Barton Fink (The Coli Movie Club)

[MartyMcFly]

I finished this a couple days ago so here's my review:

Barton Fink is a dope flick. It's the one flick from the Coens I hadn't seen so shout out to @penfield for picking it. As a writer, I can relate to Barton on some level: the pressure, the anxiety, the fear that you won't be able to top what you did before but that's where the relation stops. Barton has his head so far up his own ass that it's funny, he doesn't realize how arrogant and condescending he is as he is so demeaning to the common man while at the same time claiming to speak for them and having a desire to be like them although anytime he's faced with dealing with the common man, he acts like a jerk. Only when he deals with a common man who has reverence for him and what he does, that's when he decides to treat the guy like a human being. Obviously the film is a deconstruction of hollywood and what it means to be a creative type in hollywood but ultimately, I feel that the film says that the common man will be the death of you and hollywood will eat you alive if you don't pay attention and listen. It also seems to say that the common man doesn't want something high brow but wants something simple to relate to. Maybe the film is not just an indictment of hollywood but also an indictment of audiences, similar to something the Cabin in the Woods did

All of the performances are awesome but John Goodman is doing incredible work as he normally does.It looks beautiful, it's written well although it does fall flat in some points. It's just also really weird and really abstract and that's a good thing.

8/10

 

[FlyRy]

i give it 7/10

@ steve buscemi coming out from under the floor at the start

"he's a man! we wrestled!"

"you're a sick fukk fink"

beautiful to look at and it really could have passed for a technicolored 40s flick


i still have to peep blood simple and miller's crossing.. those are the 2 coen flicks i havent seen and y'all always talk about em.. i didnt see inside LD either

 

[HHR]

i still have to peep blood simple and miller's crossing.. those are the 2 coen flicks i havent seen and y'all always talk about em.. i didnt see inside LD either

Three of their best. ILD isn't typical Coen though, but it's still fukking great. I liked it on first watch, LOVED it on second watch.

Blood Simple though

 

[Dwolf]

Ign called grand piano the best movie hitchcock never made

Was fairly entertaining though. Not sure as good as its reviews though.

Im still in the middle of strange days im out

Grand Piano is trash.

 

[FlyRy]

Grand Piano is trash.

it was kind of dumb..but it was also entertaining to me. Reminded me of that phone booth movie

 

[MartyMcFly]

it was kind of dumb..but it was also entertaining to me. Reminded me of that phone booth movie

You mean the movie where Jack Bauer held someone captive in a phone booth?

 

[FlyRy]

You mean the movie where Jack Bauer held someone captive in a phone booth?

 

[MartyMcFly]

Breh. I'm taking that ASAP

 

[ThiefyPoo]

Watching by tomorrow

 

[Dr. Narcisse]

Brehs. This needs to be the next movie recommended.

Talk about a mind fukk.
The movie "Mr. Nobody" is wild.

Its on Netflix as well.

Either you'll be or (in a good way)

 

[Roaden Polynice]

I reckon that Ebert's maxim of "If you have to ask what something symbolizes, it doesn't, or it stand for itself" could come in handy here, but that partially takes away the fun of this film.

I loved this film the first time I saw it. And the first time I saw it I was somewhat convinced that it was the writing process put to film. I had it all worked out in my mind, and how the life of the mind can be a personal hell, from the moment we see the god's eye shot where Barton signs into the hotel, to the implausibly long hallways, to the sweat and heat that the film conveys so perfectly, to the jealousy that Barton feels whenever he goes to Ben Geisler's office and sees the secretary typing serenely, something that he wishes that he could do, to the dancehall scene and the jubilation that you feel once you finish something. I always thought that the package represented Barton's inspiration. Barton has those lines during the picnic where he talks about how writers need that one idea to get them started, and I think the package is his muse sort of. Then to go with that you hear Charlie talk about selling piece of mind, and Barton living the life of the mind, and Charlie provided it for him. So I always thought that those linked up. I figured that it was a sort of personal journey for Barton as a writer to finish up the script.

Now watching it again I paid attention to how Barton represents Hollywood and the dancehall scene and the character of Charlie represent real life if you will, or of course the common man, and I sorta love that about this film. How it is so critical of self-important intellectuals. The same intellectuals like Barton Fink who claim they write for the common man but are lacking in the crucial quality of empathy. And the two parts that really drive this home is when Audrey says, "Empathy requires understanding" and Barton replies, "What? What don't I understand?" and Charlie's scene at the end where he says he understands the pain that people go through and yells at Barton that he doesn't listen. It's at once criticizing Hollywood for its pretensions and arrogance and also I think commenting on how films can so often trivialize pain and anguish.

