Recommended analysis of Barry Lyndon?
BT
as well have been the very first time--I had almost zero recollection of
seeing the film as a teenager, though I'm pretty sure that I had.)
Anyway, I found the film compelling, but I felt less engaged by layered
themes than with most SK films. I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a
good written analysis of the film, in English, preferably on the web.
Thanks in advance.
By the way, I watched BL on DVD--it looked like a bad video transfer,
technically very disappointing.
Lord Bullingdon
Stanley Kubrick's BARRY LYNDON is almost aggressive in its cool
detachment: It defies us to care, it forces us to remain
detached about its stately elegance. Many of its developments
take place offscreen, the narrator consistently tells us what's
about to happen and we learn long before the film ends that its
hero will die poor and childless. This news doesn't much depress
us, because Kubrick has directed Ryan O'Neal in the title role
as if he were a still life; it's difficult to imagine such
tumultuous events whirling around such a passive character.
And yet the film has the arrogance of genius. Never mind how
much it cost, how many years it was in the making: How many
directors would have Kubrick's confidence in taking this mass of
historical fact and fiction, this ultimately inconsequential
story of a young man's rise and fall, and realizing it in a
style that absolutely dictates our attitude toward it? We don't
just see Kubrick's movie, we see it in the frame of mind he
insists on—unless we're so closed to the notion of directorial
styles that the whole thing just seems like a beautiful
extravagance.
Kubrick's work, it's often pointed out, has a sense of
detachment, of bloodlessness; the most "human" character in his
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY was the computer, and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE
was disturbing in the objectivity of its approach to violence
(even its title—Anthony Burgess's, but it must have caught
Kubrick's eye on the shelf—) illustrates Kubrick's attitude to
his material. He likes to take organic subjects and disassemble
them as if they were mechanical. It's not just that he wants to
know what makes us tick; what's compulsive is his conviction
that we do all tick.
With BARRY LYNDON, based on a novel by Thackeray, he has a very
nearly ideal subject for the exploration of this theme. His hero
is a young man that things happen to; Barry seems to exercise
little conscious control over his life. He falls into a foolish
adolescent love, has to leave the district suddenly after a
duel, enlists almost absentmindedly in the British Army, fights
in Europe, deserts from not one but both sides, falls in with
influential and unscrupulous companions, marries a woman of
wealth and beauty and then destroys his own world because he
lacks the character to survive in it. And all of these things
seem accidental; there's no reason why they must happen, no
theory of life or character that drives the hero to his end.
No theory, that is, within Barry Lyndon's life. But Kubrick
examines that life as if through the wrong end of a telescope,
seeing it in microscopic clarity. He has the confidence here of
the great 19th Century novelists, authors who stood above their
material and accepted without question their right to manipulate
and interpret it with omniscience. Kubrick has appropriated
Thackeray's attitude—or Trollope's or George Eliot's. Barry
Lyndon, falling in and out of love and success, may see no
pattern in his own affairs, but the artist sees one for him.
Perhaps Kubrick's buried theme in BARRY LYNDON is even similar
to his outlook in 2001. Both films are about organisms striving
to endure and prevail—and never mind the reason why. The earlier
film was about the human race itself; this one if about a rather
minor, selfish, modestly pleasant example of it.
There's a sense in both films that a superior force hovers above
these struggles, sometimes taking an interest. In 2001, it was a
never-clarified form of greater intelligence. In BARRY LYNDON,
it's Kubrick himself, standing aloof from the action by two
distancing devices: the narrator, who deliberately destroys
suspense and tension by informing us of all key developments in
advance, and the photography, which is a succession of
meticulously, almost coldly, composed set images.
This must be one of the most beautiful films ever made, and yet
the beauty's not in the service of emotion, it's disdainful of
it. Against magnificent backdrops, the characters play at little
intrigues and scandals. They cheat at cards and marriage, they
fight ridiculous duels, they're at their most appealing when
they're childish. This is a film with a backdrop of a war that
engulfed Europe, and it hardly seems to think human events are
worth the effort needed to scrutinize them. By placing such
little characters on such a big stage, by forcing our detachment
from them, Kubrick supplies a philosophical position just as
clearly as if he'd put speeches in his character's mouths.
