Delayed Reaction: Barry Lyndon

Premise: An Irishman in the 1700s stumbles his way in and out of the highest levels of European society.

 

Damn. I was hoping this would be the one. At this point, I've seen 9 of Stanley Kubrick's final 10 films (all but Lolita). While I've enjoyed all of the movies in some way, I've never seen one that I really loved. The Shining is broadly appealing: certainly the most commercial of his late films. Dr. Strangelove has a wit that I probably didn't appreciate enough when I saw it a decade ago. The first half of Full Metal Jacket is fun. 2001 looks and sounds pretty. But I'm by no means a Kubrick fan. I don't need to own any of his movies. I don't connect with the films in any meaningful way. In general, I find his films inert and overlong although very pretty to look at. It's a shame, because I want to be with the cool kids loving Kubrick. It sounds fun. I've gone into all of his movies thinking "this will be the one" and it's never happened.

 

Yet again, I went into Barry Lyndon optimistic that this would be the Kubrick movie that turns me and becomes my Kubrick Rosetta Stone. It sounded great. It's about an Irish protagonist. I'm annoyingly into Irish stuff. It's set during the 1700s. I'm a fan of period movies. Barry Forrest Gumps his way through the events of the film. I love Forrest Gump. The cinematography has been lauded for decades. I enjoy looking at beautifully shot things. Other than a little concern about the length, I went into this movie really wondering if this could make something finally click.

 

Nope. Unless Lolita or The Killing are quietly his masterpieces, I think I'll need to keep Kubrick on my list of "Great directors who do nothing for me". Of course, I did find some things to like about the movie. The cinematography really is great. I loved the famous candlelight scenes. I imagine that seeing this in a theater on film would be even more enriching. It has a dry sense of humor to it, where it doesn't even tell jokes. It sort of just laughs at Barry's existence. However, this ranks pretty low in my Kubrick rankings overall. This movie meanders unconvincingly. After a recent rewatch of Amadeus flew by, I'm not in the mood right now for anyone telling me that 3-hours movies are supposed to feel long. None of the performances did anything for me. Ryan O'Neal was much, much better in Paper Moon and even Love Story.

 

Overall, I just left the movie with a feeling of "OK, and?" I know the complaint of a lot of blockbuster movies is that they are all flash and no substance. Can't the opposite be true though? A film has a lot of pretty filmmaking and high-minded ideas but doesn't do enough with the medium to justify why it's a film and not a series of portraits or essays*. That's touching on a much larger idea than I have the time or desire to take on. I just want to explain my thoughts a little so I don't sound lazy when I say Barry Lyndon was long and boring.

 

*Here's an analogy I'm working on. A car, no matter how exquisitely designed it is, does nothing for me unless I can drive it somewhere. I'm sure a lot of effort went into the design and paint to make that look great. The engine might even be designed by the best engineers. It might as well be a sculpture though unless it has a smooth ride and I can use it to get somewhere. No matter how exquisite the filmmaking, I need some level of functional entertainment (however you define the word). What's interesting is that people who disagree with me probably see a mirror image of this analogy.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend