05 June 2014

STANLEY KUBRICK: LUCKY BASTARD

I'll ask you to forgive me for being perverse enough to start a discussion of the most notoriously impersonal and inhumane film of Stanley Kubrick's career with a personal statement, but I don't really know what else to do. The thing is, y'see, I love Barry Lyndon - not because it is great, but because it's so much damn fun to watch; the kind of three-hour movie wherein, when it arrives at the end of its first hour, I find myself gawking because, like, didn't I just start watching it? And this is not merely contrary to the received wisdom about the film - it is unbearably, even unwatchably ponderous and slow - but perhaps even to Kubrick's intentions in making it. There are, after all, very good and obvious reasons why you'd want this exact movie to be insufferably static and slow-moving, both because of the setting of the story and the manner in which the story is told. And yet, watching the movie, which I have now done four times in my life, I never have the slightest awareness of time passing.

This speaks, maybe, to the different reasons we watch movies. Barry Lyndon, as a narrative, is not quick to make its points; as a character drama, it has a bitterly, smugly ironic delight in presenting its central character as a complete blank inhabited by one of the most generic actors of the 1970s giving a deliberately undernourished performance. But it is one of the most perfectly appointed costume dramas in the history of the medium, with compositions that rank among the most exact and perfect ever staged; Kubrick and cinematographer John Alcott and production designer Ken Adam and costume designers Ulla-Britt Søderlund & Milena Canonero weren't primarily interested in bringing to life William Makepeace Thackeray's breakthrough 1844/'56 novel The Luck of Barry Lyndon, but in recreating a series of living paintings by which the culture and art of 18th Century England and Europe could be re-imagined using the filmmaking technology of the 1970s. It's less a movie than a gallery exhibit: one of the most graphically-driven, purely audio-visual of all nominally narrative motion pictures.

Mind you, the film's debt to fine art (many of the individual shots were inspired, not just by the idea of 18th Century art, but by very specific paintings) and its heavily aesthetic-driven approach isn't at the expense of narrative; on the contrary, the intense formality of it (including its revolution in cinematographic technology, but we'll get there) is intimately tied with its themes. The basic plot of the thing is thus: middle class Irishman Redmond Barry (Ryan O'Neal), after a disastrous romantic misunderstanding that leads to a duel, flees his rural home to make his way in the world, both in Ireland and Europe; during the Seven Years' War, as a soldier for the Prussian army, he's assigned to spy on an Irish con-man, the Chevalier du Baribari (Patrick Magee), with whom he instead forms an alliance, and they gamble their way across the continent, making and losing fortunes. After enough of this, Barry forces his way into the life of Lady Honoria Lyndon (Marisa Berenson), one of the wealthest heiresses in England, marrying her and making a wreck of her fortune before her son by a previous marriage, Lord Bullingdon (Leon Vitali as a young man, Dominic Savage as a child), finally comes up with a plan to drive the rascal, now going by the name Barry Lyndon, out of their lives for good.

In Kubrick's film, whose sympathies aren't entirely identical to Thackeray's novel (which is far more ironic and comic in approach, and if anything is even crueler in its concluding details), the whole thing is an exercise in revealing how utterly loathsome of a man Redmond Barry is, inch by inch; it is, in fact, not at all a poor companion piece to his immediately prior work A Clockwork Orange - both of them are about how a very particularly-detailed setting reflects and is reflected by an antihero whose behavior is unrelentingly vicious. The chief difference is that A Clockwork Orange reveals all at once what a terror its protagonist shall be, while Barry Lyndon obsessively and exhaustively explores all the surfaces of its characters and scenarios before letting the full brunt of Barry's venality come to the fore. And here we come to the single best piece of bad-actor casting in all of Kubrick; he made a bit of a habit out of it, between 2001: A Space Odyssey and Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, but it was a masterstroke of an entirely different order to cast the painfully bland prettyboy star of Love Story in the role of an utterly ruthless, misogynist shitheel like Redmond Barry, for a multiple reasons. There's the element of subversion, for one. There's the element of surprise, for another: for much of the film,. O'Neal seems barely able to keep up with the demands of a here-and-gone Irish accent, let alone to create a character, and when he suddenly reveals the full depth of his meanness, it's stunning and shocking - we've been taken in by his harmless mien as much as poor Lady Lyndon. There's the element of horror: O'Neal doesn't really alter his performance much, so the generic leading man gaze he wears during his characters heroic moments is identical to the one he wears during his brutality and downfall, which sells the idea that Barry is an honest-to-God sociopath better than any calculated actorly tricks could ever do.

