巴里·林登

  三个小时的电影其实在节奏上做的非常的棒，类似于乐章的三分法在配乐上可以看得出来，军旅生活，家族斗争，以及最后的落魄生活，值得一提的是，库布里克把第三乐章做了后置的处理，乐章提示移用到了结尾，所谓人归尘土，平等相拥。而原本的第三段的接点可以直接从影像风格可看出，大量的冷色调的出现和配乐的变化直接昭示着巴里悲惨的下场。我也不知道怎么做到的，他基本上连转场都没有使用直接用巴里哭泣的脸接上儿子的棺材，轻易完成了篇章的转换，也许是叙述者在影片之前有所铺垫，刻意的提到了巴里儿子的死亡，使得装换上不显得突兀，其实是非常完美，而篇章置后的PAT3标题有种让观众有种走不出故事的感觉，而你对故事有着强烈的需求。就这么一段话：不太成功的赌徒生涯，最后终归于尘土，使得故事具有了泛指性，大概说：世间上的爱恨情仇放在尘土中连尘埃都算不上，那我们看了这么一个悲剧又算什么？库布里克再一次的显示出了自己作为作者对于命运所抱有的疏离感，接近于虚无主义的结局预示着库布里克的实际上对于生活的极度不信任，在他的作品中都可略见一二，只是在巴里林登中交代的更为清晰。

  交代历史背景更像是一种间接赤裸裸的炫耀服饰上所花费的功夫，库布里克永远在艺术的追求上毫不松懈，在此也不再谈他对于服饰的运用是有多么的奢华。

  中央平衡构图模式已经达到了丧心病狂的运用，人们都说库布里克每个画面是如同油画般精美，其实是跟库布里克崇尚了古典主义有很大的关系，精湛的透视法运用和场景的布置使得原本合适这样一个古典悲剧的故事有了最大余地的发挥，现在看来，都不显得落伍，因为，古典总是经典的，经典总是永恒的。

  社会制度的泯灭人性的批判可以说是很少，库布里克更多的是将这样的制度展示在我们面前而非更多主观批判他，也不是说制度里就没一点有好处，就好像所有的事物一样，一个地方，总有好人，也总会有坏人，电影里巴里的悲剧好像是因为原本低贱的身份害了他，其实个人认为害惨了他的是我们认为那些好的性格，正如叙述者所歌颂的，热情，勇气，和骨气。这些性格帮助了他的成功，即使他是个投机者，他后半生的失败也注定如此。

  叙述者的观点也是非常奇妙，个人感觉这个叙事者就是查尔斯爵爷的儿子布灵顿的手下，所以在叙述过程第二段中，叙述者用了许多词汇来诋毁巴里，但是每一个词汇的诋毁找不到任何根据，只能寻求结果，用结果推断出来的根据是不可靠的，所以，这个讲故事的人一定布灵顿家族的历史记录员，因此他所叙述的故事其实是少胳膊断腿的，正如布灵顿向妈妈描述他和巴里决斗的场景一样。历史总是由人来叙述的，而真正公平的观点，在于篇章的题字上，所以我才在前文费力的分析PART3的题字。

  人人均等，都过于渺小，本归于尘土，当所有的一切在开始和终结中都是一样的，那么人世界走一遭就是来受苦的，苦难出自人间；也许我从“人人均等”这样的题字中看到了绝望，也有人因此看到了希望，因为虚无就是最好的公正。

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。

10分

看的我真的好想哭！讲述了巴里·林登的一生，角度极其客观、冷静，“上述人物的悲欢，发生在乔治三世时期，不论好坏、美丑或贫富，现已平等归土。”好似黄粱一梦。无论命运如何无常，我们终究不能不屈就；无论人生如何荒诞，我们终究不能不经历。每个镜头截图，都是一幅油画。

"Good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now."