Some people find BARRY LYNDON a fascinating, if cold, exercise
in masterful filmmaking; others find it a terrific bore. I have
little sympathy for the second opinion; how can anyone be bored
by such an audacious film, unless they've become such passive
filmgoers that no movie can involve them unless it caters to
them?
BARRY LYNDON isn't a great success, and it's not a great
entertainment, but it's a great example of directorial vision:
Kubrick saying he's not just going to make this material
function as an illustration of the way he sees the world.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
stalepie
>The Spartacus Swimming Pool is still up as well:
>
>http://homestead.deja.com/user.boaz8741/spartacuspool.htm
thanks for that barry lyndon information, but are you sure the
Spartacus Swimming Pool thing is still up? Doesn't appear to be,
for me...
stale
Lord Bullingdon
>No theory, that is, within Barry Lyndon's life. But Kubrick
>examines that life as if through the wrong end of a telescope,
>seeing it in microscopic clarity. He has the confidence here of
>the great 19th Century novelists, authors who stood above their
>material and accepted without question their right to
>manipulate and interpret it with omniscience.
Again, I seriously question Ebert's assertation that Kubrick was
out to manipulate the audience. This seems very wrongheaded.
---------------------------------------
Peter, Ebert affirmed that Kubrick manipulated and interpreted
his own work. He meant that the 19th century novelists told
their stories manipulating and interpreting them as they wished.
The novels are not real-life biographies, they strongly reflect
the authors' world view, ideas and philosophies. Exactly like
Kubrick's movies. That's what ebert meant.
boaz...@my-deja.com
I haven't checked this website in a long time, but try this address:
http://cinemania.msn.com/Cinemania/Reviews/Collection/BarryLyndon.htm
If this address still exists, it has a pretty good review of the film
by Jim Emerson.
Also, for what it's worth, if you can somehow find the Spring or Summer
1976 issue of Film Quarterly, there are two excellent articles
regarding "Barry Lyndon;" one is "Kubrick and His Discontents," by Hans
Feldmann, and the other is a review of the film itself by Michael
Dempsey. The Feldmann article is quite good in analyzing the film in
comparison to DS, 2001 and ACO, tying the elements of each film
together quite well. The Dempsey review also goes into detail and does
a good job in bringing out the film's best virtues. Both authors, it
appears, had time to think about the film before writing their own
pieces, and they manage to do justice to Kubrick's vision that most of
the other reviews -- written in haste and for a deadline prior to its
Christmas, '75, release -- failed to do.
Boaz
And be sure to check out "Young Dr. Strangelove,"
http://homestead.deja.com/user.boaz8741/yngdrstrglv.html
The Spartacus Swimming Pool is still up as well:
http://homestead.deja.com/user.boaz8741/spartacuspool.htm
And, of course, "I Only Have Eyes For You" is also still there:
http://homestead.deja.com/user.boaz8741/eyes4u.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Peter Tonguette
>I recently saw Barry Lyndon for the first time in many years. (It might
>as well have been the very first time--I had almost zero recollection of
>seeing the film as a teenager, though I'm pretty sure that I had.)
>
>Anyway, I found the film compelling, but I felt less engaged by layered
>themes than with most SK films.
>I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a
>good written analysis of the film, in English, preferably on the web.
>Thanks in advance.
Well, since this is alt.movies.kubrick, I would recommend AMK'er Bilge Ebiri's
essay "Barry Lyndon: The Shape of Things to Come." It's some of the best
Kubrick scholarship out there. Here's the link:
http://www.alta.demon.co.uk/amk/doc/0026.html
>By the way, I watched BL on DVD--it looked like a bad video transfer,
>technically very disappointing.
I actually felt that BL was the best of the DVD transfers - not that that's
saying very much...
Peter Tonguette
Peter Tonguette
>I highly recommend this analysis, by Roger Ebert:
I have never found Ebert to be a very perceptive critic in regards to Kubrick,
but some of what he writes here is bordering on the ludicrous.
