Customer Reviews

Barton Fink [VHS]

5 star:		(84)
4 star:		(29)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Welcome to the wonderfully wacky world of the Coen brothers. Joel and Ethan Coen are two of the most brilliant filmmakers in America today. Every film they turn out is a cinematic gem, and "Barton Fink" is no exception.

The film centers around a slightly pompous, idealistic, left wing playwright, Barton Fink (John Turturro), who in 1941, after becoming the toast of Broadway as the pretentious voice of the common man, goes west to Hollywood at the invitation of a major studio in order to try his hand at writing screenplays.

There, he meets studio head, Jack Lipnick (Michael Lerner), and his yes man and whipping boy, Lou Breeze (Jon Polito). Asked to write a screenplay for a Wallace Beery vehicle about wrestling, a subject about which the bookish Fink knows nothing about, causes Fink to go into a professional tailspin.

Ensconced in a decaying old hotel, seemingly run by its slightly creepy and unctuous bell hop, Chet (Steve Buscemi), who bizarrely appears on the scene out of a trapdoor behind the hotel's front desk, Fink begins his ordeal . The elevator is run by a cadaverous, pock marked, elderly man. The corridors of the hotel seem endless. The wallpaper in Fink's room is peeling away from the wall, leaving a viscous, damp ooze in its wake. His bed creaks and groans with a life of its own. It is also hot, oppressively hot.

No residents of the hotel are apparent, except for the appearance of shoes outside the doors in expectation of the free shoe shine the hotel offers its denizens and for the noise made by his neighbors. Finks meets one of his neighbors, the portly Charlie Meadows (John Goodman), a gregarious Everyman, possessed of an abundance of bonhomie. A self-styled insurance salesman, Charlie cajoles Fink out of his shell, befriending him in the process. Little does Fink know that beneath Charlie's congenial exterior lies a horrific secret that will spillover onto him in the not so distant future.

At a luncheon with studio under boss, Ben Geisler (Tony Shalhoub), Fink meets a famous writer that he reveres, W. P. Mayhew (John Mahoney), a southern sot so steeped in drink that his companion/secretary, Audrey Taylor (Judy Davis), has to do his writing for him. Fink falls for Audrey but finds his overtures rebuffed. Still, she is willing to try and help him overcome his profound writer's block. In a classic Coen twist, it is this single act of kindness that acts as the catalyst for the nightmare that makes Fink's life become a living hell on earth. He goes from living a life of self-imposed isolation and angst to one that appears to have been created by a Hollywood hack, filled as it is with the most incredible situations, a real studio head's dream.

John Turturro is terrific as the introverted, tightly wound, pretentious, and neurotic Fink, who in Hollywood, away from the womb of the Great White Way, is like a lamb led to the slaughter. With his sculpted afro, horn rimmed glasses, nerdy clothes, Fink is the stereotypic Hollywood notion of the commie writer. John Turturro makes the role his with a purposeful intensity.

John Goodman is sensational as the garrulous Charlie Meadow, the epitome of the working class man about whom Fink likes to write. Unfortunately, all is not as it seems, as Charlie has a dark side to him, a very dark side. John Mahoney is excellent as the Faulknerian-like writer, and Judy Davis outdoes herself, as the self-sacrificing Audrey Taylor.

Michael Lerner will razzle-dazzle the viewer with his over the top portrayal of a fast talking studio head who is willing to pay big bucks for the cache of having a top Broadway playwright turn out screenplay swill for the masses. Jon Polito is very good as the Uriah Heepish, quintessential yes man he portrays. Tony Shalhoub is excellent in his role, underscoring the absurdity of the old Hollywood studio system.

Steve Buscemi, looking surprisingly small in his bell hop uniform, resembles an organ grinder's monkey, at times. The viewer may also expect him to bellow, "Call for Phillip Morris", as in the old cigarette campaign, though he speaks in a controlled, respectful monotone, at all times. Still, his very presence adds a slightly sinister quality to the film, though he does nothing remotely sinister, other than the way he makes his screen appearance. His entrance onto the screen in this fashion foreshadows what is to come.

This film is not for everyone, as it does not have a neatly wrapped ending. Instead, it goes beyond the standard expected ending into an absurdist foray. Still, those who love films by the Coen Brothers will not be disappointed by this satiric look at Hollywood. It is little wonder that this film became the darling of the Cannes Film Festival.

