- There are a few films that may be equal to Barry Lyndon’s visual beauty (from Days of Heaven, In the Mood For Love, others– including works from the great Kubrick himself) – but none that I’d say are comfortably superior
- Many aspects of Kubrick’s masterpiece are worthy of praise, but I want to get to the main point quickly- the film is driven by a rigorous, formal, visual approach using technology (the zoom lens) on masterful compositions. The Shining is largely driven by tracking shots (through the advent and development of the Steadicam) and here it is the zoom, and it has never been used better (though Altman in the other massive 1975 masterpiece Nashville is close). In 50+ compositions, Kubrick either starts in a close-up and slowly zooms out to reveal a gorgeously mounted cinematic landscape painting, or, he starts in the wider shot with the gorgeously mounted cinematic painting, and slowly zooms in for a closer look.
- Kubrick uses the purposefully trivial titles for his two part (with epilogue) epic
- brilliant use of Piano Trio in E Flat by Schubert
- Filming took place over the course of two years and 300 days—many shots taking 25, 50, 100 times- certainly more David Fincher (Kubrick predates Fincher obviously) than Eastwood
- The opening frame is a duel—which is fitting. It is a frame Kubrick holds, there are varying depths of field on display– different natural level elevations and obstructions giving it a rich complexity
The opening frame is a duel—which is fitting. It is a frame Kubrick holds, there are varying depths of field on display– different natural level elevations and obstructions giving it a rich complexity
- The wry voice-over from Michael Hordern lets Kubrick’s camera zoom in and out (there are a few camera movements but not many) and there isn’t honestly that much in-scene dialogue to catch for a 3+ hour film. The lack of in-scene dialogue lets the lens float in and out on the models holding poses. Certainly, it feels like it has to be an influence on Roy Andersson. Von Trier is a big admirer of the film. We have the savage voice-over (Dogville) and those establishing shots that he uses as chapter breaks in Breaking the Waves. Kubrick is clearly influenced by the work of Thomas Gainsborough with those landscapes.
The lack of in-scene dialogue lets the lens float in and out on the actors/models holding poses
- Kubrick constantly defuses the narrative by letting Hordern’s voice spoil the story– giving away the plot points before they happen. “as you’ll soon see”. Kubrick even cuts off his own narrator mid-sentence during an obituary (telling you how he feels about death) just before the intermission
- It is all a charade to Kubrick- the cold, pristine, instructive way he delivers the life of this man—the absurdity of the seven year war backdrop, love, lust, greed, it is all undercut by his caustic sense of humor and nihilistic worldview. Cynically, the ups and downs of Barry Lyndon’s life are revealed, “wandering” used in the text several times. A chilly randomness to this life
It is all a charade to Kubrick- the cold, pristine, instructive way he delivers the life of this man
- Much has been made of the triumph of natural lighting and Kubrick’s work with candles and the praise and hype is all warranted. The exteriors are often shot using natural light as well and this is closer to Malick’s achievement in Days of Heaven in that use than I had previously thought.
Much has been made of the triumph of natural lighting and Kubrick’s work with candles and the praise and hype is all warranted
makes for a companion piece to Eyes Wide Shut — Christmas lights in Eyes Wide Shut and the work with candles here
the 75th best frame in Barry Lyndon is stronger than the best composition from most films
Filming took place over the course of two years and 300 days—many shots taking 25, 50, 100 times- certainly more David Fincher (Kubrick predates Fincher obviously) than Eastwood
- There are too many sublime cinematic paintings to grab. There are 50-100 and I have less than 20 on the page. The introduction of Lady Lyndon hallway through the film almost exactly at 92 minutes with the tracking shot and the zoom in on here didn’t make the cut, the shot of the pool and the gardens at 98minutes that looks like it is out of Last Year at Marienbad didn’t either. The shot of two in close-up with O’Neal smoking at 105 minutes doesn’t either.
You could write an entire paper on Ryan O’Neal and whether he’s the right actor for the job, or it is a good performance. I’ve seen the film five times and I don’t think it is either a brilliant performance or a horrible one.