冷峻的黑底白字，观众接收长达近三个小时的《乱世儿女》后，最终得到导演库伯力克下的结语。

无论是贫是富、功过与否还是美丑，都将随着时代的推移，幻化成风，这些琐事都不再重要了。



人人谈起史丹利库伯力克（Stanley Kubrick，1928-1999）这位不愿与好莱坞妥协的鬼才导演，

大多数的影迷最先必定提起永恒的科幻经典《2001太空漫游》，惊悚类型翘楚《鬼店》，

或者是《奇爱博士》、《发条橘子》、《金甲部队》，还有「前」汤姆克鲁斯夫妇主演的《大开眼戒》等等。

奇怪的是，诞生于1975年的《乱世儿女》却时常被世人遗忘。


很难想像，库伯力克在完成惊世骇俗的《发条橘子》之后，居然转换路数，

耗费四年拍摄一部古色古香、美轮美奂的历史古装大戏，实让众人跌破眼镜。这充分证明库伯力克的才气和独到之处。

侯孝贤直说要有所突破，但仍显得力不从心；高达（Jean Luc-Godard）爷爷还是沉溺在他专属的影像探索，

作为一名电影导演，库伯力克不拘泥、依恋于同种题材，游走在各种类型电影之间，来去自如，每一部都有出乎意料的惊人表现；

同时他是个汲汲追求完美的导演，对于镜头与构图十分重视，也曾达到让演员take近百次的疯狂记录。

端看《乱世儿女》的精细雕琢程度，更可体会那种几近偏执狂的创作精神。



《乱世儿女》改篇自英国作家William Makepeace Thackeray发表于1844年的小说《The Luck of Barry Lyndon》。

故事背景设定在18世纪中叶的欧洲，英法两国七年战争正如火如荼展开，一位爱尔兰青年雷蒙巴瑞，

如何幸运地由无名小卒前往从军、晋身至英国上流社会，用手段获得爵位，和有财产、身份的林登夫人结婚，改名「巴瑞林登」；

最后却因耗尽钱财、负债累累，儿子布莱恩摔马身亡，遭林登夫人前夫之子－布林登的背叛，

最终身败名裂、黯然回乡，不知所终。



库伯力克以巨型的史诗篇幅，娓娓道来大时代之下的命运无常，对于人性亦有所深刻的描绘。

据传导演原先是打算拍萨克雷的另一名著《浮华世界》（Vanity Fair: A Novel without a Hero），

在搜集资料时，读到他这本当时默默无名的小说，结果爱不释手，决意要将它搬上大萤幕。

而他曾尝试筹拍《拿破仑传》时的服装与场景档案，也适时派上用场。

巴瑞林登的一生，因为库伯力克的坚持再度成为世人的焦点。

 

整部电影的结构分为两篇章节，一刀两断，标志的库氏印记。

每次必出现的旁白犹如台湾老戏院里头的辩士，

如神般的全知观点，平铺直叙、无音扬顿挫地侃侃而谈，不带感情，静待观众细细体会。

有人说，一部电影若用到大量旁白是下下之策；但是《乱世儿女》的旁白与影像是相辅相成、无法切割，缺一不可。

不知侯导的《戏梦人生》是否有受到影响，不过《戏梦》有李天禄现身说书，更增添与历史对话的魅力。



饰演巴瑞林登、因《爱的故事》走红的小生雷恩欧尼尔（Ryan O'Neal），没有库氏其他作品男主角的惊奇演技，

除了儿子小布莱恩丧命时的真情流露令人动容外，脸部神情略显呆板，容易使人过目即忘，怪不得会被称为最没有库氏风格的男主角。

林登夫人玛丽莎贝瑞森（Marisa Berenson），绝世美人一名，在悠悠烛光照映下，美艳动人；

里昂费塔利（Leon Vitali）演出布林登的青少年时期，也因为这部片的关系，日后他成为库柏力克的专属助理，直到导演过世为止。

整部片还有不少《发条橘子》的班底演员参与演出，有兴趣不妨看看能不能找出这些熟面孔。


 

