Not a D2D title although it is MA. Good reviews everywhere I've checked.
Coen Bros. are in the featured director's sale although $18.99 for "Blood Simple" has me scratching my head. Is that really a sale price?
I've just watched this for the second time, the first being last year where i was immediately blown away by just how thought-provoking the plot itself was, the numerous mysteries that keep reappearing, and the satirical themes that run throughout it are. When the credits roll you think to yourself - what just happened, what does it mean, is there even a meaning to it, did these things even happen, do certain scenes or characters exist only within another character's mind? and so on.
The constantly peeling wallpaper, the poster girl, the box, the whodunit, the fact that nobody else seems to stay at the hotel, and the enigma that is both John Goodman and to a lesser extent, Steve Buscemi's characters.
There's just so much happening in the movie that it's hard to define what exactly everything means, but i think there's an irony in knowing that the Coen brothers probably only added or exaggerated these elements to fool the audience into thinking they've found the key to unlock any hidden messages. It's very easy for those paying enough attention to notice just how many times the words 'head' and 'hell' appear, and, without giving anything away, when you begin to put these things together, it seems as though you've cracked what the hotel and particularly Goodman's character represents.
But then you remember who wrote this story, a story about a pretentious self-proclaimed bastion of the common man facing writers block after all, and you can't help but imagine everything the Coens do is to satirise the fact they've created a Jewish, indie writer who moves from NY to LA (like Joel Coen is) who faces setback after embarrassing, disturbing setback from individuals he meets, and the Hollywood studios he's working for. Anyone who ever described the Coens as self-indulgent ought to look at this, you know they take immense pleasure from treating a writer like this.
I love how any expectations Barton had about the film industry going in are ultimately completely reversed in such a satirically sinister way only the Coens know how to master. Like in Inside Llewyn Davis you can't help but feel sorry for a guy who just can't catch a break, but his demeanour is often so insufferable that the absurdities that transpire in the second half feel humorously deserved. It was only their fourth film but already they created what i would consider a sort of meta masterpiece, and this was before the likes of Fargo, The Big Lebowski and No Country for Old Men.
So do yourself a fa
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Another original, entertaining, and unpredictable Coen Brothers movie. In my opinion, Barton Fink is totally underrated and overshadowed by many of the other spectacular Coen Bros. pictures.
The movie is about a 1940s New York playwright, Barton Fink, who moves to L.A. after being hired to write a script for a movie.
Barton Fink is an outstanding dark comedy, unsettling and weird, and worthwhile to see. It's one of those films where the third act is glorious and crazy. John Turturro and John Goodman gave excellent performances.
The visuals, the story, the unexpected turns, the humor, it all weaves together to create an atmosphere so bizarre that you can't look away. If you like Coen Bros. films, or David Lynch's, I'm pretty sure you'll find this one amusing, suspenseful, and engaging.
It doesn't seem to be available on any streaming services for free, so you'll probably have to rent it on Amazon Prime.
Hey r/CoenBrothers! I host a podcast called Mind Theater where I analyze works of tv and film in the form of audio essays. I've posted about my podcast essays on A Serious Man and Miller's Crossing before in this sub and today I'm back again with an episode on Barton Fink, exploring how it details the plight of the creative writer and portrays the common man. If this interests you at all I suggest you give the episode a listen. Thanks!
Links: Spotify | Google Podcasts | Website | YouTube | Twitter | Instagram
"Where's my honey?!!" scene has to be one of the funniest moments in history of cinema.
Barton Fink, the 1991 Coen Brothers film named after its protagonist, features a young playwright who wants to make “Theater of the Common Man.” He is renown for his plays in New York, but reluctantly accepts a high paying contract from a film company to write a wrestling picture in Los Angeles. Despite not having any knowledge of, or passion for, wrestling, he hopes to use his gift of writing and storytelling to bring his "Theater of the Common Man" to film.
Barton Fink’s paternalistic contempt for the working class is exemplified in how he talks down to his neighbor, Charlie, right after meeting him. In the clip I linked to above, Barton says to Charlie, “I write about people like you; the average working stiff; the common man.” Later, while talking about writing as a profession, he confesses that he envies the monotony of the working life while complaining about the “life of the mind.”
While there's no explicit reference to class struggle in the film, it's clear that Barton represents the artist intelligenstia, sympathetic in theory to the plight of the working class while alienated from their experiences through self-isolation. Charlie, on the other hand, represents the working class, and despite having so many of the "real experiences" Barton claims to care about, Charlie is unable to tell his stories because he presumably doesn't have the same storytelling talent Barton does.
The movie Barton Fink takes a critical look at art as an industry and the elevation of a class of professional artists over the working class, regarding art as a restricted thing to be pursued by artists on behalf of everyone, as opposed to making means of artistic production available for everyone to participate in directly.
What are your thoughts on the movie? What are your thoughts on artistry as a profession in capitalist society?
#87 Miller’s Crossing(1990)
Date Watched: 7/3/20
My Thoughts: As I continue through the Coen Brothers films, I’ve now reached Miller’s Crossing. I didn’t know anything about it going into it but from what I gather it feels very much like a noir gangster movie. It even opens with someone asking for a favor in the first scene similar to that of The Godfather. It was a bit boring especially in the earlier parts of the movie and I had a difficult time caring about the characters. Once it tied everything together at the end it made it worth it and made me think I should give it a second watch to fully appreciate it.
Grade: C+
#88 Barton Fink(1991)
Date Watched: 7/4/20
My Thoughts: Barton Fink is a 1940s-stylized dark comedy from the Coen Brothers about a playwright who’s now trying to make it in Hollywood as a screenwriter. The story strung me along perfectly for about the first half of the movie as it followed Barton trying to write a wrestling picture for a B-movie studio and befriending John Goodman’s character, Charlie. As usual with the Coens, it was expertly written and visually striking. The cast really brought it as John Turturro played the titular character and gave probably the best performance I’ve ever seen him give. John Goodman was excellent as Charlie and played the role perfectly as he really showed just how multi-dimensional the character was. It’s still too soon to tell but I think this is up there as one of my favorite Coen Brothers’ movies.
Grade: A
I know this may seem like blasphemy to die hard Coen Brothers fans, but I didn’t really care for Miller’s Crossing. I’ve liked/loved all of the movies I’ve seen by them, with the exception of this one. I just found the plot uninteresting and the characters bland and unrelatable. I know this film is seen as a highlight in the Coen Bros. career, but it just didn’t resonate with me. I’ve heard great things about Barton Fink and, from the little I know of the plot, it seems intriguing; however, the fact that it was written during the same period that MC was written and that the two films are often compared to each other makes me hesitant to watch it. So, do the two films only share a similar aesthetic (I really liked MC’s cinematography), or is BF just as confusing and have similar character development. Should I watch it?
