Baseshment
I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.
Odelecol
Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.
Jonah Abbott
There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.
chaswe-28402
The mountain of praise heaped on this enigma has me puzzled and surprised almost as much as the film itself. Am I missing something ? This appears to be about a simple Simon, named Fink, lured by money or an agent to embark on a career in old-style Hollywood. Following the frequent mentions of wrestling and Wallace Beery, I fathomed it was set in the time period circa 1930-33. Beery made a wrestling picture called Flesh in 1932. Fink meets another writer said to be modelled on Faulkner, but who also seems to have traits of Scott Fitzgerald, including a significant other resembling Zelda. It occurs to me that there is often vomiting in the Coen movies, and the Faulkner/Fitzgerald character is first come across while vomiting. The Zelda type is portrayed by Judy Davis in a very memorable performance. There are other encounters. The desk clerk emerges from a subterranean domain, and repeatedly emphasizes his name, which is Chet. He may be standing in for Cerberus. The dead-headed lift attendant ferrying residents may represent Charon. Fink has a room on the 6th floor. It might as well be floor 666.His neighbour is Charlie, aka Mad Karl Mundt. Could he be standing in for The Devil ? There are also two cops, who are proto-Nazis. Then there are some Hollywood executive types. Geisler; maybe a form of Thalberg. Jon Polito is, unusually, a humiliated gopher. Then there's an alarming mogul, possibly a cross between Cohn, Mayer and Warner, one of whom used to keep a photo of Mussolini in his office. He later wears a uniform. When this tycoon is displeased with Fink's film script, he fires Geisler instead. He had earlier kissed Fink's shoe.The film ends with a beautiful lady stranger on the shore. I have to confess I was mystified and bewildered by this entire production. The hotel is ultimately engulfed in the flames of the underworld. The finished work is alleged to have helped the Coens to come up with Miller's Crossing. Make of it what you will. The oeuvre of the Coens is uneven, but intriguing. This one I'd say is dissatisfying, but no doubt it's meant to be.
ofpsmith
Barton Fink (John Turturro) is a New York playwright who gets a job working for Hollywood in 1941. When he meets his boss Jack Lipnick (Michael Lerner), Barton is assigned a wrestling movie. Barton takes residence in the dilapidated Hotel Earle, and sets to work, but gets severe writer's block from the start. He meets his neighbor Charlie Meadows (John Goodman) an outwardly friendly man, but who may or may not be a serial killer. Barton also meets novelist WP Mayhew (John Mahoney) and his mistress Audrey Taylor (Judy Davis) who struggles to put up with Mayhew's constant drinking. When Audrey is unexpectedly killed while visiting Barton, Charlie recommends that they keep it quiet from the police. Soon Barton completes the screenplay but Lipnick chastises him for it. The acting is great all around. Turturro is fantastic as Barton, and Goodman fits the character of the jovial yet sinister Charlie perfectly. It's really hard to imagine anyone else in the role. Barton Fink is one of those movies where you really have to pay attention in order to know what's going on. We follow Barton through his week at Hollywood as he tries to write, but witnesses all these strange occurrences while there. All the strange and bizarre parts of the movie add to the existential and surreal tone of the film. Although definitely a comedy, Barton Fink could probable also be considered a horror film. Not something like Dracula or Frankenstein where it's clear, but more like Eraserhead where the tone builds on the creepy atmosphere. And it's done in only a way that the Coen brothers could do it. An atmospheric nightmare that can make you laugh. If you like the Coen brothers, watch Barton Fink if you haven't already.
