Barton Fink (1991) User Reviews

Another Coen Brothers Classic!!!

[RaiderJack · 9/10 · 21 May 2007]

I recently purchased "Barton Fink" along with "Miller's Crossinhg", another Coen Brothers gem.

Barton Fink quite simply is a writer who cannot see the forest for the trees. He is so taken with the fact that he is a writer that he can't write. He is so idealistic that he misses fantastic opportunities to become a writer for the ages because he wastes precious time proselytizing. John Goodman perfectly sums up everyone's frustration with Barton Fink when after a series of unfortunate occurrences, Barton asks him "Why me?" to which John's character answers "Because you don't LISTEN!" Set in 1930s Hollywood we follow the exploits of a one-hit wonder, Barton Fink, who has written a successful Broadway play and is summoned by the powers that be to Hollywood. After much cajoling to take the job from his agent, Barton arrives in Los Angeles determined to become the writer for the common man where he insists true stories live. The trouble with Barton, however, is he does not have time for the common man because he has so romanticized their lot as well as his particular quest in speaking for them.

Excellent performances from John Turturo, John Goodman, Judy Davis, John Polito (often overlooked, but his scenes ALWAYS become his!!) and the inimitable Tony Shaloub.

I have decided after a slew of Coen Brothers films I currently have in my collection, that any project these guys are involved with deserve more than passing scrutiny.

Memorable, disturbing, and very Coen-esque!

[Rumples · 7/10 · 30 May 1999]

I'm still not entirely sure what to think of this film. One thing is sure, it won't be easy to forget. This movie is clearly the product of a writer who has struggled with their muse, and equally one who has a healthy mistrust of Hollywood - the sausage grinder. Although Hollywood has been critiqued in film before in similar ways, memorable scenes, clever dialogue, quality acting, and a surreal plot and setting, add together to make this an unusual and different film. Maybe another viewing might add a different dimension. This is by no means 'light entertainment' and it leaves plenty of questions unanswered. But on the whole, an intelligent movie, if something of an enigma. My vote 7/10

Look upon me! I'll show you the life of the mind!

[lastliberal · 9/10 · 17 July 2007]

The Coen brothers have come a long way from their start with an 8mm camera. They have written and produced some great homages to the film noir era of Hollywood, and this film is no exception.

First, is the great dialog written by the brothers. Great dialog is a feature of their films, and this one has some of the most memorable I have heard. You can almost turn off the visual and just listen and be enchanted and know you are listening to a Coen brothers film.

But turning off the visual would deprive you of the great cinematography of Roger Deakins. His can frame a scene to the point that you could pause the film and just soak in the texture and color and realism. It is almost as if every frame is a painting.

The Coen brothers also seem to get the best performances out of an actor that I have seen. John Goodman is brilliant in this film and he seems to do his best work for the Coens. John Turturro is captivating as the hack writer who talks about his love for the common man, but just really doesn't know the common man and really doesn't care about them. Michael Lerner was brilliant as the requisite man behind the desk that is the feature of 40's noir.

One doesn't always know what is in the Coen brothers minds. Is this a foretelling of the rise of Nazism, of intellectuals who really didn't understand the appeal of fascism to the common man, or a surreal portrait of someone who sells out. No matter what their intention, they make you think and return to see their films again and again.

Writer who doesn't want to see

[tarzana311 · 28 August 2003]

This is my first time to comment on a film on this site. I have enjoyed reading y'all's comments. After 4 viewings, I found peace with the mysteries I saw in the film. Barton, though he talks a good show about wanting to write about "the common man", doesn't see anything around him as worthy of being a subject. He fears learning about the common man, or anything else outside his experience. His experience teems with material for a watchful writer, but Barton sees nothing. When the wallpaper peels, he doesn't look for what's underneath or an explanation, he feverishly tries to cover up what's "exposed" as fast as he can (uno metaphoro). I agree with all comments about Goodman presenting Barton with a "common man" right in his own room. He has a research subject to learn from and to use as a springboard to break through his "writer's block", but he can't see anything that "god" presents for him to use. And the Woman on the Beach. Interesting that he never sees her face. He can never really SEE her but seems drawn to her and fascinated by her. He is drawn to the fact that she is "unseeable". In the end he "sees" her and doesn't explore that possibility either. The Box? He never opens it. We assume what we want to assume, but Barton, who is in control (!) simply attaches to the box without ever "discovering" it. He is all show and no substance. I agree, his one hit (the play) may be all he has in him. He's a one-trick pony posing as a seeking writer, intent on revealing the inner "common man" but is petrified by fear, ignorance or what-you-will. Look at the film again with an eye to his inability to "see" what is clearly revealed to him. you may "see" what I mean! Cheers!

I'll show you the life of the mind...

