巴里

库布里克的确是电影大家，出手就是不凡。在这部杰出的电影中，库布里克运用了不动声色的冷幽默，生动地讽刺了混乱的、虚伪的、无耻的英国贵族阶层。在这部电影里，观众可以通过一个小人物巴里·林登往上爬的种种有趣悲喜剧，深刻地感受到18世纪英国贵族阶层的风貌。

用一句话来概括巴里·林登这个拼命往上爬的普通人和英国当年雍容华贵的贵族们的本质，那就是“真小人与伪君子”。巴里·林登是个不折不扣的真小人，而那些冠冕堂皇的高贵之人，其实骨子里更加无耻，更加虚伪，更让人痛恨和不耻。

巴里·林登是一位普通得不能再普通的爱尔兰农家出身。他父亲在林登还是儿童的年代就因为跟他人争马发生纠纷，决斗解决的时候被一枪毙命；林登的母亲决定孤身抚养林登，誓不改嫁，把全部的身心和希望，统统寄托在了林登身上。林登虽然成长在乡野之中，但母亲的疼爱甚至是溺爱，却也让他倍受幸福，形同娇生惯养的富家儿童，长成青年之后，倒也清清纯纯的，不谙世事，一幅洁白无辜的样子。

但世界毕竟是无耻的，满天下都是功名利禄之人，哪里会有母亲那样的真诚的爱？所以，林登首遇的爱情，就惨遭失败，而且败得十分凄惨：他爱上了自己的表妹（舅舅的女儿），而表妹却是个放荡而势利的乡野闺秀，看见了来招兵的小小贵族，便晕了脑袋，立即放弃了林登，转身上了对方的床，急火火地嫁给这位小小的上尉——只因为他有些钱财，林登的舅舅（也就是表妹的父亲）要指望对方的钱财度过难关，于是表妹全家都寡廉鲜耻地严令林登退出爱情的竞争，并百般对那位上尉阿谀逢迎。

初出茅庐的林登，没见过世面，还保持着“爱情是高尚的、为爱情不惜一切”等等书本上得来的那些陈谷子烂芝麻教导，无法排解这个不爽，就跟上尉展开了平生第一次的决斗。枪响了，没想到林登这么快速，竟然一枪打倒了早就几乎吓瘫了的上尉。于是，表亲们要求林登立即逃亡，因为枪杀一位贵族上尉，那是要“坐牢”的。没见过世面的林登哪里知道这些道道，吓得魂不附体，只得立即逃命而去——但实际上，天知道有哪条法律规定了决斗中杀死贵族要负法律责任的？

没曾想，这些竟然都是一场精心设计的阴谋！原来，林登决斗使用的手枪早就被表亲们做了手脚，装的是假子弹！上尉根本没死，只是他太沙比，给当场吓瘫了而已——尽管他早就知道是假子弹。林登的表妹顺利地嫁给了这位上尉，林登的舅舅也顺利地获得了那点钱财，而可怜的林登，却只好逃亡天涯，从此浪迹天下。

他的人生冒险从此开始，电影变得十分精彩而紧张迭出，美不胜收，件件故事都让人拍案叫绝。林登刚出村不多远，尽管百般仔细，还是立即遭遇了黑店父子的劫道，劫去了他母亲送给他的家里的全部积蓄，还有他的马、他父亲遗留的刀剑。一文不名的他无路可去，幸好遇到英国国王招兵买马，联合普鲁士（德国的前身，德语地区当年最强大的王国）跟法国、俄国等欧洲国家死战（当年的欧洲战争不断，彼此乱打一气，都是各国贵族挑起来的，而背后作用的，都是彼此有血缘关系的王室人物），他只好投军吃粮，当上了列兵，并立即参战。

战争越打越没劲，你杀我我杀你，林登越来越想逃跑。他终于抓住一个机会，在两个军中同性恋军官在河里亲密的时候（这段情节相当搞笑，富有强烈的讽刺意味），偷来了一身军官服装和战马，立即噌噌噌地逃向了普鲁士的后方，还遇上了一位饥渴的普鲁士军人夫人，于是白天吃喝，晚上同眠，过了几天好日子，然后继续奔向边境，希望能回归英伦国土，返回家乡。

没曾想，他却被普鲁士巡逻的军队缠住了，几个往来之后，他那点撒谎的小伎俩，迅速告破，被人抓了现行。幸好普鲁士缺兵员，见他没什么大罪，又是同盟国的士兵，于是把他充军，再上战场。普鲁士军队不是英国军队，这里军阀气息严重，官兵阶层上下尊卑，真不是人过的日子。但林登的命好：一次激战的时候，他有幸救下了长官，被国王赏识，获得奖励，就此被那个被救的军官当成知己，光荣退役，安排当了间谍，来监视英国来的一位骑士头衔的贵族。

