 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: NO director matches the number of Kubrick's great films. posted by tinear on February 03, 2004 at 07:02:40:
You only need to see it under the right perspective: it all happens inside Tom Cruiseīs characterīs mind. Just remember the title of the novel it comes from: Arthur Scnitzlerīs "Traumnovel" (Novel of a Dream)...And "Clockwork Orange" canīt be understood looking at it from nowadays..., but at that time I was working with a group of psychiatrists who were exploring that conditioning and deconditioning stuff, with the vane pretension of curing homosexuals! When I look back to those days, I feel a cold shiver all along my spine...
"Barry Lyndon" is fine, from a purely aesthetical perspective, while it is pretty empty of content, something fine for those projecting their own feelings on it..., and he chose Ryan OīNeal, just because he was the perfect empty actor, for an empty role, going from nowhere to no place at all...
And there are very few films so strongly anti-war, and so anti-militarist as "Paths of Glory", and "Full Metal Jacket" (Dalton Trumbo got it, too, with "Johnny took his Gun"), or so fiercely denouncing of the Cold War madness as "Dr. Strangelove"...
About "2001" I have given my opinion, in another thread, some time ago. And on it I stand.
Kubrick was simply great!
Regards
BF
Follow Ups:
because he is Irish.
A really strong actor would have mucked it all up by drawing attention from the glorious scenery and composition.
***"Barry Lyndon" is fine, from a purely aesthetical perspective, while it is pretty empty of content,But of course it is. What else is there besides the human beings, their feelings, aspirations, sufferings, hope and frustration?
No car chases, no nudity, no sex... just that boring, boring human soul...
There is a full frontal shot of Marisa Berenson in the bathtub as well as two topless prostitutes with Barry at one point.
You have sharp eye... how could I forget her?OK, OK, but still - no car chases? Anxiously awaiting the confirmation.
There is a hint of a carriage chase as Barry's mentor, the Chevalier, escapes before Barry, while Barry, disguised as the Chevalier discreetly leaves the next morning.
He is so hard to please!
...tell me where is that soul you mention, as I havenīt found traces of it: not in the main character, who shows no changes, no moral progress, who is always detached from life itself, no matter his material progress, or his fall... or did you notice any improvement, any sign of maturity or change in him?; nor is there any in la Berenson, who starts being selfish, and ends her role in the same line... whose soul are you talking about?As a fine portrait of that society, it is really splendid, and I donīt have memory of any film which I would cite as a better example of a true feast to the eye. And as a portrait of the (a)morality of a social climber, it is fine, too. But not about human soul, or about the human condition itself.
So no complains, and no regrets: I enjoyed it very much, but not for the reasons you mention.
Regards
BF
Pauline Kael called BL "the first coffee table movie".
Well, if you think that Barry pulling the ribbon out of girl's corsage and Barry limping on one leg is the same person then perhaps you could use an interpreter the next time you watch it?To miss his change is to miss the whole point of the film. It is presented in a subtle way, sure, no crude acting there.
Anyway, each one of the many sub-stories in the film tells a different tale, and each one is a mini-film - like Barry spending time with the widow on his way to regiment. All small gems with real people... tooo bad you missed it.
...the film being not so much about himself as it is an extremely accurate portrait of his timeīs society, with him as a man who is craving not for love, or for enlightenment, but for assuring economic well-being for himself, in that society. And he never really grows up into a real man (while he shows some nobleness when, in that duel which puts an abrupt end to his pretensions, he chooses not to take advantage over his opponent, and makes an empty shot, just to find out that his opponent, born from a higher place, is even less noble than he, and makes no fuss of limping him).That the film portrays that society is confirmed by the date in that document Lady Lyndon signs, assigning him a pension, if I remember well: 1789, the year in which the Declaration of The Rights of Man was proclaimed in France, whose First article says that " Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good", exactly the opposite of what has been happening in the story Kubrick so beautifully has told us.
Ryan O'Nealīs bovine (or sheepish, if you prefer) acting never reveals a change inside him..., because he doesnīt actually change: he starts poor, climbs into that society, but he never is more than a parvenu with poor tastes (he chooses a picture because of its size, not for its quality, or for some personal affection), kind of a nouveau riche, as it frequently happens..., and he finally goes back to his early living, poorer than he started, with one leg less to rest on. Kubrick never left much (if anything) to chance when filming, and he was able to choose pratically whoever he wanted for his pictures and, needless to say, Mr. O'Neal never was a good actor..., but he fit like hand in glove for Kubrick's purposes.
