Best Lyndon Appraisal
Yesterday’s “Napoleon evolved into Barry Lyndon” riff brought me back to this 5.31.07 piece, which I still quite like:
“Stanley Kubrick ‘always admitted he took too long to make Barry Lyndon,’ former Kubrick assistant Leon Vitali tells The Reeler’s Jamie Stuart. ‘There was about a year of pre-production, a year-plus of shooting, then he took an awful long time to edit. And by the time it was ready to come out, I would say, the blockbuster action movies had become de rigeur. That was what the people really wanted to see. So when this film came out it was received as strange, slow, completely out of context to what was going on.
“‘And I think people were expecting something a little closer to A Clockwork Orange, which, of course had caused such a furor. It was living! A Clockwork Orange was playing for over a year in London. And Barry Lyndon was trashed by many critics, equally so in the UK. That really hurt Stanley a lot. He was very depressed about it. Very upset about it. He took it to heart.
“‘It took a long, long time really before…I can tell you exactly when it was…it was in the early ’90s. The BBC ran a series of his films on television. It was all the films from Lolita, Strangelove, 2001, Clockwork, Barry Lyndon, The Shining …The Radio Times, which is like a TV Guide, but more of a magazine, I suppose — they gave each film a critical breakdown. Well, they gave Barry Lyndon five stars, because they believed that was the true Odyssey film: you start with someone who’s lowdown; he travels all the way around Europe; gets himself into the upper-echelons of the British aristocracy; then there’s a slow decline back to where he came from. It’s a classic Odyssey story.
“‘They gave it five stars and all the other films got four stars, but perfect critiques. And they said if it hadn’t been for the fact that wBarry Lyndon was playing along with these other films, they would have given all those films five stars. I realized there’d been a real turning point, especially toward the end of Stanley’s life, where we were getting feedback from a lot of critics that suddenly said: ‘I’ve just seen Barry Lyndon again and I did not realize at the time what a wonderful film it was.’ They went so lyrical about it.’
“I — not Stuart, not Vitale — have seen Barry Lyndon at least fifteen times. Possibly a bit more than that –I’ve lost count but who counts and who cares? It’s brilliant, mesmerizing, exquisite — a dry, note-perfect immersion into the climate and mores of William Makepeace Thackeray‘s novel, and, by its own terms, one of the most perfectly realized films ever made.
“But the problem — and this needs to be said (or re-said) with all this passionate but vaguely snobby Lyndon gushing going on — is that it turns sour at a very particular point. And, in my eyes, it is just a notch below great because of the dead zone section in the second half.
“I’m speaking of the moment when Barry (Ryan O’Neal) blows pipe smoke into the face of his wife, Lady Lyndon (Marisa Berenson). Something happens at that moment, and from then on it’s “oh, odd…the energy is dropping, and I’m starting to enjoy this less.” For another 30 to 40 minutes (or what feels like that amount of time), Barry Lyndon gets slower and slower — it becomes more and more about stately compositions and dispassionate observation.
“Then, finally, comes the duel with Lord Bullington (Vitale) and Barry gets his groove back. Then that perfect, dialogue-free scene with Lady Lyndon signing checks with Bullington and Reverent Runt at her side, and she signs the annual payment to her ex-husband. And finally, that perfect epilogue.
“There’s one other draggy component that diminishes Barry Lyndon, and in fact makes the dead-zone portion even deader than it needs to be, and that’s Berenson’s performance. Even now, the mere thought of her glacial expression — there’s only one — in that film makes me tighten with irritation.”
Disagree about Berenson. I’m sure she gave exactly the performance Kubrick wanted. Since much of Barry Lyndon is composed like a painting, she was an almost perfect example of the powdered aristocracy appearing in those works. I especially like her when the facade starts to slip later in the film. It almost looks like the paint is cracking.
I’ve never liked O’Neal. He’s gives as a career performance here, but that’s not saying much. I never really buy him as the naif, nor the rogue. His performance doesn’t ruin the film, but I think a different actor was called for.
Always thought Kubrick picked O’Neal to prove that a genius could make a great film with a limited leading man. Remember a news article that claimed O’Neal turned down offers between wrapping BL and its release because he expected to be offered better parts. Didn’t happen, with the notable exception of The Driver.
There’s a slightly expanded version of the Vitali interview here: http://mutinycompany.com/article_leonvitali.html
Nope. The studio gave Kubrick a choice between Redford or O’Neal. Redford turned him down. In any event, I think O’Neal is more than serviceable in the role. I don’t think Redford would be quite believable as an unlikable cad.
^ Makes sense, as I always viewed O’Neal as a sort of poor man’s Redford.
This is probably going to come off as blasphemous (I’m already sort of regretting typing it), but I always more or less considered Lyndon to be EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY down a half-notch from the rest of the masterpieces in Kubrick’s filmography (which is basically almost everything). I mean, I don’t think there’s any arguing whatsoever that it’s above Spartacusand, say, Killer’s Kiss — but if I’m really hankering for some Kube, this is usually about my 9th or 10th choice (give or take).
But that’s really less of a slam on the flick, obviously, and more of a reminder of just how many goddamn great movies the dude shot in his life.
Most filmmakers in Hollywood would absolutely kill for a Barry Lyndon.
I was thinking about this the other day. I think Kubrick made two films that are generally considered among the greatest ever made: Dr. Strangelove and 2001. He made five more that are considered, at least, classics in their respective genres: The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket. He made one of the biggest cult films of all time: A Clockwork Orange. And he produced two other films that are at least interesting curiousities: Lolita, and Eyes Wide Shut.
