Artivels Undescribable Perfection

SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Samuel-Shovel I'm going to try to break this movie's symbolism down. This is just my opinion, you're open to your own of course.Personal Interpretations:Barton Fink: Barton Fink represents a member of the intellectuals, claiming to write and make a difference for something that he doesn't truly understand, the common man. While pursuing self- fulfillment through his medium of art, he ignores his muse (Charlie), writing him off as insignificant. Fink thinks of Charlie amiably but does not take his plight or his perspective seriously, ignoring Charlie's own personal struggles and concerns. Fink acts more and more self-righteously towards the common man the longer he stays in Hollywood, evidenced by his behavior at the USO dance. The Hotel: Fink has descended into hell. By leaving New York City and the theater, he has left his ideals behind him, exchanging them for money by selling his soul to the devil (Hollywood). Evidence of the Hell analogy: Chet's arrival to greet him from a subterranean room, the 666 elevator reference, the ever increasing heat in the rooms, and, of course, the consuming conflagration at the end of the movie. Notice also the broken pencil with the dust outline in his hotel room. This symbolizes that Hollywood is not a place to be writing anything significant, nor has it been for a long time.The Peeling Wallpaper: The walls are a metaphor for Fink's mental stability. As the movie progresses and Fink's life falls apart, more and more often the wallpaper can be seen peeling away. Charlie has ruined Fink's life since the pair's first meeting. Distracting Fink from his work, murdering his lover, killing his "friend" (and possibly family), and getting Fink in trouble with the cops. The wallpaper crumbles like Fink's psyche. The Mosquito: I see this as Hollywood and the work that Fink has been tasked to do sucking him dry of willpower and artistic integrity. The bloodsucking causes him to look ugly to the audience. The film's score (specifically the strings) also sounds very similar to the buzzing of a mosquito. The turning point of the movie is when he kills the mosquito on Audrey's back. It isn't until after Fink kills the mosquito that he is able to write anything he deems meaningful. Whether his script is good or realistically represents the common man is unknown to us but Fink once again has purpose as he writes something for himself, not Hollywood. My guess is his script still doesn't represent the common man since after he completes it, he goes to the dance and still talks down to the military men. This script is more about fulfilling Fink's artistic needs.Charlie: Charlie can be interpreted as having multiple meanings within this film. He seems to be some type of fallen angel, a sinner stuck in hell selling "fire insurance". He tries to help people but all his good intentions are ill-advised as all he causes is trouble wherever he goes. He sees that Fink does not listen to the common man or his plight. He watches as Fink pursues wealth over ideals. He hears as Fink literally gets in bed with Hollywood. Charlie kills Audrey. Fink has abandoned Charlie in favor of a new muse (Audrey) by asking her for help with the common man's story instead of listening to Charlie the common man. He had abandoned who he has sworn to write about. Charlie kills Audrey and Mayhew as both a punishment and a lesson for Fink about what selling your soul to the devil will get you. They represent Hollywood over the common man. All Charlie wants is for someone to represent him, the common man. Charlie also represents the rise of fascism at that period of time. You could argue that he represents Hitler's regime. It was something that many people considered harmless at first (Fink's initial impression) that slowly got grimmer and grimmer with time. Many intellectuals of the time just couldn't understand why fascism could be so appealing to the common man. Notice once again how Fink writes Charlie and the common man off, not listening to his ideas or stories. Fascism had a certain allure to the common man that the intellectuals ignored and refused to understand, costing people dearly. The Detectives: It's important to note that the detectives' names are Mastrionotti & Deutsch, stereotypical Italian and German names, respectively. These two, who Fink refers to also as "common men", further the allegory of common men under Fascist regimes. The two read Fink's script, not understanding it or particularly caring for it. The two also frown upon Fink's Jewish heritage at one point. This metaphor gets a little hazy since Charlie kills them both. I'm not exactly sure of its significance. The Picture and the Box: Throughout the movie, Fink's eyes are drawn to a picture on his hotel wall. It shows an ocean and a girl, the blue water juxtaposing his current position in hell. This represents his artistic ideals, just a snapshot but not readily attainable to him. Notice as he often looks at it familiarly, as if he's seen it somewhere. At one point, he hangs Charlie's picture in the corner of the frame in an attempt to possibly gain better understanding of the common man. At the end of the movie when the picture is recreated in front of him, Fink is experiencing enlightenment. Has Fink finally regained his moralistic ideals after denying Hollywood the script they wanted? Charlie has given him the box which belongs neither to Charlie nor Fink. It is the box representing the plight of the common man. When the lady asks if it's his, Fink replies that he doesn't know. Fink must decide whether he wants to actually take up the plight of the common man or continue to write shallow artistic pieces about the common man that only please the upper class.