I will never deny the splendid quality of this film, which as I have said, has no peer in sheer beauty. And, as a portrait of a class doomed to disappear because of its selfishness and its lack of real soul, itīs virtually impossible to better. But it doesnīt portray much of the inner soul of the character it takes its name from. My feeling is that maybe much of what you are seeing in it comes from yourself, not being really in the author's intention.
Regards
BF
First you said there was no change in character, then that the character is not important... which is it?So... no change in character means something is not done right? OK... what about the hero of WIld Stawberries? How much does HE change in the course of the film?
Fact is, the movie is not a sum of its parts, much like the painting is not the collection of faces on it. The movie as art form is about the means of creating the mood, the atmosphere, the emotion, the message sometimes, etc, etc. Most of these are present in Barry Lyndon, making it not just a representation of some societal trends at the time of Barry's life, but a great MOVIE.
And a great movie can be done with many parts you mentioned even present. If I were to adapt your logic then the Persona would be an awful waste of time.
"First you said there was no change in character, then that the character is not important... which is it?" Both: he doesnīt change, he only develops an ability for social climbing, and then he is defeated , loses one leg, and is thrown back to his earlier way of living; but he is no wiser, nor has he matured and transformed into a better man. And his character is just the name (wrongly acquired, never really his) he got in his best days, which is wiped away once he loses his cheated wifeīs favor."Barry Lyndon" is Kubrickīs most beautifully told portrait of that immoral, selfish, soulless society, and it is a masterwork on every count. But it is not about that manīs soul: he is just a pawn in a game of power, and as such he is mercilessly used, and then spent when the ones he emulates, and who never accept him as their peer, find him inconvenient.
"So... no change in character means something is not done right?" Where did I say that? I never said anything was done wrongly in this excellent film: Kubrick did exactly what he wanted to do, in his usually masterly way..., but he didnīt want to show us the true soul of this poor rascal, but an accurate picture of that society, with its flaws and its immorality, and that he did in spades.
"OK... what about the hero of WIld Stawberries? How much does HE change in the course of the film?" Here you are stepping in waters too deep for a superficial look to fathom them: The whole film is about how Itzak (Victor Sjöström) is forced, when at the pinnacle of his achievements (he is travelling to be named "Doctor Honoris Causa")by his inner self, to relive, through dreams and recurrent memories of his own past, some significant, crucial points in his own life, and how he failed..., and about how that makes his persona, that mask heīs been building and hiding behind through his life, stumble, then shatter into pieces, and finally melt down under the heat of his emotions, leaving his soul finally free and allowing him to become a true human being undergoing a deep process of transformation leading to his individuation. If you canīt see how the man at the end of this wonderful film is so different from the one he was when it started, better look at it again, this time with your eyes wide open, for everything is there to be seen.
And now, please donīt even try to patronize me on these matters: I grew up looking at Bergmanīs, and many others, films, both good and bad, and I can assure you that I have developed a keen eye to detect pretenders, and to keep them separate from true achievers, even when these last ones not always succeed in full -what is not the case with Kubrick, much less in "Barry Lyndon", which I have repeatedly said to be without peer (while you seem to think I said itīs bad...)
We both agree at considering "Barry Lyndon" a wonderful film. But for different reasons, what simply points to its greatness.
Now Iīd ask you to do me a favor: as we simply donīt agree, and it seems none of us is able to convince the other, Iīd be happy to have an impartial, sensible, intelligent judge mediating and, on that effect, would you be so kind to show this whole thread to Anya, and ask her if sheīd like to state her own opinion here? I am sure both of us would learn something...
Thanks. Regards
BF
in vogue in psychological/psychiatric treatments here.
In fact, a recent article in The New Yorker cites several studies that show it has proven very successful treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) whereas grief counseling has NOT.
I thought EWS was disappointing, but only because it was Kubrick's. Of course, the censor's digital castration didn't help the overall effect, either.
Often, critics overlook the greatness of "The Killing." It is very hard to make the perfect B "noir," just look at the hash that modern directors make when they attempt it!
Bernardo, You gave me back the shivering about curing homosexuality and with that the whole feeling on C.Orange back.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
