MovieChat Forums > Barry Lyndon (1975) Discussion > A Film With Lifeless Mannequins As The M...

A Film With Lifeless Mannequins As The Main Characters.

posted 9 years ago by JoeKulik
6 replies | jump to latest

Stanley Kubrick's screenplay adaptation and direction of Thackeray's Barry Lyndon (1975) is VERY POOR, in my opinion.

The two main characters, Barry Lyndon and Lady Lyndon are portrayed as deadpan through the whole film. This is particularly weird for the Barry character since his life story, the topic of the film, undergoes great transformations from start to finish. Yet, Ryan O'Neal, as Barry, looks like a lifeless, emotionless mannequin just reciting his script lines for almost the entire film. Marissa Berenson, as Lady Lyndon, is also a lifeless, emotionless mannequin just reciting script lines, although she is portrayed as being seduced by Barry while still being married to her elderly husband, although the narrator says that she falls in love with Barry before her husband suddenly dies, and although Barry is blowing her fortune and openly cheating in front of her after their marriage. It is true that the film is set in 18th Century England, when we would expect "propriety and decorum" to dominate more than today, but the flat, emotionless portrayal of the two main characters in such a tumultuous storyline is just unreal and just indicates a VERY POOR directing job by Stanley Kubrick.

I was even more amazed when I read a Wikipedia summary of William Thackeray's The Luck Of Barry Lyndon (1844). In the original novel, Thackeray definitely sets up Barry Lyndon as a hot tempered young man at the start of the novel, using this as his motivation for his duel over his cousin Nora. In the novel, Barry is not the victim of highway robbers, but makes it all the way to Dublin, where he immediately begins hanging around with low lifes and accrues so much gambling debt that he joins the British Army just to escape. Wiki says Barry seduces and bullies Lady Lyndon into marrying him. The novel not only has Barry's stepson Lord Bullington join the British Army to fight in the American Revolution, but has Barry plotting long distance to have Lord Bullington deliberately killed in battle in America.

Although I'm the first to say that an auteur should have the creative freedom to revise a screen adaptation of a novel however much he wants, it is VERY STRANGE to me that Kubrick BOTH revised the storyline of the original novel and focussed his direction of the main characters in a way that turned his main characters into such lifeless, emotionless, script reciting mannequins. What kills me is that Wiki's plot summary of the novel reveals Barry Lyndon to be a truly colorful and adventuresome guy, a character who already would be a wonderful film character. So what the hell was Kubrick thinking here?? I don't know, but he FAILED BADLY as far as I'm concerned.

The elaborate and obviously expensive costumes, period settings, and period accessories such as the horse drawn coaches in this film make it even more puzzling to me what Kubrick was thinking in his production of this film, that is, if he was thinking at all. In any case, elaborate and obviously expensive costumes, period settings, and period accessories do not compensate for a POOR screen adaptation of a novel, and for POOR direction, and that's all I can see in Kubrick's Barry Lyndon (1972).

Anyone who thinks that this is a great film must first start with the assumption that Kubrick is a great filmmaker and then work his way backward from that assumption to justify the "greatness" of this film. I just don't see it any other way.

[–] JurijFedorov 9 years ago

That's a problem with all of his movies. He is just not a good people director. Eyes Wide Shut looks like a boring parody of a real movie. Everyone talks so slowly that it is hard to understand why he made them do that. Barry Lyndon has so a high production value. So why write such a boring script? And why have semi-good actors? Ryan O'Neal was like a background character in a drama playing the leading role. There were no good characters in this movie. Even the bad guys were one dimensional.

[–] peterduray-bito 9 years ago

You've really struck a nerve here. In mulling over Kubrick's brilliance over the years, I've always struggled with what went wrong with Barry Lyndon. You've captured it well here, although I must say 2001 was also a bit dead-pan in the performance department. Ultimately, what I think I've settled on is Barry Lyndon was as much a failure in casting as Lolita and Dr. Strangelove were perfect. Kubrick got so caught up in process he lost touch with the humanity of characters.

[–] mbell-14 9 years ago

It's been a well-established criticism of Kubrick that his human characters greatly diminished after Paths of Glory (and especially Spartacus) as his focus became one of technical superiority. All his choices were very deliberate and considered, and he never gave a damn about the source material except in how he could use it to make his film. We the audience may not respond favorably to those choices, but that does not mean they were "very poor." After leaving Hollywood (and the many "take a bow" Kirk Douglas types) behind, he made movies the way he wanted, not to please a mass audience or even anyone else in particular. Contrary to your impression, he was ALWAYS thinking. As a true and unique artist with an intellect bordering on the obsessive, Kubrick crafted his films in layered detail. They neither "invite you in" nor "carry you along." They challenge your thoughts and thus affect your feelings from a strictly rational presentation.They are not films of heart, but of mind. That was Kubrick's domain and Barry Lyndon is his most gentle and deliberate effort, while the character himself was the most crass and base. That dichotomy was part of much in the structure of this film and gives it a uniquely disturbing feeling of conflict underneath the entire production. Kubrick is not to everyone's taste, but you have to give him his due and at least admire his willingness to produce films with such a "meta" approach. The Shining is of particular note when looked at in this way. In many ways it is his best film, even though as a "horror" movie, it is not what afficianados clamor for. If you can embrace such a cold, emotionally detatched and distant approach, a Kubrick film can be a satisfying experience. Just don't expect them to make you smile, or even scream really. (Well, except maybe in occasional frustration.)

[–] bregund 9 years ago

He didn't really "leave Hollywood", he was forced to hire Ryan O'Neal by Warner Brothers, who wanted a bankable star in the lead role. Then they gave him enough rope to hang himself and the result is this three-hour snoozefest.

[–] Splasharina 9 years ago

Exactly why Pauline Kael pronounced it "a coffee table movie." Turn the pages, marvel at the beauty, and then go read a good book if you want a great narrative with great characters.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 8 years ago

He's always been more of a quack to me, a brilliant cinematographer but a quack director/storytelling.