- Several times we get the magnificent castle reflecting off the pond shot establishing shot
Several times we get the magnificent castle reflecting off the pond shot establishing shot
- Awe-inspiring costume work and period detail and specificity—this has passed every film before it in this regard and influenced every period film since from Marie Antoinette to The Favourite
Awe-inspiring costume work and period detail and specificity—this has passed every film before it in this regard and influenced every period film since from Marie Antoinette to The Favourite
- Makes for a companion piece with A Clockwork Orange and not just because of the camera zooms. This novel (from Thackeray) is said to be the first one without a hero and that had to appeal to Kubrick
- You could write an entire paper on Ryan O’Neal and whether he’s the right actor for the job, or it is a good performance. I’ve seen the film five times and I don’t think it is either a brilliant performance or a horrible one. Apparently Warner Brokers told Kubrick he has to have a top 10 star at the time of financing to back the film and given the age of the character it was either going to be O’Neal or Redford and Redford turned it down. With a lesser budget and better actor I don’t think we have the same film. O’Neal certainly doesn’t ruin the film (far from it given the masterpiece status) but he isn’t one of the major reasons it is on that level either. I think many critics are too hard on his character though. Lyndon is scoundrel and an empty vessel in many ways— but the relationship with his son makes him more complex than critics portray him. And if Kubrick was trying to simply critique him- they would have made the step-son a more likeable character in contrast
- The 140 minute shot of his son on his lap with the massive painting backdrop is a jaw-dropper
The 140 minute shot of his son on his lap with the massive painting backdrop is a jaw-dropper
- At 143 minutes the dining table natural light pouring in composition — spectacular
At 143 minutes the dining table natural light pouring in composition — spectacular
- There is a one-minute long tracking shot of his step-son walking into the bar to challenge him to a duel at the 160 minute mark. O’Neal is passed out on the chair with other drunk posing. It is one of the greatest single frames in cinema history
There is a one-minute long tracking shot of his step-son walking into the bar to challenge him to a duel at the 160 minute mark. O’Neal is passed out on the chair with other drunk posing. It is one of the greatest single frames in cinema history
- Starts with a duel, ends with a duel—we get the windows with the light pouring in for the final battle
Starts with a duel, ends with a duel—we get the windows with the light pouring in for the final battle
and the final image here– impeccable
- A masterpiece among masterpieces
Good review, after your viewing you will move Barry Lyndon up or will stay in the same place?
I think it’s top 50
@Aldo- I want to give it some time but I’m certainly looking at a few films in my top 100 that it should indeed be ahead of
It’s great that you praise the use of the zoom lens so highly. I think zooms are a cinema technique that filmmakers and critics too often take for granted, when they in fact can be used to dramatically elevate a film’s quality. The dolly zoom is, of course, one of cinema’s most exciting little tricks that Hitchcock, Spielberg, Scorsese, and others have utilized. The crash zooms of Wes Anderson, Truffaut, and more are nearly as invigorating. Tarkovsky and Altman have illustrated that you don’t need to be quick and snappy to have masterful zooming as well. However, I think Stanley Kubrick is the master of the technique. Would you agree? In fact, I might consider Kubrick’s use of it one of his best attributes. Many filmmakers choose to do a rather small, medium speed zoom at certain points, but Kubrick crafts them quite quickly or quite slowly. I think the crash zooms in Dr. Strangelove are one of the main aspects of the movie, aside from the brilliant War Room set, that elevate the film to become masterful art rather than just brilliant satire. The Shining has one zoom onto Danny’s face, and probably some others, that is so quick one could be forgiven for thinking it was a cut. The slow zooming you described in Barry Lyndon is stunning as well.
@Graham- yeah the slow zoom is no longer in vogue. Someone wrote about how the tracking shot is a better simulation of the human experience (walking, running, etc) and hey- I love a good tracking shot– but I’m not ranking techniques, you can be awed by either. Certainly nobody did it better than Kubrick. Altman, Pakula come to mind pretty quickly after as well. In fact I probably think of Altman first, not that he does it better than Kubrick, just that Kubrick is like Scorsese or Hitchcock where they do just about everything so well so I don’t associate them so closely (Wes and QT sort of the same) with the zoom.
After reading this review I feel I need to watch it again ASAP. Only seen it once a couple of years back but was so impressed with the scope and how gorgeous it looks that it’s 3rd on my Kubrick ranking and a top 50 film all time. Am overdue for a rewatch.
