In the documentary commemorating Kubrick's life-long film creation, it is clearly stated that this 18th-century film fully expresses the respect and nostalgia for 18th-century oil paintings.
However, I still want to point out that the 18th century was basically a time when the art of oil painting was inexorable, and it was far from advanced to the level that the camera of this film could achieve.
From my personal point of view, I think the capture of candlelight in this film has the style of Latour, the capture of indoor natural light has the style of Dutch interior painting, and the capture of rural scenery is basically in the various styles after the Renaissance. Similar compositions can be seen in sketchbooks. However, the cool tones that seem to be shrouded in a faint mist and the delicate and elegant scene configuration are more like Corot's oil paintings, a French painter in the early 19th century.
The reason why I say this is not to show that I look more carefully and professionally. It is because the conclusion that "the master fully embodies the English style of the 18th century" is not so reliable.
How did this movie come about? The aforementioned documentary explains in detail how Kubrick obtained the two old cameras and modified them to achieve the final effect. But it's hard to say whether Kubrick himself was looking for suitable equipment because he had this movie theme, or he wanted to try such a theme because he got a piece of equipment by chance, or just put Are these two things connected together? Nobody really knows.
The movie doesn't specifically say anything about the 18th century, and the movie doesn't even specifically say anything about anything. It's just pointless.
And that's where all the critiques of the movie really are, pointless.
However, the question is, what are you looking for a point for?
All Chinese texts from elementary school have a central idea. Therefore, almost people who have received basic education in China like to look for that point at the first time when treating any literary and artistic work.
However, unfortunately, not only literary and artistic works, but honestly, even life has no point. If you want to find that little point, it must be only after you truly understand the reality that "life has no point".
Like this movie, it's only after you admit it's pointless that you can really start to appreciate its beauty and be captivated by that beauty.
Some people will think that this movie has a point, it talks about destiny and human nature. However, are fate and human nature the point? Human nature and destiny are not sacred things, but good and bad, ups and downs, contradictions and struggles. You have seen as many human faces as you have seen human nature and destiny. Are you still aesthetically tired?
In this film, there is a powerful attraction that goes beyond the so-called "aestheticism" or "human characterization".
Kubrick isn't the only director who can do it with precision, and "Barry Lyndon" isn't the only movie with beautiful graphics. Why is what it has to offer so different from other films that bear these two signs?
Because it's pointless. We've seen countless beautiful big scenes, but all of them are pointless, dark? Luxurious? indifferent? noisy? You always mentioned the directionality of these scene settings.
By analogy, the pointless of "Barry Lyndon" corresponds to the point of other films, just as the Impressionist painting that just appeared in the 18th century corresponds to the popular academic painting at that time.
Academic painting pursues the meaning of painting, with classic forms, sublime themes, and strictly regulated techniques, that is, they modify nature according to their own wishes, whether figures or landscapes, so that nature conforms to their aesthetic standards.
Impressionist painting, on the other hand, does not pursue any form of beauty. They seek the beauty of nature itself, the beauty that does not need meaning. A morning light, a gesture, a reflection, a side street, they submit themselves to the existing world to capture beauty in an ordinary and meaningless moment.
Because art is sensual, a simple or even superficial sensual experience can be eternalized by art.
In this film, Kubrick is capturing a cinematic sensory experience through the camera. A creator who pursues point will never be able to achieve such beauty, because their eyes will be blinded by point, they will be prejudiced by the pressure of point, they will not be able to see everything, and they will abandon and ignore the film because of this. Countless subtle, living elements on the move.
However, Kubrick's pointless perspective completely preserves these factors. He concisely and honestly presents all the scenes completely, so that the audience can be absorbed in. He does not emphasize any part and allows the audience to have the right to choose. .
In the end, the movie says that everything about these characters, by now, doesn't matter anymore.
Yes, the past, the history, the present, theirs, ours, whether rich or poor, right or wrong, in this big universe, they are all unimportant and pointless. Only by understanding this can human beings be able to Really let go of prejudice and start surviving.
That's not what this movie is trying to convey, but it's why this movie exists.
View more about Barry Lyndon reviews
