RIP Ryan O'Neal
Added 2023-12-10 17:00:10 +0000 UTCI watched Barry Lyndon last night with someone in honor of Mr. O'Neal. I had been itching to watch it again after seeing its influence so clear in Napoleon. Lord...it never ceases to amaze me the power of this film. It is so simple, and so straight forward, and yet everything that makes it spectacular, is filling in between. I think people often see it as a stiff period piece, only out of judgement for the subgenre, and not really experiencing the film. Because it is anything but a stereotypical period piece.
Normally period pieces are full of words, full of embellishments. Lots of boring talking scenes, exposition. Somehow this one captures all of the strange formalities of its world, the social constraints, the satire/humor of it, and yet there's so little of the cliches, so little dialogue to use as tactics for manipulation, as a real social anchor point for the environment. Whole movies try so hard to build to just one breathless moment or image, whereas 98% of Barry Lyndon...is full of these moments, and it feels like it isn't even trying through most of them. It is but...it disguises it in the most brilliant fashion. Everyone else goes for words, obvious drama. Kubrick needs none of these pretenses. And thus the moments are full of possibility. Ambiguous enough, but not too. His calculated view of humans, his removed eye, is somehow so far in that direction, that it indirectly starts to have the opposite effect as an experience. Barry Lyndon might be one of the most personal period pieces ever made for Hollywood. It's pure pain, sadness, power, devastation, beauty, life.
I think it's a perfect film. I have watched a lot of movies this year. Most of them forgettable. Some promising, showing moments of brilliance, but ultimately don't materialize for me. Only one or two so far really felt cohesive and like they did what they set out to do well. Then you watch a movie like Barry Lyndon, and it just floors you by how it makes you feel, on the most basic of levels. People always wanna know how I judge movies. I judge movies the way I judge people. It's simple as that. Most humans aren't honest when you meet them and neither are films (especially in Hollywood). Most are afraid of who they really are. Most hide behind their expression, their words, their behaviors, everything. When you find a person who is real and powerful, you know it, you feel it. It's almost telepathic. Movies for me have a similar effect, so far as how I respond to them personally. Barry Lyndon isn't phony. Kubrick is never phony.
Comments
I tend to be less interested in technical as well. But I do find it helps me understand how they create the experience too.
Deepfocuslens
2023-12-12 22:42:19 +0000 UTCSo well said. I'm glad that you finally got to watch it, and that you really understood it so far as what it meant to you. Yeah Napoleon is what you say it is. I guess I have low expectations for Ridley Scott but...I enjoyed Napoleon despite its deep flaws. But yes...the Barry Lyndon connections are all over the place. But of course, not a real understanding of what made all those things great initially.
Deepfocuslens
2023-12-12 22:41:39 +0000 UTCI'm sorry to hear about Ryan O'Neil's passing, a good actor who, despite playing the lead in several films, is sadly, largely forgotten. I also didn't know that he was an ex-boxer until after reading his imdb bio. Coincidently, I actually watched Barry Lyndon for the first time last week. I procrastinated for years after I heard (but haven't verified) that the costumes used weren't recreations but actual clothes from the period and so assumed the film was going to be more a sterile history drama than a movie, which being Kubrick, would no doubt be rewarding in the end, but still a daunting task to undertake. I was grateful to find out this wasn't the case. It might feel so at first. The entire film from the costumes to the scenery looks like it could be one of the many brilliant paintings the film showcases and it wouldn't be surprising to learn that much of the use of color and locations were inspired from paintings of the period. It's refreshing to see a film that is capable of capturing so many beautiful vista's and interiors without showing off. The sets and locations are there to support the story. Not a hint of oscar-bait. Kubrick also tells the story with the detachment of a historian of the period giving a narrative account of an adventurer's life, but turns it into something quite personal and moving. Barry's relationship with his son was tragic, and the scene where he is sent to spy on a fellow compatriot only to break down and sob upon hearing the sound of a 'friendly voice' was emotional despite how far removed we are in time and space. The film does well at showing the refinement, honor, duty, and ultimately juvenile attitudes of the times, exemplified by the relationship both step-father and step-son have with their mothers. I haven't seen Napoleon but based on your and other critics' reviews it sounds like what I expect after watching the trailer, a feast for the eyes, barring the color grading, but probably no better than Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven. If we're making comparisons with Ridley Scott the best go to film would be his directorial debut The Dualists starring Harvey Keitel, which came out just two years after Barry Lyndon. Scott being both a fan and acquaintance of Kubrick, it's possible The Dualists was influenced by, and perhaps even a response to, Barry Lyndon. Set in the same period and covering many of the same themes, The Dualists is far better than any period piece Scott would do later, in spite of (or because of) the lack of budget and grand spectacle.
