Barry Lyndon: Form and Content
MP
cinematic language completely subverts Barry the man. The film is
literally an effort to reduce man to nothingness. Every film-making
technique Kubrick uses is there to subvert Barry's story. Man is just
a meaningless and insignificant spec on his pretty canvas. Rich or
poor, we all die equal.
1. Kubrick's painterly canvas locks his actors into predetermined
compositions. They have no free-will and are unable to break free. He
portrays the universe (director/Kubrick) as the ultimate artist, while
life itself is portrayed as being the artistic result of the
universe's rules and formulae.
The very first shot emphasises this. Kubrick arranges his human
figures like specs on the horizon, the cinema screen bordered on all
sides by trees, clouds and nature. Kubrick's man is always boxed in,
at the mercy of larger forces.
2. Every event in the film is portrayed as being a direct result of
some prior occurrence. The first scene highlights this continuous past/
present relationship. "There is no doubt Barry's father woud've made
an eminent figure in his profession"..."HAD he not been shot in a
duel".
3. The character's are all bound by duty and predetermined roles. The
lives of all these characters are portrayed as ritualistic, robotic,
learnt and rehearsed. While "Dr Strangelove" and "2001" are swathed in
birth and sex imagery, here Kubrick uses a semiotic fabric of chance.
Every scene is awash with games of chance, duels, courtship, cards,
gambling, luck etc, all of which bolster the notion of fate on Barry's
life. Barry thinks he's in control, but like Johnny Clay in "The
Killing", the future is all down to the next dice roll.
4. Even the narrator subverts Barry's story. While the acting and
visual compositions attempt to relegate Barry to the background, the
narrator attempts to paint Barry's life as meaningless by negating all
drama and tension. Why are you watching this man, he says? He is
nothing. Nobody. Stop looking. The entire story is infused with a
sense of futility.
5. Kubtick's overly polished compositions (and arrangement of his
human cast) are immaculate. There is no unnecessary movement. Thus
Kubrick lets us know that his characters are merely compositional
elements, arranged to conform to his will, not their own.
6. Kubrick's "zooms" constantly put man in his proper perspective.
"This is man" Kubrick says, before zooming out."This is man in
context".
7. The "freeze frame" and "amputated leg" at the end of the film
represent Barry's realisation that he is bound by these higher laws.
Kubrick takes away his feet and pins Barry down. He is now picture in
a book. A figure affixed to a painting. A man lost in history.
8. Barry spends his life trying to orchestrate or command his fate.
He's a social climber and knows what he wants. Unfortunately, all his
attempts to assert his will over his environment are thwarted. He
wants Nora, he can't have her. He wants to keep his horse, he can't
keep it. And so on and so on.
9. The film is ultimately about loss. Man is doomed to lose what he
has. Man is unable to escape both death and time (a coffin is the only
object able to keep up with Kubrick's zoom out).
Barry loses his father in the first shot, his first love in the next.
He loses his home, his family, his surrogate father (the general), his
second surrogate father (chevalier), his son, his wealth and his leg.
Everything Barry has, he loses.
But it is with the death of his son (and the audience's observance of
that coffin, always plodding forward, ominously out pacing Kubrick's
zoom out), that Barry realises exactly what his true "class is". For
all his social climbing, his schemeing and plotting, there are larger
forces scheming and plotting against him. He is a human being, and
wealthy or not, there is no escaping this "class" of animal.
The next scene, which is a duel between Barry and Lord Lyndon, has
been read as some as being defeatist. Like Johnny Clay, Barry seems to
give up. In fact, it's Barry trying to transcend his environment,
which, for the first time, he seems to acknowledge. During the duel,
fate rolls in Barry's favour. He should capitalise on the misfire and
shoot his opponent down. But no. Barry has lived his life at the mercy
of chance. He's been pulled around like a pawn. So for the first time
in his life he exhibits free will at it's most pure. He sacrifices
himself. And of course he's punished dearly for this. He's robbed of
his leg and can no longer prowl his pretty canvas.
With Barry Lyndon, Kubrick flips the usual cinematic language. He
brings the background to the foreground, in an attempt to subvert
Barry's story. Thus, typical cinematic language is reversed. With
Barry Lyndon we have a world which is constantly fighting to drown out
Barry's story. Expanding the metaphor further and we have a universe
which dwarfs and suffocates a man's (Barry's) life.
