Skip to main content

Thus Barry fell into the very worst of courses and company. And was soon very far advanced in the science of every kind of misconduct.


Barry Lyndon
(1975)

Barry Lyndon might be best seen as a response to the falling apart of Kubrick’s cherished Napoleon project. That was at a fairly advanced stage when the studio got cold feet and withdrew backing, on noting the poor showing of Waterloo. Kubrick moved on to cheapie A Clockwork Orange, but then resumed his quest for a period piece. He was first attracted to Thackery’s Vanity Fair but decided against it for what appears to have been a combination of the length required to do the book justice and a BBC adaptation that was in the offing. He then settled on another story by the author, one credited with originating the protagonist as anti-hero in literature (I suspect this is quite disprovable, but it sounds good).


What one senses from all this is of a director casting about for material that seems to loosely fit his criteria for a film. And I’d argue the finished piece bears that air of “Why did he want to make this?” The deliberate, measured pace of the three hour-plus film bears witness to a director able to make any material engrossing, but you end up questioning the wisdom of a number of decisions Kubrick makes.


I haven’t read Thackery’s novel, but my understanding it has a comic tone. Lyndon himself is the narrator, and an unreliable one at that; the reader is invited to question what has been invented and what is true. Kubrick makes the choice to considerably reduce the humorous elements of the story; indeed, the film plays out on tragic lines, albeit a tragedy where the viewer is not really invested in the events that befall the main character. There is a satirical edge admittedly, mostly due to Michael Hordern’s benign but unvarnished narration, but the characters are never encouraged to embrace the satire; they expose the absurdity of class pretensions with an icy precision.  While some have said that the film Kubrick ends up making is the anti-Napoleon, it strikes me as most comparable to a film made twelve years earlier in terms of what it is not. Tony Richardson’s version of Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones is very much the unfettered comedy, positing its commentary on class within the safety of the central character’s bawdy exploits. It also takes every opportunity it can to explore the artifice of its creation, which includes camera trickery (speeding up movement) and fourth wall-breaking. Crucially, and the biggest hurdle preventing Kubrick’s film from being a great rather than a merely good film, it has a lead performance full of charisma and energy (from Albert Finney).


Kubrick (quote courtesy of wiki) commented of two of his decisions on adapting the material:

I believe Thackeray used Redmond Barry to tell his own story in a deliberately distorted way because it made it more interesting. Instead of the omniscient author, Thackeray used the imperfect observer, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say the dishonest observer, thus allowing the reader to judge for himself, with little difficulty, the probable truth in Redmond Barry's view of his life. This technique worked extremely well in the novel but, of course, in a film you have objective reality in front of you all of the time, so the effect of Thackeray's first-person story-teller could not be repeated on the screen. It might have worked as comedy by the juxtaposition of Barry's version of the truth with the reality on the screen, but I don't think that Barry Lyndon should have been done as a comedy.


I suppose the next question is, “Why don’t you think Barry Lyndon should have been done as a comedy, Stanley?” Not only does the absence of Barry as narrator reduce our connection with the character (just look at Alex in A Clockwork Orange to see how we can be made to identify with a reprehensible character through confidential voice over), the casting of Ryan O’Neal renders him devoid of any qualities that explain his rise through society – other than prettiness.


Warner Bros made the casting of a Top 10 box office star a condition of financing the film. The most recent such list came out in 1973, and feature O’Neal at No.2. It was the only time he made the grade. Clint was top, and the other males on the list were Steve McQueen, Burt Reynolds, Robert Redford, Paul Newman, Charles Bronson, John Wayne and Marlon Brando. Kubrick’s pick was Redford, who turned the role down. So who was there left to go to? In those terms, O’Neal makes sense (although the absurdist in me quite likes the idea of Steve McQueen in the part) but he’s a vacuum at the centre of the film. He’s adept enough at the cruel rejection his character must display towards Maria Berenson’s Lady Lyndon, but never conveys Barry’s initial naivety nor the charisma that would have enabled him to inveigle himself into society or succeed in his criminal enterprises. The result of this is that we feel nothing for Barry for most of the film; we are indifferent to his fortunes and misfortunes. He either exposes himself as a fool or a bastard; the only moments where he is allowed sympathy are those where the story proffers it to him; at no point does O’Neal’s performance provide that. So the evidencing that Lyndon very much loves his natural son is a small grace, and the duel with Lord Bullingdon grants him a certain ambiguous nobility (but too little too late).


Indeed, Lyndon generally only appears as a remotely sympathetic character because those around him are so without merit. Right from the start, we encounter Barry with his manipulative cousin Nora. She makes him look the fool, but also exposes his petulant bravado. Leonard Rossiter’s Captain Quinn is a preening cad (Rossiter’s second film with Kubrick, following 2001); Captain Grogan is benign but motivated by money and willing to deceive; Captain Potzdorf takes Barry under his wing but this only reveals that his first judgement of Lyndon’s character was the correct one. Patrick Magee’s Chevalier, who makes Barry his partner in gambling is, like many of the supporting turns, a shot in the arm for the film, but further highlights how unappealing Barry is. It’s these characters that carry us through the first act of the film, supporting the lacklustre O’Neal. But when he marries Lady Lyndon the film is stricken with roles that don’t even hint at roguish charm or compelling motivation.


Berenson (a former model) is captivating to look at but allowed no insight. She earns her son’s disapproval for carrying on with Barry while her husband is still alive (said husband is provided a scene of hilarious venom, wonderfully delivered by a sozzled Frank Middlemass), and we find it difficult to sympathise because she seems to allow the uncaring Lyndon to walk all over her. First in his extra-marital carryings on, then in his doomed attempts to purchase a title for himself (thus throwing away much of the Lydon fortune). Leon Vitalli’s Bullingdon has good reason to loathe Barry, but he comes across as a petulant little shit. Others, such as Barry’s mother and the Reverend Runt are as evidently acting chiefly for their own interests.


Hordern’s narrator is our only real friend, the only character in the film who is presented as of sound judgement or sympathetic personality.


Appropriately, for such a precisely made film, all the awards it received were in technical categories. It took Oscars for art direction, cinematography (John Alcott famously shot in mostly natural –and candle – light), costume design and musical score (Leonard Rosenman’s arrangements of Schubert and Handel – it is the latter’s Sarabande that forms the film’s main theme, pervading events with an aura of melancholy and inevitability). Kubrick was nominated for Picture, Director and Adapted Screenplay. Incidentally, Brian Blessed had a role in the film but he was cut. He was likely too BIG and BOOMING a presence.


Barry Lyndon is compelling in spite of its failings. There’s something hypnotic about the pace, and the method with which Kubrick casts his protagonist as a plaything of fate. But Ryan O’Neal’s non-performance leaves the film hungry for more sustenance, greedily consuming every supporting character that comes its way but leaving us wanting more. This isn’t a replay of 2001, where the buttoned down performances of the actors contributed thematically to overarching ideas. Here, we wonder why the director was lured to the material in the first place and, as accomplished as the result is, whether it was worth the effort.

****

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.