Talk:Barry Lyndon/Archive 2

Quotations
Does no one else find the overabundance of quotes in this article irritating? Every other sentence uses part of a quote to complete itself, for no real purpose. It all could easily be written normally. 75.141.222.91 (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. To me it smacks of someone trying to skirt the NPOV by the use of sourced quotes. It's a bit more clever than using weasel words, I'll give them that.97.116.63.124 (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Filming location
The page makes reference to Powerscourt House in Co Wicklow as one of the principal filming locations. The house used is actually Carton House, County Kildare and is referenced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carton_House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.161.230 (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On the Duel
The synopsis emphasizes on the cowardice of captain Quin for faking the duel. In my opinion it should be pointed out, that the Brady family's main interest was not to harm the prosperous designated husband for Nora – instead they risked Barry's life, exposing him to the possible threat of beeing fatally wounded by Quin's live round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.97.189 (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Photography
This section feels like an amateur essay. The discussion on the lighting makes no sense from a cinematographic point of view. Alcott wouldn't have used incandescent lights for exteriors (or large interiors). At the time it would have been carbon arc. The difference in colour temperature is small in comparison to completely uncorrected light. Sunlight is blue, but "warmer" than blue sky light. Chances are that if the light is soft coming in, that the windows have been completely diffused, and they're pumping their own light in as it is more controllable.

The low-light cameras
I think I read an anecdote once claiming Kubrick talked his way into borrowing a one-of-a-kind camera for some of the low-light Barry Lyndon photography; the guy who invented the camera found out and asked the guy in charge of the camera inventory, "What the hell is Stanley Kubrick doing with that camera? You know it's priceless and irreplaceable, right?" If someone with a better memory can find the anecdote it might be useful to put in that part of the article. Tempshill (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC) I saw someone say that on the extra features to the Dr Strangelove DVD97.91.171.241 (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

''It's an urban legend. The lenses might have been expensive but certainly not priceless. Kubrick's approach to the problem was just unusual. Most film makers would have used additional lighting to have better control over the process.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.7.52.16 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Film and book
The several creaks in the plot of the film may be understood on the basis of a distorted translation from the book.

The film changes Lady Lyndon from the frowsty and pretentious bluestocking of the book, hated by her first husband and despised by Barry, into the silent and vapid beauty played by Marisa Berenson. In the book Lady Lyndon is said to be a countess, viscountess, and baroness in her own right. The implausibilty (although not complete impossibility) of this claim may be understood in the book on the basis of the story being recounted after some lapse of time by a boastful and unreliable rogue. In the film it is taken as granted.

The abrupt and unexpected friendship struck up between Barry and the Chevalier in Prussia is made plausible in the book because the Chevalier turns out to be Barry's uncle who has fled England after being proscribed for taking part in the 1745 rebellion.

The acting of the principal characters (Barry and Lady Lyndon) is a bit wooden, maybe because of the inconsistencies of the film script that they had to work with, but most of the secondary roles are played superbly (The Reverend Runt is one who made the best of a good part).

