If Kubrick was going to make a period piece, why choose a story that nobody heard of? I don't think anyone thought "Barr
-
franzkabuki — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 08:52 AM)
"He didn't cast O'Neal".
He did. He had an obligation to cast someone who was currently amongst the top 10 most bankable stars - which one in particular, however, was up to him.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan -
Tin_ear — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 02:56 PM)
I can't seem to find a list of the top ten most bankable male stars, but it still seems bizarre. Obviously he never would have cast Clint Eastwood, Burt Reynolds, Dustin Hoffman, Marlon Brando, Roger Moore, or Paul Newmanwho were all already typecast, or too short, or old, or, well, Burt Reynolds.
-
franzkabuki — 9 years ago(February 07, 2017 12:17 AM)
I seem to recall the one Kubrick considered most seriously besides O'Neal, was in fact Robert Redford.
And I found the top 10 most popular list of 1973 (when the casting would have taken place) on Wikipedia: 1. Clint Eastwood, 2. Ryan O'Neal, 3. Steve McQueen, 4. Burt Reynolds, 5. Robert Redford, 6. Paul Newman, 7. Charles Bronson, 8. John Wayne, 9. Marlon Brando, 10. Gene Hackman. Among these, O'Neal actually does seem like the most appropriate choice - although Brando definitely could have done the job (as long as he'd put a lid on his strong tendency towards naturalism).
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan -
ScoMore — 9 months ago(June 05, 2025 02:44 PM)
Brando would have been totally wrong.
He was far too old and if you've seen The Nightcomers, you'll know that he couldn't play an Irishman.
Also, his attitude would have COMPLETELY clashed with Kubrick's meticulous and obsessive approach to film-making.
The two from this list who were best suited for the role were Redford and O'Neal.
Apparently, Redford turned it down but I think O'Neal, although not great in the role, was the better choice.
Redford looked much older than O'Neal (much more than the near 5-year age gap between them) and he would have seemed out of place.
I know the studio wanted a top 10 box office star but it would have been better if Kubrick had cast an unknown Irish actor (preferably with stage experience) and then used stars for the supporting roles. -
DaveBowman2001 — 9 years ago(April 20, 2016 12:03 PM)
You could say this about 90% of movies made. Oh I guess he could have just made crappy remakes or mindless action flicks like most of Hollywood. Instead, me made brilliant thinking man's films.
He wanted to do Napoleon, but some other studio was doing something too similar. Same w/the Arian papers, but Shindlers List was in production already. I have no complaints about any of his films. -
kenny-164 — 9 years ago(May 04, 2016 12:24 PM)
Thackeray in fact was a very well known and widely read author in his time, and was a singular influence on Charlotte Bronte. He was one of the most well known of the Victorian authors, a contemporary and for a time friend of Charles Dickens. Anthony Trollope wrote a biography about him, and while their styles varied it can safely be said that Trollope was influenced to a large extent by Thackeray. For example unlike Dickens Trollope used Thackeray's somewhat common approach of carrying various characters through succeeding novels (although of course Trollope did rather more of this sort of thing).
Now while it is fair to say other than those who have read Barry Lyndon that in general Thackeray's best known novel currently is Vanity Fair, it is also fair to say he is right now not as widely read as Dickens, of course, or of Trollope. But arguably that may merely be a matter of current style, to some extent at least.
But that doesn't really address why Kubrick used the source, or more specifically why we should not criticize him for doing so. Obviously he felt inspired by the work, and I among many think successfully and effectively so.
I think the OP also to some extent contains an implied disdain for adaptations that are not, well, well-known. Is this because adaptations themselves are seen as problematic? I think that is a whole other subject, but unless one is willing to say cinema should not be based on adaptations of works of literature, I am not sure what difference it is supposed to make whether the source is well known or not. -
chriskunselman — 9 years ago(July 05, 2016 01:42 PM)
Spartacus was a potboiler published in the early 50's which was pretty popular right around the time Kubrick decided to film it. The same with A Clockwork Orange by British author Anthony Burgess, which definitely had a large cult following as a book (side note: it actually needed an index to explain "Nadsat" the Russian-influenced argot spoke by the gang members). Full Metal Jacket was based on the novel the Short-Timers by Gustav Hasford, and was probably the most obscure (to the general public at least) of the three you listed. So, one out of three ain't bad.
-
KobiyashiMauru — 9 years ago(July 05, 2016 05:54 PM)
I was around during the 60's and used to visit the paperback stores in the Mall in those days and NEVER heard of A Clockwork Orange. The cult of Burgess must have been a LOT bigger in the UK.
Luke Skywalker, your Mom was hawt!
Darth Vader -
chriskunselman — 9 years ago(July 05, 2016 09:02 PM)
Are you American? I would say Burgess book probably hit a bit later here in the states, in fact the movie may have led to people searching it out. So really you might have had 2 out of 3 and a Meatloaf song. Cheers.
-
Slaterson14 — 9 years ago(July 03, 2016 07:05 PM)
Kubrick is my favorite director, 2001 and The Shining are my favorite films of all time but I kind of feel the same way sometimes when watching this film. It is amazing to look at and it keeps me interested throughout the first parts of it but once he sees lady lyndon for the first time I kind of start to get bored on repeated viewings and that never happens with kubrick films for me.
-
danasider — 9 years ago(August 14, 2016 02:10 PM)
Why bother with this question? Why blame Kubrick for doing a period piece on a novel that hadn't been or hasn't since been touched by another director? Would you rather him do another version of Pride and Prejudice, Robin Hood or MacBethyou know, things that have been re-done to death?
It's a breath of fresh air to view something (semi) original. I never read the book, but I enjoyed the movie, and it wasn't a story I have seen 3 or 4 times on the screen before like every other popular period film based off a novel. If you didn't like the story, that's alright, but saying a director should make a movie based off a popular novel is ignorant and close-minded. Director's should direct films they want to make with stories they want to tell. Us viewer's shouldn't always want to see the same ol' shlop. Then again, you are probably one (of the millions) who has made Hollywood into the sequelitis machine it is today. -
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."