel if they both believed that their honour had been 'satisfied', and the dispute was considered settled (this actually happened when British prime minister William Pitt duelled a rival politician, George Tierney, in 1798). Duels would typically go to no more than three rounds - if neither party had scored a hit, they were expected to accept the result with both men's reputations intact. Sometimes, a duellist would deliberately waste his shot (deloping) to abort the duel. If one duellist believed he was satisfied and the other didn't, the unwilling opponent would either carry on, or he could withdraw and lose the dispute and suffer a severe blow to his reputation. If both duellists died, both men would have proved they were men of honour, and the dispute in question would either be resolved, or left to their family/friends/associates to deal with.
we were differnt things in the past as well as strange and unpredicatable fellows for the futore as well as thinng that actually it might be alraight which of course it si n't or wasnt or will be - maybe i think
One of my favourite movies; one of the most beautiful movies ever made. BUT a second in a duel would know to point the pistol being loaded AWAY from others in the vicinity. A rare flub for Stanley.
Makes me laugh when people expect everyone in a movie/ book/ story to behave impeccably all the time. People do the wrong things sometimes. It's not a mistake by the director to reflect this.
I do have to admit, i preferred and prefer duels to be with sabre or rapier it is a far more elegant weapon and it requires actual skill Most gun duels were either one sided (one opponent more experienced and or skilled then the other) easily cheated (looking at you Andrew Jackson you POS) or left to too much chance.
There is another duel near the end of the movie which completely parallels the duel here. That one is way more dramatic but dont undermine this minor scene near the start of the movie
This is along the River Blackwater, next to Templemichael Castle, a few km north of Youghal, Ireland, if you're interested in visiting this spot. It's particularly lovely during the golden hour and I hightly recommend it! Also, the pathway down to this spot from the castle is where the scene was filmed in which a jealous Barry first walks out on Nora Brady, right after the scene where she first dances with Quinn. And the waterfront of the town of Youghal is where some key scenes in the 1956 John Huston version of 'Moby Dick' was shot.
@@stanleyrumm And happy to say that the ugly green bin is no longer there as of 2021. Albeit, with the unfortunate side effect that some of the local kids just leave their litter there. I had to remove a bunch of energy drink empties before photographing the area.
You can really see the shock on Quinn’s face when Barry doubles down on his desire to duel him. The way he tries to hide his obvious fear is a masterful bit of acting by the actor
The pull-back to 0:30 is absolutely beautiful. Like a painting by Gainsborough or Reynolds. It's almost like Kubrick tried to make the scenes in this movie, in the same style as the great 18th century landscape painters.
He did indeed, there's one scene in the film where Barry and a load of his friends are passed out round a table in the middle of a card game, it is honestly like looking at a painting
You need to see this in a theater or at least in 4k to appreciate the beauty of the photography, it's like watching painting after painting come to life. Incredible achievement by the master film maker
The one difference I have noticed between older movies and newer movies is that the older movies looked and felt more real. Not really the special effects but the settings that the people were in and the conversations. Nowadays they just green screen everything in in the past they used to do it on location as well as not throwing millions of filters over every scene. You get to see the raw unedited footage just as the naked Iwould see it
One of my favorite nuances about this scene is that the other men there besides Barry don’t have much respect for Quinn. They know he isn’t really dead, and therefore Quinn can hear everything they’re saying about him. They don’t say “Quinn was a good man” or “Nora will be so sad”, they say “nice job, Barry, we just lost a lot of money”.
People were less hypocritical in those days, and also a man's income was much more important, with very little societal safety nets in place in those days.
Absolutely. What I have tried to figure out for years is what he is doing to the audience when he brackets the actors like he does with the river and overarching trees. He does similar things with the hedges and hallways of The Shining, the trenches in Paths of Glory the narrow, low ceilings of passageways in spacecraft in 2001. What is he up to? Whatever it is, it works, you feel it.
@@joeharris3878 you know there's an illusion built into the design of the hotel in the shining, the bottom floor especially, the floor plan can't be built in real life. He plays these tricks with you and leaves the viewer in this realm of uncertainty.
I like Stanley Kubrik's work,, but I hated this movie. Cornball scenes,, horrible soundtrack, bad over acting, bad narration. Bad zoom lens,, no one should use a zoom lens after 1966.
In the long shot, you'll notice that the space at the top of the frame may be a bit distracting. When you watch it in 1.78, the composition will look much better. Remember that it was shot in an open matte, like the rest of his films were.
