Why Did Kubrick Bother?
-
Ashley Pomeroy — 9 years ago(August 20, 2016 02:01 PM)
The obvious answer is that the story appealed to Stanley Kubrick. It has the same basic theme as Kubrick's other films - a man who thinks himself strong is destroyed by cruel, uncaring fate.
In fact it's almost exact the same story as
A Clockwork Orange- young hooligan uses his charm, fists, and aggression to become a success, but is then crushed - except that in
Barry Lyndon
the main character destroys himself. Kubrick's films never end well for the main character.
As for O'Neal, I don't know. He's terrible. I suspect Kubrick wanted a blank slate, but he doesn't even work as a blank slate. Were there Ryan O'Neal fans in 1975? What did they think of the film?
- young hooligan uses his charm, fists, and aggression to become a success, but is then crushed - except that in
-
dawnbaxter34 — 9 years ago(August 20, 2016 05:24 PM)
"Warner Bros. would only finance the film on the condition that Stanley Kubrick cast a Top 10 Box Office Star (from the annual Quigley Poll of Top Money-Making Stars) in the lead.
Ryan O'Neal was the #2 Box Office Star of 1973, topped only by Clint Eastwood. Ironically, this was his only time in the top 10, as exhibitors - who voted the list - attributed the success of Love Story (1970) (one of the top grossers at the time) to O'Neal's co-star Ali MacGraw, and named her to the list in 1971. The other top 10 stars were 3. Steve McQueen, 4. Burt Reynolds, 5. Robert Redford, 6. Barbra Streisand, 7. Paul Newman, 8. Charles Bronson, 9. John Wayne, and 10. Marlon Brando.
Thus, the only actors Kubrick could cast in the role and receive Warners' financial backing for his decidedly non-commercial project were O'Neal and Redford. The other Top 10 stars were too old or inappropriate for the role.
Both O'Neal and Redford were Irish, both had box office appeal, and both were young enough to play the role, though Redford was five years older than the thirty-two-year old O'Neal in 1973. At the time, O'Neal was the bigger star, having also garnered a Best Actor Oscar nomination for "Love Story". However, Kubrick apparently offered the part to Redford first, but he turned it down, and thus O'Neal was cast." -
Druffmaul — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 11:11 AM)
There's actually a very specific reason- He was going to make Napoleon, and it was going to be the definitive 18th century period piece. The main gimmick was that he was going to shoot using only natural light, including night time interior shots lit only by candlelight. This required using very expensive lenses made specifically for satellite photography. Kubrick had been a professional photographer since he was 16 years old, doing insane things with cameras was what got him out of bed in the morning.
Right before he was about to start production on Napoleon, someone else released a Napoleon movie called Waterloo, and it completely tanked at the box office. So the studio pulled out and left Kubrick high and dry. But he was determined to make a movie set in 18th century Europe and shot will all natural light, so he scrambled to find another bit of suitable source material as quickly as he could and he came up with the Barry Lyndon novel. Too bad you weren't there to advise him on finding a better book. -
Kojiro_Vance — 9 years ago(November 25, 2016 01:10 PM)
It also says something about Kubrick's character: an obscure story no one ever heard of, and he could made it a 100 % the way he wanted it to be made.
Later he took a popular novel, and see how that turned out almost 40 years later and a lot of people (and King !) are still whining about Kubrick's vision
I'm just on my way up to Clavius. -
SealedCargo — 5 years ago(April 08, 2020 10:46 AM)
O'Neal I thought was perfect. the first half he had a boyish quality you feel for, and then the last half that dickish part of him (the real ryan) comes out and you loathe him. he was perfect.
The Fearmakers Blog
https://thefearmakers.blogspot.com/ -