A Refined Costume Piece Wore By a Statue !

Rating: Null/10 (8 January 2011)

I hate when a certain quality sticks informatively to a certain director. (Stanley Kubrick) is best known as none other than The Great (Stanley Kubrick). And whoever dares to object is whether an idiot or ignorant. The thing is this film displays no greatness at all.
The narrative could be the only good thing around, since it shows a different character. The lead isn't the idealistic prince charming or the inhuman selfish conman either. He's a fine mix of both, being a real human beyond stereotyping. It chose to use a narrator, which is an old trick to emphasize the satire; towards the human in general this time (dumb to know what he wants, dumb to select the most trivial "money", and dumb to lose it along with everything else). Despite being 3 hours it floats, not due to the editing inasmuch as the script's short scenes and the story's intensity. So far, so good, or at least not bad. The problems were elsewhere.
I'm sick of praising the cinematography of this film. First off it's not that *massively beautiful*. For instance (Funny Face - 1957) is. While being internally tepid, some of the outdoor images can make a fair calendar; and that's about it. Although it's an achievement to develop special lenses to allow filming without electric lighting but using the candles' yellow lighting was so stupid at times, making the meeting with the village's girl and the military's café have one atmosphere. I didn't run into something that smart about the long shots of the Lyndon's castle except being repetitive meaningless postcards. It's solely the scene of the fight between the lead and his wife's son, with movable held camera, that drew my attention, as - finally - something alive!
Then the horror. Oh sorry, I meant the music. The choices of (Kubrick), out of the classic music, reflect a one of a kind BAD taste. Who can stand this strangling bore? Not me for sure. The tracks are totally dull and unattractive. Evoking the past by its art proves a mighty failure this time. At one point, while the sequence of rescuing the officer from a falling wall, I was crying due to the soundtrack's paralysis.. really!
The acting of (Ryan O'Neal) is maybe the film's lowest point. Nothing deep about it. Shockingly this film assures that he isn't a good actor. I couldn't see the dispositions of (Barry Lyndon) through him. I thought that a role such as this needed (Robert Redford), coincidently was having his moment back then, since he's a master in expressing the fires under icy surface. (O'Neal) has the icy surface only! (Later on I discovered that Redford was the first choice indeed).
The rest of the cast did their jobs whether woodenly (all of Marisa Berenson's feelings were expressed in one-note expression), or usually with no performance that could come close to be called brilliant. Now read what critic (Tim Robey) said: "The film makes you realize that the most undervalued aspect of (Kubrick)'s genius could well be his way with actors" Ha Ha Haaa! I ask; why (Kubrick) has to be always genius? And if he was; then where did he ever go wrong?
The way (Kubrick) moves the cast is so primitive and funny sometimes. Why to showcase the thinking of lady Lyndon's son as walking back and forth? Or Ahh, Barry got to sit in the middle of the must-be-empty restaurant to articulate how deserted he became! For most of the time, I felt "how flat", instead of how "eloquent". Further, the scenes are mostly one-shot with not much motion in it, which congealed the visual pace into slow-moving paintings (Kubrick wants to embody the pace of the past??!!). Knowing the way how the cast acted, then I was watching a historical puppet show!
Many viewers said that this was a boring film. Most of (Kubrick)'s elements did that perfectly. The film resembles what (Marisa Berenson) looks during it (Ouch!). Apparently the perfectionist, that (Kubrick) was, cared unhealthily for drawing the delicate yellow lighting over the actors' faces to resurrect the time period, more than seeking any sort of interact between us and the shown characters and events. True that he wanted the meaning of the story, not the story, but what's interesting in evoking the 18th century's paintings, music, and pace, while lacking the vitality ridiculously? That produced heavy uninteresting pedantry.
The main problem is that the mix wasn't right. The film is compressed between the method of making us meditate, not react (Be philosophical), trying artistically hard to conjure up a very accurate visual and sonic feel of the 18th century as well (Be realistic?!), plus - oh my god - a stiff and dry filmmaking where everyone along with everything is filled up with violent starch or, in less words, the coldness of the Eskimo (Be Kubrick!). The result is "meaning" and "techniques" in the front, "drama" and "heat" left in the back; namely it isn't an efficient film, rather a refined costume piece wore by a statue, with a very conceited look up its face too. Simply.. your film is highly embellished Mr. (Kubrick), yet spiritless. It's more frigid than Barry Lyndon himself, incomparably!
Imagine; what if this movie, as it is, was written on it that it was directed by another person or a newcomer? It wouldn't have this glorification, in fact all the talk would aim at the problems first, and yes.. there would be problems to criticize, not great things by great director!