Rating: 
Summary: Surreal masterpiece, though not for every taste
Review: Great stories have a "magic moment" when everything comes together - like the "Aha!" realization at the end of every good Twilight Zone episode; the moment when the themes and ideas snap into place like pieces of a puzzle and the whole reveals itself. Barton Fink has such a moment, near the end, and if you are of the temperament to enjoy somewhat obscure, surrealist symbolism, this one will take your breath away. It is 1941 in New York, and the well-meaning but insufferably pretentious playwright Barton Fink is pretending not to enjoy the success of his first major work. Hollywood comes calling through his agent and, with a brilliant cut to a Pacific Ocean wave crashing on a boulder, we suddenly find him (and ourselves) on the West Coast. Barton Fink checks in to the hot, decaying Art Deco hell of the Hotel Earle ("A day or a lifetime" reads the stationery), and begins a descent into the nightmare world of Joel and Ethan Coen. Writer's block. Bombastic studio heads. Type-A movie producers. Alcoholic novelists (and their muses). Serial killers. All of these elements converge in a tightly woven plot by turns hilarious and unnerving. Is it a horror film with laughs? Or a comedy with scenes of real terror? In the Coens' typically understated style, Barton Fink balances on the knife's edge. A clue to where it's going comes when Barton (John Turturro) becomes a suspect in the murder of Audrey (Judy Davis), assistant and lover to alcoholic novelist W.P. Mayhew (John Mahoney). The two L.A. police detectives who question him are named Deutsch and Mastrionotti - German and Italian. Deadpan send-ups of stock film noir characters, the cops don't even try to disguise their anti-Semitism ("Fink. That's a Jewish name, isn't it?...I didn't think this dump was restricted!"). Coincidence, given that the story is set on the eve of America's involvement in World War II? I think not. John Goodman is outstanding as Charlie Meadows/Madman Mundt, the real serial killer. He's Barton's WASPish, working-man doppleganger, and is both endearing and malevolent. He may represent America itself - the oafish do-gooder with a dark side, who both rescues and oppresses Barton Fink. By the time Meadows' true nature is revealed in the stunning climax, the film's allegory seems to crystallize. Or...maybe not. The central question - did Meadows/Mundt really kill Audrey - is never fully addressed. Neither is the other disturbing loose end - just what is in that box Barton carries around at the end? Audrey's head? I think so. But Barton Fink's ultimate meaning, despite the seeming clarity of its symbolism, remains just out of reach. You can brush it with your fingertips, almost grasp it. Then it slips away, demanding another viewing, another visit to the Hotel Earle. For people who enjoy this sort of thing - and you know who you are - it's a no-brainer. Buy it.
Rating: 
Summary: Droll...
Review: Plenty of what audiences & filmcrits like/dislike about the Coens, who score 12 on the 10-scale & grin. Successful in Cannes, a pop flop. Why? The baby is discarded quickly, but the bathwater lingers on? John Turturro's hair, innately peculiar, is featured, functions like Frances McDormand's "Fargo" accent will function? The Hollywood studio boss does what studio bosses do. William Faulkner's ghost wobbles down the road drunk/gothic, singing "Old Black Joe" not TOO unconvincingly. John Goodman seems restrained early, compensates later. Is comedy this smart funny? On/off? It's satire, a droll exercise in the exaggeration of types, character/narrative/dialogue as props for set design, wallpaper, surface, snappy dialogue, cinemacraft. The "Wally" Beery wrassling pic motif pins brotherly Goodman, always a finally UNcivilized giant with a disarmingly gentle surface. Goodman's character tweaks this exactly by mentioning Jack Oakie, who generally played a portly "slow-witted, happy-go-lucky buffoon" dude. If gentle viewer elects to do proper Coens context research with Beery in mind, a George Cukor MGM masterwork, quite Coensian, called "Dinner at Eight" may be stumbled upon. & so on. Satire is a literary form, foppish past the set of expectations we like to take to American movies. Frenchified? In "Barton Fink" & the more pixilated, if less self-contained (much more directly referential/allusive), "The Hudsucker Proxy", the Coens had fun, spent serious time/energy/money learning the limits of what any audience, no matter how hiply devoted, would "get", accept/support. "Fargo" followed, was calculated, dumbed down? Substituted broadness & blood simplicity for "totally idiotic" (over-the-top-cop response to Fink reporting Goodman/Charlie/Mundt preference for Oakie, verbatim) movie history ref? Oakie's great role was Benzino Napaloni in Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator". So much for happy-go-lucky menacing buffoons? Droll stuff, but "Barton Fink" IS harmed by extravagant internal dissonance, by how discounting movies as shaping forces grates, rings deeply false coming from the Coen brothers, themselves definite products/victims of heavy movie addictions. It's not their builds. It's their personalities? They can show us the life of the mind, yup, but things ARE all balled up at the head office, on the brotherly brainscreens? If/when the Coens blithely elect against bothering to create/imagine/allow/pretend straight sweet foils for all their bright crooked charicatures, they limit themselves to remarks, which ain't movies? No girl on any beach, in dream or life, can operate on/for a Barton Fink ever so wittily slashed to ribbons. Innocence is easy enough in one way, but the Coens have already been there, done that, made "Raising Arizona". What next? Must they eventually risk "fruity" (bright/decent/alert/sincere) adult humans (McDormand in "Fargo" is still VERY exaggerated/parodic?) who pass high comic (or tragic) muster? Or settle for dry filmfoppery? CAN they tone it down? Will they? It's STILL early. Cannes juries don't care one way or another, of course.
