MovieChat Forums > Ran (1985) Discussion > Barry Lyndon

Barry Lyndon

posted 14 years ago by dave_wlogan
35 replies | jump to latest

Did those who enjoyed this film also enjoy Barry Lyndon? I'd probably have both in my top 10 historical epics, or epics of any kind really. I don't know what it is about them, they are great and they aren't actually filmed in the same way.

Barry Lyndon is the story of the rise and fall of a man. Ran is "a series of events viewed from heaven"-Kurosawa.

In Ran we a re privvy to all the major characters motivations and personalities. Barry Lyndon has more close ups and a sort of distant, held back emotion (when emotion is not held back, the viewer becomes uncomfortable). Emotion is continously shown (if from a distance) in Ran.

The biggest similarity is that in both films all the characters end up equal.

Hope I don't seem like a mindless rambler here, because I am actually iinterested to know if fans of Ran liked Barry Lyndon.

"You haven't got the feel of this at all, lad. Use all your voices. When I bellow, bellow back."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dave_wlogan 14 years ago

I'm glad there is someone intelligent commenting on these boards.

An interesting idea in Ran is that victory doesn't bring you anything. All the main characters die after achieving some kind of victory. At the end when Tsurumaru stands atop the ruined castle and nearly falls off, his enemy has been defeated but he can get no enjoyment in the knowledge of that fact. At least that's how I interpreted it.

"In Ran, humans are doomed because of there evilness, in Barry Lyndon they are doomed from the start."

But Ran makes that point that all humans are evil, therefore all are doomed from the start anyway, hence all end up equal, despite not being equal throughout life. Hidetora conquered many lands and killed many but he meets the same fate as them. One of his victims lost his sight then Hidetora loses his mind. Everyone is flawed and handicapped by something. That's where I get the equal thing from.

I like your ideas and I'll be sure to watch that Bergman film

"You haven't got the feel of this at all, lad. Use all your voices. When I bellow, bellow back."

[–] jdkraus 10 years ago

The ending is also a symbolism in that we are blind to our own downfall. It was very clever and appropriate of Kurosawa using the blind Tsumaru on the edge at the end.

[–] joeheck 14 years ago

"Maybe you should take a look on Bergmans "Fanny and Alexander" (if you haven't yet), it has some things in common with Barry Lyndon - it's not near as astonishing or intelligent, of course, but nevertheless a truly great film."

Not nearly as astonishing or intelligent... Ummm...are you sure about that one?

http://www.flixster.com/user/joeheck

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joeheck 14 years ago

I think you've missed the point. Barry Lyndon is a fantastic film, my problem is with your characterization of Fanny and Alexander as "not near as astonishing or intelligent." I suppose everyone's entitled to their two cents.

http://www.flixster.com/user/joeheck

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] willow_chick88 14 years ago

This is going to sound so airhead-ish after the great comments in this thread, but you people are my kind of people. I am a big fan of all 3 of the movies mentioned (go back and forth between Ran and Ikiru as my favorite Kurosawa, Barry Lyndon is my favorite Kubrick, and go between Fanny and Alexander and The Virgin Spring as my favorite Bergman). I'll be thinking about what you said what you've said the next time I watch any of the 3 movies.

"Out. For. A. Walk...B!tch"-Spike

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rainbird131162 14 years ago

I enjoyed Barry Lyndon which for me is arguably Kubrick's best film. But I don't think it's anywhere near as accomplished or emotionally powerful a picture as Ran. Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled at the comparison.

Mai Yamane! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-sYFirfywY&feature=related

[–] j_money77 14 years ago

I love both movies and both directors.

However, Kurosawa and Kubrick aren't similar in nearly any way as far as their methods of storytelling and how they use the medium.

Kurosawa is perhaps the most sentimental of the great filmakers, while Kubrick is probably the least.

Other than the fact that each film is long, set in a distant past, and critical of human beings, I don't see a lot in common.

Love both movies though.

[–] matrix5904 13 years ago

Barry Lyndon was good but i mostly appeciated it from a directorial standpoint. It was building up to greatness and certainly had all the ingredients but i really disliked the cuts in geography. one frame he is in england, the next the netherlands and then germany.