Anshul Gupta
I've only seen a handful of the 'Coen Brothers' movies so far, and each time, I'm left surprised by the range of their oeuvre. I haven't necessarily liked all they've had to offer ('Intolerable Cruelty' is the first that comes to mind), but they've transcended so many genres through their movies that they've come to define their own. And regardless of the purported genre, whether it be a Western or a Musical, a Comedy or a Slow-Burning Drama, they've never failed to leave that indelible impression on each of their outings, one that reassuringly proclaims from the moment you see their names in the opening credits that you're witness to something special. 'Barton Fink' is no exception - it's a beautifully-crafted, ably-acted and soundly-written drama, that is unlike any other 'Hollywood-Writer' drama you've ever seen before.Barton Fink is a New York playwright, and when we're introduced to him, he's right at the cusp of fame and success, having written a 'common-man' play that's received rave reviews from audience and critics alike. Although, fame, he doesn't seem to desire, and success, he wants on his own terms, believing that his best work is still ahead of him. Despite his strong beliefs and principles, he's reluctantly convinced by his agent to accept a studio contract in Hollywood, in order to cash in on his new-found fame. Although once he gets to Los Angeles, he finds himself completely out of his element, while rubbing shoulders with a motley of characters - the flamboyant studio-head whose praise and reverence for Barton seems conditional on his ability to make him money; the established Hollywood screenwriter that Barton looks to for inspiration, but quickly realizes has his own share of personal demons; the beautiful and charming secretary who could easily have been reduced to a prop in a lesser movie; and of course, the mild-mannered and ever-smiling neighbour that provides much-needed companionship to the ill- adjusted writer. And the cast did a commendable job in bringing these characters to life - Judy Davis was every bit as charming as the character she portrays; Michael Lerner as Lipnick stole every scene that he graced, and provided much-needed comic relief to an otherwise somber movie; it was great to see Mahoney & Shalhoub outside the TV roles that've made them so famous; and John Turturro, it seems, was born to essay this soft-spoken, ill-at-ease, anxiety- ridden writer. But the highlight of the movie was definitely John Goodman, whose affecting candor and lighthearted personality is the centerpiece of this fine drama. The movie is rich in symbolism, for one who is willing to pay attention. For one who isn't, it's still a beautiful tale of a man's struggle, with himself as much as the outside world, and of finding poetry in the routine and the mundane. That was one of the aspects I highly appreciated - the symbolism and subtle layers in this movie aren't stuffed down the viewer's throat; the movie can be watched within or without that context, and it would still be a rewarding experience. The movie touches upon a number of themes as well - the difficulty of the writing process, the classification of high versus low art, the subjective nature of artistic assessment, the commercialization of art in recent times, the struggle to find meaning in one's life, the beauty that lies in the life of the common man, and of course, the life of the mind. Some people might take issue with the inherent ambiguity of the film or certain unresolved strands that are left for the viewers to untangle. And I do concede that there are movies where I find such tactics annoying, seemingly employed by the makers in the name of post-modern artistry to hide the fact that they were at a loss to resolve their tale with a satisfying ending. But the Coens lay no claim that this is movie is a straightforward one, imploding as it is with abstract moments and hidden meanings from the first frame. It therefore is only consistent that the ending be such as well.As to the reasons I've shaved 2 ratings off this title, they are two-fold - one, I reserve a perfect score of 10 for a select few movies that shake me to the core, and this, despite being an excellent film in its own stead, wasn't one of them. And two, I wasn't entirely convinced behind the motivations of a certain key character in this film, or more likely, enough time wasn't devoted by the Coens to explaining the motives, which I feel was essential since it forms such a crucial aspect of the storyline. I also felt a couple of characters deserved better from the script than just a passing mention in the second half and never to be seen of or heard from again. But these are trivial complaints against a highly competent and enjoyable film, and if this movie were ever to serve as a subject matter in the debate of high versus low art, I've no doubts it'd be unanimously placed in the former.
dtumeth
In my eyes, the quintessential Coen brothers film and one of my three personal favorite films of all time. This movie makes me think about or notice something new every time I watch it, a rare feat for a film that isn't just pretentious drivel disguised as genius. There is so many ways to interpret the bizarre events here that it leaves you no choice BUT to think. I can still remember the first time I saw it when John Goodman steps out through the burning elevator and produces a shotgun as the halls burst into flames. The image has been etched into my brain ever since, mostly because it comes out of nowhere. Most filmmakers would never dare go for something like that, but I have eternal respect to the Coens for not only doing it, but for pulling it off marvelously. Apart from amazing visuals, I adore Bartons fruitless quest to discover the inner workings of the common man, while ignoring every single opportunity around him to learn more. As Charlie tries to tell him stories about his misadventures and his struggles, Barton cuts him off to talk about himself. Because he doesn't actually care about others as much as he believes he does. Or rather, cant empathize with others as he believes he can. W.P. Mayhew suffers from alcoholism to the point where he will puke his guts out in public and then seconds later pull out a flask and continue drinking. That's some human suffering right there, but Barton instead only see's his idol as a disappointment. W.P's long suffering mistress defends him, and instead of trying to understand why she would, he simply berates her (which is fair I suppose, but that line of Barton's at the park - "What don't I understand?" - that remains unanswered always sticks out to me) Not to mention him berating the Sailors shipping out to fight a war while he sits in his room and thinks about how everything's so unfair for him. I could talk about this movie forever, but I'll just leave it with make your own interpretations of what the hell everything means. And as for those Coen Brothers, I think we'll be hearing from those kids. And I don't mean just a postcard.