Rating:
Summary: Masterpiece.
Review: Coen Brothers? Oh, you mean the guys who made Fargo, right? Yes, the Coen Brothers. Possibly the deepest story-writing, movie-making directors in America.(In the world Bertolucci is for me still No:1)Barton Fink, an early 90's movie of ambition, Hollywood, the devil, hell and penitence. It may seem odd, that I say these of a movie that is of a writer strugglin to make a debut in hollywood with a wrestling script. Yet the Coen Brothers magnificent script, along with their handling of imagery, makes this such an experience that you will be thinking of it for a long time. You will want to watch it again and again, just to confirm some of your ideas, trust me. The superior acting of John Turturro and John Goodman only incerase the experience. Every detail could change the way you think of this movie. Yes, it is incredibly deep, I know I am repeating my words, but trust me. Watch this. It is thanks to this movie that I am a Coen Brothers fan. Do yourself- and the spirtually hollow society surrounding all of us- a favor and discover the true life of the mind.
Rating:
Summary: Unbelievable and enigmatic
Review: Having just watched Barton Fink a second time, I come to the realization that I should probably watch it another 4 or 5 times in order to begin to get a grasp on the many layers and symbolic directions that are to be found within this bizarre & beautiful piece of celluloid. I feel as though I have grasped a bit more of the film that upon my first viewing, but I am even more lost within its ocean. Nazism & antisemitism, leftist ideology, writer's block, the cheapening of art, murder, dementia, Hell, the Devil, the Bible, and Hollywood, all mixed into one pot of film gumbo. Another interesting point I picked up on my latest viewing, this movie begins with an ending(the curtain falls on Barton's play) and ends with a beginning(a young man meets a beautiful woman on a beach). Just one more example of the jigsaw puzzle pieces that the Coen brother's have layed out before us.
Rating:
Summary: Writing is a hell of a final solution in Hollywood
Review: This film is profoundly disquieting. I will only note the deep antisemitism that appears in Hollywood, among producers at least. It is shocking and surprising. But the film is a lot more important than that. It is a very hard picture of the fate of an author under contract with a Hollywood producer. He is chosen because of his success on Broadway in New York. But he is imposed a writing task that has nothing to do with his own interest and taste and talent. He tries though to do it and as he is struggling to go through, he discovers the system. He discovers how some authors are just fakes. The famous author he contacts is an alcoholic and his writing is in fact done by his woman-friend and secretary. He gets the credit for it but he does not do it. Then Barton Fink is mixed up with a serial killer who makes friends with him, but in order to get even with him because one night Barton Fink protested against the noise the man was doing in the hotel. Unable to write his assignment, he asks the woman-friend of the famous alcoholic writer to help him. She comes. They have sex. And he discovers in the morming she has been killed, by, as we understand later, his neighbor serial killer who takes care of the body. This stressful and stressing event makes him become capable of writing his assignment. But this assignment is refused because it is too realistically psychological and the hero's mind is explored instead of being a purely happy character. But strangely enough, the producer does not fire Barton Fink, but instead keeps him under contract, with regular assignments that will all be sidetracked and none of them will be shot. The author is literally enslaved by the producer. That's where a vision of hell is introduced in the film. His new situation is a burning piece of hell, represented by the serial killer who comes back into the picture after a short absence. And this devil appears to be the last recourse an author, many people have in life : to be killed one day, to accept death, when the situation is unbearable. That is the future of Barton Fink. In other words, he is called Fink, but the real finks in the story are the producer who exploits him into non-existence and the devil who proposes a final solution. This burning piece of hell becomes a visionary image of the Shoah, of the final solution for the Jews, though, it is true, it does not only concern the Jews. I just wonder at this point if creative people are not the Jews of our modern society, of the entertainment industry. Either you are creative but never recognized, or you curb your creativity into some mashy pulp writing and frustration, and you are little by little destroyed in your sanity and you sink in alcoholism or some other escapist solution. A very pessimistic film indeed. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, Paris Universities II and IX.
