Barry Lyndon (1977)
For unification to happen all
the strands of mediums must be tied together, only when they are, can Dramatic
Narrative Cinema come alive. Kubrick sought to tie-up three ends: The Camera,
the narrator’s eye held to the stillness and granted the slight leash of fluidity
in the cinema. The Narrative, which for Kubrick was always an adaptation, would
have had an established or desired narrative form from the start. The Narrator
or the apologist for the thought-philosophy, it is often muddled in with the
other two and lost (The Narrator was a prominent force that evolved violently
through Kubrick’s career). From his early fastidious camera work on the
voyeuristic noir camera of The Killing
all the way to The Shining the
narrator was never a concept that became muddled with Kubrick.
Stanley Kubrick was so aware of the camera, as an individual piece, it became an obsessive focus in developing all aspects of his work. As a result, Kubrick was driven to make his viewer as aware as himself of the Camera’s presence. The end result for Kubrick is an engagement with the viewer, rarely accessed.
Stanley Kubrick was so aware of the camera, as an individual piece, it became an obsessive focus in developing all aspects of his work. As a result, Kubrick was driven to make his viewer as aware as himself of the Camera’s presence. The end result for Kubrick is an engagement with the viewer, rarely accessed.
The emotional heights of Barry Lyndon do not rest on scenes of
great dialogue, unexpected turns, or any other trick most cinema rests on, but
in moments where all three points, come to moments of completion.
The death
of Redmond Barry’s son comes at a point where the narrators telling of the
story, which had been voyeuristically pleasure based, is suddenly woken up.
Instead of playing up the story as another one of the causal reverberations of
the brute’s feats, the Narrator, Narrative, and Camera all shift into another
phase. It’s beyond a tonal shift, beyond that “the third act starts”, this is a
point where the Camera leaves Redmond, the Narrator and Narrative both refocus
on the items of larger importance in the life of Barry Lyndon. Large casts in large scenes their mood is the tone, at no point are we focused on Redmond Barry explicitly, even to moments with Barry as a drunkard, he’s always an object never an agent or action of the scene or moment we’re witness to. The background was even filled by people wearing antique clothing of the time, another one of Kubrick’s seen “quirks” and worshipped “perfectionism”. This shouldn’t discount select performances (which stand in line with the brilliance of the rest of Kubrick), nor lower the level at which a model can perform, in models you can create something deep out of nothing and Kubrick used this to an advantage. It’s with Redmond’s melancholy that Kubrick uses O’Neal most as an actor to illustrate, man in darkness.
The
Shining’s Camera, whose position was set as the presence of ‘the Ghost’, is
a good example of Kubrick’s using a “Hollywood technique” geared toward
entertainment, while also adhering to his ever-present mental grip of The Camera:
a sophisticated and cerebral visual technique on its own. The Camera could be seen as
Kubrick’s only ever true narrator, despite him any varied techniques throughout
his career. The camera, as a technical tool can only be an emotional surrogate
for the creator of the work. The camera lacks the ability to convey emotion in
fullness, being a machine. Kubrick always used his camera to show the audience a point of view, never trying to insert
himself in as the Narrator, like Welles or Godard and tried to make it look
human. The seemed distance between Emotion and the spectator in the work of
Stanley Kubrick is due to Kubrick often telling the piece from the point of the
narrator: in their own world, uninterested in our understanding of anything
outside his own narrow view and interpretation of the immediate.
Kubrick worked through the narrow
plastic medium that restricted the conveyance of human drama. Kubrick saw
through the manipulations of emotion that were easily attempted by most
filmmakers and worked against it. Many saw Kubrick’s work at the time as
robotic (even being called a “machine” by a devotee of the opposite, Eric
Rohmer), but really this was a new kind of dramatic narrative he was forging;
one to fit The Camera’s perspective, acknowledging it as its own distinct
medium and means of stimulus. Stanley Kubrick lost the fight over the creation
of drama on film and now as a result most films are left one third ‘empty’
ignoring his innovations. Their makers failed to address this crucial aspect of
narrative telling, though a few makers and a certain handful of films are true
in their making and have avoided this problem. The starting of the scouring
censors in the 1930’s advanced into the full and staying cleanse of 1968 and
the MPAA (Kubrick fled the United States permanently after 1962 and Lolita, not because of censors cutting
his work, but his fear of his films being created under an enforced code).
A
Clockwork Orange’s failings are the spectator’s belief in the Camera,
Narrative, and Philosophy being intertwined into a single stream of some
narrative truth, not rationalized,
like it was, by psychopathy. The audience sat to watch the film expecting one
that affirmed their belief, rather than one that challenged their delicacies. When
the doors opened, the audience felt dizzied from their perceived flaws in a
soulless narrative, one that they greatly misappropriated the ideas of. Kubrick’s
eye could be defined by the concept: Kubrick is a different way of thinking. A
Clockwork Orange exists just as strongly as a Stanley Kubrick feature,
possibly the strongest in its established morality. Clockwork was a creation, a document, in its attempt at showing
some reality. Reality is subjective and Kubrick was recreating the realities
set up by the novel.
For reality in Barry Lyndon Kubrick decided on recreating scenes to a painterly
perfection. The casting of Actors as Models to create (or arguably recreate)
images and scenes as paintings turned to celluloid, Kubrick cast in iron the
images he wanted. In Barry Lyndon the
pieces were so elaborate in construction, there’s no choice but for it to be
looked at as pieces constructed. The voice-over is an objective standard like God, who
narrates and gives the audience the settling epilogue (“…good or bad, handsome
or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now”). The voice through out is
ominous, haunting, taunting, and solemn. He’s more knowing and removed from us,
easily written off as the transmuted voice of the narrator. With the finish
from the Camera, which acted as the narrator’s voyeuristic interest in the area
spread, was focused only by the narration. Most contemporary cinema is just
plain unsuccessful because it’s unhealthily obsessed with a misunderstood idea
of realism that leaves us with dead drama and a half hung camera in the end. Of
course objective beauty is not a standard that can be measured but there’s
something special about the way Kubrick cut Barry
Lyndon together, some majesty and grace I can’t explain fully, but all
Kubrick shows this desire of completeness. In Barry Lyndon the camera moves gently, even through the chaos of
war. The Narrative is classical in the finest sense, the story; a man and his doings as part of his yearnings during
conquest. Barry Lyndon could be seen
as a film that’s the watch of a gentle divinity, the writer of the novel, or
some British actor in a sound booth but it’s the finished product that should
be examined. As a finished piece, it’s accomplished, that’s not even
questioned. But sitting as a whole, Barry
Lyndon sits as the most able construction of Stanley Kubrick, from its
understand of Drama on screen to its execution of scenic imagery.
Kubrick’s creation in this film: textile from the
era to be worn, natural light and a camera lens so spectacular it was never
before used on the planet, patiently waiting to create moments “as they would
have happened”, was all for the purpose for cinematic perfection of re-creation
at its finest. More than any other Barry
Lyndon could be compared to something like The Magic Flute. Lyndon
shows more inventiveness and exploration in the medium and specifically for the
medium of film. Barry Lyndon is a
great film about a solitary being, it’s built around the aesthetic of solitude
and it is Redmond’s undesired but unavoidable downfall. At great lengths I’ve
thought why when I’ve seen Barry Lyndon
screened, people laugh. I would have to say that this film might be the most
tragic film I’ve seen. It’s the set up of a man who desired empire, and lived
to watch the mud walls he built, be burned down, burying him.