Barton Fink

There are as many theories as there are viewers, the "mental scenario" theory you've brought up is only one of them for example. That the Hotel symbolises Hell and either Goodman or Lipnick Satan is also brought up a lot, as well as Fink being punished for his pretentiousness and only being able to write with his muse's head by his side in a box just for him, because of his fear of sex and egocentricness. Does Barton sell his soul to the devil (Lipnick), or is Goodman the devil that charms him at first and then kill his family, lover and makes him stay in hell forever?

This is one film where you'll never have a definitive explanation of, like Eraserhead. Personally I'm more and more inclined to believe that it was the Coens' intention to deliberately keep this movie obscure - making a satire of a pretentious writer by inserting seemingly-profound and intricately-connected pretentious symbolism while not sure themselves of its meaning is the sort of thing that would appeal to their sense of humour, and it winning the Palme d'Or even more so. Plus the movie was written extremely quickly so it's probable a lot of it is instinctive in a David Lynch way rather than too much rationalised. And they wrote it while suffering from writer's block themselves on Miller's Crossing, a film in which the main character denies the importance of symbolism - "it stayed a hat. Nothing more foolish than a man chasing his hat" - maybe a statement of intent from the Brothers? Barton Fink is certainly the only Coens film to be open to such abstract symbolism, so maybe they were half-serious and half-joking about it, which is the tone of most of their films.

Anyway, that's just my guess, there are certainly lots of possible interpretations and I'm too lazy to go through them again, so you can start with the IMDB message boards , there are lots of interesting ideas among the rubbish.

the coens always seem to have biblical (or religious) stuff in their movies, but I really don't understand it. I'm not up on that subject, as it were. still, I got a lot out of barton fink... or at least I think I did!

you had barton, who was this idealistic, socialist, liberal writer. but he was very detached, paying lip service to his "causes" without getting too involved. he would talk about the good of the common man, like charlie (I think that was goodman's characters name?) but not really listen to him. so, in that sense, I think it was a criticism of the intellectual "life of the mind" crowd. Also, and I hesitate to say this, but I think the movie actually went far enough for us to assume the coens were criticizing people like barton for not standing up to anti semitism-- which is obviously the big theme of the movie. whether it was the "friendly" charlie representing the anti semitism in america, or the more absurd, satanic, version-- which I think represented the rise of the nazi party. maybe "not standing up" is too strong a phrase... but at the very least they didn't recognize it, or for all their talk were ineffectual against it, or maybe it was just that there was nothing they could do to stop it. I don't know. I shouldn't necessarily assume one jewish writer represents the coens opinion on most of the jewish people in barton's sphere at the time. it's just sort of an assumption because barton is definitely an inept character, a bit of a blowhard, and they don't pull many punches in their critique of him.

there was all sorts of other stuff too-- the stuff about writer's block and the criticisms of hollywood (and how "important" writers sold out to them) were great. I also loved the faulkneresque character played by john mahoney-- faulkner himself was supposedly anti semitic, and a drunkard to boot. yet he was a tremendously gifted writer, something we assume barton is not. I dunno if there's a "why" to that in the movie, but it nevertheless rang true. sometimes the most miserable bastards just have it.

I realize this isn't very well thought out, but I just wanted to share my impressions of the film-- onbe of my favorite coen bros. productions to date.

Yeah, the WWII angle is also in Fink, what with Lipnick being in a uniform and (my favourite) the two cops representing European fascism - one's got a German name and the other an Italian name, and of course Goodman's name, Mundt, is of German origin. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if it was deliberately put in there by the Coens as a way to get everyone to scratch their heads - if there is a final message about WWII and antisemitism in the film it is very hard to tell what it is - that Jews should have been more careful of their neighbours? That the Shoah was inspired by the Devil? That Jews should have taken action in the 30s instead of philosophising and waiting for the US to enter the war, like Lipnick does?

This film is a can of worms.

Everytime I watch this movie it manages to surprise me. I forget how utterly transcendent it all is.

Usually, if I feel that a film is so thick with symbolism and subtext that it's become impossible to figure out what it's really saying, I get turned off and move on. But there's something about Barton Fink that just keeps drawing me back in. I still haven't decided what it's about in any real way, but it feels like it's saying some very important things to me, especially as a writer. If a writer can't get something out of this, then he should quit writing. The line "Wallace Beery, wrestling picture; whattya need a road map?" is an all-time classic, and a perfect encapsulation of every person who's ever seen writing as nothing but commerce, bypassing art entirely.

Also, this is the film that began my hero worship of John Turturro. The guy is never less than fascinating to watch.

Barton Fink. By far my favourite Coen Bros. movie. And the one that goes furthest over my head.

One of my favorite films of all-time, Barton Fink is like the David Lynch remake of Sullivan's Travels starring Clifford Odets.

I could write about the symbolism all day (the amount of historical analogues is astounding), though in the end, the arguments mostly go in circles. The Coens weren't setting out to make an important film, they wrote it in less than six weeks. Instead, they decided to throw a bunch of ideas in a blender (the state of America and Hollywood circa-1940, Preston Sturges, Surrealism) whilst contemplating their constant struggle with writer's block at the time.

What resulted was a film which on its periphery deals with big topics such as the American Dream, big business, the death of art and intellectualism, and anti-Semitism in America, but in the end, it's really just an excellent character piece about the world's biggest hypocrite and his struggles with writer's block. Barton (who is supposed to be Clifford Odets so much it hurts) is a walking contradiction, and that is what keeps me coming back.

Turturro proved with this film that he could headline a film, not that anyone has listened, and John Goodman gives his best performance, proving that if a Blood Meridian film is ever made he is the Judge.

It might not be the Coens' most polished film, but I'll be damned if it doesn't showcase their style the best, from the strong performances to the subtle humor and superb visuals, but most importantly, the constant barrage of homages (both subtle and broad) that truly portray them as the scholars of film they are.

One of my favourite Coen Brothers films. A lot of the time the Coens get criticised for being cynical and detached. They get accused of not caring for their characters. I think Barton Fink is a perfect counter-point. Fink feels like a Coen Brothers stand in, but he's viewed with the same disdain and ambivalence that greets every other Coen character. We're supposed to empathise with Fink, but we're also supposed to see his weaknesses and foibles and that's the key to understanding the Coens. They do care about their characters, but they take a subjective view. They test their characters to their limits, put them under extreme duress and then present their characters at their rawest and less glamourised.

I think this is my favorite Coens' flick as well. So many people talk about Goodman's performance in The Big Lebowski, but I think he blows it out of the park here. I love the fact that their most likable character they created at that point turns out to be a serial killer. I still can't figure out who's side the Coen's are at the end though; Fink now has an idea, his life's greatest work, that he can't do anything with and literly carries it around with him after the climax. Then again, he's so self-absorbed he doesn't seem to realize war is about to break out and doesn't ever LISTEN!! to Charlie. It's a head-scatcher for sure, but all of their best films are.

 

Also, Chet!! cracks me up.