Wonderful, as is the film. I found Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon to be a genius, artistically stunning, work of art about an unremarkable amoral man’s strivings. If Michelangelo had painted a portrait of a dying child… that would have produced an equivalent feeling in the viewer. But we should all consider one thing. I don’t know Kubrick’s philosophy of life, but I assume he is an atheist. After all, there is no God, nor belief in God, to elevate any of the characters in the film. And that explains the darkness of the production.
I haven’t seen the movie, and I would like to. However, on this point the 18th century was a time of rationalism and religion was symbolic and cultural, but it was a cold time. The early Victorians, a couple of generations later, were much more devoutly religious than their grandparents.
Yes, indeed. I think I should have said that in the film there are really no Christians. It's as if they don't or even, never existed. I can't think of a single character that appeared to be or act as a Christian. Nothing in the narration about Jesus Christ or Christians. I read the Wikipedia piece. He states he doesn't believe there is a god. But he says nothing about Jesus Christ, as if he's never heard of him, which, of course he has. But why no mention? Even though religious Jews do not believe that Christ was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, they certainly know about him, and certainly Kubrick did. So, why does it appear that in this old world that Kubrick created, Jesus Christ never existed?
I'm not trying to proselytize anyone, I'm just intrigued, very intrigued. But Stanley is gone and cannot be asked about this.
Thank you again for your fine review and analysis!
I read an essay some time back, maybe 15 yrs ago, that in Eyes Wide Shut, that Dr. Harford's apartment has Christmas trees, whereas there are no religious decorations in the mansion of the super rich. This suggests that the doctor was more of a protagonist and middle class, compared to the godless cult implications of the super rich. Not to say there can't be, but makes for a good plot.
One of the great things about "2001" is how its future world still holds up, even decades later. It remains totally convincing in its own way, even if Kubrick's predictions were wrong - we're nowhere near flying to Jupiter, no contact with extraterrestrial intelligence has been made, and both the Soviet Union and Pan Am no longer exist.
I’m convinced that Kubrick is even more of a genius than Hitchcock! And I definitely need to expand my viewing from Dr Strangelove, 2001 and Clockwork Orange…
I am definitely of two minds about Barry Lyndon, in which I wish ever single characters (and a number of actors) would cease to exist. Praised for cinematography, lighting and music, I think the greatest virtue is Michael Hordern’s bone-dry narration. Normally, art films eschew narration at all. Sometimes it is an effective way to capture the authors voice, but Thackeray set his novel in the first person. The narration is I believe, mainly Kubrick work, but I will defer on this point to someone who has read the script and book closely.
Very nice appreciation! "Barry Lyndon" and "2001" are the Kubrick films I return to most often. Took a while to find its place in the canon; as I recall it was something of a flop when it came out. I like how you focused on both the visual and musical aspects, since that soundtrack is very important in situating the film in time and space.
I have to disagree somewhat on Hitchcock. I find a lot of his work too obviously manipulative and visually slack.
Brilliant!
Kudos. Very nicely done.
I watched it maybe 10 yrs ago. The scene that I liked the most was Rev. Samuel Runt noticing Barry's eye for Lady Lyndon. He doesn't look up immediately, but his awareness is filmed almost as if in slow motion: https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/format:webp/0*ZNtAE3syThkBwQ-I.jpeg
Wonderful, as is the film. I found Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon to be a genius, artistically stunning, work of art about an unremarkable amoral man’s strivings. If Michelangelo had painted a portrait of a dying child… that would have produced an equivalent feeling in the viewer. But we should all consider one thing. I don’t know Kubrick’s philosophy of life, but I assume he is an atheist. After all, there is no God, nor belief in God, to elevate any of the characters in the film. And that explains the darkness of the production.
I haven’t seen the movie, and I would like to. However, on this point the 18th century was a time of rationalism and religion was symbolic and cultural, but it was a cold time. The early Victorians, a couple of generations later, were much more devoutly religious than their grandparents.
Interestingly, there's an entire Wikipedia article on this subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_and_religious_beliefs_of_Stanley_Kubrick
Short version: "it's complicated."
Yes, indeed. I think I should have said that in the film there are really no Christians. It's as if they don't or even, never existed. I can't think of a single character that appeared to be or act as a Christian. Nothing in the narration about Jesus Christ or Christians. I read the Wikipedia piece. He states he doesn't believe there is a god. But he says nothing about Jesus Christ, as if he's never heard of him, which, of course he has. But why no mention? Even though religious Jews do not believe that Christ was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, they certainly know about him, and certainly Kubrick did. So, why does it appear that in this old world that Kubrick created, Jesus Christ never existed?
I'm not trying to proselytize anyone, I'm just intrigued, very intrigued. But Stanley is gone and cannot be asked about this.
Thank you again for your fine review and analysis!
Jesus is to Jews like Kubrick what the second amendment is to democrats
I read an essay some time back, maybe 15 yrs ago, that in Eyes Wide Shut, that Dr. Harford's apartment has Christmas trees, whereas there are no religious decorations in the mansion of the super rich. This suggests that the doctor was more of a protagonist and middle class, compared to the godless cult implications of the super rich. Not to say there can't be, but makes for a good plot.
I got fucking chills from the last line. Although I'd dispute the shallowness of FMJ, my dark horse favorite.
To your point, I recently saw 2001 in 70mm and the experience cannot be overstated. A director who demands the big screen, if there ever was one.
One of the great things about "2001" is how its future world still holds up, even decades later. It remains totally convincing in its own way, even if Kubrick's predictions were wrong - we're nowhere near flying to Jupiter, no contact with extraterrestrial intelligence has been made, and both the Soviet Union and Pan Am no longer exist.
I actually just wrote an essay about this, as it happens: https://open.substack.com/pub/robbieherbst/p/open-the-podbay-doors-grok?r=a2rj&utm_medium=ios
Not exactly prescient but Kubrick was a visionary nonetheless
I’m convinced that Kubrick is even more of a genius than Hitchcock! And I definitely need to expand my viewing from Dr Strangelove, 2001 and Clockwork Orange…
I was 13 when I started watching 2001 in its Cinemascope theatrical release. Took me a few decades to finish.
I am definitely of two minds about Barry Lyndon, in which I wish ever single characters (and a number of actors) would cease to exist. Praised for cinematography, lighting and music, I think the greatest virtue is Michael Hordern’s bone-dry narration. Normally, art films eschew narration at all. Sometimes it is an effective way to capture the authors voice, but Thackeray set his novel in the first person. The narration is I believe, mainly Kubrick work, but I will defer on this point to someone who has read the script and book closely.
It’s a terrible movie. Ryan O’neal is wooden, his accent sucks. Worse than 2002, if that’s possible.
Very nice appreciation! "Barry Lyndon" and "2001" are the Kubrick films I return to most often. Took a while to find its place in the canon; as I recall it was something of a flop when it came out. I like how you focused on both the visual and musical aspects, since that soundtrack is very important in situating the film in time and space.
I have to disagree somewhat on Hitchcock. I find a lot of his work too obviously manipulative and visually slack.