Barry Lyndon

Lav:There is so much to admire about the film, such as the gorgeous photography, the intelligent use of natural light, and the terrific classical soundtrack. These qualities are sufficient for most films to be worth watching. Barry Lyndon could not be 'bad' from a technical standpoint, but I do think, watching it again, that it confirms my original impression that, for a historical epic in which so many characters weave in and out of the storyline, there is no sense of things ever happening. Everyone seems to be frozen and suspended in space. I don't think that this was intentional, because the consequence of this limitation is that there is no conviction of the inner reasons for the change in Barry's fortunes from part 1 to part 2. The premeditated nature of the mood of the film makes it seem false and untrustworthy, rather than raising consciousness of the implications of characters' actions and their social world. In short, I think that it's enjoyable to watch as no more than prestige cinema, made for audiences to remember their indebtedness to 'high art'.

Paolo: I think Kubrick is doing something very interesting here, in his customarily angular way. The film has an extreme remoteness in that we are distanced from the story (filtered through an emotionally detached narrator) and distanced from the action (the camera seems to constantly depict images just out of a convenient or comfortable field of vision). This reflects for me the essential difficulty of telling stories, the sometimes fruitless attempt to 'connect' successfully with anything other than the thrust of a narrative, These are nothing more than hollow puppets bobbing about for our entertainment. There is definitely a sense that the actors/characters are used as figures, moved around with design to allow the plot to progress. This, i think, is interesting and it is unimaginable to me how Kubrick actually achieved the eerie disquiet and sense of bored omniscient control. Barry is a prisoner within the story - and a victim of a disinterested author - eventually frozen in time at the end of the film, perhaps when the God of the story loses interest altogther. My question would be, why would you look for inner motivations and consequences in a story when they are rarely available in reality? I have to say, too, that the film is far too complex to be fluffed off as prestige cinema in the way that something like Lawrence of Arabia or Ben Hur most definitely is.

Lav: I'm going to reply to the question you've posed me with a question of my own: what do you mean when you say 'the thrust of the narrative'? Every plot needs action in order to move, and one of the reasons why I don't think Barry Lyndon succeeds even as an action film is because there is no sense in which inner motivation has guided the characters through their actions. Inner motivation doesn't necessarily mean a personal force such as willpower and it could refer to something quite mysterious and ineffable, but still, its presence is not felt in Barry Lyndon. I agree with your interpretation that Barry is a prisoner within the story, but since there is a lack of character dynamic I believe that this adds to the impression that the film theorizes things without purpose. The sense of extreme remoteness in Barry Lyndon is not an outcome of Kubrick's skill; it is confirmation of his egotism. What seems so hollow about the characters comes from the lack of generosity with which they are imagined by the director/screenwriter.

Paolo: The film's interest lies in its poise and positioning. Whether or not this has anything to do with what Kubrick intended, i don't know or care, i suppose. Ultimately, and perhaps - as you say - resulting only from the mind of an arch-egotist, the film teeters on a precipice of some bemused, unstoppable tragedy. It's true that Kubric is miserly with the characterization. I would go further and say that he actually abandons them altogether. Maybe I am reading too much into Ryan O' Neal's confused, perturbed (and oh so pretty) face, but the film aches with the sense that there's a non-specific and inconsequential conclusion in store for the players that's beyond the powers of the author. For me, that goes some way to understanding the unexpected and sometimes inexplicable behavior of the characters: they simply have no faith in the story. I suppose it's a bit much then to ask us to have any belief in ithe whole, but it's intriguing nonetheless - a curious film.