For a long time, the absurdist masterpiece Barton Fink was only available in a dingy VHS release. It was better than nothing, but this film deserved better. Thankfully, it's here - in all its stupefying glory.

I won't recount the story. Plenty of other reviews do that. Not long ago I was tempted to interpret it. That still seems a valid course, as there is a genuine sense that, beneath its comic, surreal surface, Barton Fink is trying to tell us something urgent and important. Perhaps, but the primal forces in a writer's mind as s/he shapes a great story do that, anyway - often without the writer's specific knowledge.

Rather than a simple allegory, Barton Fink is a collection of surfaces, styles, textures, and mannerisms. That they seem to add up to more than the sum of their parts is the great trick, akin to the way a painter can suggest the dappled depths of a forest with a few deft pats of a fan brush. Which isn't to say the film is shallow. No; there is a lot going on here. But to suggest that this film has a specific meaning is also to suggest it has an answer. Only mediocre films (by the likes of, say, Stanley Kramer or Oliver Stone) provide answers in a attempt to make themselves more important. The Coens (writer Ethan, director Joel), like most of us, haven't a clue about the Mysteries of Life. So they don't try to "...tell us something about all of us, something beautiful..." as Fink himself professes. Instead, they enjoy "...making things up...", like the other writer in the film, the Faulkneresque W.P. Mayhew (played to perfection by John Mahoney).

Somewhere in here, though, the sleight-of-hand, the postmodern flourishes (wherein genres clash and surfaces spill over one another in unexpected ways), cracks appear. Through them we glimpse something else...something truly terrifying.

Barton Fink's resonances with the Holocaust are well-known (the sinister and Fascistic German and Italian cops, the Jewish Fink, the burning hallway, the story's year - 1941, the nice guy next door - also with a German name - who turns out to be a madman; on and on). These touches cannot be accidental. Yet, the Coens seem to have deliberately avoided any obvious throughline, any markers which would provide for a clear interpretation.

Perhaps this is the point - that there is no way to make sense of the madness. Barton Fink, the character, is a writer who tries to celebrate the "common man" - to write about "real life". Yet, real life is incomprehensible to him. Nice Guy Charlie Meadows (the excellent John Goodman) is a twisted murderer. His idol is a raving drunk. His muse is a purveyor of formula hackery. The authorities are openly anti-semitic. And his bosses - Lipnick (Michael Lerner) and Geisler (Tony Shalhoub) - are utterly indifferent to his craft. The events that unfold around him are too horrifying and strange to make sense of. Simply put, they cannot be explained by any rational interpretation. Which, if this film is really a parable of the Holocaust, is as it should be, since there is no rationale in genocide.

When it comes to "making things up", no one does it better than the Coens. Their skill in marshalling symbols is sublime: Mayhew's latest book is called "Nebuchadnezzar"; Lipnick, like king Nebuchadnezzar, has a dream he wants Fink to interpret (the wrestling film he's writing for Wallace Beery). At a critical point in the film, a dazed, sleepless Fink opens the Gideon bible to the page where Nebuchadnezzar threatens to reduce the Chaldeans' tents to a dung-heap if someone cannot interpret his dream. He flips to Genesis, and there, on the page, is the opening of his screenplay - the only part of it he's been able to write. It's a brilliant sequence, that truly adds up. Lipnick is Nebuchadnezzar; Fink is trying to be Daniel. There is (literally) Hell to pay if he cannot do the job.

Beyond a few moments like these, though, trying to impose a specific meaning on Barton Fink is folly - like trying to impose a specific meaning on any of Luis Bunuel's better films. There is something about it that, like Lynch's best work, goes right past the rational self and nestles more deeply in the unconscious. I get something from every viewing of this film, and part of its beauty is that I cannot articulate exactly what that is.

This DVD is nicely produced, with Roger Deakins' glowing cinematography looking better than ever, and Dolby Surround sound track well reproduced. A 5.1 re-mix would have been welcome, as would a serious commentary track, should the Coens ever be able to bring themselves around to doing one that doesn't poke fun of commentary tracks.

John Turturro is excellent as the title character. Judy Davis acquits herself nicely as Mayhew's secretary/lover/ghost-writer.

This is one of those films that's worth really thinking about, and watching again and again. Don't expect answers; expect an experience - and a powerful one at that.

