While I’m the first to admit that I’m not the biggest fan of Stanley Kubrick’s work, I also don’t hide the fact that some of his movies are fantastic. Films like Paths of Glory, Spartacus, and Full Metal Jacket more than deserve their reputations as some of the best in cinematic history. But what about his movies that, in my humble opinion, strive for greatness and get close but don’t quite get there.
One of those is Kubrick’s epic drama Barry Lyndon. Released in 1975, the film received admiration from critics upon release but financially underperformed. Given the pressures Kubrick was under while making it (including a potentially genuine threat to Kubrick’s life by the Provisional IRA), the efforts that went into it did not seem to pay off. Still, retrospective examination of the film has been more favorable due to its groundbreaking cinematography (particularly its use of natural lighting). Even acclaimed filmmakers like Martin Scorsese have named it one of their favorite Kubrick movies. But I have to ask…why isn’t Barry Lyndon great? [NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Barry Lyndon.” You have been warned.] What’s It About Based on the 1844 picaresque novel by British author William Makepeace Thackeray, Barry Lydon tells the “rise-and-fall” story of Redmond Barry (Ryan O’Neal), an Irish rogue who seeks to improve his life by seizing the opportunities presented to him. After falling in love with his cousin Nora Brady (Gay Hamilton) and derailing her marriage proposal to Captain John Quin (Leonard Rossiter), Barry flees home and is robbed while traveling. Penniless, he joins the British Army to start over. After losing his friend Captain Grogan (Godfrey Quigley) during battle in Germany, Barry gets fed up with war and deserts. However, while en route to the Netherlands, he is found out by Captain Potzdorf (Harry Krüger) of Prussia who threatens to turn Barry over to the British unless he enlists in the Prussian Army. Barry reluctantly does so, and ends up earning a special commendation from King Frederick II for showing valor in battle. Upon the conclusion of the Seven Years’ War, Potzdorf’s uncle hires Barry to work in law enforcement. He goes undercover as a servant to the Chevalier de Balibari (Patrick Magee), a professional gambler suspected of spying for the Austrians. However, since Balibari is a fellow Irishman, Barry reveals everything to him and they work together to cheat at cards. This leads to Balibari getting into trouble but Barry is able to sneak him out of Prussia before he himself (disguised as the Chevalier) leaves the next day to reunite with his gambling companion. Spending the next few years trekking across Europe with Balibari, Barry eventually comes across and seduces the wealthy Countess of Lyndon (Marisa Berenson). They marry shortly after the death of the countess’s elderly husband’s death, and Barry takes her surname and settles in England with his new wife. However, tensions quickly boil over as Lady Lyndon’s ten-year-old son by her late husband, Lord Bullingdon (Dominic Savage), comes to hate Barry which spurs him to physically abuse his stepson. Despite having a son by her, Barry’s marriage to Lady Lyndon is toxic due to his transparent adultery and excessive spending habits. Upon the arrival of Barry’s mother Belle (Marie Kean) coming to live with him and the countess, she advises her son to obtain a title of nobility for himself to protect his inheritance of his wife’s wealth from Lord Bullingdon. He starts laying plans to ingratiate himself to high society (spending lots of money in the process), but it starts derailing when a now-adult Lord Bullingdon (Leon Vitali) crashes his mother’s lavish birthday party that Barry put on by publicly decrying him. In retaliation, Barry beats Bullingdon until he is physically restrained. This brash action ousts Barry from polite society for good. As their finances strain, Barry gifts his son Bryan (David Morley) a horse for his ninth birthday. However, after the horse throws Bryan (resulting in his death days later), Barry becomes a grief-stricken alcoholic and Lady Lyndon attempts suicide. To straighten out their accounts and comfort the countess, Lord Bullingdon is sent for. Upon arriving, he challenges his stepfather to a duel. After Bullingdon misfires, Barry intentionally fires into the ground but Bullingdon refuses to let the dual end. In the second round, Bullingdon successfully wounds Barry in the leg causing Barry to have his leg forcibly amputated above the knee. While Barry recovers, Bullingdon takes control over his mother’s estate and attempts to bribe Barry with an annual salary on the condition that he leave England permanently. Without credit or savings, Barry has no choice but to accept and resorts to his former life of gambling (albeit with minimal success). What’s Good About It Whatever I think of many Kubrick films, I will not deny that several of them are innovative cinema in more ways than one (most prominently, the Oscar-winning special effects of 2001: A Space Odyssey are a standout). And even though Barry Lyndon is a lesser-known movie within Kubrick’s filmography, it solidifies itself as one of his best cinematic achievements on a technical level. For one thing, the production design of Barry Lyndon appears flawless. From the costumes to the sets and environments, Kubrick’s creative team managed to seemingly perfectly capture the somewhat chaotic nature of mid-18th century Europe with the many wars and political unrest preceding the French Revolution. Even setting aside its revolutionary lighting techniques, the film remains (in my humble opinion) one of the gold standards of production design nearly fifty years after it came out. However, the most notable technical achievement of Barry Lyndon without a doubt is the cinematography. John Alcott, Kubrick’s go-to cinematographer from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, and his collaboration with the director on this movie managed to capture the landscapes of the European countryside in such a breathtaking way so as to make these environments feel both classic and lively at the same time. But it’s the film’s reliance on natural lighting that is truly a technical marvel and breakthrough for the industry. By utilizing candles to light many of the indoor scenes (and relying on Zeiss camera lenses developed for NASA to capture the dark side of the moon in the process), Kubrick and Alcott crafted some deservedly Oscar-winning cinematography to elevate this film as a breathtaking piece of visual artistry. Combining the immersive production design with the revolutionary lighting, Kubrick balances the epic with the intimate in order to craft an exceptionally well-made movie. Despite my gripes with the story, Barry Lyndon is worth watching for the technical craft on display alone. What’s Holding It Back While Barry Lyndon is an excellent film from a technical and visual standpoint, it’s not necessarily the most compelling narrative ever made for the silver screen. As a “rise and fall” tale set in Georgian England and pre-Napoleonic Europe, the film struggled to justify me being invested in the actual ascendance and downfall of its eponymous protagonist. Clearly, it isn’t Kubrick’s fault per se since he nabbed some career-defining performances from actors in his other films (Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory, Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange, and Jack Nicholson in The Shining; just to name a few). However, I feel like Ryan O’Neal take on Lyndon lacks any kind of charm or approachability. Even if I can’t empathize with him, I should be able to sympathize to some degree with his predicaments and his journey. But I never really did. On the other hand, maybe Kubrick can partially be blamed for my struggle to care about Lyndon’s ultimate failure to succeed in life. What I mean by that is his cold and detached approach to the story feels excessive. In other words, instead of showing me why I should despise Lyndon through his actions he makes me struggle to care much at all from the onset. All in all, Barry Lyndon is a movie that looks great but (in my humble opinion) doesn’t quite achieve the full potential of its storytelling by solidifying itself as one of the great “rise and fall” tales ever put to cinema. Is it worth watching? If you’re a fan of Kubrick’s other work, I do recommend it as a point of comparison. Furthermore, if you appreciate visually innovative cinema from the 1970s, it should rise towards to the top of your “to-watch” list. Otherwise, though, I’d recommend films like Scarface or Goodfellas before this one in terms of the kind of story that it’s trying to tell. But maybe I’m wrong, and Barry Lyndon is truly a cinematic masterpiece. I suppose you’ll have to convince me otherwise. 😊 What am I missing about Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon? Do you think it’s a great movie or do you agree that something’s holding it back from greatness? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|