[Ebert review:]
>Stanley Kubrick's BARRY LYNDON is almost aggressive in its cool
>detachment: It defies us to care, it forces us to remain
>detached about its stately elegance. Many of its developments
>take place offscreen, the narrator consistently tells us what's
>about to happen and we learn long before the film ends that its
>hero will die poor and childless.
This is key to the film's themes (see below)
>This news doesn't much depress
>us, because Kubrick has directed Ryan O'Neal in the title role
>as if he were a still life; it's difficult to imagine such
>tumultuous events whirling around such a passive character.
The theme of "Barry Lyndon" is, briefly, man's inability to determine his fate
and the ultimate inconsequence of our actions in the face of this. I can't
think of any other film that touches on this theme as deeply or as profoundly.
>And yet the film has the arrogance of genius.
Strange phrase.
>Never mind how
>much it cost, how many years it was in the making: How many
>directors would have Kubrick's confidence in taking this mass of
>historical fact and fiction, this ultimately inconsequential
>story of a young man's rise and fall, and realizing it in a
>style that absolutely dictates our attitude toward it?
I can think of no director who dictates the audience's attitude towards the
material less than Kubrick. I can think of few films that spell out what the
audience is supposed to feel less than "Barry Lyndon."
>Kubrick's work, it's often pointed out, has a sense of
>detachment, of bloodlessness; the most "human" character in his
>2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY was the computer,
Kubrick was unfailingly honest in his depiction of human nature. What he
didn't do was pander, or sentimentalize, or provide us with easy answers. I
suspect this fact has a lot to do with the old "coldness" rap.
>and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE
>was disturbing in the objectivity
Two points: 1) since when has a sense of objectivity in art become disturbing
in and by itself; 2) the film is not objective at all; the subjectivity of the
material is very much the point. We see the acts of violence from Alex's point
of view. The basic theme of "A Clockwork Orange" is as relevant to today's
society as any Kubrick ever touched on - that when man ceases to make his own
moral and ethical choices in life, he ceases to be a man. Kubrick is able to
give real weight and clarity to this concept by forcing the audience to
identify with Alex. Ebert is looking for the pandering moralizing of a lesser
film.
>No theory, that is, within Barry Lyndon's life. But Kubrick
>examines that life as if through the wrong end of a telescope,
>seeing it in microscopic clarity. He has the confidence here of
>the great 19th Century novelists, authors who stood above their
>material and accepted without question their right to manipulate
>and interpret it with omniscience.
Again, I seriously question Ebert's assertation that Kubrick was out to
manipulate the audience. This seems very wrongheaded.
>Some people find BARRY LYNDON a fascinating, if cold, exercise
>in masterful filmmaking; others find it a terrific bore. I have
>little sympathy for the second opinion; how can anyone be bored
>by such an audacious film, unless they've become such passive
>filmgoers that no movie can involve them unless it caters to
>them?
This last statement actually sounds like a fairly decent assessment of Ebert's
own attitude towards a good deal of Kubrick's work. FMJ anyone?
Peter Tonguette
Tom Davidson
news:BT-F3F87D.14...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> I recently saw Barry Lyndon for the first time in many years. (It might
> as well have been the very first time--I had almost zero recollection of
> seeing the film as a teenager, though I'm pretty sure that I had.)
>
> Anyway, I found the film compelling, but I felt less engaged by layered
> themes than with most SK films. I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a
> good written analysis of the film, in English, preferably on the web.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> technically very disappointing.
Try Nelson's take on Barry Lyndon in "Kubrick: Inside A
Film Artist's Maze"
boaz...@my-deja.com
stalepie <stalepie...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
> boaz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >The Spartacus Swimming Pool is still up as well:
> >
> >http://homestead.deja.com/user.boaz8741/spartacuspool.htm
>
> Spartacus Swimming Pool thing is still up? Doesn't appear to be,
> for me...
>
> stale
Yes, it is still up there. I goofed on the address. Here it is:
http://homestead.deja.com/user.boaz8741/files/spartacuspool.htm
I forgot to add "files" to it, as I did it on FrontPage 2000 instead of
the software Homestead provided.