林登就是林登，他很聪明，不是么！让他做间谍监视自己国家来的人，怎么可能？！于是，林登假惺惺地向英国骑士合盘托出全部秘密，获得了英国骑士的信任，在骑士的安排下，他照样去普鲁士官员那里汇报情况，两头通吃，他的小日子幸福而自然。

更牛的是，老天都在眷顾他！骑士在林登充当帮手的帮助下跟普鲁士王子赌博出千，让王子欠了一屁股巨债，王子严重怀疑骑士出千，但苦于没证据，于是就发怒谴责骑士，导致两人面临决斗。跟王子决斗那怎么可能？于是，普鲁士官方秘密商定，决定卑鄙地用阴谋手段驱逐骑士出境。

不消说，林登肯定要告诉骑士这个惊天的秘密了。骑士也当然不会平白受此屈辱，就用林登假扮自己。这样，林登就穿着骑士的服装，带着普鲁士官方给骑士的巨款，在两位普鲁士军官的护送下，回到了梦寐以求的故乡。

初尝出千的美味，林登如何能放下？接下来的几年里，他就跟这位英国骑士合作出千，打遍了英伦天下，横扫英伦贵族，赚了大量的钱财。但林登并不希望这样发财，毕竟这只能算作暴发户，没有欧洲人最重视的东西：贵族头衔。

他开始索求这些了。怎么办呢？林登就是林登，把他宝都押在了一位美丽动人的伯爵夫人身上。这位伯爵夫人的丈夫，虽然是伯爵，但年龄超大，半身瘫痪，早就形同槁木，眼见得就要见耶稣去了，这等好事如何能错过？林登利用种种手段，使尽了魅力，终于搞得美人归，就等着老伯爵死掉，他来接受战果了。

这个关键时候，电影仍然处理得十分幽默，让人忍俊不禁。林登有次遇到了老伯爵，老伯爵没能把持住自己的矜持，突然哈哈大笑着讽刺林登是“癞蛤蟆想吃天鹅肉”，嘲笑林登通过他老婆急切往上爬的丑态，没曾想林登根本不示弱，当场给与反击，狠狠讽刺了老伯爵，然后转身而去。老伯爵哪里受过这等气？戴着绿帽子本身就够气闷的了，如今又被甩绿帽子的小人当场讽刺，如何气得过？

于是，当场昏厥，然后走向坟场，见了阎王去了。林登顺利入驻新的生命起点，与夫人走入婚姻的殿堂，一般正经地过起来上流生活来了。

可上流社会怎么可能会容忍你这么个穷小子突然加入？从林登进入上流社会这一刻起，就注定了他的好运没有了，苦日子开始了。

林登毕竟是穷人出身，没见过这么大的排场，没吃过这么多的好味，没经历过这么多美丽的女人。如今穷小子初入天堂，就立即全盘接受，跟我们中国的普遍穷人出身的官员们一样，热衷于包二奶，热衷于结交天下，热衷于面子上的事情，热衷于名利——只有穷人才会如此看重这些，毕竟富人们早就习惯了这些，并不会觉得多么有趣；而对穷人出身的暴发户就不同了，初入殿堂会眼花缭乱，于是，林登就跟我们中国泥腿子老粗官员们一样，泡女人，搞二奶，花天酒地，装逼不堪，活脱脱一副穷酸相，却硬要充作人上人。骨子里的泥腿子习性，怎么可能一夜之间改变？

这样，他就愈发被人看不起，日子就越来越不顺当，此时，他的个人生活也出现严重危机：老伯爵死后留下了一个儿子，越来越不听话，给贵族当继父哪能那么容易？别看贵族小兔崽子才十来岁，但早就骨子里高傲不堪，打心眼里就看不起林登这个暴发户。于是，父子关系严重危机，甚至威胁到了林登的将来：因为当年英国法律规定，贵族头衔的继承权只能给血缘后代，所以，即使林登的夫人死了，林登还是一无所有，肯定要被赶出家门。

林登岂能坐以待毙？于是，他回归夫人怀抱，终于生下了自己的孩子。同时，他拼命结交巴结权贵，争取早日被国王册封成伯爵。为了活动这些上层关系，他不得不拼命筹钱，把个老伯爵的家当，统统都给花了个七荤八素，杯盘罄尽，只能举债度日，而那个可怜的伯爵头衔，还是遥遥无期……不是他不努力，只是因为，他毕竟是个小人，怎能懂得贵族们的心态？什么叫贵族？贵族就是天生的尊贵，就是要高高超越草头百姓的，尽管众多的贵族其实根本就是草包，甚至是垃圾，但毕竟血缘关系决定一切。要是一个普通草民都能轻易获得贵族头衔，那还能有贵族么？这就如同林登的继子，一脸的煞笔相，小心眼不说，还十分胆怯而弱智，而且还很不君子——诸位看到最后就明白了———可他仍然可以自然地继承伯爵头衔不是？可怜的林登哪里懂得这些深层的道理，他只是不断地到处撒钱，到处求爷爷告奶奶，只是，人家拿了他的钱，不仅不办事，反而还在背后愈加嘲笑他。