The is no sense of place or indeed, journey, which i found especially jaring giving the character driven nature of the story. I felt detached from the main character.

It gains plus points for the aesthetics and the the fact that it precedes Scarface's rise and fall archetype, the large reason that film gained so much critical accliam beyond mere cult fan followings...

RAN however, surpasses Barry lyndon in every single way

[–] silverkid 14 years ago

Barry Lyndon is far superior. Ran had excellent battle sequences, and was very well staged and shot. But the story was so weak. It felt like the same Kurosawa movie again. The same movie he's been making his entire life. It was nothing new. Another story set hundreds of years ago. Another samurai epic. Another tale of blood and power and greed. I mean, seriously? Ran is nothing new in the Kurosawa filmography.

Barry Lyndon, on the other hand, was such a big change of pace for Kubrick. He shot that movie with all natural lighting, which is insane if you think about it for a moment. The characters, the story, the cinematography, the direction, everything about it was brilliant. Ran was good too, but Kubrick's film stands head and shoulders above it. Popular opinion probably thinks otherwise though.

http://most-underrated-movies.blogspot.com/

[–] PornGuy69 14 years ago

"It felt like the same Kurosawa movie again. The same movie he's been making his entire life. It was nothing new. Another story set hundreds of years ago. Another samurai epic. Another tale of blood and power and greed. I mean, seriously? Ran is nothing new in the Kurosawa filmography."

Visually, Ran is sort of like Kagemusha. Other than that, you are dead wrong.

I just ate a whole pumpkin.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TravisLikesSmoothJazz 8 years ago

In some ways, Kagemusha and Ran are the exact opposite. Ran is about the late life of an aging warlord. Kageusha is about how a person inhabits the role of someone he isn't. Most of similarities are cosmetic, but they are quite different thematically.

I am an *beep* but my friends compensate for that.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tiptoeturtle 12 years ago

Barry Lyndon and Ran are both based on or inspired by literary classics. Most of Stanley Kubrick´s films and some of Akira Kurosawa´s films are film adaptations of novels or plays. As such, they are not fundamentally original works of the director / screenwriter. This reduces the merit of such films, in my eyes, as much of the work and artistry is borrowed. Additionally, the original works encompass more than the films, e.g. Barry Lyndon and especially Eyes Wide Shut ("Dream Novel").
Kurosawa is said to regard Hidden Fortress as his best (or favourite ?) of his films, I do not know whether Hidden Fortress comes from a book originally or not. I also, prefer it to his other samurai films - because it omits much of the graphic violence and blood of sword fighting he normally shows - in Hidden Fortress very few characters are injured or killed on screen. There is something objectionable to me in showing people being killed, especially with knives or swords.
I look for something in a film which expands the grammar of cinema as an evolving art form - as a way of measuring a film´s relative value (such as montage in Battleship Potemkin, tracking camera in The Last Laugh, and inventive time manipulation in Fröken Julie (another adaptation), all of which did something to expand the language of cinema). In this regard, Barry Lyndon has the technical innovation of natural candle-light.

[–] PornGuy69 12 years ago

As such, they are not fundamentally original works of the director / screenwriter. This reduces the merit of such films, in my eyes, as much of the work and artistry is borrowed.

The screen and the page are separated. To say that Ran's sound, choreography of thousands of people, hand-made costumes, editing, or any other aspect of filmmaking is reduced because of a stageplay written over 400 years ago... That seems a bit off. The artistry of a Kurosawa or a Kubrick is in the visuals and how they enhance the stories they are telling, no matter whose story you think it is. What about stories based on true events? Are their "merits" reduced, too?

edit for missed word

I would prefer not to.

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

"The original works encompass more than the films".

Only in terms of plot incident. Which is inevitable when adapting a novel.

Thematically, it seems Kubrick´s films generally tend to stray further from their literary origins than Kurosawa´s though.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jordanw_182 12 years ago

Barry Lyndon is probably my favourite Kubrick, much like Ran is probably my favourite Kurosawa.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (30498379) 11 years ago

Barry Lyndon is a MUCH better film than Kurosawa's Ran. Just how Kubrick was a much more accomplished director than Kurosawa ever was.