Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon (1975)

Title: Barry Lyndon (1975)

Writer/Director: Stanley Kubrick (based on William Makepeace Thackeray’s novel)

Cast: Ryan O’Neal, Marisa Berenson, Leon Vitali

Review:

In Woody Allen’s Match Point (2005), we follow Chris Wilton (played by Jonathan Rhys Myers) a character who is a scoundrel, a cheat and a liar. He is a guy who is always looking for a way to benefit from somebody else, trying to move up the proverbial “social ladder” without taking the proper steps to do so. This is to say that the main character in Allen’s film doesn’t have money, he simply moves up the ladder by charming the pants off of the right people, by becoming ‘friends’ with the high class and falling in love with them. He lies his way through the whole movie for he is not truly friends with anybody but himself. In the end, you grow to hate this selfish and self centered character because he is so false and two faced. He steals girlfriends, and then two times them. He falls for both the rich and the poor girl. He believes that in this life it is better to be lucky, then good. Yet, he is the main character in the film. I personally couldn’t take being two hours with this major asshole of a character! Yet, I did finish seeing Match Point (Scarlett Johansson’s magnetic sexiness had a lot to do with that) and the film did make an impression on me, but I don’t think it’s a film I’ll be revisiting any time soon. But that’s just my take on Match Point, you my dear reader might feel differently about it.

A very young Redmond Barry, starting out in life

I bring up Match Point because Kubrick’s often times neglected Barry Lyndon is a film that has that kind of an amoral main character in it. In this film we follow Redmond Barry, a young man who is just getting started in life. He is desperately in love with an older woman named Nora, who also happens to be his cousin. Problems in Redmond’s life begin when Captain John Quin falls for his cousin as well. Shortly after, Redmond finds himself in the middle of a good old fashion pistol duel, fighting for Nora’s affections. Redmond wins the duel, but ends up having to run away to another town to escape the authorities and thus, Redmond’s journey through life begins.

He learns early on that you can't trust just anybody 

Barry Lyndon is the kind of film that I like to call “span of life films” because they are films that follow a character through out most of their lives. They are epic in this sense. Most of these types of films follow a character from their very birth (or very young age) until their deaths (or very old age). One such film that comes to mind is Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006) where we meet the main character when he is literally born on the streets of France. We then follow him as he develops into a young man and finally we get to see the tragic end of his short life. Oliver Stone’s Born on the Fourth of July (1989) sees Ron Kovic start life as a child, playing war games in the forest with his friends, we then follow him as he becomes a teenager, going to the prom and falling for his high school sweet heart. Then we follow him to war, and finally we get to see when he returns from war and confronts the grim reality of his life. Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979) is the same. Birth, maturity, death. In Barry Lyndon we meet Redmond Barry first when he is but a teenager, falling deeply in love for the first time, a naïve young man, not fully understanding the nature of the world he lives in. We then follow him when he ventures out into the world for the first time on his own, learning that you can’t trust anybody, learning to stand on his own two feet in this cruel world. We then see him join the military, see the horrors of war. And finally, we see him choosing his own path in life, and where those choices take him. When we finally leave Redmond, he is an old man, weary and beaten by life.

Barry joins the army in The Seven Year war!

I mentioned the main character in Match Point earlier in this review and I mentioned how despicable he is, making the film a tough watch for me. The main character in that film was simply not someone I wanted to be with for the whole duration of the film. In contrast, the main character in Barry Lyndon, Redmond Barry manages to be likable even though he is for all intents and purposes a cheat and a scoundrel. In this sense, I think the film captures the duality of the human experience perfectly. Hard as we try, none of us are as squeaky clean as we like to think we are. We are all imperfect creatures, with many flaws and grey areas. But at the same time, we are not entirely despicable are we? This is a truth about human beings: we are both equally good and bad. Redmond Barry is equal parts a charming and despiteful character. One scene that let’s us see this is when in his travels across the country; he comes upon a German peasant girl, living alone in a hut, raising a child all by herself while her husband is at war. Redmond wants to bed her, so he tells her that he is an officer in the war (a blatant lie) and that he is constantly risking his life for his country, but he is lonely. He lies to her, to be with her. He is being insincere and opportunistic. In an interview Kubrick mentions that “when we try to deceive, we are as convincing as we can be, aren’t we?” This much is true about this scene, which lets us see the duality of man. Barry isn’t necessarily a terrible person, a person could aim to be far worse then he is, but he isn’t perfect either. And I loved how the film was truthful about this aspect of human nature, without making the character be entirely unlikable. I think this is part of the reason why the film is a bit cold and detached, we are not supposed to entirely warm up to Redmond. Thackeray himself said that his novel was “a novel without a hero”