Although the film is visually a work of art, the book has the greater wit and psychological consistency. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC).
 * I also feel Barry's sudden shift in loyalty to Balibari, at the very point when he has won Potzdorf's trust, strains credibility in the film (haven't read the book). He knows nothing about the man, so how would he dare expose himself? Overall, he is portrayed as a rather cold opportunist all through the film.
 * And I would agree at least Marisa Berenson is rather wooden, she just walks around looking pretty, but the film is about people who try to conform to the social mores of their age. They are propelled by the need to conform in a stratified society and at the same time to eke out some personal and material happiness, not by a need to be true to their own inner core. This is a pre-romantic age.Strausszek (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Strausszek, since the characters are to some extent intended to be seen as figures in a painting. In the eighteenth century, before still or moving photography, educated viewers would analyse an artist’s work to extract moral, psychological and theological meanings. This skill Barry conspicuously lacks, shown by his vapid comment to the art dealer. --Hors-la-loi 08:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Barry Lyndon (film) → Barry Lyndon — Move back to original name that is now a disambig page. User who moved the page in the first place cites WP:COMMONNAME as a reason, but I think more people are familar with the film and not the book. The film article can have a simple dab link to the book at the top of it. —  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support move back to Barry Lyndon; the book is titled The Luck of Barry Lyndon, so it is secondary to the film title. To even out the situation, I would suggest adding a hatnote to the top of the film article to point to the book article for immediate reference.  Definitely does not warrant a disambiguation page. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 18:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. A dablink, not a dabpage, is the way to go here. PC78 (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose The correct use of WP:COMMONNAME would be to move the book, which had two titles, to Barry Lyndon (novel), as, like Nicholas Nickleby, what the book is commonly called. I'm not sure either is the overwhelmingly more common usage which we envisage as primary usage, so I'd keep the dab as Barry Lyndon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The book's full title isn't the same. Also, two items don't warrant a dab page (usually); a hatnote works best. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support the book's title (in either of the two variants) is distinct from that of the film. The cross-reference from the film is sufficient for those who might be looking for the book and can't be bothered to recall the full name, although a hatnote could also be included as well. older ≠ wiser 19:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The film got 19000 hits last month while the book got 1500. Common names guidelines says "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Since common name leads to conflict, use correct name (WP:PRECISION) and have a hatnote at top of film article. Tigeron (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Given the novel on which the movie is based has a different title, the (film) designation is unnecessary. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is precisely why we do dabs to begin with. While the film is unquestionably the more popular topic, I would disagree that it is so overwhelmingly so as the make it the clear primary topic. Thackeray is a very important figure in 19th century British literature. While the two titles are not word-for-word identical, using the briefer title to refer to the novel is common usage, AFAIK; if anything, the film makes this even more prevalent. A reader typing in Barry Lyndon could reasonably be assumed to be searching for either. It was not uncommon for novels of the period to have long titles which have been shortened for popular usage. (cf Tom Jones, Tristram Shandy, or Thackeray's own Vanity Fair) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it appears that the novel had two titles - The Luck of Barry Lyndon as a serial, and The Memoirs of Barry Lyndon, Esq. Written by Himself. as a compiled novel (though essentially the same). Given that the only constant between the two is Barry Lyndon, and editors might also want to look [ http://www.amazon.com/Barry-Lyndon-Memoirs-Oxford-Classics/dp/0199537461/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230582536&sr=8-3 here], where the most common currently published book edition (the new Oxford World Classics edition) only titles it Barry Lyndon on the cover. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages with only two entries are generally avoided if possible. Hatnotes are preferred in such cases. Yes, the novel does need to be disambiguated from the book. But apart from indignation that a book by Thackeray might be less-well known that a film loosely based upon that book, is there any actual evidence that the book is equally notable under the exact title "Barry Lyndon" as the film? Wikipedia traffic statistics show a consistent predominance (by approximately tenfold) in views of the film's article over the book's article. Without some other better evidence that the book should be regarded on equal par with the film under the exact title, we are doing a disservice to the majority of readers by forcing them to go through a disambiguation page to get to the film article. older ≠ wiser 20:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Per Bkonrad.  Girolamo Savonarola makes a compelling argument, especially with respect to Barry Lyndon being a common name to refer to the book even though that is not the full official title which suggests that the film is not the primary use.  However, the traffic statistics are what they are...  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with all of the supportive comments above. Since the title of the book is conveniently not the same, parenthetical disambiguation of the title is not necessary or desirable. Station1 (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Critique Anyone?
This film also rates very highly on many a "Worst Movie of All Time" list.

Can we find some references to this effect to balance matters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.127.160 (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan O'Neal Claims the Movie Scuttled His Career
In a recent Vanity Fair article on Farrah Fawcett, Ryan O'Neil claimed that Barry Lyndon virtually ruined his acting career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.187.253 (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Most films can survive weak or even fairly poor performances by their leading actors. Barry Lyndon is one of those rare films that's almost completely sabotaged by one. Ryan O'Neal's performance is terrible (which was probably Kubrick's fault -- Kubrick was hardly an "actor's director"). A character doesn't have to be likable -- but the audience does have to be interested in them (what the Disney folks call "appeal"). Until the scene where Lyndon's son dies, and O'Neal is genuinely convincing in his grief, the audience couldn't be less interested. It is a shallow, boring, and uninvolved performance. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean?
In the Plot section, the article says:

"Captain Grogan (Godfrey Quigley), informs him that he did not kill Quin. His pistol was loaded with tow."

What is does "pistol was loaded with tow" mean? Is this a typo or a misunderstanding of some kind? Sailboatd2 (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a typo - "plugget of tow", a wad of fibres such as jute, flax etc. A 'blank' round of the time, I suppose you could say. RashersTierney (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Aperture edit
The article claims the 50mm f/0.7's were the largest aperture in history.

Aperture is the the width of the "entrance pupil" that light goes in and expressed in, for instance, millimeters. Its hardly ever discussed, in preference to the f/stop, which is the focal length divided by aperture (and in which the millimeters cancel out, making f/stop a unitless measure).

In this case, the 50mm/0.7 had an aperture of about 72mm, about the same as the Canon 85mm/1.2 and far less than for instance a Canon 600mm/4 (with an aperture of 150mm). Should anyone wish to see what kind of background blur the 50mm/0.7 had, it should be very close in quantity to the Canon 85mm/1.2. (The monster Zeiss would have simply shown about 1.7x more width and height, but no more blur or "bokeh".)

Instead the proper claim (should some superlative be required) is perhaps that "the lens had the lowest f/stop of all time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.128.161 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"Balibari"
"Balibari" is a phonetic rendering of the Irish "Baile Barraigh": Barry Town, more or less.

The film does not mention that in Thackeray's novel, the Lyndons are the English gentry who were granted the Barrys ancestral lands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.154.20 (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)