Anshul Gupta 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.

dtumeth In my eyes, the quintessential Coen brothers film and one of my three personal favorite films of all time. This movie makes me think about or notice something new every time I watch it, a rare feat for a film that isn't just pretentious drivel disguised as genius. There is so many ways to interpret the bizarre events here that it leaves you no choice BUT to think. I can still remember the first time I saw it when John Goodman steps out through the burning elevator and produces a shotgun as the halls burst into flames. The image has been etched into my brain ever since, mostly because it comes out of nowhere. Most filmmakers would never dare go for something like that, but I have eternal respect to the Coens for not only doing it, but for pulling it off marvelously. Apart from amazing visuals, I adore Bartons fruitless quest to discover the inner workings of the common man, while ignoring every single opportunity around him to learn more. As Charlie tries to tell him stories about his misadventures and his struggles, Barton cuts him off to talk about himself. Because he doesn't actually care about others as much as he believes he does. Or rather, cant empathize with others as he believes he can. W.P. Mayhew suffers from alcoholism to the point where he will puke his guts out in public and then seconds later pull out a flask and continue drinking. That's some human suffering right there, but Barton instead only see's his idol as a disappointment. W.P's long suffering mistress defends him, and instead of trying to understand why she would, he simply berates her (which is fair I suppose, but that line of Barton's at the park - "What don't I understand?" - that remains unanswered always sticks out to me) Not to mention him berating the Sailors shipping out to fight a war while he sits in his room and thinks about how everything's so unfair for him. I could talk about this movie forever, but I'll just leave it with make your own interpretations of what the hell everything means. And as for those Coen Brothers, I think we'll be hearing from those kids. And I don't mean just a postcard.

mikeg994 This film is not for everyone. Not sure it was for me. It reminds me of jobs I've had, which means basically that just because someone offers you a job doesn't mean it's good or they know what they are doing. It may be better than unemployment, but just barely. It demonstrates the fleeting nature of fame, and the fact that there are more than a few people running around loose who are not all there and some of them are staying at fleabag hotels and others are heads of movie studios. Barton Fink (John Turturro) is a socially conscious New York playwright whose specialty is writing about the people living at the fringes of society. Because he has just written a celebrated play in New York, he gets an offer to become a contract writer for a big film company. It is 1941 just before the war (so far as Americans were concerned) started.When he gets to Los Angeles, it is as though he has arrived in career hell. The studio head is a fast talking fellow behind a big desk in a luxurious office who assigns him the job of writing a wrestling picture. The studio head will not take no for an answer or even let his listeners get a word in edgewise. Meanwhile he meets a famous southern novelist W.P. Mayhew, who must be patterned after William Faulkner who wrote for Hollywood for a while. He tries to gather advice from this eminent writer but he is seemingly constantly in a raging drunk. They are having this talented writer write "wrestling pictures" too.So he goes back to his hotel, which is an unmitigated dump. Wallpaper peels off the walls, the plumbing sings, and the walls are paper thin. While complaining to a neighbor about the noise, Charlie Meadows, (John Goodman), he makes his acquaintance with him and he becomes his only friend/confidant. Meadows says he is an insurance salesman who does his best to buck him up and help him out of trouble.Unfortunately Meadows is crazy as a loon as well. Unpleasant things happen such that you are hoping he just wakes up from a nightmare.When I think of the hair that Barton Fink has in this film, I am strongly reminded of another surreal film, David Lynch's "Eraserhead." Just like that film, things happen that are never explained. The characters exist in unremittingly bleak surroundings and, above the oscillating fan at the writer's desk where Barton Fink suffers from severe writer's block, you see a girl sitting on the beach. He brought a box tied with string that Meadows had given him before leaving for New York, and, strangely, while walking on a similar beach meets the girl on the beach in the picture back at his hotel. I could guess what was in the box, but you never see it.