This scene, along with several others, are perhaps my favorite of the scenes from Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece, "Barry Lyndon." It is perhaps the most beautiful film ever created.
This entire movie is a virtual Time Machine that will transport the viewer back to the 18th century. No other film has ever captured the elegance, the extravagance, the speech and the manners of that era as this movie has.
This is technically one of the most awe inspiring acts of camera work in movie history. Kubrick wanted to film these candlelit scenes by real candlelight alone, which at the time was technically impossible due to camera and film limitations. So Kubrick bought a unique low light camera lens from NASA that was specially designed for use by Apollo astronauts on the Moon. He then had a movie camera engineer completely rebuild a huge movie camera just to use this lens. Then to get max candle light, he had special candles made from highly volatile wax, and had the candles made with three wicks in each. That's why the candle flames are so large, and the candles are all so short. Each candle only lasted a few minutes, but the special camera and super bright candles got Kubrick his candlelit scenes. This is characteristic of the almost insane level of detail Kubrick made all his films. And THAT is genius..
The game they are playing is called Faro. The abacus like board being help up next to the Chevalier is called a "Case Keep" and is there to track what cards have been played to prevent card counting.
Watching this film i feel as though i am sitting in some hidden space looking back in time on the eighteenth century itself.Everything from the late evenings in candlelight to the gorgeous dress to every single spoken word...this film is an absolute masterpiece.
+Jerry Watkins Likewise. It is unfortunate that so many individuals do not possess the proper attention span to enjoy the film. It is quite an extraordinary piece of art and indeed, story.
Indeed, melancholy is an appropriate word to ascribe to this production. Each time I watch it, or even just a section thereof, I actually re-experience the sense of wonder I had originally captured... It's just fabulous!
About as accurate account as you can get of the times that it portrays, and beautifully filmed, yet it tells a depressing story about a loathsome bunch of people.
When it first came out, I was a teenager. I loved it so much that I watched it 7 times in the movies. Of course I own it in VHS.. Surely among my top 5 favorite movies ever!
I own the blu-ray of this film. Should you upgrade the film will appear as not only a new experience but one of breathtaking beauty. DVD and particularly VHS simply cannot do this film full justice in my opinion.
That low shot at the begining of the castle lighted from within at dusk as the music begins is gorgeous. similar to images in 'The Shining' and Herzog's 'Nosferatu' to come a couple years later.
Such films are pearls before swine. Many people are too busy to watch GWTW all the way through, and how many read War and Peace today? Bertolucci's 1900 is 5 1/2 hours and too short.
In earlier reactions was asked who the singer is in the cavatina by Paisiello. It is Nicola Monti in the 1959 recording by Mercury. It is on youtube on Il barbiere di Siviglia Paisiello parte 4 I am very convinced that it is still the best barber by Paisiello on record. He also recorded the barber by Rossini many times. It is fun to see Monti with Panerai on youtube singing to duet in the Rossini barber, but it is in black and white. For me Monti also did the best Elisir by Donizetti in 1952. All tenors today can still learn a lot from him. The movie is amazing. I never saw anything of it before.
Even though I am not a Kubrick fan (an understatement) nor a Ryan O'Neal fan (a bigger understatement), I have loved this masterpiece of a film since I first saw in in 1976. I've been too lazy to purchase a copy, I would have taped the movie if I saw it on TV but for some reason I never did. I love how Kubrick is so detailed, such as the "beauty patches" worn by the characters in this scene. Everything about "Barry Lyndon" is perfection.
favorite is a strong word, i love all his films, this movie is very underrated, but the scene where Barry and Lord Bullington duel had me out of my seat! beautiful movie and one of the best Period films i've seen
+Charles Kos Gotta be A Clockwork Orange. None other has stood the test of time and made such a dramatic impact and is such a phenomenal cult classic. The Shining and A Space Odyssey are right behind.
Ranking of Kubrick films (that I've seen): 1) Barry Lyndon 2) 2001: A Space Odyssey 3) The Shining 4) Dr. Strangelove 5) A Clockwork Orange 6) Full Metal Jacket 7) Eyes Wide Shut 8) Lolita
+jake14928 Fair enough. Here's mine:A Clockwork Orange, Eyes Wide Shut, 2001 A space odyssey, The Shining, Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon, the killing Full Metal Jacket, Killer's Kiss
Which film would I enjoy most if I actually hated 2001: A Space Odyssey? It turned me off from Kubrick, but I really ought to give him another chance...
Cavatina from "Il Barbiere Di Siviglia" (Giovanni Paisiello) - see other tracks here. The Original Soundtrack is only instrumental, so the question who is the wonderful opera singer here remains.
The realisim of this film is astonishing. Kubrick cut no corners and spared no effort to show us EXACTLY how things were in the 18th century. Take this scene, for example. It is a night scene and the ONLY illmumination is by scores of candles--exactly as it would have been in the 18th century. Modern directors would have cheated and used some artificial lighting in a scene like this.