Matt C
2023-12-12 04:28:06 +0000 UTCI have noticed that when film makers talk about Kubrick they usually talk about technical innovations. With Barry Lydon they usually refer to low light lens. This approach annoys me as I am more interested in stories and characters rather than technical matters
anthony scully
2023-12-11 14:27:20 +0000 UTCI was going to make a similar comment but didn't want to be too negative since he has just passed. He plays a writer who is creatively impotent in the film tough guys don't dance. Possibly another example of a director using his lack of charisma to good effect
anthony scully
2023-12-11 03:36:48 +0000 UTCyes second half is very powerful. But the set up is necessary, and a lot of mirroring pays off in part 2. To give that satisfaction. I agree....the duel is maybe one of my favorite scenes of tension, I've ever seen. I actually have a friend, and his mom was briefly in Paper Moon. Anytime he is drunk, he will start talking about it, and it's funny.
Deepfocuslens
2023-12-11 02:46:42 +0000 UTCsometimes silence can be loud. you can feel the director being like "look how deep we are." But I do not sense that for a moment in Barry Lyndon. It all has purpose. I do think that film is naturally a visual medium over sound. But of course, both are huge aspects. But yes...there's something powerful about the image ultimately. You cant hide behind the image. You can hide behind the words.
Deepfocuslens
2023-12-11 02:45:21 +0000 UTCyeah me either. I dont think many people are. But I think he was used brilliantly here. Because he lacks charisma, which is essential to the Barry character...and yet, he does have some swagger. Something that makes him bold, and able to get away with a lot in his journey towards fortune.
Deepfocuslens
2023-12-11 02:43:57 +0000 UTCI totally agree. I put 2001 above it. But it sits comfortable at the top
Deepfocuslens
2023-12-11 02:43:01 +0000 UTChahaha This hurts me. Forget what others say. I hope you'll judge Barry Lyndon on its own. As it is one of the strangest reactions I've ever heard to a Kubrick film. Boring? lol...where? To me its one of the least boring. 2001 I prefer as a film but...it's waaaaay slower by comparison. Barry Lyndon is a stiff story at first glance I think, but if you get Kubrick, its easy to get beyond that. Each person I show it to, always says it hooked them pretty early on. And it always reaffirms why it feels strange to me. Of course you may disagree but...I do think it's one of those films easy to dismiss at first glance. Just due to the subgenre having a certain reputation. But with Kubrick nothing can ever be typical. As we all know here.
Deepfocuslens
2023-12-10 23:35:08 +0000 UTCi was never a fan of ryan o,neal. he has 2 films that i like. "so fine"' and tough guys don.t dance. the film tough guys don.t dance reminds me of david lynch. it might be be cause of isabella rosellini,s presence and because the score is done by the same guy he scored blue velvet. i would recommend the film to any one who likes early lnch films
anthony scully
2023-12-10 23:22:42 +0000 UTCLove this. A lot of what you say here is why its my second favorite Kubrick behind 2001. Now I need to rewatch it. I enjoyed Napoleon but did agree a lot with your review. Needed more Vanessa Kirby and maybe focus more on how Napoleon became a master war strategist. Perhaps we get more of that in the upcoming 4 hour directors cut? Also anytime Barry Lyndon is brought up Im immediately reminded of this 21 Savage mix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8_tJ6rVPyM
Stephen
2023-12-10 21:07:19 +0000 UTCI’ve never actually seen Barry Lyndon all the way through. It remains the only Kubrick film I haven’t seen fully. It probably has something to do with its length, and Kubrick detractors deem it the most empty, ponderous, and indulgent of his films made during the ultra-clinical, imagistic control freak period of his career. Which, given that he also made 2001, is saying something. I’m not saying that I’m in line with their opinion of Kubrick, but…they sold me enough on what a potential chore it would be to sit through Barry Lyndon. So, that’s why I’ve avoided it for so long. But I’ll get to it eventually, as I’m going through all of Kubrick’s films and evaluating them. I have that on hold right now because I’m catching up with this year’s movies, but I’ll get to it. As for Ryan O’Neal, I don’t have much reference for him, apart from a couple of very good films he did for