Boaz
BT
them at this point, but it's clear they will be helpul in thinking about
the film. If anyone has more suggestions, please keep them coming.
Lord Bullingdon
>Kubrick's work, it's often pointed out, has a sense of
>detachment, of bloodlessness; the most "human" character in his
>2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY was the computer
>Kubrick was unfailingly honest in his depiction of human
>nature. What he didn't do was pander, or sentimentalize, or
>provide us with easy answers. I suspect this fact has a lot to
>do with the old "coldness" rap.
I agree with you that Kubrick was honest in his depiction of
human nature. The notion of the absurdity and imperfection of
the human behaviour is probably the most important theme in
Kubrick's work. And A.I would be his final word on the subject.
I DON'T THINK KUBRICK'S APPROACH ON BARRY LYNDON AND A.I. MAKES
HIM NOT A HUMANIST. I THINK IT IS PROFOUNDLY HUMANE TO IDENTIFY
MAN'S EMOTIONAL LIMITATIONS AND TO HAVE A SHARP NOTION OF THE
ABSURD. KUBRICK WAS AWARE OF MEN'S IMPERFECTIONS, CONTRADICTORY
FEELINGS AND REACTIONS AND LIMITATIONS. He showed the "assets
and liabilities" of both emotions and rationality. But I believe
rationality had a LOT more assets than the emotions in his
films.
Alexander Walker said that : Kubrick's skepticism about the
upward progress of mankind, which sharpened the barbed pessimism
of Dr. Strangelove, is linked with his own high regard for
reason, logic and precision -
KUBRICK himself said: : ....I wouldn't put it like that. I think
that when Rousseau transferred the concept of original sin from
man to society, he was responsible for a lot of misguided social
thinking which followed. I don't think that man is what he is
because of an imperfectly structured society, but rather that
society is imperfectly structured because of the nature of man.
No philosophy based on an incorrect view of the nature of man is
likely to produce social good.
...We're never going to get down to doing anything about the
things are really bad in the world until there is recognition
within us of the darker side of our natures, the shadow side."
Jack Nicholson said, regarding his performance in The Shining,
that Stanley didn't want realism. Kubrick said to him: "SO, IT
IS REAL, BUT IS IT INTERESTING?
Peter, you said:
>and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE
>was disturbing in the objectivity
>Two points: 1) since when has a sense of objectivity in art
>become disturbing in and by itself; 2) the film is not
>objective at all; the subjectivity of the material is very much
>the point. We see the acts of violence from Alex's point of
>view. The basic theme of "A Clockwork Orange" is as relevant to
>today's society as any Kubrick ever touched on - that when man
>ceases to make his own moral and ethical choices in life, he
>ceases to be a man. Kubrick is able to give real weight and
>clarity to this concept by forcing the audience to identify
>with Alex. Ebert is looking for the pandering moralizing of a
>lesser film.
The objectivity Roger Ebert talked about is the objective,
clear, unrestrained way violence is portrayed in Clockwork
Orange. He didn't mean the FILM was especifically objective, or
not subjective. Ebert was NOT looking for the pandering
moralizing of a lesser film. He was reffering to the violence
only. And the fact that it was disturbing is a way of giving
real weight and clarity to his concepts.
I completely agree with the rest of what you said.
Lord Bullingdon
Peter T. , you commented:
"Strange phrase"
Why do you think it is strange? Stanley WAS a genius, and the
themes and ideas portrayed in his films are very strong,
controversial, sometimes disturbing, and TRUE. That's what Ebert
meant.
Lord Bullingdon
Never mind how
>much it cost, how many years it was in the making: How many
>directors would have Kubrick's confidence in taking this mass
>of historical fact and fiction, this ultimately inconsequential
>story of a young man's rise and fall, and realizing it in a
>style that absolutely dictates our attitude toward it?
Peter T., you said:
>I can think of no director who dictates the audience's attitude
>towards the material less than Kubrick. I can think of few
>films that spell out what the audience is supposed to feel less
>than "Barry Lyndon."