And above all, there's the way that Barry Lyndon is about surfaces and the absorbing need to Project The Right Look To The Right People, and casting not just a pretty movie star but a pretty movie star with literally nothing in his wheelhouse but his looks makes perfect sense in that context (I'm being harsh on O'Neal: anybody who has seen Peter Bogdanovich's neo-screwball What's Up, Doc? knows how talented the actor could be when he needed to. But then there's Bogdanovich's caper comedy Paper Moon, which finds O'Neal effortlessly out-acted by his nine-year-old daughter, as well as the costume design, so who knows). It's a film about surfaces; or rather, it's a film about facades, and how exacting standards of form in daily life give a rigid, imprisoning structure to life that zaps the humanity out of the people living according to those standards, while also making it impossible to tell a liar and rogue and all-round menace until it's too late, as long as he can move the right way and occupy spaces correctly. The film's monstrously long climactic pistol duel is a perfect example: it proceeds with aching, ritualistic solemnity, in which Barry fits perfectly, and in which his most implacable foe, Lord Bullingdon, absolutely does not; and it's maybe not a coincidence that the character who can't handle the elegant dance of Georgian life is the one able to put a stop to the movie's spiral of miseries.

So back, back, back we go, to where I said that the film's overarching formalism and its themes are intimately tied; and that is all I meant by it. Barry Lyndon is, in the best sense, like a museum piece, embalming and preserving its characters right before our eyes as their devotion to an aesthetic-as-life dooms them. The act of re-creating a historical moment with profound accuracy and scrupulousness is also the act of showing how that life turns everyone involved into a display of stuffed and mounted animals. Hence the reliance on period artwork in guiding the compositions, hence the film's overwhelming slowness, hence the lack of affect from virtually the entire cast.

And yet, for all that, the film is incredibly beautiful: that is seen to by Kubrick and Alcott's famous revolution in using lenses that had never been used in motion pictures to reach unprecedented (and never-equalled) low light levels, using candles to illuminate whole frames, and capture the physicality of the era like no other movie. At the same time, they left a certain gauzyiness of focus that leaves many frames look exactly look flesh-and-blood oil paintings; even in the act of bringing the period to life with an immediacy unheard of in costume dramas, Kubrick still throws a wall between the viewer and the material. It is the most remote and coolly observational of all his films; as though, to make up for the grueling immediacy of A Clockwork Orange, he immediately wanted to make a film with a similarly depraved hero but with enough distance from the material that we, the audience, weren't being run through the muck along with the story. Or perhaps it's as simple as the closing card has it: "good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor they are all equal now".

Whatever the case, for all its moral bleakness and disenchanted views on humanity, Barry Lyndon invites - begs! - us to look at it, something movies do not frequently foreground, at least not narrative films financed by American studios. It really is a gorgeous film: beautifully lit, beautifully composed, beautifully appointed, and intelligent about the way its images work in concert with each other at a level that is uncommon, at best. But of course, Kubrick was a photographer; and that's never more clear than in this, his most picturesque of movies. Nor is it just the admirable landscapes and interiors of gorgeous Irish castles that stand out; Barry Lyndon is suffused with enough visual personality and dry wit that even something as barbaric as a shot-reverse shot set-up is clever and nuanced and primarily driven by image, not by narrative content, and certainly not by dialogue, of which there is none:


I'm powerless to resist that, myself: a good graphic match will get me every time, and those candles are an exquisite graphic match, while the contrast in the empty vs. populated backgrounds offers its own cutting little commentary on what appears to be a generic "they're falling in love" edit. And this is two brief shots in one short, wordless scene, out of 185 minutes! Treasures abound in Barry Lyndon, a film to be gazed upon with rapture and studiousness, and even if the plot offered up absolutely nothing (and it certainly lacks the liveliness and cunning of Thackaeray's novel, though it also doesn't aspire to those things), there'd still be nothing but reasons that I loved the film. I can't use the word "masterpiece", since an artist can only have one of those, properly speaking, and Kubrick's was 2001; but I wouldn't trade Barry Lyndon in for anything, and I can name hardly any movies that feel as fresh and inexhaustible after every revisiting.

12 comments:

  1. And the music! I forgot to say a single fucking word about the music! Well, that's how you can tell the best films: no matter how exhausted you are at the end of talking about them, you've barely even scratched the surface.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great write-up Tim! This is my absolute favourite movie and you did it justice. One of my first thoughts when I saw 1080p for the first time was "I must Barry Lyndon on bluray". Gorgeous film.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great review, Tim! I can feel your love for this movie radiating off my screen.

    I'm glad you touched on Kubrick's cinematographic innovations on this film (those lenses and the candlelit sequences) and there will be much more to discuss on that subject when we get to "The Shining". FUN.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It would be interesting to poll people who claim not to like A Clockwork Orange and see how they feel about Barry Lyndon, and vice versa. I bet the results would be fascinating. The two films are fundamentally similar at their core, but are executed in completely different fashions: the former all manic energy and proto-Gilliam surrealism; the latter a mannered, formalist costume drama.

    I suppose my reason the reason why I prefer ACO is because it has a central performance by the ever-charismatic Malcolm McDowell, so while I find Alex's actions despicable, I can't bring myself to despise him because, dammit, he's just so likeable, and that brings the movie up a lot. With BL, however, between Kubrick's detachment and O'Neal's blandness, I have nothing to grab onto emotionally. This is not to say that I hate the film, though. It is, first and foremost, a brilliantly constructed piece of cinema, and without the burden of emotional investment, I as a viewer am free to ignore the content, and focus squarely on the mechanics of what Kubrick is doing. I suppose in that way it is very valuable, but of all of Kubrick's "mature" films, it's the one I go back and watch the least.