Watching Barry Lyndon (maybe 5th viewing?)
– This may sound strange, but I couldn’t help but notice similarities between Barry Lyndon and Forrest Gump. They are both passive adult characters who are a little off (obviously more so with Gump). With both of them it seems things happen to them more then they make things happen. They both live incredible lives and sort of accidently stumble into important historical events (Vietnam War, 7 Years War) and situations.
– Ryan O’Neal was an amateur boxer.
– Underrated humor, John Quin’s face when Redmond hands Nora the ribbon or Quin’s face when Redmond refuses to apologize right before their duel.
– Ryan O’Neal’s performance has grown on me overtime. Barry is a character without any redeeming qualities or any authentic personality aside from being a fortune chaser and I have to question if using a different actor would have dramatically improved the film. I can understand the criticisms but at the same time I am starting to think O’Neal’s underacting works quite well. It also sets up the scenes where he shows a great deal of emotions like when his uncle is killed in battle and he breaks down intensely.
– Kubrick wanted to do a Napoleon film, but the commercial failure of Waterloo (1970) prevented this so Kubrick used his research of the time period and put it toward Barry Lyndon
– Kubrick seems to have a great deal of contempt for the people of this era and their faux manners and etiquette. This is consistent with his standard questioning of the goodness of humankind.
[…] Barry Lyndon – Kubrick […]
Just gave this a watch. First impressions: Definitely a MP, and quite possibly in my top 15 films ever. Very close to Clockwork Orange in quality. Second half much stronger than the first half. First half would be like an MS, but the second half is straight top 5-10 film quality for me.
@Christopher – It’s in my personal top ten and probably always will be. It wouldn’t have occurred to me to elevate the second half over the first, though. What makes it stronger, in your eyes?
In the past I’d always get bored when attempting to watch this, but when I rewatched it fully last night while paying attention throughout the entire film, I see why it’s a giant masterpiece. Actually, I used to love Clockwork and hate Lyndon, but now it’s the opposite for me.
Now I have 3 of Kubrick’s films as masterpieces: The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut, and this. I’ll be rewatching FMJ, Strangelove and 2001 again soon (I already rewatched Clockwork again and just didn’t really like it, most likely because of the accents I find repulsive, and fake words they use annoying).
Not sure if I’ll change my opinion on the others on the rewatch as I always had a problem with them (I like the first half of FMJ but can’t get into the second half, and I always found Strangelove a bit boring, and 2001 extremely boring).
But for Barry Lyndon, no doubt it is a gigantic masterpiece and makes the top 10 of the 1970’s very easily. As mentioned here, the constant zooms throughout the film are very well done
Oh and I forgot to mention the score. While I found Clockwork’s score terrible and extremely annoying, Barry Lyndon’s score was just phenomenal, extremely well done and you instantly know what film you’re watching if you hear this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91sfrw106xs&list=PLOtHyoIBfBLtRgHlAt7asmi6Dp9jB6o6B&index=1
Ok, just re-watched Clockwork again and definitely was wrong, wrong, wrong. It is a masterpiece as well. So many amazing shots and camera movements and McDowell is great, obviously. I think Barry Lyndon is still probably the better film of the 2, though. Both make my top 10 of the 1970s (Barry Lyndon in the top 5, Clockwork in the top 10).
Not sure if I’ll come around on 2001 or Dr Strangelove, as I’ve never liked them before and have given them a chance many times
@Dylan- I’m impressed- admitting you missed something or were wrong is a very good sign. Too many “it wasn’t for me” type responses from both movie fans and film critics.
On some directors I think I’ll never change my mind about them as their films are way too boring and uninteresting in my opinion, like for example: Wes Anderson, Woody Allen, Malick, Tarkovsky. I already loved some of Kubrick’s movies so I’m definitely a fan of his style. Fincher, Coppola, Lynch, Tarantino, Scorsese, Mann etc are more on the style that I like, interesting/thrilling/mysteries/crime
I watched Mirror and had a hard time figuring out why I didn’t like it, since I liked other surreal/puzzling films. I eventually decided it was because the whole movie felt a bit formless. I think Tarkovsky fell into the trap that many artistis do, of just stringing ideas together and hoping that some form of “genuine expression” comes out. There is some structure (like the change in seasons), but nothing like the rigor in, say, a Resnais film.
