Barton Fink: Great or a fake? With Spoilers

[Mighty Jack]

I finished watching this (it's my 3rd viewing over the years) and I’m not sure what to think of it. In the past I’ve been a bit cool to the film as I felt -like many detractors did- that the movie was the Coen’s merely dicking around in ‘art-house’ sandbox. That they lacked the skill and sophistication to convincingly pull it off and it was merely bush league Polanski, Fellini and whoever else they were drawing from.

I believe the brothers are delightful storytellers, stylish and entertaining. But I don’t see them as one of the elite when it comes to deeper material. I watched Kieslowski’s The Double Life of Veronique before sitting down with Fink, and it illustrates the differences. The Polish director is a true art house genius, existing on a higher plane from the Coen’s. Kieslowski isn’t pretending, he’s truly elevated.

In my opinion –from the moment the Judy Davis character is murdered, the movie indulges in trickery. It’s as if the Brother’s simply lacked the proficiency to maturely and intelligently address the relationships and struggles of the central characters, so they hid behind pyrotechnics. I know the duo has said that they didn’t want to tell a straightforward story about this guy’s creative block, which is fine by me. But their approach still feels like they are dodging. In Bergman’s enigmatic Persona, he too used a lot of style and strange imagery – but with a purpose, it didn’t come off as avoidance or tricks, but as integral parts of his examination on the nature of identity.

If I tell myself, “No this isn’t Bergman, or Polanski or Fellini – it’s not as deft as all that.” Then it does come off a fascinating and a nicely constructed piece of film. The Coen’s are effective in creating an uneasy sense of dread and sickness. And the dark comic peek into artistic conceits and vapid Hollywood bluster -while obvious- was cleverly rendered. And yet, the thing with the box, and the fire and the serial killer plot… it feels like they just threw in the kitchen sink, and with a wing and a prayer, hoped it would disguise the fact that there wasn’t much there beyond a vague idea.

I’m not sure if Fink is complete B.S. or not. It’s no “Repulsion” (a movie the Coen’s were inspired by) -- it lacks that films honesty. I kind of like much of it, but the ending is a real hang up, not the enigma of it, I like enigmas, but the sense that they had no ending so they offered up B.S. instead. That feeling that someone’s trying to pull the wool over my eyes dampens my overall enjoyment of the piece.


I know we have fans of the movie and I am interested in your thoughts. Am I missing something? How do you interpret the ending, is it a cop-out or is it an ingenious and well thought out conclusion. Please share your insights.

[Frameous]

I am one of the film's staunchest supporters, and I feel the exact opposite of you, MJ. I feel the Coens are the elite of the current film making landscape, and will go down in history as giants among insects. Their work is far and away more sophisticated and enjoyable than their peers, and they only seem to be getting better. Their academic roots are perfectly married with a deft understanding of the language of film. Not to mention their multi faceted sense of humor and genre transcendence. Anyway, I know I don't need to convince anyone they are good at what they do.

To the point, I've found BF fascinating since my first viewing, and have experienced it close to a hundred times. I would rank it as my favorite of theirs, along with No Country and Miller's Crossing. On the surface, it creates a tangible universe populated with vivid characterizations. Underneath that, there is another world, teeming with psychological undercurrents. The only thing I could compare this to is the work of David Lynch (who I'm also enamored with). I understand your feelings towards its subject matter, but where you see misdirection, I see a challenge.

After watching it many times, and doing some reading online and other places, elements of Freudian psychology become present (the id, the ego, and the super ego). Along with this is fascism, antisemitism, and the outbreak of World War II. Not to mention the character (a Jew) is harassed by two cops with Italian and German surnames, and is also questioned about having a possible homosexual relationship with John Goodman. More to this point, Joel Coen was once referred to Charlie and Barton wrestling as 'a sex scene'. The wallpaper peels and oozes glue that resembles the pus from Charlie's ear (or possibly another bodily fluid, as the forbidden sounds of sex drift in from another room).

On another forum, I was conversing with someone about BF, and its similar ties to other Coen works. The idea being that many auteur film makers have a certain consistency with their filmography, creating a loose universe if you will. Upon thinking about it, I noticed these similarities between BF and The Big Lebowski (another favorite of mine):

The protagonists of both are in almost every scene.

Both also feature Joe Polito and Steve Buscemi.

Both take place in Los Angles.

Both feature concluding scenes at a beach.

Both involve a main character's remains in a receptacle of sorts.

Both Lebowski and Lipnick are boisterous, overbearing frauds in a position of false power.

Brandt and Lou Breeze are both subservient to these characters to the point of vulgarity.

Barton sits in a darkened theater watching wrestling dallies in puzzlement, just as the characters watch The Dude's landlord's bizarre interpretive dance.

The box in Barton Fink is possibly a red herring or 'ringer' just as was the briefcase in Lebowski, as well as the other 'ringer' Walter supplies (notice the Goodman character supplies two of these).

Also, Walter's 'ringer' contains his dirty undies, and the box supposedly holds Charlie's personal possessions (or Audrey's head, which for all intents and purposes is Charlie's property at that point).