而这个时候，那个伯爵的儿子也长大了，父子关系不仅彻底破裂，林登还迎来了他生命中最悲惨的一幕：亲生儿子的突然死亡，仇恨他的继子要跟他决斗……说到这里，就不再说了。诸位有关心林登命运的，自可以去看，相信你会对最后的结局大加感慨一番的。

这正是：

上流社会最下流，
坑蒙拐骗还要偷；
草民飞出土鸡窝，
一入红尘难回头。

就这样，真小人林登的故事，让库布里克给说得涕泪连连，还让人爆笑不止，简直不能忍啊。

英国约克郡霍华德城堡Castle Howard，为历代霍华德家族所拥有并居住。这座城堡最早由第三代卡莱尔伯爵查尔斯建造。他于1692受封后，委托约翰·范布勒设计并在北约克郡建造了这座豪华的巴洛克式霍华德城堡。

在此拍摄的影片：

《霍华德庄园》
http://movie.douban.com/subject/1293706/


《故园风雨后》（电影版与电视剧版皆在此）
电视剧版：
http://movie.douban.com/subject/1439497/
电影版
http://movie.douban.com/subject/2034997/

《巴里林顿》
http://movie.douban.com/subject/1292472/

霍华德城堡 百度地址：
http://baike.baidu.com/view/727838.html?fromTaglist

This film falls under the category of what Pauline Kael called "Good Trash". A lot of the techniques employed by Kubrick here are demanding, yet readily pleasing: although the film is very long, the editing is so disciplined that one feels not one dull moment. And the soft lighting is very hard to do well without: (1) ruining the right contrast and in-situ fidelity, and (2) seeming cloy as caramel; but Kubrick pulls it off!
　　
　　On the other hand, the theme material lacks depth, and we feel out of touch with the characters, who are not really fully devloped and plausible. However, one only recognizes these shortcomings upon reflection after the viewing, and the viewing itself is thoroughly agreeable. Come to think of it, the spirit of the film is very well aligned to the style of the Baroque novels themselves, which is more about mannerism and a wry sense of humor than realism and psychological depth. A very nice period adaptation.
　　
　　Tips: the recurring theme music, a motif of delicate beauty, at times sweet, and at times haunting, is from Schubert's Piano Trio in E-Flat. A good rendition is by the Beaux Art quartet. Otherwise the set performance with Grimaux is also excellent.

我觉得这部片子虽然温和缓慢，却十分的饱满。并不凌厉，却在淡淡中透射出丰富与深邃的社会与情感。大道无形，回味隽永。

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/barry-lyndon-1975

Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon," received indifferently in 1975, has grown in stature in the years since and is now widely regarded as one of the master's best. It is certainly in every frame a Kubrick film: technically awesome, emotionally distant, remorseless in its doubt of human goodness. Based on a novel published in 1844, it takes a form common in the 19th century novel, following the life of the hero from birth to death. The novel by Thackeray, called the first novel without a hero, observes a man without morals, character or judgment, unrepentant, unredeemed. Born in Ireland in modest circumstances, he rises through two armies and the British aristocracy with cold calculation.

"Barry Lyndon" is aggressive in its cool detachment. It defies us to care, it asks us to remain only observers of its stately elegance. Many of its developments take place off-screen, the narrator informing us what's about to happen, and we learn long before the film ends that its hero is doomed. This news doesn't much depress us, because Kubrick has directed Ryan O'Neal in the title role as if he were a still life. It's difficult to imagine such tumultuous events whirling around such a passive character. He loses a fortune, a wife or a leg with as little emotion as he might in losing a dog. Only the death of his son devastates him and that perhaps because he sees himself in the boy.

The casting choice of O'Neal is bold. Not a particularly charismatic actor, he is ideal for the role. Consider Albert Finney in "Tom Jones," for example, bursting with vitality. Finney could not possibly have played Lyndon. O'Neal easily seems self-pitying, narcissistic, on the verge of tears. As one terrible event after another occurs to him, he projects an eerie calm. Nor do his triumphs -- in gambling, con games, a fortunate marriage and even acquiring a title -- seem to bring him much joy. He is a man to whom things happen.