Odds and Ends:

• This movie is hard to talk about because you're constantly double-guessing what to think about it. You'll have some theory worked out then you think of something else and so on. It's hard to touch on everything.
• The scenes that crack me up: Barton watching the wrestling movie and the slow zoom in on his face, John Turturro dancing in the dance hall, "You're a sick fukk Fink", in fact all the dialogue from the detectives has me
• It struck me this time just how well written this film is. I knew that the first time but some of the dialogue really is beautiful.
• Chet!
• Reminded me of a passage from Sidney Lumet's book and him talking about how on the stage writers are kings and nothing in the production is ok'd without their say-so and how in the films writers are replaceable and temporary.
• Ending is lovely. Are you in the pictures? Neither is Barton.
• There's probably something to be said for Barton being teetotal at the beginning of the film to drinking more as the film goes on. Also Barton asking Audrey for the three acts for the idea for the wrestling film even though, by my estimation the actual movie only has two acts, the second act beginning when he wakes up and Audrey is dead. (Unless you count the beginning part in NYC as an act. I could be wrong).

 

[Roaden Polynice]

@HHR you got next.

 

[MartyMcFly]

I reckon that Ebert's maxim of "If you have to ask what something symbolizes, it doesn't, or it stand for itself" could come in handy here, but that partially takes away the fun of this film.

I loved this film the first time I saw it. And the first time I saw it I was somewhat convinced that it was the writing process put to film. I had it all worked out in my mind, and how the life of the mind can be a personal hell, from the moment we see the god's eye shot where Barton signs into the hotel, to the implausibly long hallways, to the sweat and heat that the film conveys so perfectly, to the jealousy that Barton feels whenever he goes to Ben Geisler's office and sees the secretary typing serenely, something that he wishes that he could do, to the dancehall scene and the jubilation that you feel once you finish something. I always thought that the package represented Barton's inspiration. Barton has those lines during the picnic where he talks about how writers need that one idea to get them started, and I think the package is his muse sort of. Then to go with that you hear Charlie talk about selling piece of mind, and Barton living the life of the mind, and Charlie provided it for him. So I always thought that those linked up. I figured that it was a sort of personal journey for Barton as a writer to finish up the script.

Now watching it again I paid attention to how Barton represents Hollywood and the dancehall scene and the character of Charlie represent real life if you will, or of course the common man, and I sorta love that about this film. How it is so critical of self-important intellectuals. The same intellectuals like Barton Fink who claim they write for the common man but are lacking in the crucial quality of empathy. And the two parts that really drive this home is when Audrey says, "Empathy requires understanding" and Barton replies, "What? What don't I understand?" and Charlie's scene at the end where he says he understands the pain that people go through and yells at Barton that he doesn't listen. It's at once criticizing Hollywood for its pretensions and arrogance and also I think commenting on how films can so often trivialize pain and anguish.

Odds and Ends:

• This movie is hard to talk about because you're constantly double-guessing what to think about it. You'll have some theory worked out then you think of something else and so on. It's hard to touch on everything.
• The scenes that crack me up: Barton watching the wrestling movie and the slow zoom in on his face, John Turturro dancing in the dance hall, "You're a sick fukk Fink", in fact all the dialogue from the detectives has me
• It struck me this time just how well written this film is. I knew that the first time but some of the dialogue really is beautiful.
• Chet!
• Reminded me of a passage from Sidney Lumet's book and him talking about how on the stage writers are kings and nothing in the production is ok'd without their say-so and how in the films writers are replaceable and temporary.
• Ending is lovely. Are you in the pictures? Neither is Barton.
• There's probably something to be said for Barton being teetotal at the beginning of the film to drinking more as the film goes on. Also Barton asking Audrey for the three acts for the idea for the wrestling film even though, by my estimation the actual movie only has two acts, the second act beginning when he wakes up and Audrey is dead. (Unless you count the beginning part in NYC as an act. I could be wrong).

That is the crux of the movie to me. You want to speak for the common man but you don't listen to the common man or even understand what they're going through. And if you're not careful, the common man will eat you alive because you're so concerned with what you think they want as opposed to giving them what they want. It wouldn't surprise me if this is Michael Bay's favorite movie because I feel that his movies are strictly for the common man, whether we all like them or not, the same with Cameron. Their movies are written with archetypes rather than characters and appeal to basic functions and desires of the common man: fear, excitement, joy, pain, explosions, "coolness" etc.

 

[FlyRy]

@HHR you got next.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Bolo on @HHR