According to the IMDb trivia: John Milius was offered the role of Jack Lipnick but turned it down (don't know the validity of this, but makes sense considering the character's military bent towards the film's end). Walter's character is based on Milius.

Both take place at the outbreak of America's involvement in a war.

Treehorn's thugs possibly mirror Barton Fink's two detectives. Both make two appearances in the story lines, where they roust the protagonist.

Both The Dude and Barton Fink are referred to by at least two names throughout the film. Character's either call them The Dude/Lebowski/Jeffery or Barton/Fink. Also, The Dude expresses at length that he goes by many variations of 'The Dude'.

In summation, all of this is evidence to me that there is something going on in this film. I feel I've only scratched the surface, but that's what makes it all so compelling. The Wikipedia page alone points out many of the different topics the film broaches:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barton_Fink

Many of its elements are easy to pick up on, but don't lead to any obvious explanations. I could see how some would write that off as a smoke and mirror job to appear to be more than it is. But this is no isolated incidence. Their films have time and again shows depth and longevity. BF is just one of their more cryptic examples.

[mummifiedstalin]

Just a point on the ending: I didn't think it was vague. I thought it was pretty clear that the idea the entire time was that Barton was a fool and he didn't understand anything around him, having misunderstood the relationship between life and art. Life was all around him, but he was so pretentious and shallow that he didn't understand that they were the same thing. So his attitude leads to tragedy (the head in a box which remains a terrible awful secret he doesn't know what to do with) while the real life/art (the girl on the sand) is right before his eyes but totally out of reach.

Maybe?

[Mighty Jack]

I beleive your right and I feel that I understood that. I got that sense of him being shallow (and of course he never listens to anyone). And I've read the wiki and interviews etc. What I meant by vague is that you have this idea, about the block, about his guy (and the Hollywood guys) being fools etc.... I get all of that. But I find the execution in fleshing out these ideas clumsy and hodgepodge. Lets throw in fire and a Heil Hitler and again, the whole kitchen sink... it doesn't come off tangible to me. It comes off like a cheap trick.

Why throw in illusions to fascism, why not toss in something about the PTA or cops who eat donuts or librarians who shelve books out of place... I mean, one would fit as well and be just as meaningful (or random) as the other.

I kind of like Barton Fink in a strange way, I do think it is effective in creating feeling of desperation and sickness etc, as I said in my OP. But I also get the sense that I was handed a load of malarkey. I mean if I went in an edited in my own imagery: A broken bowling ball, a dog defecating on a rotten apple, a woman doing the laundry... I'm sure it could be made to seem like it fit - and I'm sure someone would find art in that. But it would all be stuff and nonsense. Just random unrelatable pictures

Again I point to Persona. It too gives us all these strange images and ideas - but I never felt like any of it was blowing smoke up my arse. I came away feeling liked I'd watched a guy who was a master of his craft, offer up this exploration on identity.

Godard's Masculin/Feminin, same thing - I'm not saying I get every enegmatic piece of it, but I feel like it all connects, that it all relates to the whole. So while I don't hate Fink, I don't get that same sense of cohesion. Maybe it's the John Goodman characater, everything that seems random comes from him. Now he's a serial killer, now he brings fire, now he might have killed Finks relatives, now he tosses in an Heil Hitler, now he gives him an unopen box.. Jesus, how about, now he wears a pink tutu and juggles cats? Maybe if I could wrap my mind around Goodman all would be well.

I've enjoyed the responses so far. Keep the ideas coming. I am interesting in what others got out of the film.

[Mr. Atari]

I'm sure I have a more cogent post about this in me, but for now...

The first time I saw Barton Fink, I had no idea what I was watching. I didn't know it was the Coen Bros (I wasn't a fan yet), and I didn't know any background on the movie. I caught it on cable one night and thought, "Oh cool. John Turturro. I like him."

The fire and the shooting and the box and all of the "kitchen sink" completely blew my mind. It was all so surreal and unexpected that I was completely sucked in. I wonder if your expectations going in shape your reaction to the surrealism of the ending. I had no expectations and I found it compelling. You had Polanski-inspired expectations and found it phony.

As for the characterizations and seemingly random components, I don't think they were piece-mealed in for artsy-ness. I think they were intentional decisions from the start. For example, John Goodman's character. He's not just a foil for Barton to ignore and get punished by, he's an actual Satan figure. Lots of movies have Christ figures, why not have a Satan figure? And if you have one, why not make him a Nazi who can summon fire and punish people ironically? I don't think that's throwing in the whole kitchen sink. I think it's taking the symbolism to an intentionally surreal level, which I found very effective.

They started with the concept of Motel Hell with a resident devil. They combined it with a meta-narrative about writing and writers in Hollywood in the studio system. They threw in a lot of allusions that appealed to them like they always do (genre winks, easter egg literary references, etc). I'm not sure it's much more than that.

I think they planned a lot of this, but I think they were intentionally ambiguous on much of the symbolism. That's what makes all of the armchair commentary especially fun. My favorite quote from the wiki was this one: "In 2001 Joel responded to a question about critics who provide extended comprehensive analysis: "That's how they've been trained to watch movies. In Barton Fink, we may have encouraged it – like teasing animals at the zoo. The movie is intentionally ambiguous in ways they may not be used to seeing.""