A Louis D'or was worth 20 shillings or $ 4.84 in contemporary American dollars. Correct me if I'm wrong but in today's value that.s around $400,000.00. I know in Pride and Prejudice Mr Darcy has an income 10,000 pounds or around 1,500,000 dollars intoday's values.
How did they ever get this filmed with ZERO artificial lighting on the set? Just scores of candles---exactly as it would have been in the late 18th century. Especially for the film speeds and lenses available in the 1970's. Even today, interior nighttime scenes require at least some supplementary lighting.
+delavalmilker You'll be surprised to find out that the lens for this shot (Carl Zeiss 50mm Planar f/0.7) costs about... 23 mil. $, lol! It was made especially for Nasa in the 60s, to shoot the dark side of the moon... More info here: petapixel.com/2013/08/05/zeiss-f0-7-you-can-now-rent-two-of-the-largest-aperture-lenses-ever-made/ and www.premiumbeat.com/blog/10-incredible-camera-lenses/
Just the simple fact that Stan used just Candles to obtain such grand atmosphere via their refulgent elucidation is groundbreaking in itself. Stanley could make the most mundane things interesting.
+KINDLE That was one of the main features of this film. There was no artificial lighting used in any of the scenes. Special cameras and lenses were used to allow for this. Another film from about the same time that this technique was applied was "A Bridge Too Far".
I won't call it my favorite but it is certainly up there. Personally I am in love with The Shining with it's perfectly smooth shots and tense feeling. Lyndon is certainly a masterpiece though!
Maybe it's a continuity error, but at 2:00 we see The Chavalier's right hand produce a card but it's his left hand that brings the card out to the table while his right hand is firmly rested on the table.
Please refrain from further inquiries into conspiracy theories. This video was posted with the notion to discuss Stanley Kubrick and his films not wild conspiracy theories.
Is there any possibility that anyone born in the 1980's and afterwards could watch this movie without their peers thinking they're weird or a kid that rode the short bus to school? If you have the patience, watching this movie is a visual feast and you'd wish you were living a life as a spoiled aristocrat in the 1700's! Dangerous Liasons was unpleasant and had unpleasant leads! And Ryan O'Neal did seem like a strange choice, though. That opponent of his was Victor Maitland in Beverly Hills Cop
Did you know that Kubrick filmed these candlelit scenes with the fastest lens ever (lens with f0.7 aperture opening). I was like 'holy shit' when I found out :D
From what I heard, this scene was lit only by the candles in frame, which in the 1970's was still much to dark for a 35mm film camera lens. However Kubrick was so adamant that he somehow got his hands on the only lens that worked under f 1.4 from NASA.
A total masterpiece. I feel Kubrick was born to direct this movie - perhaps the most emotional of all his movies - my full review of this eminently satiating epic www.upnworld.com/movie/view/id/52/title/Barry+Lyndon
I feel relieved. I personally found the dvd version a bit too crisp to my liking, and I assumed they had cranked further up the level of detail on the Blu Ray.
When so many DPs set up lights and cameras so deliberately to get a decent image, the only lights used in this scene are from the candles. Granted the lens were NASA lens and the F-Stop was like 0.7 lol. Astronomical.
This scene was shot with f/0.7 lenses borrowed from NASA. I think Barry Lyndon is still the only film to shoot with such fast lenses to permit such low light shooting. (The entire film was shot with natural/candle light.)
I am not quite sure why, but most of these "auteurs du cinema" seem unable to creat any connection whatsoever between the audience and the characters of the film. Instead of people acting to be other people they look more like aliens dressed as human beings. The Duelists although similar externally, and Scott claimed to wanting to immitate Barry Lyndon, is much more effective in instilling genuine interest for the heroes.
This is a very interesting read for anyone who's curious about the optics used to shoot this scene (and judging by the comments, there's plenty of curiosity): visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm
especially the very end note in the movie: “It was in the reign of George III that the above-named personages lived and quarreled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are ALL EQUAL now.”. a simple reminder that we're all going to die sooner or later. no matter what.
What I don't get is if he used the lenses with an aperture of 0.7 then how come he has so much field of view? I mean even my 1.7 doesn't have as much focusing distance as his lenses appear to have? :S
He didn't. A special adaptor was made to work with the lens and give it a wider range, but depth of field was just a few feet. That's why the cast is all huddled up together. Marisa Berenson said later that between the corsetted costumes, heat from the candles and equipment, and having to scrum to get everyone into the shot, not to mention Kubrick's pepetual retakes, they had at least one fainting episode a day
I found this movie thrilling and am glad to see it in parts. It inspired me to move to France and I may send you a video response which I hope you will consider. Uprated. Thank you.
The credits say filmed in England, Ireland, and Germany; the castle must be in Germany since no mountain tops like that exist in Britain, but supposedly they are playing in France.
that behavior was made fashionable by Louis XIV's younger brother, simply known as "Monsieur" and a notorious manchaser, given to outlandish dress and an attraction to young army officers. It's theorized he may have had his first wife, Princess Henrietta of England poisoned for having an affair with one of his favorites. So acting fey, even when heterosexual, made you exotic and "Continental."
![Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon [Scene 4]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