Barry's mission in life: to move on up that social ladder

When Kubrick made Barry Lyndon, he’d already made a name for himself as a director, having directed Dr. Strangelove (1964), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969), and A Clockwork Orange (1971), so there was a lot of anticipation when he announced that he was going to make Barry Lyndon. Various events made Kubrick choose Barry Lyndon as his next project. Originally, what Kubrick wanted to do was a film on Napoleon Bonaparte, unfortunately, another film based on the life of Napoleon was made (Waterloo (1970)) and it tanked at the box office, so the studio dropped the production of Kubrick’s Napoleon film. Instead, Kubrick went and did a film that took place during the same period, and thus, Barry Lyndon was born. Kubrick was a life long fan of William Makepeace Thackeray’s novels, in fact, Kubrick also wanted to make a film based on Thackeray’s Vanity Fair, but someone beat him to it by making a televised mini-series based on that novel. He dropped his idea for making Vanity Fair, but opted to go with Barry Lyndon instead. I haven’t read the novel, but from what I gather, the film is faithful to it save for a few minor changes Kubrick made to it to get to certain moments quicker. Its baffling though that the film still ended being more than three hours long!

Kubric (extreme right) directing some of his actors under the candlelight

Technically speaking, the film is a major achievement. There is great beauty in every shot, every detail. The wardrobe, the locations, the natural lighting, the performances; all amazing. It is one of Kubrick’s most beautiful looking films. The location shooting on this film was masterful, there is great beauty in the landscape and the buildings in which Kubrick chose to shoot this picture in. His decision to shoot the film entirely with natural lighting gives the images great authenticity, and those scenes that take place in candlelight are especially beautiful in my book as are many of the images in the film. Sadly, it was a film that tanked at the box office because audiences found it boring and too long, and so did many critics. Talk about Kubrick films, and chances are that many of his other films will be mentioned, while this one will be ignored. I myself had not seen this film until last week, and I fancy myself a huge Kubrick fan! I will admit that the film is not an easy watch. It is three hours long, and a deliberately slow and long film, this much is true. I’ll be honest; Barry Lyndon is not my favorite Kubrick film (or least favorite either) but it is a beautiful looking and engaging film. Once I started Redmond Barry’s journey towards becoming Barry Lyndon, I wanted to know how he would end up. It is a sad film, it is a tragic film. But it also has its beautiful happy moments. Like life, this film can be bitter sweet. And it is a film that has profound observations on life, for example, one of the films major points is, that no matter where we are in the social ladder, be we rich or poor, a ‘peasant’ or an aristocrat, in the end, when death comes calling for as all, we all end up the same way, in the end we are all equal. Speaking of the end, my final take is this: this movie may be slow, and it may be three hours long, but theres no denying its awesomeness, give yourself a chance to check out this beautiful film at some point, I dont think you'll regret it.  

Rating: 5 out of 5

Natural Born Killers (1994)

Title: Natural Born Killers (1994)

Director: Oliver Stone

Cast: Woody Harrelson, Juliette Lewis, Robert Downey Jr., Tommy Lee Jones, Tom Sizemore, Rodney Dangerfield

Review:

In Oliver Stone’s Natural Born Killer’s Mickey and Mallory Knox, the films murderous protagonists are two character’s who have completely rebelled against society, proclaiming it crazy and worthy of being annihilated. They are a product of dysfunctional families that treated them like garbage and let the television set be their baby sitter. In one extremely original flashback sequence we get to see Mallory’s dysfunctional family life as if we were watching an episode of “I Love Lucy” only this time the show is called “I love Mallory”. Brilliant part about this flashback is that we see Mallory’s father (played by Rodney Dangerfield) as a father who abuses Mallory sexually, he talks dirty to her and beats her all the while we hear a laugh track in the background, as if we were watching a sitcom. This scene is just one of many that let’s us know that Natural Born Killer’s is a film that shows us a society that filters everything they experience through the distorted world view of the media and television. Instead of having a loving mother and father, Mallory and Mickey got sexually, physically and verbally abusive ones. It is no surprise that they are simply a result of the world they live in; when it really comes down to it the finger needs to be pointed at society. “These children that come out at you with knives, they are your children. You taught them. I didn’t teach them, I just tried to help them stand up” - Charles Manson

Mickey and Mallory are rebels every step of the way, they are looking for a way to exist in this world without being held down by its laws and regulations. This is a world that fucked them over, so they are fucking it over right back. Everything they do goes against the establishment, they are angry and pissed off, and so they decide to violently show their hatred towards the system. They want something? They take it. Somebody pisses them off too much? They kill them. They need a car? They steal it. One scene let’s us know that Mickey and Mallory are the ultimate rebels: their marriage scene. They are out in the dessert on route 666, when they decide to take a break and stop in the middle of the road, on a bridge. There in the middle of nowhere, with no bride’s maids or witnesses, Mickey and Mallory say their vows to each other and seal the pact with blood, by cutting each others hands and doing a blood pact. Mickey says “By the power invested in me, as God of my world…” No judge was present, no priest had to say any words, and no papers had to be signed, yet you feel that their love and devotion to each other is genuine and true. And so they go out through the rest of the film, doing what they want, when they want and how they want. Nobody tells these two what they have to do and how to do it. As a psychiatrist says in the film at one point: “Mickey and Mallory know the difference between right and wrong. They just don’t give a damn”

The film goes into similar territory visited by films like A Clockwork Orange (1971) in which Stanley Kubrick presented us with a rebel known as Alex De Large; a young man who refused to follow the rules. He would steal, rape and beat anyone he wanted to, just because he could, because he was young and strong. Yet, what Kubrick’s film shows us is that when you don’t play by the rules, the system can and most likely will force you to play by the rules. Another film that plays with the same ideas as Natural Born Killer’s is director Nicolas Winding Refn’s Bronson (2008). A film about an incorrigible  man who does everything the wrong way: intimidating, kicking and punching anyone who doesn’t agree with him. Bronson is a man who was simply “born bad” and he knows it, destined to live a life in jail for being so. Same as Mickey Knox says that he has found his true calling and says that he is a “Natural Born Killer”. These are people who simply see the world as being completely wrong, the rules of society and the way everything moves in the world is upside down to them. The anger they feel towards the world emerges in different ways. Problem is that when you look at society, you can’t help but agree with them to an extent. Yeah, there is an undeniable truth that things are crazy out there in the world, things are ass backwards wrong. Some people simply know how to deal with the craziness better then others.

This film got a lot of criticism for the violence it portrays. According to some critics, the film incites people to violence, to go out there and cause some damage. I don’t agree so much with this idea. Natural Born Killer’s is simply a reflection of the world we live in, it’s a comment on our current society. Before this film came along, there were already real life characters that behaved exactly the same way that Mickey and Mallory did in the film. What Oliver Stone shows us in this film is nothing new, it is a phenomenon that’s been happening in society for ages. Just like he does with practically every film he has ever done, Oliver Stone is simply showing us the messed up world we live in, through a cinematic reflection. Some people just can’t take the truth that’s all. They apparently live life with shutters in front of their eyes if they see this film and can’t see the truth in it. Society does create characters like these. Look at Charles Manson himself! Oliver Stone mentions that this film is partially based on Charles Manson who has often times stated “My father is the system. I am only what you made me. I am only a reflection of you.” Same thing can be said for Mickey and Mallory.