《乱世儿女》摄影技术上的突破，就是使用光圈Ｆ0.7的蔡斯镜头（据称是太空总署NASA拍摄月球暗面用的，已不多见），

并使用感光度高的底片拍摄，连室内也采用自然光，华丽异常的烛光场景令人叹为观止。

每位演员彷佛真的成了十八世纪油画里的人物，动静得宜，绚烂如梦，

再搭配上库伯力克精心挑选的古典音乐，韩德尔、舒伯特、莫札特及巴赫创作的旋律悦耳动听，莫不使观者沉醉其中，难以忘怀。

如果能透过大萤幕观赏，想必是趟美好的时空旅行。


再来，不时穿插的远景空镜头，美丽如画的山水风景，爱尔兰的乡村田园风光，静谧清幽的落叶林道，优美迷人；

而后半段有更多色调冰冷的城堡室内戏，与前段有着鲜明的对比，故事也更为阴暗、沉重。

最让我惊艳的，便是整部片散发著亚洲电影特有的诗意：

抒情似地寄景于情，长镜头的运用，摄影机如名旁观者般观望着芸芸众生，冷静、客观；

以及电影结束时留给观众的「余韵」……这部电影都做了完美的诠释。

只是大量缓慢的zoom镜头看久会有点腻，也许是《发条橘子》的遗毒未尽吧！不过还是看得很过瘾！


《乱世儿女》甫推出时，声势极大，时代杂志还为之做了封面专题报导。而其极为杰出的美术、摄影，

双双获得了1976年的奥斯卡奖，库伯力克自己也获得最佳导演和最佳影片的提名；

只是这两个奖项依旧无缘，全都颁给了另一部也是好评不断、杰克尼可逊主演的《飞越杜鹃窝》。

一向看「戏」为主的美国影评们则对本片好恶参半，多数嫌之沉闷、冗长，市场上的票房反应也不如预期。

尽管欧洲艺术圈给予热烈回响，但对这对这位美国出生、长居英国的电影导演是个不小的打击，

间接影响了他后来的创作走向－－挑选能在商业和艺术间取得平衡的题材，造就日后的《鬼店》、《金甲部队》，跟观众更靠近了。



事隔多年，回头来看《乱世儿女》，仍不嫌过时；

马丁史柯西斯对本片的艺术成就赞誉有佳，雷利史考特一鸣惊人的处女作《决斗的人》风格上深受影响。

巴瑞林登的传奇早已随时间洪流淡去，但这部库氏作品仍将持续影响后进电影人，

更多人会知道，我们曾经拥有过一位厉害的导演，曾经拍出过许多如此精采的电影－－

别忽略还有这部美到令人屏息的《乱世儿女》。

======

在看这部电影之前，先请教各位一个问题：那就是：谁有f0.7的镜头？即使是在工业发达的21世纪，这样的东西恐怕也无处寻觅吧。或许，全世界只有一块f0.7镜头──就是导演库布里克拍摄这部《乱世儿女》所用的那一块。

这块珍贵的镜头，据说是蔡司为美国航空航天局定制的产品，不知为什么流落到了库布里克手中。他将这块镜头稍加改装后，安装到了摄象机上。f0.7的巨大透光量，使得他在拍摄室内景物时可以完全使用烛光照明，而没有任何其它的人造光源。

有了这样的拍摄利器，这部电影无论是野外风景还是室内空间，构图用光都极其用心，就像是一幅幅流动的精美油画，随便拉出一幅，都能挂到墙上。但是值得注意的是，影片有意识的采用大量的“中心构图”，尤其在室内场景中，总是用柱子、门窗、桌椅等物品标明画面的中心点，而那里也正是即将展开的场景的中心，是摄影机想要引导观众关注的中心。从视觉心理上来说，只有在对称发生偏转或变动时，才会有活跃动态的感觉，这种静止镜头中的标准对称，只能产生沉闷的心理的感受。而这也正是库布里克想要传达的：一个死气沉沉的社会，等级森严，无所事事。

这部电影讲述的是18世纪的欧洲，当时英普同盟和法奥俄同盟正打得不可开交。一文不名的爱尔兰无赖、穷小子Barry，由于机缘巧合，结识了一个富有的寡妇，并藉此挤入了上流社会。但他为了追求贵族爵位而和勋爵决斗，最后被驱逐出英国。或许这部电影该译作《欧洲版鹿鼎记》更合适。

在这部电影中，主角Barry Lyndon的扮演者Ryan O'Neal很好的把握了小无赖自由自在，毫无道德压力的心情。他本人和这部电影也获得了最佳电影艺术学员奖，最佳艺术导演奖，不列颠最佳电影奖等一系列奖项。在这部超过3个小时的电影中，至少有二三十处值得记录为静态画面的场景。当然，如果你没有以上所说的f0.7镜头，还是试着打几快反光板吧。毕竟，f0.7听上去比神话还遥远。

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.