I say:
Kubrick's world view and ideas are present in his movies. The
atmospheres, the behavior of the characters, the music, the
cinematography, the camera movements, the scripts, everything in
his movies are very personal, in the sense that they are a work
of art created by someone with a consistent vision and complete
control over his work.
You probably think that the fact that Kubrick's films have no
sentimentalism means that they have no message, no strong ideas,
philosophies and world views in them. You are wrong. Barry
Lyndon is a movie that shows its characters from a distant
perspective. It makes us look at them in a detached way. Like
Ebert said, Kubrick likes to take organic subjects and
disassemble them as if they were mechanical. It's not just that
he wants to know what makes us tick; what's compulsive is his
conviction that we do all tick. (As I said before, this
convinction would be fully explored in A.I. , his most ambitious
movie)
M4RV1N
writes:
>Thank you all for the suggestions--I've just had a chance to glance at
>them at this point, but it's clear they will be helpul in thinking about
>the film. If anyone has more suggestions, please keep them coming.
Okay, here's another. Director Benjamin Ross wrote a brief but outstanding
appreciation of BL in Sight and Sound. I tore the page out of the magazine for
my files and so I'm sorry I can't tell you the issue (but it was at the time of
the release of his film, "The Young Poisoner's Handbook"--a film with many,
actually too many, references to ACO, by the way).
Here are some excerpts which echo my thoughts perfectly:
_____________
...For all of its intricately detailed artifice, the film struck right at the
heart of my childhood and family experience in the most direct and emotional
way. Films rejected on first release often prove the most interesting and
timeless.
In opposition to the feel-good faction, I have always thought failure to be one
of the most pleasureable dramatic spectacles.
The camera's poise is deceptive and belies deeper processes, all the more
powerful for being so artfully constrained. "One of the most >emotional< films
I've seen," confessed Scorsese [in his documentary on film.].
"Barry Lyndon" is the antithesis of what mainstream filmmaking has become. As
often noted, Kubrick's main concern in the story is the very opposite of
keeping people in suspense. That goes against the formulaic logic of most film
narratives but in Kubrick's hands it is a key to a greater dramatic intensity.
Redmond Barry's journey... has the simple predictability of a cautionary tale.
In an interview somewhere Kubrick argued that film has not progressed at a
formal level since the first pioneeers discovered its basic syntax of
composition, montage and mise en scene. Kubrick himself might be one of the
exceptions, and seems to me to have been chipping away at film on a formal
level for years. From "2001" onwards his narratives have been the most
experimental in the mainstream. They have somehow contrived to become both
more visceral and more abstract--inviting and repelling interpretation with
equal measure. They are enigmas which contain rather than yield up their
complexity, demanding to be felt and experienced before they are analyzed.
Kubrick likes to invert the half-baked sentimentalities of conventional film
narrative so that something more substantial can emerge. And this "something"
turns out to be moments, images, or whole narratives of stunning emotional
primacy, so self-contained as to be perfectly mysterious and dreamlike.
(BL is)...closer in tone to the elegy of "2001"... Its dominant tone is one of
yearning--of promise unfulfilled.
In keeping with Kubrick's very plastic, self-contained art, the pose is the
emotion, captured again and again in an eternal round of unfulfilled desire and
loss.
_______________
It struck me as I re-read this how apt it is in regards to "Eyes Wide Shut" as
well. As someone else said, my top recommendation is that you find a copy of
Nelson's book.
Mark Ervin
AT
>>And yet the film has the arrogance of genius.
>
Maybe it was Ebert's way of saying that the film "threw normal film
making conventions out the door", hence it's arrogance which often
times accompanies genius.
Peter Tonguette
>Peter T., you said:
>
>>I can think of no director who dictates the audience's attitude
>>towards the material less than Kubrick. I can think of few
>>films that spell out what the audience is supposed to feel less
>>than "Barry Lyndon."
>
>I say:
>
>Kubrick's world view and ideas are present in his movies. The
>atmospheres, the behavior of the characters, the music, the
>cinematography, the camera movements, the scripts, everything in
>his movies are very personal, in the sense that they are a work
>of art created by someone with a consistent vision and complete
>control over his work.