Interestingly, there is always a "child" present during Barry's
courtship scenes. When he's with Nora, a statue of a child rests in
the background. When he's with the German woman, she's feeding a baby.
Lady Lyndon likewise comes with her own ready made family. Throughout
the film, Barry seems to be looking to replace the void filled by the
father he's lost. He seems to want a family of his own, but one by one
these fathers, sons and lovers are taken away from him.
kelpzoidzl
good analysis
I am reminded of this story:
"A WATERFALL called the Dragon Gate exists in China. Its waters plunge
a hundred feet, swifter than an arrow shot by a strong warrior. It is
said that a great many carp gather in the basin below, hoping to climb
the falls, and that any that succeeds will turn into a dragon. Not a
single carp, however, out of a hundred, a thousand, or even ten
thousand, can climb the falls, not even after ten or twenty years.
Some are swept away by the strong currents, some fall prey to eagles,
hawks, kites, and owls, and others are netted, scooped up, or even
shot with arrows by fishermen who line both banks of the falls ten cho
wide. Such is the difficulty a carp faces in becoming a dragon."
dc
Harry Bailey
Excellent post, MP. When I get a chance, I'll weight in with some
comments.
[I've been disappointed with much of the analyses of BL to date, most
of them (Crispin-Miller, Nelson, et al) concentrating on issues of
language, narrative, the infamous debate about the disjunctive
unreliable/reliable narrator, and the contrast with Thackeray's source
novel. [And both Frederic Jameson and Jean Baudrillard, alas, only
devoted a paragraph or two to the film]. Much better to evaluate the
film as consistent with, and in the light of, Kubrick's other work,
especially 2001 and EWS ...
RE Barry trying to 'transcent his environment' during the final duel:
yes, except - hating the term 'transcendent' with its implied
humanist or supernaturalist connotations - I'd prefer to use a (post-
human) term like unplugging, disconnecting from, as Fisher argued, the
'miserable prisonhouse of the human', from hacking through "the dense
accretion of repetition-compulsions and habit-programs which
constitute human subjectivity", rejecting the ego-based human game,
escaping from being a 'helpless coquette of the passions, dancing to
someone else's tune.'
And yes, the theme of the Father(s), of the Symbolic authority/Big
Other, its lack or absence, and its transference, for Barry, still a
prisoner of Oedipus indeed, is also ripe for exploration].
kelpzoidzl
>
> 9. The film is ultimately about loss. Man is doomed to lose what he
> has
I have always felt that the film is not about all types of people,
"Man"------ but about a particular kind of person or human flaw anyone
can have, but Barry more so then others. Barry exemplifies, the
kind of person who is rash and makes very poor choices, thus leading
to so much loss. It is not just fate. Although everyone has degrees
of these flaws and impediments, that Barry exhibits, Barry stands
out as particulary susceptible to rash actions, pride and jealousy as
spotlighted in the film. So I think the film is about bad choices,
leading to bad fates--even at the level of mystic coincidence. His
powerlessness against fate, is because of these impediments. Captain
Feeny is not a random theif, but a punisher sent to meet him on the
road, due to an incontrovertible cause and effect.
It is not a story of a persecuted hero, saint or martyr, nor is it a
story about a sincere but weak guy, who seeks to get ahead in life
agaisnt overwhelming obstacles. It's about a guy ruled by pride who
makes very poor choices. His fatal flaws are his pride and stupidity,
which overrule his good qualities and potential.
Is he really in love with Nora? Or is he just childishly deluded and
ididotic and reacting with subdued rage, from his hurt pride, which
might lead to his own or someone else's death----"I'll have his blood,
or he'll have mine."
He rashly demands a duel, thus setting in motion the later events in a
cause and effect chain reaction. Although he is driven to make these
choices, they are still his own absurd choices.
He listens to no wise counsel, accepts no other, face-saving plan,
alternative plan---- "Look here, Redmond, me boy,
this is a silly business."