I won't retread what's already been covered well about the new DVD release of Barton Fink. But I did want to expand on it. First, this is a great looking, well-acted, well-written movie. All my negative comments below mustn't be taken with the film itself in mind; only the lack of quality of the DVD release of said movie.

Second, while the sound is good, I was surprised we are only given a stereo Dolby track. When the location of audio events is so key as in a film like Barton Fink, I would think 20th Century Fox would take advantage of the later surround technology and do a 5.1 or 6.1 remix.

But the most disturbing issue I had with the DVD is for first time viewers of the film. If there's any way on your player that you can skip the opening segment leading into the menu, and the menu itself, do so by all means. This gives away a key scene late in the picture and is a spoiler all by itself. Just play the movie. I won't elaborate for those who haven't seen the movie, just do not look at the menu until afterwards! I can't imagine what the folks at Fox responsible for this DVD were thinking and I was completely annoyed by this solution to a menu subject. Hint for special edition menu: How about the picture of the girl on the beach, folks? That's a strong thread that gives NOTHING away. I guess this comes from the same thinking that gives us a two minute movie trailer with all the key plot twists, which leaves the viewer feeling that they've already seen the movie.

On the whole, it seemed to me that this release of the picture was flippant, without any real thought about quality. Not even a commentary is included! This film festival award-winner, with one of John Goodman's most involving performances, deserves a special edition with a proper film transfer and sound remix - not to mention a more appropriate menu subject. So five stars for a brilliant Coen bros. film, but the disappointing DVD quality reduces it to a two. Write Fox for a special edition.

Easily the smartest of the Cohen Bros. films (and the darkest), Barton Fink employs an amazing economy of substance to weave a multiplicity of complex stories and meanings into an entertaining piece of very appealing cinematography.

To be found here are a number of different parables, all well-developed and supported by the meticulous detail in the film... everything from an allegory on the rise and course of Nazism during the 1940's, to a critique of communism constructed as warning about the secretly borgeious nature of the common man's intellectual, to an 8 1/2-esque statement about the dangerous and self-digesting face of the commercial-artistic milieu in the modern marketplace-studio. At play also are a number of riddles, including an imagined head that pits postmodernism against phenomenology, a biblical dance with Nebuchadnezzar for those who know their Bible, and a reversal of the narrative order through the presence of a hidden film-within-a-film.

Many mainstream critics focus on one particular interpretation of the film or fixate on one of these riddles and gloss the rest of the film's richness away as "surrealism" or "stylized darkness." Readers who read a number of these seemingly disparate reviews might be startled to find them all to be correct when held up to the film itself. A much more enjoyable way to explore the complexity and astonishing intelligence of the writing behind Barton Fink, however, is to watch it repeatedly.

Indeed, you'll notice something new, connect a few different dots in a different way, each time you see it. That the Cohen Bros. were not more richly rewarded for constructing such a remarkable "text" is sad indeed!

One of the best films of the twentieth century.

Okay, "Barton Fink" is a satire on the old studio system. It may also well be a symbolic depiction of the Holocaust. The Book of Daniel certainly features strongly in the mix. And it's an attack on the foibles of the twitchy intellectual, particularly the self-righteous left-wing "voice of the people" type. But, just to keep the pot boiling, let me point out that the film's narrative framework is adapted from the legend of Faust. In large part, Christopher Marlowe's "Doctor Faustus".

The Faust figure is Barton, needless to say. Charley/Karl is Mephistopheles. And Audrey is Gretchen/Marguerite, the admired female figure who turns out to be a little less than what was desired. Barton is frankly devoted to the life of the mind, obsessed with creativity and the longing to learn the secret of life and bring it home to the Little Man, the Common Man. Charley/Mesphisto offers his assistance (by teaching him wrestling--this is a Coen brothers film, remember). He fails, but at last Barton does sell his soul--to Audrey, the no longer idealized "eternal female". And as the deal is sealed with a bout of sex, the camera glides to the bathroom sink, where it slides down (I stole this part from John Simon) straight to Hell, which is ruled not by friendly, easygoing Charley, but by Madman Mundt (the real Karl Mundt, by the way, was a notorious right-wing congressman of the period, for what that's worth).

So okay, it's not a one-to-one correspondence. But neither was "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" perfectly congruent with the Odyssey. (e.g. which one was Homer--the old black guy with the beard or the country DJ?) The Coens use these sources not as road-maps, but as takeoff points, which is as it should be.

