Watch Barton Fink For Free

As Good As It Gets

Absolutely brilliant

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Another fantastically offbeat feature presentation by the Coens Barton Fink tells the story of a writer who relocates from the East to the West coast to make it in Hollywood. Unfortunately for him a lot of chaos ensues in typical quirky Coen style. John Turturro is well suited for the lead and John Goodman always manages to steal the show. This is a great film and an early indication of the evolving style of the Coens.

Some individual scenes in 'Barton Fink (1991)' are great, emphasising the Coen's philosophy that the scene takes precedent over the story, and there's a chunk just after the halfway point where things really pick up steam and a proper 'plot' seems to be getting underway - until the film just ends without any real satisfying resolution, that is. For most of the run-time, though, this off-kilter 'comedy'-drama lacks drive and instead meanders around through ponderously aloof satirical sequences in which the protagonist pretentiously proposes that his writing must come from a source of pain and how that's more important than critical acclaim or audience acceptance. It's frustrating that there seems to be some hints of a sub-layer to the narrative, indications that perhaps something supernatural is going on beneath the surface or that we're going to get a big 'reveal' in the third act that makes sense of some of the stranger moments (or at least cements the necessity of their inclusion), but though there is a 'twist' of sorts that slips a slice of sinister into the otherwise lukewarm narrative, these hints and this plot point peel away to surmount to nothing and, as such, seem like hollow inclusions only added to infuse a false sense of depth to a hopelessly shallow narrative. This seemingly indicates that the Coens themselves fell victim to the writer's block that consistently aisles their bespectacled creation. 6/10

This is probably one of the most hermetic, personal and autobiographical films that the Coen Brothers have ever presented. Many people find it boring. I understand and I can even agree but I also believe that I understand, at least in part, what the directors wanted to tell us.There is a lot of common between the Coen's and Barton Fink, an idealistic intellectual Jew who idolizes ordinary people and, therefore, cannot see how stupid they are (the Coen's can). Suddenly, Fink is hired to write the script for a mediocre B movie about pugilism. The kind of movie ordinary people pay to see even today. Of course the script, by an intellectual full of ideals, would never be useful in these kind of film because Fink didn't know how to adapt himself to the task. He is far above ordinary men to realize what they want to see and that is why he would never please them. This is not just with Fink: today, the majority of people don't like theatre or art because it has become too elitist and intellectual to appeal the masses (taking theatre and the arts as an example, we can still think of classical music or even cinema).From this point of view, this film is deeply intelligent: it starts out as a very intellectual and hermetic film which will make the most idiotic audience flee from the theater and, then, it gradually becomes more "normal" through action and violence. Even so, it always contains some intellectuality, through elements and moments that the film never bother to explain (the importance and content of the box that Fink receives near the end, for example, a thing that left me confused and curious). Its as if the film, even making an effort to adapt itself, never ceased to be what it really is. In the midst of it all, I enjoyed the work of Turturro, which gave life to the protagonist. He knew how to make his character naive and dreamy. Fink sometimes seems so oblivious to the world around him that he seems to be stoned. What counts for him is the world he has inside his head. Very interesting, but difficult to swallow for commercial audiences.

I've only seen a handful of the 'Coen Brothers' movies so far, and each time, I'm left surprised by the range of their oeuvre. I haven't necessarily liked all they've had to offer ('Intolerable Cruelty' is the first that comes to mind), but they've transcended so many genres through their movies that they've come to define their own. And regardless of the purported genre, whether it be a Western or a Musical, a Comedy or a Slow-Burning Drama, they've never failed to leave that indelible impression on each of their outings, one that reassuringly proclaims from the moment you see their names in the opening credits that you're witness to something special. 'Barton Fink' is no exception - it's a beautifully-crafted, ably-acted and soundly-written drama, that is unlike any other 'Hollywood-Writer' drama you've ever seen before.Barton Fink is a New York playwright, and when we're introduced to him, he's right at the cusp of fame and success, having written a 'common-man' play that's received rave reviews from audience and critics alike. Although, fame, he doesn't seem to desire, and success, he wants on his own terms, believing that his best work is still ahead of him. Despite his strong beliefs and principles, he's reluctantly convinced by his agent to accept a studio contract in Hollywood, in order to cash in on his new-found fame. Although once he gets to Los Angeles, he finds himself completely out of his element, while rubbing shoulders with a motley of characters - the flamboyant studio-head whose praise and reverence for Barton seems conditional on his ability to make him money; the established Hollywood screenwriter that Barton looks to for inspiration, but quickly realizes has his own share of personal demons; the beautiful and charming secretary who could easily have been reduced to a prop in a lesser movie; and of course, the mild-mannered and ever-smiling neighbour that provides much-needed companionship to the ill- adjusted writer. And the cast did a commendable job in bringing these characters to life - Judy Davis was every bit as charming as the character she portrays; Michael Lerner as Lipnick stole every scene that he graced, and provided much-needed comic relief to an otherwise somber movie; it was great to see Mahoney & Shalhoub outside the TV roles that've made them so famous; and John Turturro, it seems, was born to essay this soft-spoken, ill-at-ease, anxiety- ridden writer. But the highlight of the movie was definitely John Goodman, whose affecting candor and lighthearted personality is the centerpiece of this fine drama. The movie is rich in symbolism, for one who is willing to pay attention. For one who isn't, it's still a beautiful tale of a man's struggle, with himself as much as the outside world, and of finding poetry in the routine and the mundane. That was one of the aspects I highly appreciated - the symbolism and subtle layers in this movie aren't stuffed down the viewer's throat; the movie can be watched within or without that context, and it would still be a rewarding experience. The movie touches upon a number of themes as well - the difficulty of the writing process, the classification of high versus low art, the subjective nature of artistic assessment, the commercialization of art in recent times, the struggle to find meaning in one's life, the beauty that lies in the life of the common man, and of course, the life of the mind. Some people might take issue with the inherent ambiguity of the film or certain unresolved strands that are left for the viewers to untangle. And I do concede that there are movies where I find such tactics annoying, seemingly employed by the makers in the name of post-modern artistry to hide the fact that they were at a loss to resolve their tale with a satisfying ending. But the Coens lay no claim that this is movie is a straightforward one, imploding as it is with abstract moments and hidden meanings from the first frame. It therefore is only consistent that the ending be such as well.As to the reasons I've shaved 2 ratings off this title, they are two-fold - one, I reserve a perfect score of 10 for a select few movies that shake me to the core, and this, despite being an excellent film in its own stead, wasn't one of them. And two, I wasn't entirely convinced behind the motivations of a certain key character in this film, or more likely, enough time wasn't devoted by the Coens to explaining the motives, which I feel was essential since it forms such a crucial aspect of the storyline. I also felt a couple of characters deserved better from the script than just a passing mention in the second half and never to be seen of or heard from again. But these are trivial complaints against a highly competent and enjoyable film, and if this movie were ever to serve as a subject matter in the debate of high versus low art, I've no doubts it'd be unanimously placed in the former.