[Frameous]

Did we watch the same film, MJ? I got none of this randomness you mention. Again, I will site David Lynch. He is a director who is often criticized for doing what you are describing (and I will state, for the record, that I don't support that either).

But Barton Fink? I just don't see it. And as Mr A points out, the inferno that the Hotel Earl turns into in the climax was represents hell. As Charlie says: "You think I made your life hell? Take a look around this dump. You're just a tourist with a typewriter, Barton, I live here."

[Torgo]

Haven't seen it but the first thing that came into my mind when I read this title was the episode of the Simpsons where Bart's friends are going to sneak into an R-rated movie and it's this film, and they drive off screaming "BARTON FINK! BARTON FINK!" I always assumed that would be funnier if I had seen the movie. Is it?

[Frameous]

It's funny because it contains nothing a kid wanting to see an R rated movie would want. So if you got that, seeing the movie won't enhance the joke. But I would still recommend you see it anyway

[Mighty Jack]

I know they went right into this after going through their own block with Miller's Crossing. The Fink side of it is cohesive, it makes sense. The Goodman as devil, I dunno... Though the devil aspect makes more sense, I just don't see the reason for him. You might as well tell me Goodman symbolises a kumquat and I'd wonder, "why does the story need a Kumquat?" - "Why does Barton need a Devil?"

I just feel that killing Judy Davis and going down the serial killer path was a cop out. It strays off point, it feels random. Though, it might very well have been the brother's intention to go down that path from the very start, It might be my own expectations tripping me up. I want the heart of the matter explored, I didn't want, what felt like deus ex machina. (in this case it's not God, but the Devil whose involved)

And I like surrealism. Fer Christmas sakes folks, I dig Bunuel and Fellini, those two practically invented David Lynch. I've explored Cocteau, Godard and guys who make Lynch look conventional. I don't exactly come to Barton Fink bereft of experience with the bizarre.

[Mr. Atari]

I think the "Hotel Earle is Hell" and "Charlie is the devil" hints are all there from the beginning. The killing of Judy Davis isn't a random left turn as much as it's the crisis point that brings on the third act. To me, the narrative is a straight line, building to the extreme conclusion.

I also think the extreme action inside the hotel is a very effective parallel to the inner conflict Fink is facing as he deals with Lipnick and his own oblivious arrogance.

[Torgo]

Jun 25, 2012 23:15:41 GMT -5 Frameous said:

It's funny because it contains nothing a kid wanting to see an R rated movie would want. So if you got that, seeing the movie won't enhance the joke. But I would still recommend you see it anyway

That's what I thought it was, at least after I looked the movie up online. Just thought I'd make sure by highjacking a topic.

[Mighty Jack]

Jun 25, 2012 23:44:07 GMT -5 Mr. Atari said:

I think the "Hotel Earle is Hell" and "Charlie is the devil" hints are all there from the beginning. The killing of Judy Davis isn't a random left turn as much as it's the crisis point that brings on the third act. To me, the narrative is a straight line, building to the extreme conclusion.

I also think the extreme action inside the hotel is a very effective parallel to the inner conflict Fink is facing as he deals with Lipnick and his own oblivious arrogance.

But how does the devil relate to the rest of it? I can see the hotel as a trap, the pealing, sickly wallpaper, etc as parallel to Fink's inner conflict. I see the Coens addressing high art and low art, I see them viewing both sides as rather vapid and full of themselves (NY representing high art, Hollywood the low) and can get the bloodsucking insects that feed off Barton. But the fascist, devil, serial killer... why? If the studio head was the devil, okay. But your pushy next door neighbor? Why, what am I not seeing here?

[Mr. Atari]

If those other things only symbolize the Hollywood swamp, then Barton is just some guy who has things happen to him. In that plot, he's just another writer, who either needs to learn how to beat the system (like Tony Shalhoub's character) or drink himself to distraction (like John Mahoney's character).

But Barton's not an innocent victim. He's a pompous ass who talks a good game about high art and the common man, but doesn't have a clue about reality. Charlie represents the consequences of Barton's hubris and makes the movie less about Barton's adventures in Hollywood and more about Barton himself.

The movie needed a devil because the movie is about Barton.

Maybe?

[Mr. Atari]

I was just watching the trailer on YouTube. It does a good job juxtaposing the two storylines (outside the hotel and inside the hotel) and how they might connect. Or at least how the dialogue sets up a connection.

[Mighty Jack]

Jun 26, 2012 0:13:57 GMT -5 Mr. Atari said:

Charlie represents the consequences of Barton's hubris and makes the movie less about Barton's adventures in Hollywood and more about Barton himself.

Now that makes sense to me. In my mind I've been thinking -- we have theatrical people, movie people, writers and writers girlfriends, a writers block and a crumbling hotel that parallels Fink's mindset... Oh, and then there's a serial killer. Hu? My brain is rejecting that as a foreign body - it's the one piece that I can't relate/connect to the creative process and that's hanging me up.

But your perspective on him at least makes Goodman seem less a random element.


Oh and that's an incredible trailer. Very effective.,