Barry Lyndon: Reconsidering an Unappreciated Gem

By Brendan Cassidy

Every film director, no matter how great, has made at least one film that is considered one of their “lesser works.”  These films may not necessarily be bad, just films that do not compare to the director’s more accomplished work.  This is a re-examining of such a film.   A comparison of the overlooked film to the director’s other films, to see why it is not as beloved, where it fits in their film cannon, and maybe give the film a second chance. Here I hope to strike at a chord of redemption for Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon.

Posters of 2001 adorn bedrooms worldwide. On any Halloween night in any big city you would be hard pressed not to find someone dressed as Alex or one of his droogs from A Clockwork Orange.  The Shining is full of so many iconic images that the film has supplanted the book it is based upon in popularity.  R. Lee Ermey’s dialogue from Full Metal Jacket has become so ingrained in the cultural mindset that even today young men use the insults Ermey hurls at his recruits as putdowns. Even the oft criticized film Eyes Wide Shut has indelible images such as its eerie masks or the procession from a hypnotic orgy scene.  However, Stanley Kubrick’s 1975 film Barry Lyndon is rarely recognized among his greatest achievements and is seen by many as one of his lesser works.  References to the film are often met with blank stares, and many would be hard pressed to recall memorable dialogue from the film.  The film is often written off as a technical achievement.  The film is noted for its use of a lens developed by NASA, allowing Kubrick to shoot in low light, or zoom shots Kubrick uses to flatten the film like a painting.  Aside from these acknowledgments the film receives little recognition compared with other Kubrick films.  A recent Kubrick box set released by Warner Brothers included all of Kubrick’s films since 2001 with the distinct exception of Barry Lyndon.  Barry Lyndon is a film people respect more than love, but why?

The answer to this question is challenging because many of the themes in the film that could alienate viewers are present in other more renowned Kubrick films.  Kubrick makes challenging films that ask a lot from viewers, and he does no different here.  The viewer is asked to identify with an unsympathetic character, an anti-hero, much like Alex in A Clockwork Orange.  The film is often cold and distant, but few, if any of Kubrick’s films warmly embrace the viewer. Kubrick will instead ask the viewers to draw their own conclusions.  One needs only look to Full Metal Jacket to see this.  As a film, Full Metal Jacket is an enigma much like its lead character Pvt. Joker; a man with a peace symbol and “Born to Kill” written on his helmet.  A film which jumps around in style, from a boot camp film to war film, we must derive the meaning of Full Metal Jacket on our own.  We must theorize what Pvt. Joker is thinking at the film’s end when he kills the Vietnamese soldier, with the camera unflinchingly remaining on his face.  What Joker is thinking at this moment we must decide for ourselves.

Perhaps the film’s length and pace put many off?  The film comes in at around three hours, and can be slow and tedious.  Also, the fact that this is a costume drama set during the reign of King George III can make it dull and lifeless for many.  However, other Kubrick films lag and have long running times.  2001, for all its spectacle and beauty can be very slow at times.  In 2001 there are periods where the narrative literally stops to show the spectacle of the surrounding world, a concept Kubrick also uses in Barry Lyndon.  Kubrick specializes in transporting viewers to other worlds and times, or even dreamlike versions of our world, as in Eyes Wide Shut. Sometimes this can cause his films to suffer from pacing issues, but this is also where much of his strength comes from.  His films drip with atmosphere, often this is the element that makes them memorable.  Granted a costume drama in theory may not be as compelling as a film set in space, but the atmosphere in the film is so strong that if the film lingers it is only to draw the viewer farther into the film.

Still the questions remains, why has this film not garnered a place among many of Kubrick’s other works?  The answer seems to be that this is Kubrick’s most challenging film, and may ask too much of viewers.  This is saying a great deal considering this is the man who made 2001.  The film concerns itself with the plight of a social climber, Redmond Barry, a man with no positive traits aside from his devotion to his young son (again an anti-hero is nothing new to Kubrick).  It is how the main character’s story is told that makes it challenging. The viewer must actively watch the film in order to get the most out of it. One cannot simply have Kubrick walk them through this world; they must keep up with him.

Some of what occurs onscreen is completely inconsequential to the story, while other more important events in the life of Redmond Barry occur off-screen, only briefly mentioned by a narrator.  Part way through the film the narrator informs the viewer that Redmond Barry will die alone and penniless, yet this is never shown.  While most films would end on this, Barry Lyndon treats this as a casual occurrence not important enough to show.  Instead the viewer is presented with several small stories that at times play no part in the narrative but only serve to make social commentary, or deepen the viewers understanding of the surrounding world.  Take, for example, the brief affair Barry has with a young woman while abandoning his military duty.  The scene has no further consequence to the story and could be completely removed from the film.  Yet, this standalone story provides strong insight into women during the period, perhaps today.  Kubrick tells the viewer that women who fall for men in uniform must fall in love often or lead a lonely life.  This narrow focus appears to be the point of Barry Lyndon, to look only at specific moments in a great long life and pick out a few interesting stories.

The film treats the life of its main character as it does significant events occurring at the same time in history, such as the Seven Year’s War.  The film’s narrator states, “It would require a great philosopher and historian to explain the causes of the famous Seven Years’ War in which Europe was engaged and in which Barry’s regiment was now on its way to take part. Let it suffice to say, that England and Prussia were allies and at war against the French, the Swedes, the Russians and the Austrians.”  Much like this summarization, the film grazes over details and focuses on a few small battles of little consequence to the war.  Barry Lyndon is not concerned with Redmond Barry’s entire life, instead focusing on small stories that come from it.  The film’s epilogue states that none of what transpired really mattered, “It was in the reign of George the III that the above named personages lived and quarreled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.” The film’s epilogue makes clear that really none of these events matter in the long run, no matter how important they seemed at the time.  In the end none of what transpired mattered, and all of the social climbing, scheming and backstabbing that came before were inconsequential. What the viewer is left with is a few stories from a man’s life that are humorous, satirical, or tragic.

This view that in the end nothing really matters is not new to Kubrick films. In Dr. Strangelove all the planning and bickering that took place prior are for naught, as the whole world is destroyed in a nuclear onslaught.  Yet, Dr. Strangelove was a black comedy and a satire, short, swift and fun.  Barry Lyndon satire is more subtle and with less humor.  The level of examination Kubrick attempts here is on par with books by Dostoevsky.  This attempt may be too much for any film to cover, no matter how longs its running time is. The magnitude of all that Kubrick tries to cover is enormous and seems something viewers are more accustomed to seeing in a book.  Watching the film can be like reading “Vanity Fair” in one sitting, a book that often takes people a great deal of time to read.

In the end, Kubrick made a brilliant film which breaks boundaries and asks the audience to challenge what a period film is, and what it can mean.  Watching the film is akin to reading a great literary novel, while viewing masterful paintings in an art museum.  While this is a remarkable achievement, it can be hard for a general populace to connect with.  While the film has many ardent supporters, such as Martin Scorsese, it can be a lot to take on in a single viewing.  However, for those willing to put effort into the film, they will find a rich deep film experience that is on par with Kubrick’s most rewarding films.

Brendan Cassidy is a contributing writer for The Film Crusade.