This single childish and rash choice and his ignorant belief he
actually killed Quinn, leads him to embark on a life of further absurd
choices, all connected to these flaws in his character. He is like a
leaf floating in the waves or a horse drawn carriage out of control,
He manages to rise into court circles and gain wealth and a hollow
notoriety, but all of it comes crashing down on him since his basic
flaw is still in play. "Fate" may have even been trying to reward
him and give him another chance, but he never learns anything and
botches everything up again and again.
He has no moral fiber and loses everything. It is not just blind fate
at work, it's the poison in his mind---- and refusal to take the
antidotes and inability to transform poison into medicine.
"Utterly baffled and beaten..."
I think this is the basic message Kubrick is sending.
dc
kelpzoidzl
of course significant---but this in itself, is not indicative that all
people must repeat these kinds of fates--- although it does give us an
idea as to how poor, stupid Barry became the way he is.
dc
MP
> [I've been disappointed with much of the analyses of BL to date, most
> of them (Crispin-Miller, Nelson, et al) concentrating on issues of
> language, narrative, the infamous debate about the disjunctive
> unreliable/reliable narrator, and the contrast with Thackeray's source
> novel. [And both Frederic Jameson and Jean Baudrillard, alas, only
> devoted a paragraph or two to the film].
Sorry for the late reply; I've been out of the country.
Yeah, there's not much written on Barry Lyndon. I think this is
because Barry Lyndon simply doesn't feel as mysterious as Kubrick's
later films. His later pictures give the impression of ideas being
constantly worked out, but Barry Lyndon seems less interested in ideas
and more interested with simply telling a good tale. Writers thus tend
to focus on the "look" and "technique" of the film, as they're unable
to get a handle on the content.
Kubrick once said that no true historical film had been made. What
does this statement mean? How is Barry Lyndon a "true" historical
film?
> Much better to evaluate the film as consistent with, and in the light of, Kubrick's other work,
> especially 2001 and EWS ...
I guess Barry is a bit like Bill Hartford. Tantalized by what he ses
at Somerton, Bill becomes Barry and goes on a quest to climb the
social ladder. The lowly Irishman hopes to become a man of class and
standing, tranding his doctor's badge for something more substantial.
Barry's freeze frame also recalls Jack Torrance's "freeze". Jack is
frozen, firstly in the photograph, and secondly in the snow. You get
the impression that both men are unable to progress, but though Jack
is stuck in a loop, Barry largely understands his mistakes. One thing
I liked about "Barry Lyndon" is how the bathroom scene differs from
other bathroom scenes in Kubrick's filmography. Kubrick's bathrooms
are always a place of primal, brutal acts. Here, it's where Barry is
at his most noble. He appologises for his infidelities and reconciles
with his life. They actually seem to be happy after this moment.
Then there's the issue of art. Both Eyes Wide Shut and Barry Lyndon,
seem to link art and fantasy. Barry seems to be on a quest to live
some tacky fantasy. A big house, a pretty wife, a plump kid. I said
earlier that the film's language used "paintings" and intricate
compositions to suggest that man is ultimately boxed in and at the
mercy of some larger artist, but perhaps they also indicate the
seduction of beauty. Man seeks an ordered, ritualized, idealized word,
which he boxes off and creates for himself.
While Alice can verbalise and articulate her fantasies, Bill seeks to
make his fantasies a reality through experience and images. In both
films, the language of film is a manifestation of the character's
desires. Bill exists to keep the fantasies of his masters running
smoothly, whilst Barry craves these fantasies himself. In both cases
the seduction is unmasked, the make up is washed off and the sexual
titilation short circuited, to reveal something ugly and banal
underneath. Barry's Somerton mansion is not a happy home and his
paintings and parties garner him no respect.
Alice, in Eyes Wide Shut, was treated as a beautiful statue, framed by
Roman columns. She's delishious art, there to be consumed by her male
admirers. And yet she's also a failed artist or failed art gallery
owner. Her married life has killed her passion, her wild fucking, and
now she's a withered model. "Would you like to see the models
upstairs?" Zandor asks. Maybe he can help her rekindle her passion. A
little injection of money, and a little Hungarian dicky, and she's all
set to go. Meanwhile, Bill navigates the party, two models on his
arms.
Anyway, my point is that in EWS, Kubrick equates art, models,
paintings, statues etc, with seduction (which he then undermines or
short circuits). Perhaps similar ideas are being played out in Barry
Lyndon.