As is often mentioned below, the cinematography here is outstanding, obtaining a kind of rotten lushness comparable only to "Blue Velvet". The Coens have always been standouts in dealing with actors, and this film is no exception. If Turturro wasn't so goofy-looking he'd be a superstar on the strength of this picture alone, but then he wouldn't have been in the picture. Seeing Lerner here makes me wonder why he isn't used more often. But the standout, as is so often the case, is Goodman. It's not easy to continue thinking of him as the jolly fat guy after seeing his "You don't listen." soliloquy at the climax.

A lot of people view the Coens as the cinematic exemplars of pomo, but I don't think that's true. Pomo demands you take the theories dead seriously while mocking everything else. The Coens reverse the formula, mocking all forms of intellectual pretension while taking life in general--and the horror that lies behind it--very seriously. That's a rarity in any art form, particularly film. So take a look, and be shown the life of the mind.

And oh yeah--I don't know what they're doing with that ending either.

In this film from the Coen brothers, the titular character, Barton Fink (John Turturro) travels from his liberal New York enclave where he wrote about "the common man" from a comfortable distance to a dumpy hotel outside Los Angeles, where he wrestles with a common man. Fink is brought out after getting positive reviews on Broadway and is put to work writing a wrestling picture which proves beyond his abilities--fooling the upper crust about the average Joe is one thing, but it's significantly tougher to fool actual common men into thinking he knows them. Fink seeks out assistance from the Faulkner-esque writer W. P. Mayhew (John Mahoney), which turns out to be a futile maneuver, and finally winds up getting some inspiration from his hotel neighbor Charlie (John Goodman), who might or might not be a serial killer who likes to lop off his victims' heads.

Saying all of this by no means spoils things. Barton Fink is a movie that isn't afraid to consistently up the ante and make things even more bizarre and conceptual. Ultimately, what does it all add up to? What is fact and what is fiction is difficult to figure, but Barton's inability to grasp the reality of life is a sin which is visited upon him in this film, and his life eventually unravels into a succeedingly surreal series of deus ex machina-type twists. Clearly, this is not a movie for everyone, but if you're still reading, you'll probably enjoy it. It is one of those movies which can spawn almost infinite conversation as to what it means, or it can be merely enjoyed as it is. Oh, and by the way, it's really funny, with John Goodman uttering one of the most hilarious red herrings ever heard on film (it's near the end, and if you see the film, you'll recognize it).

Ultimately, this most strange and quirky of Coen films turns out to be their best, in the opinion of this reviewer. If you enjoy movies that make you think and that stay with you for an extended period of time, than this might be up your alley. It won the Palme d'Or at Cannes, but, tragically, it never broke out here in the states. This is essential viewing for fans of the Coens, as well as for adventurous viewers everywhere.

Well, it changed how I see movies at least. Now I know that with beautiful production design, perfectly modulated audio effects and music, and imagination they can completely immerse the viewer in a surreal version of the real world. At least when done properly as the Coen brothers did here. I felt sort of stunned after watching this movie, probably because my mind was still in that onscreen world that Barton Fink was living in. Not to mention, John Goodman's acting is quite awesome, and all the supporting characters seem to add so much to the environment of the film, seeming absurd at times. You can really identify with Fink in his mental quest. Too bad the DVD doesn't include more, it leaves you wondering what the Coen brothers or the actors have to say about. It seems more like an overlooked gem, kind of a demented cousin of Miller's Crossing.

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.

My interpretation of the symbolism within Barton Fink hinges on two key scenes.

The first is when Mayhew hands Barton a copy of his book, "Nebuchadnezzar" with the inscription "May this little entertainment divert you in your sojourn amongst the Philistines". (The little entertainment refers to the film itself!).

The second is the scene where Barton reads from the Book of Daniel in the Gideon Bible in his hotel room - the passage reads: "And the king, Nebuchadnezzar, answered and said to the Chaldeans, I recall not my dream,; if you will make known unto me my dream, and its interpretation, ye shall be cut in pieces, and of your tents shall be made a dunghill"

I believe the story of Nebuchadnezzar explains the film: In 604 bc King Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, is said to have had a disturbing dream. So he called on his astrologers to interpret the dream. If they couldn't tell him the dream and its interpretation, they were to be killed. One of them Daniel, asks God for an interpretation and he goes back to Nebuchadnezzar to explain what God told him. He says that in Nebuchad's dream, God revealed the future of the nation of Israel, represented by a metal man. Five different parts of the metal man were made of five different metals, each representing a different Kingdom that would rule over Israel. Two of the component body parts described by Daniel are significant in terms of the symbolism within Barton Fink, the head and the feet. The head was said to represent Babylon which was the first nation to rule over Israel and the feet were said to represent the antichrist which would be the last to rule over Israel, a period that - significantly - would last for seven years .....

