What are the reasons for Barry's downfall?
-
kenny-164 — 10 years ago(July 14, 2015 10:15 AM)
First of all by the time Bullingdon had really sought to take Barry down, there had been a raproachement between Barry and Lady Lyndon. This was clear not only from the encounter during Lady Lyndon's bath but from the more telling way in which Lady Lyndon did not oppose Barry's effort to obtain a title, and in effect supported it by agreeing to the expenditures involved. Yet in self serving fashion Bullingdon created the spectacle during the musical performance, which was supplemented by the spreading of rumors about alleged mistreatment of him by Barry. This effectively ended Barry's efforts, and it was no coincidence that this protected Bullingdon from any claims by his half brother.
Earlier on it is true that Bullingdon witnessed the wooing of his mother by Barry, but also with the advice from the narrator that Bullingdon was uncommonly attached to his mother. Then, shortly after the marriage, we have this conversation between Reverand Runt and Bullingdon:
Reverand Runt: My Lord Bullingdon, you seem particularly glum today? You should be happy that your mother has remarried.
Bullingdon: Not in this way. And not in such haste.
(pause)
And certainly not to this man.
Runt: I think you judge your mother too harshly.
(pause)
Do you not like your new father?
Bullingdon: Not very much. He seems to me little more than a common opportunist.
(pause)
I don't think he loves my mother at all.
And it hurts me to see her make such a fool of herself.
This was before there was ANY indication of infidelity between Barry and Lady Lyndon.
While in the sequence of events Barry dallying with Brian's nursemaid follows, this is after Brian's birth and the passage of time. No doubt Bullingdon was struck on seeing that dalliance. But he was not present when Barry then made up to Lady Lyndon, and then of course was the occasion when Bullingdon would not kiss Barry goodbye in front of several people, much to Lady Lyndon's displeasure. Bullingdon accused her of insulting the memory of his father, Lord Lyndon, again much to Lady Lyndon's displeasure.
At that point, Barry punished Bullingdon for I believe the first time, advising him that as others "serve" him, so he will treat them. Then the narrator advises:
Barry believed, and not without some reason, that it had beena declaration of war against him by Bullingdon from the startand that the evil consequences that ensued were entirely of Bullingdon's creating.
Now of course the word some indicates a lessening of the charge, but I think it clear in the context of the manner of Thackeray's writing, this was merely included out of ironic understatement. By that point Bullingdon had been described as fixated on his mother, had felt he knew better than her when it was appropriate to remarry (after a year since Lord Lyndon'd death), cast aspersions on Barry's background, and then insulted him in front of others. And this was all before the business of pursuing a title began.
And then of course the specific and particular effect of Bullingdon shooting Barry's leg off and the practical effect that had cannot be underestimated, coming as it did out of an act of self serving cowardice in his part, not accepting that Barry could have easily and justifiably killed him, but chose not to do so.
And all of this in self serving terms. It would have been another thing if Bullingdon was acting in concert with his mother, pursuant to her wishes. but he was not.
I frankly never understand what kind of aberrant view of human nature would lead someone to take Bullingdon's side in all this. For myself I had merely noted the cause and effect of Bullingdon's presence in Barry's life and its relation to his downfall. I have not defended Barry, and certainly do not think he was without fault, not by a long shot.
But continue defending Bullingdon if you must. -
trisul — 10 years ago(July 14, 2015 01:28 PM)
I frankly never understand what kind of aberrant view of human nature would lead someone to take Bullingdon's side in all this.
First, I am not "taking sides", I am strive to understand both characters. However, it is a simple fact that the movie shows Bullingdon's assessment of Bary to have been correct:
Bullingdon: Not very much. He seems to me little more than a common opportunist.
(pause)
I don't think he loves my mother at all.
And it hurts me to see her make such a fool of herself.
His assessment is correct and his love for his mother and his attachment to her are not to be criticized, they are virtues. Furthermore, you seek to equate the responsibility of a child with the responsibilities of the newcomer adult, which is most unfair, especially in the view of how little Barry brought to the family and how much he took from them.
Having said that, I was not at all "defending" Bullingdon, I was giving my opinion as to where it all went downhill for Barry, or if you prefer, I am critical of Barry. Although it must be said that the movie presents both sides of both of them, the good and the bad. -
kenny-164 — 10 years ago(July 14, 2015 01:39 PM)
No one is NOTHING MORE than a common opportunist. The class based animus there reeks. Elsewhere Bullingdon refers to Barry's Irishness in virtually racist terms. You must have missed that part.
I also do not think it clear Barry has no love for Lady Lyndon.
Finally if you do not see that Bullingdon has an unnatural attachment to his mother, well
No doubt Bullingdon saw things in Barry he did not like, and there were certainly things in Barry to not like. But he was primarily motivated by self interest and gave expression to class based and ethnically unacceptable bases for hating Barry. Also unforgiveable was the way he reached the conclusion about the best way to deal with Barry without consulting with his mother at every step of the way.
