18th century blog

I have seen half of the movie… my boyfriend fell asleep, and I also found it very boring, and I normally like unconventional and uneventful slow movies…
It was getting more entertaining in the dress department at that stage, so I should give a try to the rest if only because of that. The only thing I liked about what I saw was the realism, for example the lightning, but I also didn’t feel anything towards any the characters so far…

It’s one of my favorite movies :) I can’t even tell you why I like it so much because I know that you’re right. Barry is one of the most ineffectual characters I’ve ever seen, but the overall look of the movie with so many candlelit scenes is beautiful and the score gets almost hypnotic in it’s repetition. The scene with Lady Lyndon (first pic after the cut) is strangely lit, but the deliberate pacing makes it my favorite. It’s like the actors do such a good job in this movie because my dislike for them seems personal. It helps to watch this movie and pretend that it’s maybe the dryest comedy ever made ;)
Sorry to barge into your 18th century blog… I just wanted to mention Barry Lyndon. hehehe

I didn’t even get to the part when he marries!

The deliberate pacing perfect. And, believe it or not, Ryan O’Neal is exactly what is called for in this character. He is the hole in the story that Samuel Richardson intended. A completely ineffectual character.

Ha, my father can watch this movie again, & again, & again, and it’s known as a masterpiece of cinema but I cannot really watch it either. Dunno why.

I’m sorry you can’t talk of Kubrick’s movie as ‘boring’. You can say that the rhythm is slow and that you don’t like it, but not that the movie is crap.

Do you actually realise that ‘Barry Lyndon’ is a masterpiece? That he accumulated thousands of art books to create the settings and costumes? Did you know that the images refer to 18th century art, especially landscape and portraiture, as embodies in the canvasses of Gainsborough, Reynolds and Constable?
No, I think you don’t.

or maybe you prefer actual period movie with great idealisation and Miss Keira I’m-remaking-Coco-Channel-ads-on-screen Knightley…
You say that you don’t get Barry’s character, but I’d rather say that you haven’s grasp the whole movie itself. Nevertheless, it doesn’t seem that complicated, it focusses on the rise and fall of a single individual.

WHY, do you think, it is considered as a masterpiece?
What kubrick achieved, with Barry’s character, is to recreate the feeling of 18th century books, and to create the figure of a maverick. He may be devoid of feelings, but just watch the moments he spends with his son, which, I think, are really moving…

The comments on your articles are not helpful either..
by the way, claudharvey, it’s not based on ‘Samuel Richardson’s story’ but on Thackeray’s ‘Memoirs of Barry Lyndon’
wouldn’t hurt someone to check one’s information before writing nonsense…

I`ve watched it many times but have only been able to sit through it from end to end once.I think it is a flawed masterpiece and that the fault is Thankerays
not Kubricks.Thackeray,writing in the mid-nineteenth-century,clearly knew nothing about eighteenth-century Irish history and that is why the character of Barry is un-convincing.I watch it for the music,the photography,the lighting and above all the interiors.Much of it was filmed at Powerscourt near Dublin.
The house,which was one of the finest eighteenth century mansions in Ireland, was destroyed by fire shortly after filming.

I agree with you. I adore 18th century drama but just cannot sit through this, despite the costumes and settings. The problem seems to be the plot; the lack of a strong storyline. So, as you said, the fault must lie with Thackeray.

Ok, wow, “Lucinda” please calm down; if you want to blatantly mock those who dislike it go on the imdb.com message boards.

Like most commenter’s here, I also found this film to be boring. I enjoy 18th century period pieces thoroughly, I’m an avid collector of books on Gainsbough and Hogarth, and I’m working my way through a series of lectures on the Enlightenment….and yet this….well, I’m just relieved that I’m not the only one who felt this way.

Personally, I think Kubric did mishandle the telling of this story (although I haven’t read the novel). Compare it to the film, “Amadeus”, which I felt to be far more compelling. Both films include convincing, soft lighting and wonderful cinematography. Admittedly, in comparing the films stills, the superior costume and set design go to “Barry Lyndon”; the research Kubric did is very commendable. And yet, the editing, pacing and final delivery of “Barry Lyndon” is weaker. For me, a large part of this is due to the fact that it felt as though Kurbic was saying “here are a several things that happened to this one fellow in a selected timeline”, in a very matter of fact and monotone fashion, and Ryan O’Neal barely breaths any life into the character which might otherwise have made it more intriguing. This is also where “Amadeus” trumps “Barry Lyndon”; Tom Hucle portrayed Mozart in a way that was fairly engaging and had contradictory qualities (ie. A man-child who’s a genius). I can understand that this duller delivery of “Barry Lyndon” might be intended as ironic or in the vein of the driest memoir literature, and if so, it’s completely overdone. It’s a pity because the antics and shenanigans are anything but boring. The man goes to war, gets mugged, gambles, has a duel, seduces left and right. All I can say is that the stills are interesting to look at.

I should mention that I really really enjoy your blog; particularily the reviews and artist postings (how did have I not come across George Romney before !?). I’m so sorry I completely prattled on in that first comment. And I’m sure “Lucinda” is a lovely person, we just disagree over this film.

If you have the time, I’d be interested in reading your thoughts about a BBC series called “Garrow’s Law”- though its less ballroom and more courtroom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrow’s_Law)