Bogdanovich, What’s Up, Doc? and Paper Moon. Never seen Love Story. He was in fine form in both of those films, aptly playing the uptight dweeb in the former and the slick huckster in the latter, though he was overshadowed by his female co-stars in both films. I dunno, compared to the crop of leading men that came up in the early ‘70s, he was something of a lightweight, wasn’t he? But I know enough of the character of Barry Lyndon that it was those limitations—that bland, callow manner—that made him ideal casting in Kubrick’s eyes for the title role. I saw Napoleon and I didn’t like it, which is what I expected going in. Sorry, not even Phoenix and Kirby redeemed it for me. Phoenix in particular has been in a rut for a while in my opinion, between this and his one-note anxiety-ridden head case in Beau is Afraid. I don’t doubt his commitment to the roles he takes, but he has been giving them the same actorly indulgences over and over. That brooding intensity combined with childish petulance undercut with a kind of comical dweebishness. Those qualities go all the way back to his villain in Gladiator, but they seemed so fresh and vital back then. His Commodus was a vicious little shit that you loved to hate in that movie, but with a lethality and cunning that made him a legitimate threat to Crowe’s Maximus. He was a real character, a solid villain. By this time, however, in Napoleon those qualities have become tropes and mannerisms instead of character. I don’t understand Napoleon as a character any more than I did before I saw the movie. I don’t understand his drive to conquer, his hunger for power. He’s just another Joaquin Phoenix character who happens to be adept at battlefield tactics. As for Ridley Scott, well…it was nothing I was surprised by after I saw the mixed reviews. He has officially become a shoot-the-works filmmaker, with a little visual flair and a knack for historical texture. He shoots the script he has been given. He doesn’t shape scenes, nor does he ascribe a consistent tone to them. He leaves that to the actors without any real input, which is why Napoleon, like a lot of his recent movies, is at once flatly directed with different tones that never quite gel together. He can put together a good battle scene, I’ll give him that. But Scott, at this point, can only be counted on for mediocrity.
Bennett Oliver
2023-12-10 18:06:31 +0000 UTCYes!! It's so gratifying to read words that seem like they are directly expressing what's in my head and heart regarding a movie. What you have written puts it perfectly. Especially in your comparison to current day films that are attempting to be the same level of drama, artistry, and power as movies like Barry Lyndon. Not saying they're all bad, but even the good ones are definitely lacking something. Again, you said it spot on -- Just go back and watch a brilliant 70s masterpiece like Barry Lyndon after watching a current day drama and the gulf between them becomes instantly clear. Same goes for movies like Raging Bull, Apocalypse Now, etc. There are no current day comparisons... at least not yet. Thanks again!!
Paul Todisco
2023-12-10 17:55:10 +0000 UTCI never saw it all the way through so I committed to doing so for the first time a month ago and...yeah it's a damn good film. I thought the second half was the better part of the film because of the amazing dynamic between Barry and Bullingdon which has some of the best tension I've felt watching a Kubrick film. As good as O'Neal was here, his magnum opus was Paper Moon with his daughter Tatum O'Neal. I don't believe there's such a thing as a perfect film but Paper Moon would definitely be a candidate to be labeled as such, imo.
Wolfman Brandon
2023-12-10 17:28:23 +0000 UTCWow, this is a beautiful review. And exactly how I feel. Barry Lyndon is also one of my all-time favorites. I similarly tend to love movies with very little dialogue or ones that embrace silence. It shows a film’s confidence. Not all movies that rely on dialogue are bad, but many of them want to justify themselves through the dialogue, which feels phony and ultimately boring. I watch films first and foremost, to see, not to hear. Every frame of Barry Lyndon belongs in a museum. Like with dialogue, I know some films will rely on the visuals to hide their flaws, but, even if they fail, I respect those films more because film should be a visual medium. I’m less bored by seeing cool things than hearing “cool things”.
Shane Palamara
2023-12-10 17:23:33 +0000 UTC