>
>You probably think that the fact that Kubrick's films have no
>sentimentalism means that they have no message, no strong ideas,
>philosophies and world views in them.
No, I don't think that - and if you would read my comments in the current
thread "Kubrick's 2001" you would see I make basically the same argument you
are making here. Kubrick invested every major element of his films with
careful thought and consideration. I don't see my statement, "I can think of
no other director who dictates the audience's attitude towards the material
less than SK," as being incongruent with that.
Peter
Lord Bullingdon
>making: How many directors would have Kubrick's confidence in
>taking this mass of historical fact and fiction, this
>ultimately inconsequential story of a young man's rise and
>fall, and realizing it in a style that absolutely dictates our
>attitude toward it?
Peter,
What Ebert meant by saying this is that Barry Lyndon is a movie
that shows its characters from a distant perspective,it makes us
look at them in a detached way. Every work of art reflects the
ideas, philosophies and world views of its author. Kubrick made
a statement with Barry Lyndon.The way the story is presented to
us, The atmospheres, the behavior of the characters, the music,
the cinematography, the camera movements and the script DO
dictate our attitude towards the material. That doesn't mean
that the movie tries to ingratiate itself with the audience, or
that it is melodrama full of sentimentalism. But that means
Barry Lyndon is a philosophical movie, that brings ideas to the
spectators, forces them to share Kubrick's own way of seeing the
world, our society. THAT is art.
Peter Tonguette
>>Never mind how much it cost, how many years it was in the
>>making: How many directors would have Kubrick's confidence in
>>taking this mass of historical fact and fiction, this
>>ultimately inconsequential story of a young man's rise and
>>fall, and realizing it in a style that absolutely dictates our
>>attitude toward it?
>
>Peter,
>
>What Ebert meant by saying this is that Barry Lyndon is a movie
>that shows its characters from a distant perspective,it makes us
>look at them in a detached way. Every work of art reflects the
>ideas, philosophies and world views of its author. Kubrick made
>a statement with Barry Lyndon.The way the story is presented to
>us, The atmospheres, the behavior of the characters, the music,
>the cinematography, the camera movements and the script DO
>dictate our attitude towards the material. That doesn't mean
>that the movie tries to ingratiate itself with the audience, or
>that it is melodrama full of sentimentalism. But that means
>Barry Lyndon is a philosophical movie, that brings ideas to the
>spectators, forces them to share Kubrick's own way of seeing the
>world, our society. THAT is art.
Again, I don't disagree with what you say and some of this is just semantics.
Maybe we're just reading his review differently. But I stand by my earlier
comments in this thread - I can't think of any filmmaker whose style _less_
dictates the audience's attitudes towards the material than Kubrick. This
topic requires further elaboration that I don't have the time to address in
this post, suffice it to say that this attitude towards Kubrick's work has
always been popular among his detractors, and it necessarily removes a lot of
the audience's involvement in the work itself. The process of viewing a
Kubrick film is, to an enormous degree and one I can't stress enough, one of
discovery - trying to uncover what he was getting at and finding an
approximation in our own minds of what was in Kubrick's head when he made the
film. The term "dictates" implies, to me, that these things are already
spelled out and the audience's function is reduced to that of reciever of
information as opposed to active participant. As I said at the beginning of
this post, a lot of this boils down to semantics.
I've been having trouble with AOL all week, so apologies for the late replies
on some of these posts.
Peter Tonguette
edbe...@my-deja.com
might
> as well have been the very first time--I had almost zero recollection
of
> seeing the film as a teenager, though I'm pretty sure that I had.)
>
> Anyway, I found the film compelling, but I felt less engaged by
layered
> themes than with most SK films. I'm wondering if anyone can
recommend a
> good written analysis of the film, in English, preferably on the
web.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> By the way, I watched BL on DVD--it looked like a bad video transfer,
> technically very disappointing.
Hi BT, you might want to check out a recently updated book called
Kubrick: Inside a Film Artists Maze by Thomas Allen Nelson. The first
version was published just after the Shining was released. The update
includes Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut analysis...a little heavy
reading at times but shows many subtle points in SK's films...
edbermac