One of the films main points is that society is bombarded by the media. Television, the internet, newspapers, magazines, billboards, you name it and we are being bombarded by it minute after minute. I mean, you can’t walk two steps without someone trying to sell you something. You can’t even take a piss in a public bathroom without being told what to buy or who to vote for. Now they even have freaking television sets inside of elevators! Some media outlets show violence simply for the ratings they are going to get in return. The film criticizes this through the character of Wayne Gale, a Geraldo Rivera type of television personality who will show anything on television to get some ratings, the more violent the better. Actually, those scenes where Wayne Gale is interviewing Mickey were inspired by Geraldo Rivera's interview to Charles Manson. It’s the kind of sleaze bag ‘journalism’ that proliferated during the 90’s and therefore got criticized a lot, specifically in films. You can see it pop up in various films, the character of the t.v. journalist always getting the negative portrayal, always looking like some sort of vampire thriving on other peoples woes. On this film Mickey and Mallory are presented as children of television, kids who saw way too much of it and were probably raised by it. Mallory’s father is presented as man who drinks beer and smokes cigarettes while watching wrestling in his underwear. Mickey and Mallory’s memories are sitcom infused flashbacks, and finally, their big jailbreak takes place while television cameras are recording the whole event. The media, and its bombardment on our psyche and its influence on how we perceive the world is really felt through this film. So much so that Mickey and Mallory’s final violent statement is aimed at a media mogul! When the media guy pleads for his life Mickey says “You are scum, you did it for the ratings. You don’t give a shit about us or anybody else except yourself”

So yeah, this film was a big controversial thing. The MPAA kept telling Stone to cut out the violence, and Stone was obligated to do so since he was contractually bound to deliver an ‘R’ rated picture. When the film came out it was blamed for quite a few copy cat murders. Yes my friends, some people out there in the real world went out and committed murders, blaming the film for what they did. They stated that they had either seen the film the night before or that they were emulating what they saw on it The big question that pops up for me is: why did so many people connect with this film in a way that would make them want to behave in the exact same way that Mickey and Mallory did in the film? Is it because they feel the same hatred towards the system as Mickey and Mallory did? Did they see Mickey and Mallory as a pitch perfect reflection of themselves? In the end, I am not one of these people that would blame a film or a song for the way people behave. An artist cannot be held responsible for the way somebody will react to his or her art. It is the main reason why all these lawsuits against Stone and his film never pulled through, the first amendment backed Stone up. Plus, what is Oliver Stone doing in this film if not commenting on the way the world already is? Isn’t that what art is supposed to do?

This is precisely the reason why I admire Stone as a filmmaker so much, because he speaks about the way the world is through his films, and most of the time he holds nothing back. Natural Born Killers is like a barrage of information, fast, quick and scattershot, it’s the Oliver Stone way. If you see his films, many of them have that pacing, that frenetic, speeded up sensation, like life is going on in front of you and you better pay attention or you’ll miss something. Natural Born Killers is like a freight train of images, an avalanche of visual information. Stone uses so many styles and formats on this film, he’ll go from black and white, to color, to oversaturation, to shooting in 16mm , to showing projections in the background and he even uses some morphing! I mean, if Mickey and Mallory were breaking all the rules, I’d say that Oliver Stone was right there breaking them with them while making this film.

Final word: Natural Born Killers is a film that needs to be seen more then once. It comments on so many themes, and it encompasses so much that one viewing will simply not be enough for you to absorb everything. Yeah the film is violent, and yeah the main characters are troubled individuals dealing with their own personal demons in an extremely murderous and psychopathic way, but just remember, this film is not made for you to go out there and shoot whoever the hell looks at you the wrong way, its meant for you to learn from it, and see what we should never become: desensitized individuals with no respect or appreciation for human life. This film is there to tell you that not everything the media tells you is true. That the ones behind media don’t care about you, they only care about their ratings, about making their money. It’s here to tell you that maybe you shouldn’t watch television 24 hours a day seven days a week, maybe you should go out there into the world and live your life, go out with a friend, fall in love, have a good time, experience things, grow, care. Just like Mickey says in the film: “The only thing that kills the demon…is love”

Rating: 5 out of 5

 

Evilspeak (1981)

Title: Evilspeak (1981)

Director: Eric Weston

Cast: Clint Howard, Richard Moll

Review:

Satanic themed movies where big during the 70’s and 80’s, but in my opinion they’ve kind of lost popularity, I guess because kids don’t find Satan scary anymore, but back in the 80’s Satan was the talk of the town, and religious horror was at its peak. Films like The Exorcist (1973) and The Omen (1976) thrived on people’s fears of the old Father of Lies, The Prince of Darkness, Beelzebub himself. Right now, these types of movies are more likely to elicit laughs from audiences instead of scares; hell, I’ll be honest, Evil Speak got a couple of chuckles from this Film Connoisseur! Of course, Clint Howard’s funny looking face had a lot to do with that, but also the cheesiness of the whole satanic angle made me chuckle, I don’t know what it is but I can never take these Satanic worshipping movies seriously. As far as I’m concerned, Satanist are even lower in the religious echelon then all other religions, they are far sillier to me then all other branches of Christianity. But back in the 70’s and 80’s these satanic themed films really played with peoples heads.

Evil Speak is all about a young man named Stanley Coopersmith, a teenager who gets picked on all the time by his classmates. You know how that old storyline goes; Stanley’s peers make fun of him all the time and essentially make his life a living hell. Stanley goes to a military academy where only the richest families send their sons. But Stanley stands out like a cockroach in a chicken dance, because he isn’t rich, he isn’t good looking and he’s a major geek. You see, sometimes, as a service to society, this elite military school takes in ‘welfare cases’ like Stanley. Kid’s who have no parents and don’t come from a rich family. It’s the governments’ social service that’s always taken care of Stanley, a true product of ‘the system’. And so, even though he isn’t rich or anything he ends up going to this military school where they shape rich young men into fine killing machines for the U.S. government. It’s the kind of school where they program kids with Christianity and loyalty to your country.

Bullies: an essential part of any good 1980's teen horror flick!

But in this Christian military academy, no one gives Stanley the respect he deserves as a human being. He’s always seen as the ‘weirdo’ the proverbial outcast, so much so that not even the teachers give him the time of day. So he often times gets the jobs that no one likes to do like taking out the garbage, taking care of the schools pig sty (yup you read that right!) and doing hard labor like cleaning up the schools abandoned cellar. One day, while cleaning the cellar, Stanley discovers an entrance into an old catacomb! This new discovery grabs his attention so much that he begins to explore the old catacombs until he discovers an ancient library filled with books on occultism and Satanism. You see, this ancient library use to belong to the biggest devil worshipper to ever come out of the Spanish Inquisition, Father Esteban! So Stanley, intrigued by these ancient books takes the most Satanic one home: the one in which Father Esteban gives detailed instructions (in Latin no less!) on how to sell your soul to Satan himself! Stanley translates the diary into his computer and suddenly blamo! His computer is possessed! And so is he!

Before I go on, I need to mention a passage from the bible that is tied directly to this films plot. It’s the passage found in the book of Mark Chapter 5; in which Jesus meets up with a possessed man. When Jesus asks the man what is his name the demons inside of him reply “We are Legion, for we are many”. Then, then the demons frightened with the notion that the son of God might send them back to hell with his magic powers, beg him not to do so. Now, since Baby Jesus is such a nice guy, he doesn’t send them back to hell. Instead, he expels the demons from the man, and sends their spirits to posses a herd of pigs that happened to be close by; so the herd of pigs gets possessed by the legions of demons who end up running all crazy towards a cliff before jumping off and killing themselves. The reason why I mention this biblical passage is because Evilspeak might as well have been called Satan’s Killer Pigs! Or Night of the Possessed Boars or something!

Turns out wild man eating boars make up an important part of Evilspeak because every time somebody messes with the Satanic book, the boars that are held up in the military academies pig sty go crazy. Now if a military school having man eating boars isn’t strange enough for you, how’s about having these pigs become possessed by demons and eating people alive? Is that crazy enough for ya? Well, that’s exactly what happens. Problem is that if you have never read the bible, you’ll probably see the possessed pigs in Evilspeak and think “What the fuck!!??” But, now, thanks to this informative review you are reading right now, you wont have this problem. Thank me later. But speaking of killer pigs, these monstrous boars offer up one of the grizzliest moments in the film. Just remember in the world of Evilspeak; Pigs = Evil.