The other characters seem cast primarily for their faces and their presence, certainly not for their personalities. Look at the curling sneer of the lips of Leonard Rossiter, as Captain Quin, who ends Barry's youthful affair with a cousin by an advantageous offer of marriage. Study the face of Marisa Berenson, as Lady Lyndon. Is there any passion in her marriage? She loves their son as Barry does, but that seems to be their only feeling in common. When the time comes for her to sign an annuity check for the man who nearly destroyed her family, her pen pauses momentarily, then smoothly advances.

The film has the arrogance of genius. Never mind its budget or the perfectionism in its 300-day shooting schedule. How many directors would have had Kubrick's confidence in taking this ultimately inconsequential story of a man's rise and fall, and realizing it in a style that dictates our attitude toward it? We don't simply see Kubrick's movie, we see it in the frame of mind he insists on -- unless we're so closed to the notion of directorial styles that the whole thing just seems like a beautiful extravagance (which it is). There is no other way to see Barry than the way Kubrick sees him.

Kubrick's work has a sense of detachment and bloodlessness. The most "human" character in "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) is the computer, and "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) is disturbing specifically in its objectivity about violence. The title of "Clockwork," from Anthony Burgess' novel, illustrates Kubrick's attitude to his material. He likes to take organic subjects and disassemble them as if they were mechanical. It's not just that he wants to know what makes us tick; he wants to demonstrate that we do all tick. After "Spartacus" (1960), he never again created a major character driven by idealism or emotion.

The events in "Barry Lyndon" could furnish a swashbuckling romance. He falls into a foolish adolescent love, has to leave his home suddenly after a duel, enlists almost accidentally in the British army, fights in Europe, deserts from not one but two armies, falls in with unscrupulous companions, marries a woman of wealth and beauty, and then destroys himself because he lacks the character to survive.

But Kubrick examines Barry's life with microscopic clarity. He has the confidence of the great 19th century novelists, authors who stood above their material and accepted without question their right to manipulate and interpret it with omniscience. Kubrick has appropriated Thackeray's attitude -- or Trollope's or George Eliot's. There isn't Dickens' humor or relish of human character. Barry Lyndon, falling in and out of love and success, may see no pattern in his own affairs, but the artist sees one for him, one of consistent selfish opportunism.

Perhaps Kubrick's buried theme in "Barry Lyndon" is even similar to his outlook in "2001: A Space Odyssey." Both films are about organisms striving to endure and prevail -- and never mind the reason. The earlier film was about the human race itself; this one is about a depraved minor example of it. Barry journeys without plan, sees what he desires, tries to acquire it and perhaps succeeds because he plays roles so well without being remotely dedicated to them. He looks the part of a lover, a soldier, a husband. But there is no there there.

There's a sense in both this film and "2001" that a superior force hovers above these struggles and controls them. In "2001," it was a never-clarified form of higher intelligence. In "Barry Lyndon," it's Kubrick himself, standing aloof from the action by two distancing devices: the narrator (Michael Hordern), who deliberately destroys suspense and tension by informing us of all key developments in advance, and the photography, which is a succession of meticulously, almost coldly, composed set images. It's notable that three of the film's four Oscars were awarded for cinematography (John Alcott), art direction (Ken Adam) and costumes (Ulla-Britt Soderlund and Milena Canonero). The many landscapes are often filmed in long shots; the fields, hills and clouds could be from a landscape by Gainsborough. The interior compositions could be by Joshua Reynolds.

This must be one of the most beautiful films ever made, and yet the beauty isn't in the service of emotion. Against magnificent settings, the characters play at intrigues and scandals. They cheat at cards and marriage, they fight ridiculous duels. This is a film with a backdrop of the Seven Years' War that engulfed Europe, and it hardly seems to think the war worth noticing, except as a series of challenges posed for Barry Lyndon. By placing such small characters on such a big stage, by forcing our detachment from them, Kubrick supplies a philosophical position just as clearly as if he'd put speeches in his characters' mouths.

The images proceed in elegant stages through the events, often accompanied by the inexorable funereal progression of Handel's "Sarabande." For such an eventful life, there is no attempt to speed the events along. Kubrick told the critic Michel Ciment he used the narrator because the novel had too much incident even for a three-hour film, but there isn't the slightest sense he's condensing.

Some people find "Barry Lyndon" a fascinating, if cold, exercise in masterful filmmaking; others find it a terrific bore. I have little sympathy for the second opinion; how can anyone be bored by such an audacious film? "Barry Lyndon" isn't a great entertainment in the usual way, but it's a great example of directorial vision: Kubrick saying he's going to make this material function as an illustration of the way he sees the world.