His is a perfect example of an expressed chivalry hiding a condescension and pursuit of his own self interest.
Did you not feel it was a problem that Bullingdon proceeded with the duel after Barry shot into the ground? What kind of person would do such a thing? -
trisul — 10 years ago(July 14, 2015 09:52 PM)
Did you not feel it was a problem that Bullingdon proceeded with the duel after Barry shot into the ground? What kind of person would do such a thing?
As I said, the movie presented both sides of both characters. This was Barry's finest moment, and in Bullingdon hate won over. On the other side, he was scared out of his whits to be dueling Barry, but he stood his ground for what he believed were his rights and his mother's.
The picture painted is not black and white, it is realistic.
You seem to be very touchy about the class and ethnicity, judging it by the standards of our times, instead of the standards of the times of the tale.
Regarding the great love of Barry for Lady Lyndon, that idea was blown away by the contemptuous way he was blowing smoke in her face right after the wedding. There's isn't much in the film to depict it. -
kenny-164 — 10 years ago(July 15, 2015 06:44 AM)
I didn't say Barry had a GREAT love for Lady Lyndon. You said he had none. I win.
Standards of the times do not excuse the toxicity of his views. Was it in your view okay for titled people in the 18th Century to look at the lower classes as subhuman, or to have a prejudice against people from other European countries?
In any event my point is that Bullingdon was the major source of Barry's downfall, and that much (never said all) of Bullingdon's animus was there all along. To be specific Barry may have exacerbated Bullingdon's hatred, but there was more than enough hatred there all along.
The self interest angle also cannot be disputed. As Lord Lyndon's son Bullingdon's interests were adverse to not only Barry's, whose financial involvement in the Lyndon wealth was tied to no more than Lady Lyndon's life estate, but also even of Bullingdon's half brother Brian, since Brian had none of Lord Lyndon's blood and in fact was in any event Bullingdon's junior. In that sense Bullingdon's position was even adverse to Lady Lyndon's as respects her own interest in her second son.
But of course Bullingdon did not concede he acted out of self interest, which was part of his hypocrisy.
I think I have laid out my points here, and you seem to prefer offering red herrings in response. That being the case, have a nice day. -
trisul — 10 years ago(July 15, 2015 07:11 AM)
But of course Bullingdon did not concede he acted out of self interest, which was part of his hypocrisy.
Actually, in the film, he says it explicitly before the audience at the big breakup. He mentions Barry's disrespect for his mother and the squandering of his own inheritance.
Standards of the times do not excuse the toxicity of his views. Was it in your view okay for titled people in the 18th Century to look at the lower classes as subhuman, or to have a prejudice against people from other European countries?
We are each born into an certain environment and worldview, in my experience, very few people are able to transcend it. What is normal today, will be unthinkable tomorrow. Bullingdon definitely had some toxic views, but the whole film makes it quite clear that his assessment of Barry's character was largely on the spot.
Your problem seems to be that you have fallen in love with the rascally nature of the scoundrel and are, at the same time, deeply offended by the class distinction and ethnic prejudice that was practically universal at that time. This colors your assessment of the characters with too much leniency towards Barry's faults and no understanding for Bullingdon's. The film maker went into much trouble to avoid this black-and-white portrayal of either character and imbued them both with faults, as well as virtues. This is to be praised after all, it is the film maker's skills that we are commenting, are we not? -
Felixthecat34213 — 10 years ago(December 13, 2015 09:50 PM)
Having said that, I was not at all "defending" Bullingdon, I was giving my opinion as to where it all went downhill for Barry, or if you prefer, I am critical of Barry. Although it must be said that the movie presents both sides of both of them, the good and the bad.
Why? He's the only responsible adult in this film. He stood up like a man and took care of his family's estate, balance their finances, and care for his grieving mother because Barry was poisonous to her. Not once do we see Bary comfort his heartbroken wife over the death of their son. Instead he drinks himself into oblivion.
Redmund Barry was a better man when he had nothing at all and no concept of the world around him. Perhaps this was the message of the 19th century novel, when class distinctions were so important to people.
I don't really see Bullingdon as a coward. He did what he thought he had to do to get rid of Barry. (Again he was poisonous to him and his mother.) -
trisul — 10 years ago(December 13, 2015 10:51 PM)
He stood up like a man and took care of his family's estate, balance their finances, and care for his grieving mother because Barry was poisonous to her.
Yes, that he did.
I think we largely agree about the characters. If you look back at the thread, it is about the reasons for Barry's downfall, and my though was:
Surely, it is obvious that lack of love for his wife and stepson, and especially his disrespect for her, were the seeds of his downfall.
