When the director decides to make it queer

#StanleyKubrick’s filmography is punctuated with moments of implied queerness... and nowhere is this more evident than in his 1975 masterpiece #BarryLyndon.
Edited by Emily Ruuskanen.
Like this video? Hit subscribe: bit.ly/LWLsubsc...
🔔 Please enable push notifications 🔔
Watch our most recent videos: bit.ly/LWLrecent
Follow us:
Twitter: / lwlies
Instagram: / lwlies
Facebook: / littlewhiteliesmagazine
Become a Member: steadyhq.com/e...
Subscribe:
Podcast: lwlies.com/
Magazine: lwlies.com/mag...
Watch more:
Popular Videos: bit.ly/LWLpopular
Video Essays: bit.ly/LWLessays
Interviews: bit.ly/LWLinter...
Masterclasses: bit.ly/LWLmaste...

[@antoinepetrov]

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]

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]

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]

Plus we're not going to touch that his last film starred a certain Megastar whose sexuality has always been in question?

[@blakegaley6566]

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]

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 .

[@ReadingMartin]

Well, I have to rewatch Barry Lyndon now.

[@kraz007]

My favorite movie...one of many.

[@TheStockwell]

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]

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.

[@cinemachy]

thanks

[@peteradaniel]

She says Hogarth but the very first painting of the man and woman under the tree is by Gainsborough.

[@brucehewson555]

Rip ryan o'neil

[@ladsvideos]

Complete misinterpretation of the film here sadly, despite some good arguments. As other commentors have noted masculinity in the Barry Lyndon era was vastly different to what it is today and by applying a modern lense to the film you are drawing conclusions which simply don't have a basis in the reality of the time. The only scene containing this modern perception of queerness and masculinity is the one in which Barry steals the horse and uniform of a man while the other soldier is distracted by his male love in a lake. Applying modern interpretations of concepts to historical art and media is an ultimately fruitless exercise, because you lose any sense of context or cultural understanding of the time period in question and instead can only relate it to your own understanding from a thoroughly modern viewpoint.

[@katorzhnik]

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.

[@georgejones8481]

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]

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]

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]

@@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]

@@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]

Are you sure you're straight?

[@lloydlim]

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]

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]

@@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.