So here's my interpretation ........ The film is set in 1941, seven more years before the birth of the nation of the Israel, and the beginning of aggression between the US and Germany (or the rule of the antichrist according to the ancient scriptures and God's interpretation of Nebuchad's dream to Daniel). The Hotel does indeed represent Hell and the shoes in the corridor represent the feet of the metal man, i.e. the devil. Babylon is represented by Hollywood and Nebuchad is represented by the studio boss, Lipnik (the king of Babylon). He asks Barton (Daniel) to write a screenplay (interpret his dreams). Barton struggles to do so, whilst at the same time making a pact with the Antichrist (Charlie Meadows). Barton's typewriter is an Underwood (Underworld) model. He even wears the devil's shoes.

Therefore, the film is a highly sophisticated allegory of the rise of the nation state of Israel, according to the prophecy given to Nebuchadnezzar by God. Barton is the prophet storyteller, representing the Jewish people and their struggle for truth, Audrey knows the truth of Babylon but she is murdered before she can tell Barton, Goodman represents the devil yet at the same time he is Barton's saviour (he releases him from being chained to the bed), the young woman looking out to sea on the beach at the end of the film represents hope and the future, and the eventual exodus to Israel.

There is a stack of additional symbolism in this movie - I still haven't worked it all out. It is a superb film, but I get the feeling that the Coen brothers are having a bloody good laugh at our expense.

Barton Fink (1991) ****
A writer's life under the studio system, 1941

This won some international awards and was nominated for Oscars for Art/Set Decoration, Costume Design, and Best Supporting Actor (Michael Lerner), all nominations well-deserved. It is a fine period piece movie, a little slow in spots, but original and ultimately engaging.

Barton Fink, played with fidelity and deep concentration by John Turturro, is an idealistic New York playwright experiencing his first success. He is called to Hollywood to write screenplays under the old studio system. Lerner, in a burlesque performance that is strikingly and hilariously over the top (you've got to love the shot of him in open robe and bathing trunks by the pool, his ample, hairy belly vividly displayed, perhaps as a symbol of a devouring cauldron), plays the movie mogul who instructs Fink to write the script for a "B" wrestling picture starring Wallace Beery. This is a kind of Coen and Coen joke, part of the satirical intent of the movie since what Wallace Beery did star in were boxing pictures. Same difference, one might say. (Actually, Beery did star in at least one wrestling movie, Flesh (1932), I discovered by checking at IMDb.)

Anyway, Fink of course knows nothing about wrestling, and finding himself in an old Los Angeles hotel (where one may stay a day, or ominously, a lifetime), begins to unravel since he can't get beyond the first couple of lines of the screenplay. We are treated to closeups of all that white space on the paper as it sits rolled up in the old manual typewriter. The satirical idea here is to measure the great gulf between literary art and writing film scripts for a mass audience, an audience further dumbed down by the expectations of studio execs.

Next door to Fink is Charlie Meadows (John Goodman) ostensibly a life insurance salesman. Goodman works hard to portray a monstrous (in more ways than one) sort of guy. He huffs and puffs his way into friendship with Fink, showing him a wrestling move or two. At this point it is impossible to tell where the movie is headed. Are they going to become more than friends? Enter Judy Davis as Audrey Taylor the "secretary" of an alcoholic novelist working in the "Writer's Building" at the studio (reminding me of a similar set from Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard). Fink gets an undisguised yen for her and manages to get her to help him with his script. And then comes a characteristic Coen and Coen twist, and all heck breaks loose.

Memorable in a small role as the desk clerk and bellhop is Steve Buscemi who is first revealed to us coming enigmatically out of the hotel's cellar where God only knows what he was doing.

They loved this at Cannes because just about every aspect of the Hollywood industry is made fun of, except the actors, who interestingly enough, make nary an appearance. Clever those Coen brothers.

This is a dark, nasty but somewhat redemptive writer's movie, an art film about Hollywood that afficionados will not want to miss.