Rating:
Summary: See, Writing is Hard
Review: Barton Fink wasn't exactly a movie that I took to right away. Problem being I hadn't seen anything by the Coen brothers except Raising Arizona when I initially saw the film. After finally realizing that Barton Fink wasn't Raising Arizona and that I hadn't really given it a chance I watched Barton Fink a second time. And a third. Now I appreciate it as an example of highly intelligent comedy/drama that fully explores the two faced nature of Hollywood, of the struggles of writing, and of realizing that many of our heroes rely on image and image alone. John Turturro's performance as Barton Fink should have won him an Academy Award. It is haunting and mesmerizing, terrifying and comical. You really feel for his struggle and dilemma. One of the top ten movie performances by an actor during the 1990's. See this movie and you'll understand, provided you're not 14 years old. John Goodman's character is hilarious and actually scary. John Goodman coming at you with a gun being followed by a wall of fire is one hell of an intense image. Bottom line if you like your movies on the intelligent side check out Barton Fink, you won't be disappointed. You will be awestruck.
Rating:
Summary: A Movie for the Common Man
Review: I'm THIS close to giving Barton Fink five stars, but it seems like everybody is doing that, so I won't. A movie that needs to be watched more than once to really experience its power and humor. It's the most surreal film I have ever seen, and you'll love it if you enjoy the art of filmmaking and screenwriting. John Goodman's performance is truly memorable. He acts exactly like this one guy I know, so his performance, you can say, is "believable." Steve Buscemi's role is brief but good, highlighting his oily, creepy personality. The ending of the movie somehow touches you, even if you don't know what it all means. A quiet masterpiece overall.
Rating:
Summary: Barton Fink - Losing your head?
Review: Let's face it. As a film it's pretty out there. Unbelievably bold and vivid characterizations, a truly unpredictable plot, black comedy on such a high level it's (literally) sickening, and a nice (or not nice) surprise ending. But it's not just a film - it's a Coen brother's film. It seems that Joel and Ethan(director and producer, though they both do both jobs), ran into a touch of writer's block in the middle of penning their sublime gangster flick "Miller's Crossing". It was at this point that one of them had an idea for a film, about a writer with writer's block, who comes to Hollywood after new found succsess on Broadway. Perhaps the strange and surrelist plot and set designs (as well as the subject material)of the film -and the film itself- was cathartic exercise the boys had to get out of their systems, before they could continue with "Miller's Crossing". For whatever reason it may have been, thank God they did pen it, for it is an absolute Coen gem. The faithful Coen crew are certainly to be found, with John Goodman as the larger-than-life insurance salesman, Charlie, and Barton's neighbour, John Mahoney as the washed up drunk of a writer W.P. Mayhew, Steve Buscemi as the robtized bell-boy, Chet, and John Turturro as the fumbling and neurotic Barton Fink. An absolute must for the Coen fan, and most likely an interesting find for the more-than-average filmgoer. However, it really needs (and deserves) to be seen, rather than read about, and certainly doesen't need to be poked at at every unconvenient turn. What's in the box that Charlie gives to Barton? Think for yourself (you did when you saw Pulp Fiction's glowing briefcase). Interestingly however, it did pick up the Grand Jury Prize (1991) at the Cannes Film Festival, beating Spike Lee's festival offering, "Do the Right Thing". Who cast the deciding vote? Whoopie Goldberg.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting but flawed
Review: Barton Fink works quite well on two different levels. On the surface, it is the story of a playwright gone to Hollywood to sell out only to suffer writers block under the weight of producing bad material. Underneath the surface is a political parable about the 30s and 40s left wing intelligentsia being so wrapped up in idealism and abstraction as to not notice the rise of Nazism right next to them. The film works on both levels, but it also suffers from some rather slow spots and a main character who is often insufferable. Barton Fink never fails to hold interest, and is occassionally riveting, but falls short of being a superior movie.
Rating:
Summary: Barton Fink
Review: Very interesting way to take a dream and make it a movie. A story that for many doesn't make sense, and maybe because it doesn't. Who says that art has to make sense? One of those movies that you love it, or hate it. Very normal reaction when we talk about art. Watch it and have a nice "dream"
|