    (Also, no mention of the narration? That's the funniest part of the whole film.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I may be sentimental (I'm not) but I've always found the argument that Kubrick's films are emotionless a head scratcher because I find they inspire intense emotions. Barry Lyndon especially SPOILERS) Brian's deathbed scene. I've watched hundreds upon hundreds of movies and they've made me cry less times than I can count on one hand but that scene gets me ever single time. There's definitely a lack of sentimental cues from the music and the acting in his films but that doesn't mean there's no heart.
    And I'm not even quite sure Kubrick's films are all that detached either. Full Metal Jacket and Barry Lyndon are the prime examples; I find it hard to believe Kubrick intended for us to watch that climax of either film with an icy indifference or that he had no emotional investment in the stories either and was just filming them to film them as a cold intellectual exercise.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Damian--I am tempted to slot BL and ACO as 1)a and 1)b on my list of "favorite" (I will save the treatise on the distinction between "favorite" and "best" for another day) Kubrick films. And it is precisely because they are such perfectly crafted examples of such different things. I will admit (contrary, I would expect, to many of the more formally trained film types who frequent Tim's blog) to being a viewer who notices the acting first. As such, McDowell is such a tour de force that just throttles you for the whole running time that I gravitate so naturally to the entire film. BL figures so prominently for me because it is perhaps the first film I ever watched where I consciously took notice of how beautiful it was (no mean feat for a disaffected teenage boy). In essence, it taught me to pay attention to what the movie "looked like" in a way I never had before, but always do now. It quite literally changed how I watched movies. Any film that does that holds a special place in one's heart.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Mark - Yeah, A Clockwork Orange holds a place in my hear for similar reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Travis- I have some considerable thoughts in response to that, but I think I shall hold off on them; they'll fit real nicely in either my FMJ or EWS review.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "the whole thing is an exercise in revealing how utterly loathsome of a man Redmond Barry is, inch by inch"

    I've gotta disagree on this one.
    Granted, it sounds like you've seen the film more times than I have, and you must have rewatched it more recently than I, so perhaps I'm kicking against the pricks on this one...

    BUT, I think the film is trying to do the opposite, in fact, of what you're suggesting. It does not shy away from Barry being manipulative and at times cruel, but I think the actual goal is to show the world around this man and show what he went through, and present a situation where you don't have to agree with what he did, but you still recognize that he's an individual soul trying to make his way through a cruel world composed of forces so titanic he cannot even perceive of them, forces that make it so that his way through life is full of suffering and hardship -- political, cultural, economic forces that will never let him forget that he's just a jumped up Irish commoner who could never truly hope to have a plate at the nobles' table.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Interesting how different people can like the same film despite having opposed interpretations. I think Barry Lyndon is about fathers and sons. This theme is established in the first shot, when Barry's father is killed, and he spends the rest of the film trying to figure out how to behave like a man with no one to provide an example. He latches onto Grogan and the Chevalier with emotion that always strikes me genuine rather than self-serving, and he tries all kinds of ways to assert his masculinity with women/in battle/in society. And he has little clue how to be a father himself, except perhaps at the very end, when he fires his pistol into the ground. Only after the loss of his own son, staring down his vengeful (and equally clueless) stepson, does he demonstrate the poise and nobility of a gentlemen.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Tristan, and Michael,
    I agree with both of your assessments. Very well said and thank you for sharing. I believe that Barry Lyndon is about both father's and sons as well as being about how the nature of the circumstances we are born into determines our fate.
    And, Tristan, I agree that Barry firing his pistol into the ground is a redemptive moment, the first time he act wihtout his own interest in mind. Of course Kubrick can't help but makes this act of grace bitterly ironic when Bullingdon rewards Barry's act of mercy by crippling him for life. This show of mercy sets Barry apart from a character like Alexander Delarge. Barry might be a cad and an asshole but he has a soul. There's also more of an arc for his character as well.

    The over arcing message of the feature as I understand it in an existential one about how all the things the characters have been chasing, wealth, esteem, and title are meaningless in the grand scheme of existence and history. Their inability to let go of material desires consign them to a loveless and cruel existence. Hence the title card at the end: "good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor they are all equal now".

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think what's wonderful is that Ryan O'Neal's performance is such a perfect tabula rasa that it makes it possible to see the film in all these different ways. For example, I take the firing into the ground as a sign of contempt and not redemptive at all: it would be beneath his dignity to shoot a man as pathetic and helpless as Bullingdon in that moment. But there's not a single word of any of your readings that I can fault in the slightest.

    It's also worth mentioning, for those who don't know, that the duel is the only scene in the movie that's completely invented by Kubrick, and is in fact incompatible with the story Thackeray tells. So whatever we make of it, it's absolutely key to what Kubrick wanted us to take away from his film, specifically.

    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.