Barton Fink

source: Barton Fink

this movie made me feel nothing. Under normal circumstances, I like movies that are open ended and subject to interpretation, but as one is watching this film, it is hard to figure out what is literal and what is not in the hotel. And if the hotel scenes are all not, it is hard to care in the Barton fink character in them. At the end, Fink says to the studio head that he wanted to show something beautiful and something that we can all relate to (the struggles of the mind) in his script, but the hotel scenes are neither. So as the studio head says, why would I want to watch this. I rented this movie because Blood Simple was so good. Stick with other Cohen movies if I were you. Writing about the mind and going back and forth to reality is complex stuff and one risks losing the audience and this is exactly what happens here. For a more enjoyable ride through the brain, watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. At least there you will care for the protagonists.

This movie is a great example of a film with Multiple Personality Disorder. It started off GREAT with excellent writing and acting and sets. I was really hooked! But, towards the end, it just looked like the Coens got tired of reading or writing the script and filmed whatever came into their heads (after, perhaps, ingesting some LSD). It went from a very perceptive film about how the Hollywood establishment often destroys the creative process to a psycho killer movie in the space of just minutes. I mean, WHAT was the reasoning and motivation to create the character John Goodman portrayed??!! Huh?!!?! It made me irritated to see such an excellent film flushed down the drain so quickly. My feelings about the Coen brothers' films varies tremendously. For example, I hated this film and wasn't particularly impressed with Fargo (it was too normal) BUT I think that The Hudsicker Proxy and Brother, Where Art Thou? are two of the finest movies in recent memory. Try to give us the weirdness of these last two movies while exercising a little more restraint, please.

No-one makes films like the Coen brothers and Barton Fink is a film like no other. Like all their movies it can be watched over and over and each viewing is as rewarding as the last. It's basically a film about writer's block (it was written when the Brothers Coen were struggling with 'Miller's Crossing',in the midst of their own block) and how lonely the "life of the mind" is. But the message here is that a writer must do everything he can not to be isolated from his fellow man. Barton is trying to write a screenplay for the common man but won't even listen when one such common man (his neighbor in the Hotel Earl, played by John Goodman) tries to tell him stories. He's too interested in spouting clichés about the nobility of the art of writing and the great service he is providing in his works. From the above Barton Fink may sound a little dry but it is anything but and as is customary in Joel and Ethan's films, the narrative never goes where you think it will. If you see Barton Fink for anything though, it should be for the characters, because they are incredibly well written and acted.

SPOILER ALERT! If you have not seen the movie please do not read the following comments. Others have commented about Fink's apparent "descent into Hell", led by the neighbor/devil. I found a different interpretation, revealed by the very last shot of the film. To me, it is fairly clear that he is "in Hell" so to speak, but it is very much a Hellish existence on Earth, and the fire is merely allegorical of the intense pressure for him to deliver, compounded by the stifling Summer heat in his hotel room. I believe that at the end, Barton is still hopelessly blocked, having not written anything beyond his opening paragraph. He didn't get laid, there were no murders, no police, no package, and his neighbor has no dark secret. Those were all part of Fink's fantasy/insanity, created out of the desperation to come up with ideas, as he continues to stare at the picture over his desk. I even have doubts about the visit to the studio executive's home. In short, at the end of the film, I think he is in exactly the same situation as at the midpoint of the film, the last time we see him staring into the picture, waiting for inspiration.

Barton Fink_720p(480P)

source: Barton Fink

In seeking to follow the hottest trends, a major film studio hires a pretentious and prestigious writer named Barton Fink to write a B-list movie. You can only imagine how this turns out. What exactly this movie is trying to accomplish will go over the heads of the average movie viewer, which is why this gem flopped. First and foremost, it's a farcical comedy. While containing convincing elements of drama and horror, it all only serves to create the big irony of just about everything going wrong as poor Barton tries to write his masterpiece. The film is rife with iconography and symbolism. The viewer can choose to interpret what goes on literally or figuratively. This movie is a masterpiece both celebrating the beauty of writing and ridiculing it. It's commentary on the mainstream film industry which lasts until today. It sure conveys a whole lot for a movie that doesn't to be remembered for meaning anything.

i sat watching barton fink, completely sure that there was some deeper level of meaning to it but that it was simply above my head and i could not grasp it. (i'm not the brightest star in the sky). because of this my enjoyment of the picture was significantly handicapped. though i managed to enjoy the outlandishly funny drunken antics of the would-be faulkner character. and i have to say that there's probably more vomiting in this movie than any other non-comedy i've ever seen. the character of barton fink comes off as rather annoying and condescending. his droning speeches about the common man kind of made me clench my teeth. the ending of the movie completely baffled me however, and i'm hopeful that subsequent viewings of the movie will yield a fuller interpretation. i give it six out of ten with room for improvement

After a successful play in New York in 1941, a writer is summoned to Hollywood to write a movie script. There are amusing scenes but they don't really add up to a satisfying whole. Like the title character, the Coen Brothers seem to have suffered from a writer's block where they did not know where to go with the film once they had the basic idea developed. There's hardly any flow to the narrative. It's little more than a series of rather incongruent scenes strung together into a feature length. While Turturro does a good job of conveying writer's block, his vacant look reveals nothing about the character. Lively acting from the rest of the cast helps, but it all feels half-baked.