अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA renowned New York playwright is enticed to California to write for the movies and discovers the hellish truth of Hollywood.A renowned New York playwright is enticed to California to write for the movies and discovers the hellish truth of Hollywood.A renowned New York playwright is enticed to California to write for the movies and discovers the hellish truth of Hollywood.
- 3 ऑस्कर के लिए नामांकित
- 19 जीत और कुल 29 नामांकन
Meagen Fay
- Poppy Carnahan
- (as Megan Faye)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
I'm still not entirely sure what to think of this film. One thing is sure, it won't be easy to forget. This movie is clearly the product of a writer who has struggled with their muse, and equally one who has a healthy mistrust of Hollywood - the sausage grinder. Although Hollywood has been critiqued in film before in similar ways, memorable scenes, clever dialogue, quality acting, and a surreal plot and setting, add together to make this an unusual and different film. Maybe another viewing might add a different dimension. This is by no means 'light entertainment' and it leaves plenty of questions unanswered. But on the whole, an intelligent movie, if something of an enigma. My vote 7/10
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 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 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!
I recently purchased "Barton Fink" along with "Miller's Crossinhg", another Coen Brothers gem.
Barton Fink quite simply is a writer who cannot see the forest for the trees. He is so taken with the fact that he is a writer that he can't write. He is so idealistic that he misses fantastic opportunities to become a writer for the ages because he wastes precious time proselytizing. John Goodman perfectly sums up everyone's frustration with Barton Fink when after a series of unfortunate occurrences, Barton asks him "Why me?" to which John's character answers "Because you don't LISTEN!" Set in 1930s Hollywood we follow the exploits of a one-hit wonder, Barton Fink, who has written a successful Broadway play and is summoned by the powers that be to Hollywood. After much cajoling to take the job from his agent, Barton arrives in Los Angeles determined to become the writer for the common man where he insists true stories live. The trouble with Barton, however, is he does not have time for the common man because he has so romanticized their lot as well as his particular quest in speaking for them.
Excellent performances from John Turturo, John Goodman, Judy Davis, John Polito (often overlooked, but his scenes ALWAYS become his!!) and the inimitable Tony Shaloub.
I have decided after a slew of Coen Brothers films I currently have in my collection, that any project these guys are involved with deserve more than passing scrutiny.
Barton Fink quite simply is a writer who cannot see the forest for the trees. He is so taken with the fact that he is a writer that he can't write. He is so idealistic that he misses fantastic opportunities to become a writer for the ages because he wastes precious time proselytizing. John Goodman perfectly sums up everyone's frustration with Barton Fink when after a series of unfortunate occurrences, Barton asks him "Why me?" to which John's character answers "Because you don't LISTEN!" Set in 1930s Hollywood we follow the exploits of a one-hit wonder, Barton Fink, who has written a successful Broadway play and is summoned by the powers that be to Hollywood. After much cajoling to take the job from his agent, Barton arrives in Los Angeles determined to become the writer for the common man where he insists true stories live. The trouble with Barton, however, is he does not have time for the common man because he has so romanticized their lot as well as his particular quest in speaking for them.
Excellent performances from John Turturo, John Goodman, Judy Davis, John Polito (often overlooked, but his scenes ALWAYS become his!!) and the inimitable Tony Shaloub.
I have decided after a slew of Coen Brothers films I currently have in my collection, that any project these guys are involved with deserve more than passing scrutiny.
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.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThe first film to win all three major awards (Palme D'or, Best Director, and Best Actor) at the Cannes Film Festival. Also, it was unanimously chosen for the Palme D'or.
- गूफ़Briefly visible at the top of the screen when Detective Mastrionotti introduces himself to Barton.
- भाव
Charlie Meadows: Look upon me! I'll show you the life of the mind!
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटThe 20th Century Fox logo appears over silence; the "fanfare" is not played.
- साउंडट्रैकFor Sentimental Reasons
by Edward Heyman, Al Sherman and Abner Silver
Licenced with Permission the Successors of Marlo Music Corporation (ASCAP)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Barton Fink
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $90,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $61,53,939
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $2,68,561
- 25 अग॰ 1991
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $61,54,231
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 56 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें