The only certain moment of queerness in the film is when Barry steals the horse of one of the queer men in the river. If they didn't love each other, they would've noticed Barry and he couldn't have continued on his journey. In this sense, queerness is both presented positively, as a propeller of the story, but also negatively, as folly. I think the idea that Barry was queer goes too far. But it's certainly an interesting lens through which to view the film.
@TheStockwell
Ай бұрын
This is an original, provocative, and exceptionally well-presented analysis of Kubrick's most subtle film. Besides being the only film Kubrick wrote by himself, with no collaborators, it also gave him a chance to draw on all the research for his cancelled Napoleon film. This is same director who gave us Laurence Olivier coming on to Tony Curtis in "Spartacus" - in a bathtub. Nothing homoerotic there! 😏 Thank you.
@jasoncromwell4206
Ай бұрын
His "Queerest Movie" is "Spartacus" where Laurence Olivier and Tony Curtis are a couple under the guise of Master and Servant. You are right it's either that or Stanley, as both an American and a Jew, knows he will always be an outsider no matter how famous or popular he was.
@jasoncromwell4206
Ай бұрын
Plus we're not going to touch that his last film starred a certain Megastar whose sexuality has always been in question?
@ReadingMartin
Ай бұрын
Well, I have to rewatch Barry Lyndon now.
@kraz007
Ай бұрын
My favorite movie...one of many.
@TheStockwell
Ай бұрын
This is an original and exceptionally well-presented analysis of Kubrick's most subtle film. Besides being the only film Kubrick wrote by himself, with no collaborators, it also gave him a chance to draw on all the research for his cancelled Napoleon film. Thank you.
@robertprice2148
Ай бұрын
Thank you for your video. I think there is more evidence for lost father/son relationships. BL's father is killed in the first dual and BL is shot by his step son in the last. I see the Chavalier as a father figure that BL literally becomes.
@blakegaley6566
Ай бұрын
Love the video, but felt a bit lost at the connection to queerness, what about Barry or the chevalier is queer exactly, maybe i dont understand the definition of queerness very well haha :)
@blakegaley6566
Ай бұрын
Part 2 lol, like he might be queer and they said he partook in heteronormative behaviors to fill the hole, but how is kissing a woman an expression of that, surely it is simply pleasure and especially having affairs with other women, that suggests an emptiness in His and Lady lindens relationship but not queerness? He may be bi and i am overthinking this lol .
@cinemachy
Ай бұрын
thanks
@katorzhnik
Ай бұрын
I'm surprised, given your queering of this film, that you say nothing about the opening scene, where Lyndon is dominated by his sexually forthright cousin. However, your argument suggests an unfamiliarity with elite masculine norms during the mid-18th c. Just one example: you cite the kiss with his dying commander as evidence of a homosexual subtext. But in fact, it was a common expression of closeness between men, and is one still practiced today in Russia. In the end, your argument is extremely tendentious.
@peteradaniel
Ай бұрын
She says Hogarth but the very first painting of the man and woman under the tree is by Gainsborough.
@brucehewson555
Ай бұрын
Rip ryan o'neil
@georgejones8481
17 күн бұрын
This is really reaching. It feels like you're trying to fit an agenda and assessment around a film instead of allowing the film to dictate its message to you. Way off the mark with this one
@RE-sr9iv
Ай бұрын
He's not queer. That time was very different. Holding hands, or kissing a man was not considered homosexual. You need to get off your post modern feminist ideals and remember that history is very different than modern times. The film is a visual masterpiece and explores what being a shallow debutant does to ones sense of self. Get off the gay thing and think larger
@MarkFilipAnthony
Ай бұрын
It's still queer regardless of the past considering it homosexual or not. Queernes isn't only connected to sex or sexual desire, but also to romantic and aromatic social behavior between people of the same gender. Love is love, regardless if sex or sexuality is involved. Queernes isn't bound by modern or old social norms, it's about how the combination of love, romance and sex in the context of social behavior across history and cultures.
@R0CKDRIG0
Ай бұрын
@@MarkFilipAnthony Queerness is an idea that appeared in a very specific place and time 100 or so years ago, it doesn't make sense to try to impose it onto other cultures with different understandings of sex and sexuality.
@MarkFilipAnthony
Ай бұрын
@@R0CKDRIG0 sure queernes is historically a quite new term, but that doesn't take away the fact that queernes has existed through all of human history or cultures. Terms are invented to be more accurate about pecifics, like behaviors. Saying because the term didn't exists historically means that the behavior didn't exists is like saying "the iron age didn't exist because they didn't call it the iron age themselves", or anything similar. It's a silly argument.
@littlegreenbicc609
Ай бұрын
Are you sure you're straight?
@lloydlim
Ай бұрын
Kubrick was arguably both a bit of a homophobe and a sexist. Eg A Clockwork Orange; Lolita; Full Metal Jacket. So I would locate BL in that same vein. Absent a reason why he would change his politics/values.
@R0CKDRIG0
Ай бұрын
Having homophobic or sexist characters doesn't make the creators of said characters homophobic or sexist. All the people that have worked with him have said that he was demanding but kind and that working with him was a highlight of their careers.
@antoinepetrov
Ай бұрын
@@lloydlim you're omitting the fact that he, as a director, always detached his views from the characters and the telling of the story. He hid meanings, but never opinions.
Пікірлер: 23