This was interpreted by some as a "defense of Bullingdon and unfair to Barry. I don't think so. I think the movie tries not to paint either character black or white entirely, giving some good and bad aspects of each in order to allow us to think about the situation and the issues and not just fall for one character or the other. -
Felixthecat34213 — 10 years ago(December 14, 2015 01:18 PM)
This was interpreted by some as a "defense of Bullingdon and unfair to Barry. I don't think so. I think the movie tries not to paint either character black or white entirely, giving some good and bad aspects of each in order to allow us to think about the situation and the issues and not just fall for one character or the other.
LOL I knowthis poster is ludicrous. The story is certainly black and white, but Barry was never a good man to his wife and step son. -
Errington_92 — 10 years ago(March 26, 2016 10:10 AM)
As the film goes along
we see Redmund grow from a young, insecure, naive country boy into a reckless manipulator.
I suppose in a weird way it's a cautionary tale
about seeing too much of the world.
Very true in seeing
Barry Lyndon
as a cautionary tale. Barry's recklessness caused him to lose sight of his former goals to greed. Barry use to be noble and honest, yet gave in to opportunism and being self-serving.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not. -
kenny-164 — 10 years ago(March 28, 2016 10:50 AM)
Barry Lyndon is certainly not at all about Bullingdon being an admirable character. Any such interpretation completely misunderstands the film. Thackeray was not a defender of the aristocracy. He was a satirist. But beyond that the novel is in the first person, containing nothing of the false narration included in the film (that the narration is both cynical and wrong I will assume here is beyond question. For example think early on about the narrator's assertion that Barry was "filled with admiration" on viewing Quin and his troops, when the facial expressions Ryan O'Neal gave Barry show nothing of the sort.)
But among many other changes to the novel Kubrick introduces this false narrator. Why? I think we are intended to hear the narrator as giving expression to the negative view of Barry as the outsider. It also serves the purpose of making the point Kubrick himself said was what his film, thematically, was about - the inadequacy of language, specifically in comparing that which the film shows (how film is different from, say, a book) from what is said.
In viewing the film the narrator's statements thus are, particularly when moral judgments are included to Barry's disadvantage, to be essentially countered in understanding what Kubrick is really trying to say. This is not only generally true, but as regards Bullingdon, it is his self serving purpose in returning, and in his failure to accept satisfaction when Barry shoots into the ground, his willful attempt to keep Lady Lyndon out of this portion of the events, that we SEE Bullingdon for the awful person he is.
Similarly we see little to support the notion that Barry is motivated to any great extent by greed. His focus certainly after Bryan is born is on his son and then to protect his son at great cost to the estate's fortunes, rather than on business ventures that would add to, and not detract from, his wealth.
Barry is primarily motivated to seek intimacy, often seeking a father figure. Over the course of his narrative he seeks to apply his will to attain that general goal, but is continuously thwarted by forces outside his power. Take the example of his encounter with Lischen, the young Dutch woman. If Barry had not tarried with her, he likely would have gotten away, back to England or Ireland. But he sought her intimacy, and this led to how his stories for Captain Potzdorff ended up being so out of date. Or how he briefly thought he had a father figure protector in Captain Grogan, only to have him cut down by a Frenchman's musket.
In other words Barry believes his life would be a story he would write, but it ended up being written about him. -
EvilBaldDude — 10 years ago(November 15, 2015 06:58 AM)
I'd consider that obvious. You can draw a direct corollary between him cheating on Lady Lyndon and his leg getting blown off in a duel with her son.
There is other stuff in there about high society etiquette that Barry would never have been able to meet up to, and upper class snobbery. But that's all just dressing, and mostly outside the chain. -
Naughty-God — 10 years ago(July 16, 2015 08:39 PM)
His ambition outweighed his talent.
There's a scene in the film where we see Lady Lyndon signing letters of note to the various creditors that Barry has incredulously accumulated over the years together and the narrator says something to the effect that Barry had the ability to rise in the world of high society but lacked the instinct to maintain and excel his presence in such an environment. His hazardous spending of other people's money exemplified that. -
Opwiz — 10 years ago(July 29, 2015 02:59 PM)
He didn't fall down he always had a fatal flaw that never got resolved. His aristocratic titles and money didn't make the flaw go away. You could debate what caused this flaw in him (him lacking a father could be it) but it made him cheat, lie, desert his men, treat his wife and stepson with contempt, squander his family's wealth, etc. In the end it all just came back to him.
-
Mr_Wolf_80 — 10 years ago(August 03, 2015 07:59 AM)
The point of the film is that he was of humble origins and no money could buy the respect of the aristocrats, who would continue to see and consider him a poor, rude and unmannered social climber.
I'm Winston Wolf. I solve problems.
And no dream is ever just a dream