Evilspeak is a “the worm has turned” type of story where the nerdy guy that gets picked on by all the bullies suddenly finds himself in the position of having the power to get back at anybody whoever messed with him. In this sense Evilspeak reminded me of quite a few movies like for example Robert Englund’s 976-EVIL (1988), in which a nerdy young guy gets possessed by Satan. But on that film he gets possessed by calling a telephone hot line! He also gets revenge on all the buttholes whoever tortured him. Brian De Palma’s Carrie (1976) has the same plot. Only in Carrie it’s a nerdy girl with telekinetic powers who gets sweet revenge. We could also mention that this one has a lot in common with Damien: Omen II (1978) as well, it deals with a military academy student, and with Satan. But ultimately, the film that has the most similarities with Evilspeak is a film called Fear No Evil (1981) and it’s about this nerdy high school kid who turns out to be Lucifer himself. Fear No Evil is actually a pretty decent horror film that tends to get ignored by most, but in my opinion is quite effective. Well, I remember it scaring the pants off of me when I was a kid, my father (god bless his soul) took me to see that one in theaters when I was about five years old. Fear No Evil has so much in common with Evilspeak its not even funny! It's the same exact premise! It even has a scene where a crucifix comes alive and kills someone; a similar scene can be found in Fear No Evil. But, ultimately, what separates Evilspeak from all those other films that I mentioned before is the computer angle.

You see in Evilspeak, Stanley translates this Satanic diary and types every word into his computer. Once the book has been typed into a computer program, the computer becomes possessed and an evil spirit speaks through it to Stanley helping him commit all sorts of vengeful and evil things, like killing off bullies and teachers. Now, computers in 1982 where in diapers, so it’s really funny to see the gigantic keyboard that Stanley uses to type onto his computer! The computer graphics themselves are really ancient, they reminded me of the kind of graphics we saw in films like Nightmares (1983) That film is an anthology that showcases various horror stories, but one of them (the one called ‘Bishop of Battle’) is about a video game that eats up this kid (a very young Emilio Estevez) who becomes obsessed with it. The graphics in that one are similar to the ones seen on Evilspeak. From what I heard in the audio commentary, this was one of the first films to use a computer as a major part of its plotline, so I guess it’s important for that alone. Kids using computers for evil, or becoming possessed by the use of computers have come along way since Evilspeak, the most recent one that comes to mind is Brainscan (1994) with Edward Furlong playing the computer geek who becomes possessed by a demonic video game character. Actually Brainscan is a pretty decent movie now that I recall!

Clint Howard's hair piece is possesed by the devil!

Another cool thing this movie has going for it is Clint Howard who’s become some kind horror movie icon over the years, specially when we take in consideration all the horror films and b-movies he has appeared in. Howard has a goofy looking face which lends itself perfectly for this type of nerdy character. Funny thing is that Howard wears a different hair piece in many of his films! I remember on The Wraith (1986), Howard wore a hair piece to play a character called ‘Rughead’, a character who was an obvious nudge to David Lynch’s Eraserhead (1976). On Evilspeak Howard’s hairpiece goes all crazy when he becomes fully possessed in the last frames of the film, it reminded me of one of those Japanese cartoons like Dragon Ball or Akira in which the characters hair goes all crazy when they get super powerful? That’s exactly what happens to Clint Howard on this movie. Basically, he gets pissed on by everyone during the first hour of the film so that he can go all crazy on their asses on the last half, when he becomes completely possessed.

Final word: Evilspeak actually surprised me with how good it was. I was expecting one of these movies that looked really low budget, but Evilspeak actually surprised me with how good it looked. It was well shot and it had decent art direction for the type of budget they were working with, which was a whopping 1 million dollars. The film also delivers on the gore as well! Evilspeak has got to have some kind of a record as far as decapitations go. I mean, they really chop off a lot of heads on this flick! I had fun with this movie, it is a film that was influenced by a couple of films that came before it (mainly The Omen and Carrie) and but judging by how many films that came after Evilspeak are similar to it, I’d say Evilspeak has been a quite influential film on its own right. And hey, Anton Lavey, the founder of the 'Church of Satan' thought this film was a 'very Satanic' film so that says something about Evilspeak's satanic edge. Then again, he said the samething about The Devils Rain (1975), a laugh inducing satanic film if their ever was one.

Rating: 3 out of 5