If you didn’t like Tarkovsky but liked Kubrick or Lynch (like I do), it might be because of this: his visual style is brilliant, but the structure of his movies relies way too much on extra-cinematic ideas (philosophy, ideas) instead of artistic rigor.
Just my sense from Mirror, maybe you shared it. I am curious why you disliked 2001?
Well, I don’t like the old foreign directors in general and that includes Bergman, Godard, etc. I LOVE Leone but I don’t think that counts because his stuff is in English. I love Park Chan-wook, so it’s not because of subtitles that I dislike them, I just find their work extremely boring, especially for Tarkovsky and post-Days of Heaven Malick, I can’t sit through their films as they are not enjoyable or entertaining in the slightest, imo
I could sit through a Woody Allen or Wes Anderson movie, but definitely not getting any enjoyment out of them. I could watch some Woody Allen like Manhattan or Match Point and get through them, but for Wes Anderson it’s harder as his films like its for kids, like the mainstream Pop music of films
Its easy to explain why you like Kubrick and Lynch and not Tarkovsky, Lynch and Kubrick have amazing characters and stories (like Frank Booth and Blue Velvet, Jack Torrance and The Shining, for example). Tarkovsky is nothing but people talking in Russian for 150-180 minutes and no memorable characters like the above mentioned. You’re not going to get a film as entertaining as Blue Velvet, Eyes Wide Shut, The Shining or Mulholland Drive from him
To be honest, I haven’t seen all or even most of Kubrick’s films. I just loved the ones I saw (that applies to classics in general – I haven’t seen that many, but I loved the ones I see). Kubrick and Lynch often have memorable characters, but not always: 2001 and the last 20 minutes of Twin Peaks Season 2 basically have no characters or story, but I adore both. I also love Renais (Hiroshima, Marienbad, and also Muriel. Muriel I also think might be the most underated movie in history).
I think the dividing line for me, is that the art or art-ish projects I dislike tend to be more “emotional” or “spiritual” (like Tarkovsky) while the ones I like tend to be more like puzzles (Lynch, Kubrick, Resnais). I some artists think “emotional” or “spiritual” art is more profound, but I think they’re wrong; a lot of “instinctual” art ends up being a series of intellectual platitudes.
If you look at Lynch or Renais, they are not trying to push some philosophy of the universe (Tarkovsky). They are just presenting brilliant images (Lynch) or brilliant puzzles (Resnais). I think they are actually some of the most unpretentious artists in the world.
I have never seen Park Chan-wook, and I doubt I would like him, based off what I’ve heard. Just too violent and cruel, from my impression. Same reason I’ve never seen Tarantino, though I’ve never actively avoided him.
2001 is like music: it doesn’t hit intellectually, nor emotionally, but somewhere in between; in the spine. All movies strive to create that shiver in the spine, not of emotion or intellect, but use intellect (plot) or emotion (characters) to create that effect. 2001 tries to strike directly in the core of your being, like a symphony more than a story; if it works, only as an aftereffect will you be filled with all the intellectual stimulation and emotions (hope, awe) you could ever want from a movie.
Think of it like a symphony that communicates through both sight and sound; watch it again, thinking of it like music. I’m sure you’ll like it. I think you can guess this is the movie that got me into film.
Regarding Park, I would recommend Oldboy and The Handmaiden, those are the ones I love by him, Drake has Sympathy as his best but I personally don’t care much for it. I think he is better than Bong, those 2 movies in particular are phenomenal.
And regarding Tarantino, Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs should be mandatory viewing for everyone – if you dont like those, you prob won’t like the rest of his stuff. But he is one of the most known auteurs for a reason, hes a master, even his lower tier movies in his small filmography are better than the vast majority of directors
I will be rewatching 2001 and Dr Strangelove soon. I just never saw the appeal in 2001 on any of my watches of it, I don’t think it comes close to Leone’s gigantic 1968 masterpiece
I would probably try The Handmaiden over Oldboy, since I already know the story of Oldboy – knowing that story was one of the things that turned me off him. It might take me a while to get to him though, as I don’t watch that many movies and there are some others I should watch first (like Citizen Kane!). Like I said, I don’t know as many classics, but I get pretty obsessed (100s of hours of reading, sometimes) with the ones I watch, so I don’t think I’m as clueless as my limited viewing experiance indicates.
