It has been discussed that most of the films of Stanley Kubrick are examples of film-art. In other words, most of his films are thought of as pieces (more like masterpieces) of art. I would agree with this on his work from Paths of Glory to his last film, Eyes Wide Shut (his early film noirs are still good with the exception of Fear and Desire since Kubrick admitted this was a failure with his attempt to destroy every print of it). As for the films in the second half of his career (1971-1999), Barry Lyndon stands out to me as a good example of film-art. Though not the best film from this period in his career (A Clockwork Orange is the best one from this period to me), it is a film that exemplifies film-art to me in a different way than other Kubrick films.
There are plenty of reasons you could say that Barry Lyndon was not a very successful piece of film-art at the time of its release. It is common for the studio that bankrolls the film to look at it one way; that view is at how much money did it make. Well, it did gross $9.5 million domestically in 1975; unfortunately, it needed to make $30 million for Warner Bros. to see a profit. Thus, this was considered to be the first major film of Stanley Kubrick to be a box office failure. In fact, it was probably the most unsuccessful for him on that level.
But it would be just stupid to dismiss a good film on its box office grosses. Besides, most good films will eventually make their money back on video or television markets since they are usually worth a view. But was this considered a good film at the time? Even the critics were dismissive of this Kubrick film. The negativity was aimed at many things, such as the small amount of dialogue for an epic, stillness of images, and stiffness of the actors in the film. In order words, they didn't like the deliberate slow pace and movements in the scene without much said verbally. Arguably, Kubrick films tend to not be fast paced but most of the time the beauty of the images distract a viewer from the pace (well, at least for me but I don't mind the slow pace in his films).
Barry Lyndon's images were no less beautiful than anything Kubrick had done before. But, of course, the three films he did before this were Dr. Strangelove, 2001, and A Clockwork Orange (these are usually considered his best three films). It is arguable that most people today (as well as then) seem to be more interested in science fiction and war images than they are of images from a film set in the early 19th century.
But it is hard to not say this film was not an artistic success, which I hold to be more important than to discuss how much it made or how critics felt toward it. Besides, I don't think the critics got what his film did as a piece of film-art. Steven Spielberg felt like it was a short trip through a long museum, such as the Prado. One can only presume that art lover Kubrick may have walked through this museum or saw a book on it. In a sense, Spielberg is right and wrong. But I only believe he is right because his own opinion toward art is not ecstatic. So he is wrong to see it is as too long. I guess what my point here is that this film is slow on purpose because it is suppose to be what it is like to walk through a museum of art. Kubrick wants you to watch the images of this adventurer's rise from peasant and fall from nobility. The takes are long in order to make you pay attention to the image and study its details like the way pieces of art are looked at.
As I have said before, you can take a frame from a Kubrick film and frame it as a piece of art. For example, look at the shot of the duel between Barry and Captain Quin. This is a beautiful shot for many reasons. Because, if you were to pause the film after the camera zooms out, you would see how Barry's costume makes him easy to distinguish from the others (nobody tends to wear a similar outfit to Barry throughout the film if you do not include the war scenes). I believe this helps him stand out in almost every frame of the film. Furthermore, he appears powerless, smaller in size compared to his opponent Quin. This shows the view of others toward him as well as his own self-doubts. This way also enables the composition to tell the story more than Ryan O'Neal's expressionless performance as Barry or any of the other blank-faced actors we see throughout.
On the subject of the actors, they either remain stiff or move slowly throughout the film. They do this for many reasons. In the past, the artists did not want their subjects to move so they could capture the image without distraction or loss of detail in any way. So in a sense, the artist, such as Kubrick definitely was, controlled the world he presented. But more importantly, due to the limited movement of actors, we look at their surroundings more. The whole image becomes more of a focus and we all know Kubrick wanted his mise-en-scene to be complex. Notably, when Lady Lyndon first appears in the film to gamble, we do not only notice her beauty (Marisa Berenson was a model) but the other elements in the composition. Reverend Runt sits at her side in the mid-ground and does her liking. But we also notice that he looks questioningly at Barry on the other side of the table, who has locked eyes with Lady Lyndon. I already got a sense Runt would turn on Barry at that point if Barry ever hurt Lady Lyndon. We also notice the crowd in the background watch the card and gambling moves the two make in the foreground.
One thing I did not say was that the viewer's eye will roam the scene because they are bored and don't know what to concentrate on. They do look at the images long enough that they will eventually notice the other elements. But Kubrick was a master of on how to light a scene and he will have you look where he wanted you. The scene I mentioned above is notable because most of the light hits Lady Lyndon so we do keep most of our attention on her since she is the main subject of the shot. Kubrick lit every scene in this film either with candles (mostly the interiors at night) or natural light; the candles are in the composition of that previously mentioned shot. He wanted this film world to look like it did in its time period (they did not have electric lighting back then so the use of artificial lights would make it look unnatural or just wrong to Kubrick). Once again, Kubrick acted like the artists of old since they also relied on natural light or candles to capture the true beauty of their subjects. This he did marvelously.
The film has not stayed too much in the collective unconscious of ordinary viewers since many of them have not seen it. In fact, I have only discussed this film at film school. This emphasizes the point that only filmmakers have only truly embraced this film. Martin Scorsese considers this film a major influence on him as well as others. To many, though, it was saw as a major failure critically, financially (it was this with no doubt), or both. So what? Only artists probably appreciate other artists like many should be. Most filmmakers acknowledge Stanley Kubrick did a good job. But nobody can deny that Kubrick, with the use of such things as stillness and special lighting, painted a piece of film-art with Barry Lyndon. Because it is truly a beautiful film to look at, no matter if you like the film or not.