quite a marvel to read through this thread, many conflicting opinions all with their own value… barry lyndon is truly a great film
Every frame is a piece of art in this film, to rival any painting. Kubrick truly is the film maker as artist, every frame of each of his films is so well constructed and mediated to achieve the best possible juxtapostion of objects and peolpe, creating a truly mesmerizing effect.
-If we’re referring to “coldness” as “cynical” then I would completely agree with it.-
There’s an aesthetic detachment, yes, a cultivated distance. Kubrick was a Modernist, and that’s characteristic of Modernism. Of course, one could also draw a sort of psychological parralell between this aesthetic and Kubrick’s actual relationship with the Hollywood filmmaking apparatus. As far as Kubrick being “cynical”, Kubrick had a lifelong fascination with Nietzsche, Freud, and Jung, and I think you clearly see their influence on his films.
liubei: no, i simply meant the rules of the duel; apparently they changed from essentially whoever shoots first wins to the business with the coin toss and having to “receive” the other man’s shot.
I’ve enjoyed reading these posts concerning Barry Lyndon. When I saw the documentary Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures they covered how they shot Lyndon and I thought it was fascinating. In the documentary, it tells of how Kubrick requested old Mitchell cameras that were no longer being used from Warner Bros. John Calley was the man that Kubrick requested the cameras from. When someone at Warner Bros. found out that those cameras had been flown to Europe they told John Calley of how priceless those Mitchell cameras were. Kubrick was also aware at the time of lenses being used by NASA called Zeiss lenses that had very wide apertures. Because of this, Kubrick could shoot Lyndon in candlelight. I believe film stock was as not as fast as it is today and I think it looks better perhaps than films shot on faster stock that were developed later. The shots were wonderfully framed and lit and I think few films really match up to the kind of care that were used to compose the shots that were placed within that film. Kubrick asked a person who worked with cameras or lenses or something like that to fit the Zeiss lenses to the Mitchell cameras. The person responded by saying that they would have to take the cameras apart and put them back together again. Kubrick told him to go ahead and do that. On current Sony camcorders these days, they carry Zeiss lenses which allows them to shoot in low light.
-apparently they changed from essentially whoever shoots first wins to the business with the coin toss and having to “receive” the other man’s shot.-
As I recall it, Kubrick did not show the preparations for the earlier duels as he did the final duel, so pehaps it’s just a case of these details being omitted. It’s also not unusual for the rules to be altered as long as the opponents agreed. I don’t know this for sure, but personally I’ve always suspected that Kubrick based the final duel on the famous American duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr in 1804. Hamilton apparently attempted to delope , firing first, but into the air, then Burr—perhaps not understanding Hamilton’s intention—fired at Hamilton, fatally wounding him. Incidentally, the Irish Code Duello (which, adopted in 1777, was also followed in England and the Continent) expressly prohibited delopement, so even in his attempt to spare Bullington while also giving him “satisfaction”, Barry is breaking the rules.
TIBBER wrote: “but in the end, doesn’t Barry come out looking far better than Lord Bullingdon? he does to me.”
One born poor, the other to fortune, both endured a symbiotic relationship during the long overlap of their lives’ trajectories, which were opposed. A classic dysfunctional stepfather relationship, with the twist that ultimately, the boy’s birthright trumped familial status in this case. Overall, I agree with you, but I think it’s because Barry is the film’s protagonist, thus the audience sympathizes more with his antiheroic plight and fate. By contrast, Bullingdon does come across as a petulant simpering brat in some ways, but who can blame him? He’s not without his own sympathetic qualities, particularly after being beaten by Barry.
This movie hit me like a ton of bricks at a young age, and I’ve considered it my favorite ever since. It’s so great that it’s won a better place in popular reputation over the years. I think the zeit wasn’t quite right at the time of its original release for it to be received with full appreciation just yet.
If you ever have a chance to see it in a good cinema with the intermission and all, do! This is one of those classic films where it makes a big difference. The painterly cinematography is overwhelmingly beautiful on a big screen. The legendary candle-lit scenes make more visual sense when the image is reflective off of a screen rather than the light source itself as with most home viewing options.
BARRY LYNDON is one of my three if not my favorite film by Kubrick. I read several years before the novel ny Thackeray. It was interesting in so far that you get an idea how hard worked Kubrick with the adaptation. The novel tries to create distance with the use of telling the story in the first person. Kubrick. Kubrick creates distance with the use of a very objective almost cold distant commentary. For me it seems a correction of his failure of the adaptation of Burgess A CLOCKWORK ORANGE where Kubrick adapted the novels narrator´s perspective 1 to 1.
Matt Parks
-Lyndon places very little trust in himself, and simply believes going along with the crowd is the best idea-I don’t see it that way at all. He’s an opportunist, sure, but he’s not a “compulsive conformist” ala Zelig. To me he’s they only one trying not to simply go along with the crowd, but there’s no way to escape the crowd. He’s not going along with the crowd when he risks alienating himself from the uncle on whom he and his mother are financially dependent by pursuing his love for his cousin. He’s not going along with the crowd when he deserts the army, when he becomes a gambler, when he fires his pistol into the ground, etc.