I might try Resevoir Dogs first too, since I know less about it. Tarantino’s comments on Kubrick, Hitchcock, and Lynch really turned me off him (the tone even more than the comments), but Welles didn’t like Vertigo, so I should give him a watch.
I hope you enjoy 2001! If I might give one last suggestion, try and imagine how a filmaker would express an encounter with God or heaven, in a way that would actually capture what an infinite being would be like. I think you would find the mixed terror and awe in 2001 is the closest anyone has ever come. (I honestly think Kubrick represents the divine, though that wasn’t his exact intention, better than Milton).
Thanks for the recommendations!
(You don’t need to believe in heaven. Just imagine if it was real, and a director tried to capture the feeling of an encounter with that. I don’t think this was Kubrick’s intention, but it is the best way I can describe the impression it made on me.)
@K – “I have never seen Park Chan-wook, and I doubt I would like him, based off what I’ve heard. Just too violent and cruel, from my impression. Same reason I’ve never seen Tarantino, though I’ve never actively avoided him.”
Park and Tarantino are two of my favorites, both are tremendously talented visual aueturs. And yes, they both have lots of gore, violence, and sex in their films though I think the way they use them is very different.
Tarantino uses violence in an exploitative way, although that word has a negative connotation to some I don’t mean it in that way. He creates distinct worlds that his films take place but his films are not generally dark in tone even if they are some extremely dark subject matter; Nazis in WW2, American Slavery, the Manson Family Murders, underground crime syndicates, etc. Yet his films are very balanced with humor and ridiculously over the top violence, usually following long conversations. The violence generally does not hit that hard because his characters are often cartoonish and so over the top and like Godard Tarantino reminds you that you are watching a movie
Park Chan-wook films are also over the top at times, some much more than others, and there is humor but the violence is not as cartoonish as Tarantino (to be clear this in an observation not criticism). The violence in his films is not simply exploitative, its not really about shock value. Here’s a great quote from Ebert’s review of Oldboy
“content does not make a movie good or bad — it is merely what it is about. “Oldboy” is a powerful film not because of what it depicts, but because of the depths of the human heart which it strips bare.”
In Wook’s films characters often go through extreme situations and are dealing with emotionally crushing circumstances like in Sympathy for Mr. Vengence where characters avenge deaths of family members in brutal fashion. Wook uses sex in a similar way; not exactly revelatory to point out the link between violence and sex. But the way Wook uses violence and sex is so effective in matching the emotional circumstance of the narrative.
As far as I understand, what you are trying to say is that the sex and violence in Wook’s films is effective in matching the emotions of the story. For me, it is the cruelty that I have felt that really repulses me. The impression I have gotten from hearing about Oldboy, and I may be wrong about this, is that in his films the emphasis is less on the trauma or emotions, and more on the physical acts: the sex, the gruesomeness of the violence, the wails and torment of character’s in distress.
Compare that with films like Taxi Driver (violence) or Chinatown (incest), which deal with dark themes, but prudently and tastefully avoid degrading either the audience or the characters by hyper focusing on the misery of the story. If Taxi Driver or Chinatown were directed like Oldboy, there would be a flashback of the old men from Chinatown graphically molesting his daughter, and De Niro would torture a pimp to death over 3 minutes in front of a screaming Jodie Foster.
Again, these are just the impressions I got. I am open to being corrected, as I have never seen any of his films. If I am told I am wrong about his use of violence, I will be much more inclined to watch these films. I do want to point to a quote from that same Ebert article, that fed my impression:
“I can say that of the Korean films I’ve seen, only one (“The YMCA Baseball Club”) did not contain extraordinary sadomasochism. “Oldboy” contains a tooth-pulling scene that makes Laurence Olivier’s Nazi dentist in “Marathon Man” look like a healer. And there is a scene during which an octopus is definitely harmed during the making of the movie.”
Tarantino I am more sympathetic too, specifically because his violence is so cartoony. I will definitely watch his films at some point. I have probably been unfair to him: his obnoxious comments and all the people considering him a genius of geniuses turned me away from him more than he deserved.