Where Barry Lyndon fits into this, I don’t know. It’s a period costume drama. I certainly don’t consider it “lesser” Kubrick. But I not sure I’d consider it a classic, either.
But my favorite Kubrick film is Clockwork, so what do I know?
Lyndon is a 5-star film to me.
(Apologies for the re-post)
I would still love to see Napoleon structured, and scored, to Beethoven’s 3d Symphony (Eroica) as SK (when he was last developing it) intended.
It would really take a director who has a great love and knowledge of music…. and by that I mean classic-period Alan Parker, as opposed to current pop-boy Adam Shankman.
A Ridley or a PTA would indeed be most excellent.
Yeah — the “lesser” comment was sort of a joke (because there is barely any to be had with his work on the whole…I mean, not really).
I guess I don’t quite feel like BL quite “transcends” its given genre, although now that I ponder it, I’m not sure exactly why I feel this is the case. On a certain level, I think ultimately it just always boils down to how much you dig the genre he works in — since I love the crime/noir flicks, I kinda think The Killing has one of the most brilliant endings of its type, and consider it a flawless masterpiece. I suppose someone that is less inclined to like that sort of movie would probably think less of it (although they’d still recognize it as a great movie).
Maybe the question we should be asking is: if Lyndon doesn’t transcend the historical epic “genre” in cinema, what are some examples of films that have? Lawrence of Arabia, sure — Zhivago, yes…which specific titles outside of Lean, though, I wonder? It’s at least as good as, say, Reds, right? It’s probably even better.
Now that the movies are over 100 years old, isn’t almost any picture in the top-5 of any identifiable genre an “automatic classic?”
I think the fact that BL was (unfairly) underrated for so many years has led to a slight overcorrection in that many critics now seem to list it among their top 2 or 3 among his work. All I’m saying is I think it’s possible for it to be a classic without being one of Kubrick’s absolute signature movies (this is an extremely rare situation affecting only the true titans of cinema whose output is ridiculously quality such as Kurosawa or Hitchcock).
One of the peculiarities of Lyndon is that while it is happening against the backdrop of tremendous historical upheaval, Barry’s story itself is very intimate and, ultimately, of little consequence (hence the final title card). Two of the other films you mention, Lawrence and Reds, happen to people that have a major stake in history. I think Zhivago is closer with its love story.
Which is one way to say that while Barry Lyndon happens during “epic” times, it is not itself “epic.” Maybe that’s one of the reasons it’s so difficult to categorize. Loads of fun to discuss, though.
And another reason why Lyndon, for all its historical trappings, is NOT Napoleon. The theme, and, likely, Kubrick’s approach, is totally different.
2001, Strangelove, Barry Lyndon.
That’s the order.
Why are people now claiming BL to be in the top 2 to 3? Because no other filmmaker – NONE – could have made BL like Kubrick did, and no other filmmaker ever will. Period. End of story.
BL stands just beneath 2001 in terms of sheer technical discipline.
It’s epic, mesmerizing, tragic, and absolutely hilarious.
The sheer technical magnitude of 2001 puts that film at #1 always. A film that moves at that trance like pace just doesn’t get made by any other director.
Dr. Strangelove and Clockwork Orange follow closely thereafter, but I’m not even sure Barry would crack Kubrick’s top 5. That’s not a slight on the film, just a testament to his quality.
Fantastic movie.
I would definitely consider Barry Lyndon a classic in the genre of period epic, especially compared to some of its contemporaries like Nicholas and Alexandria, or Anne of a Thousand Days.
There was a run of these movies for about ten years beginning with Beckett. BL came right at the end, when critics were exhausted by elegant costume epics and were expecting something more contemporary and revolutionary from Kubrick.
Barry Lyndon.
The Thin Red Line.
The only two of their kind. Historical epics, made by monoliths in space watching the ape creatures with their sticks.
Masterpiece. No other film comes close to Barry Lyndon’s merciless dialectic between image and story: impeccably beautiful images coldly and clinically ripping to shreds the most foul creatures imaginable. Beauty=ugliness. Can’t see it enough times. As for its being slow and cold and distant, that’s the whole point: it’s a story about raging, base, vile, utterly human imperfect emotions, so what better way to tell it than with flawlessly beautiful, cold, breathtakingly hypnotizing, rigid images and baroque music timed to the fraction of a second? I think it is the Kubrick film that most eloquently expresses his warped but profound worldview.
I’m curious — if a displaced Lyndon were released (exactly as is), say, last year, would it NOT be anyone here’s favorite film of 2012??
It would probably be mine, but I think it might be close. I had to think about it for at least a minute or two (and — even then — there are still a couple of flicks that I really like almost as much).
Kaned, Barry Lyndon is why the Oscars should work like the Baseball Hall of Fame: 5-year waiting period before consideration.
I’d like to think that current critics and cinephiles would “get” Barry Lyndon if it came out today. Sadly, I know better.
Kaned, Kubrick was too hard on Spartacus though. It’s a better movie than Ben-Hur.
I always found Barry Lyndon to be an exhilarating experience and never boring. Kubrick’s use of classical music was second to none, and almost every scene from the highwayman to the final duel becomes entrancing. I always loved the tonal shift from the bright outdoor first half to the stark stately interiors of the second.
Frankly I always find A Clockwork Orange to be the one film of his that never works for me. It’s neither as witty or as terrifying as it’s supposed to be, and I would have to agree that does feel long and slow. Very different from the breezy pace of the book which manages to be both funnier and more disturbing. I’d go so far as to rank it below Killer’s Kiss and just above Fear and Desire.
I’d also include The Shining as one of his indispensable films. Yes it was an attempt to be commercial, but no one else, not even Lynch, would have given it the same tone between comedy and horror.