बार्टन फिंक

I liken the Coen brothers to Haagen-Daz ice cream, i.e., various stages of good. I would argue this dark film, laden with more allegories than Dante, is not their best...but, it's good, damn good. To begin with, stellar performances form Turturro, Goodman, Mahoney, Buscemi and Lehner. The thing I find amazing is the skill in bringing so much darkness to such a bright, colorful cinemagraphic work-- remindful of Ingmar Bergman's Cries and Whispers, in that regard-- that teeters on the edge. Goodman's last scene walking into the burning hotel room is eerie but very bright (why not? The damn place is burning down.) This is another great Coen brother film and let's hear it for Ethan and Joel! See it!

Re-watching this after I guess decades?

I enjoyed it but not overwhelmingly so. I think less than when i originally watched.

However I am reading, with amusement, the other reviews on here. They go on and on about how the movie skewers Hollywood and New York elites. No it doesn't. Instead this movie is dead simple: a playwright who says he is for the common man (and I mean man) is not really so. He is more interested in being seen as the great artist.

How do we see this?

He comes out to Hollywood and goes on and on in front of John Goodman about how he is for he common man while ignoring what Goodman had to say. Goodman repeated three times how he had stories to tell and Fink just ignored him.

Fink is more interested in himself as the great writer than actually focusing on the ask: write a wrestling movie, don't overthink it, write something similar to what others have done.

How do we see this? He insists on staying in a fleabag hotel as a sort of hairshirt to goose his artistic suffering and therefore creativity. But he doesn't need that creativity as he has been asked to write a straightforward wrestling movie in the style of past movies.

He could have stayed in a fancy hotel, enjoyed the lifestyle and written the wrestling movie.

Oh and those Hollywood elites? What the same ones who want to put out a wrestling movie that the public loves. Some elites huh!

I knew I was entering the world of the insane when I picked this up. I wasn't disappointed. This is a dark comedy where people don't talk to each other, they just talk. Barton Fink is a big phony one hit wonder. He has these high ideals which he really doesn't understand. He's unable to see the forest for the trees. When he meets John Goodman's character, Charlie, he has an opportunity to find his muse, but he doesn't even listen. When he does, it's too late. The events of this film are wonderful, from Barton's speeches and his block. To Mayhew, the ersatz Faulkner, who drinks constantly and screeches. Barton Fink is so unlikeable that we don't even care what happens to him in other than a casual way. Goodman steals every scene he is in and ends up so much more that originally thought. This is a movie about taking everything to a higher pitch. It's about the artist and the dilettante. It's about the movies being a purely commercial enterprise. Wallace Beery is the king of the screen. It's a wrestling movie. For God's sake, they're asking for so little. Barton Fink is a whiny loser and he pays the price. The Coens are, without a doubt, the most refreshing thing of the last two decades.

While many of us know "Fargo" and "Big Lebowski", many fans still haven't heard of "Barton Fink", which is too bad. This is probably John Turturro's best role (and his least weird). Tony Shalhoub also gives an outstanding performance (at least as good as he was in "The Siege").

John Goodman? Heck, even he is pretty good here and I'm not a big fan of his (though the Coen Brothers do him justice like no others can). His portrayal of the questionable neighbor just really suits him.

There is supposed to be deep symbolism in this film -- some say it's an allegory for the rise of Nazism (and I can see that), while others say it's just a critique of Hollywood. I don't know. But, you know what? No matter what it's about, it's beautiful in a nihilistic way... and you will want to know: what's in the box? And I'm not going to tell you.

The Coen brothers have come a long way from their start with an 8mm camera. They have written and produced some great homages to the film noir era of Hollywood, and this film is no exception.

First, is the great dialog written by the brothers. Great dialog is a feature of their films, and this one has some of the most memorable I have heard. You can almost turn off the visual and just listen and be enchanted and know you are listening to a Coen brothers film.

But turning off the visual would deprive you of the great cinematography of Roger Deakins. His can frame a scene to the point that you could pause the film and just soak in the texture and color and realism. It is almost as if every frame is a painting.

The Coen brothers also seem to get the best performances out of an actor that I have seen. John Goodman is brilliant in this film and he seems to do his best work for the Coens. John Turturro is captivating as the hack writer who talks about his love for the common man, but just really doesn't know the common man and really doesn't care about them. Michael Lerner was brilliant as the requisite man behind the desk that is the feature of 40's noir.

One doesn't always know what is in the Coen brothers minds. Is this a foretelling of the rise of Nazism, of intellectuals who really didn't understand the appeal of fascism to the common man, or a surreal portrait of someone who sells out. No matter what their intention, they make you think and return to see their films again and again.