[thehumanduvet · 10/10 · 28 March 2000]

I am absolutely amazed at the fantastic taste of the imdb readership, having loved this film for years and always been told by people I'd told about it and persuaded to watch that it was no good, I finally find some other people out there who love it as much as me, posting (mostly) extremely positive comments...This is a fabulous film, dripping with a brooding, sticky atmosphere that draws you in to the clammy world of Barton Fink, sat in his hotel room listening to the creaking of the wallpaper as it dribbles moistly from the walls, searching for inspiration in his tacky painting and dusty typewriter...Perhaps it is a little dark for some tastes, but as black comedy goes this is the blackest and the most biting there is, the Hollywood system and New York theatrical snobbery lampooned with equal viciousness. Deep insight into the nature of the creative spirit, a plethora of fine performances bringing at first stereotypical characters to full life (despite the unreal, fable-like atmosphere created by the slimy, glistening colours reminiscent of the films of Jeunet&Caro...), and many moments of hilarity make this a perfect movie, one I would not hesitate in recommending to anyone despite the fairly high probability they will hate it. A lack of any underlying morality, an absence of absolutes of right and wrong, good and bad, give this film a unique feeling that it could go anywhere. The last twenty minutes are about the most powerful I have ever seen in anything, at the end of almost every scene I thought it could end there and be an amazing film, yet each further scene only added further depth and poignancy. The first time I saw it, it left me drained, mind spinning, hands shaking, barely able to reach for the remote to rewind it to watch it again...

Classic dark comedy spoofs Hollywood hacks, literati alike

[funkyfry · 10/10 · 2 August 2003]

This is a satire which really eviscerates its main character, nebbish Barton Fink, a semi-successful, very Jewish New York playwright who comes to Hollywood to make his dreams come true, which in his case is definately not writing the next Wallace Beery wrestling picture. There are just too many funny things in this movie to mention them all, so I won't mention any. But this is a movie that is going to stand up to the test of time; it may be the Coen brothers' best movie, because it is both dead funny and dead serious.

Turturro gives the performance of a lifetime as Barton, and Goodman proved with this movie that he was a first class acting talent (what made the Coens think of him in this role, anyway? surely a mark of genius). Davis also shows herself off extremely well, in one of this underrated actresses finest roles.

There is, simply put, no better satire of Hollywood, and none that I can think of that so successfully manages to also spoof the pretentions of those who despise it.

Heartbreak Hell Hotel

[chaswe-28402 · 6/10 · 11 June 2018]

The mountain of praise heaped on this enigma has me puzzled and surprised almost as much as the film itself. Am I missing something ? This appears to be about a simple Simon, named Fink, lured by money or an agent to embark on a career in old-style Hollywood. Following the frequent mentions of wrestling and Wallace Beery, I fathomed it was set in the time period circa 1930-33. Beery made a wrestling picture called Flesh in 1932.

Fink meets another writer said to be modelled on Faulkner, but who also seems to have traits of Scott Fitzgerald, including a significant other resembling Zelda. It occurs to me that there is often vomiting in the Coen movies, and the Faulkner/Fitzgerald character is first come across while vomiting. The Zelda type is portrayed by Judy Davis in a very memorable performance.

There are other encounters. The desk clerk emerges from a subterranean domain, and repeatedly emphasizes his name, which is Chet. He may be standing in for Cerberus. The dead-headed lift attendant ferrying residents may represent Charon. Fink has a room on the 6th floor. It might as well be floor 666.

His neighbour is Charlie, aka Mad Karl Mundt. Could he be standing in for The Devil ? There are also two cops, who are proto-Nazis. Then there are some Hollywood executive types. Geisler; maybe a form of Thalberg. Jon Polito is, unusually, a humiliated gopher. Then there's an alarming mogul, possibly a cross between Cohn, Mayer and Warner, one of whom used to keep a photo of Mussolini in his office. He later wears a uniform. When this tycoon is displeased with Fink's film script, he fires Geisler instead. He had earlier kissed Fink's shoe.

The film ends with a beautiful lady stranger on the shore. I have to confess I was mystified and bewildered by this entire production. The hotel is ultimately engulfed in the flames of the underworld. The finished work is alleged to have helped the Coens to come up with Miller's Crossing. Make of it what you will. The oeuvre of the Coens is uneven, but intriguing. This one I'd say is dissatisfying, but no doubt it's meant to be.

Hollywood: A Metaphor for Hell

[Sickfrog · 10/10 · 14 August 1998]

This slow-paced journey of a writer being lured into a doomed life in the limbo-esqe state of California (synonymous with misery) takes it time developing and preparing itself for a dynamic execution in the end. John Turturro is brilliantly subdued as the tragic writer. Most of the most powerful emotions he conveys are not done through any words or even give -away facial expression. He finds a way to make all those emotions implied, so that you, the viewer, almost insert your own feelings of anguish and impotence into his role. Michael Lerner earned an Oscar nomination as an enthusiastic director, who is critically self-determined, though constantly shifting on what he is supposed to be determined about. John Mahoney, Judy Davis and Tony Shaloub also turn in solid, dependable performances. But above all the other actors, it is John Goodman who shines in a brilliantly conceived and brilliantly executed role. While I will not give away the secret behind his character, this is not a performance that any true film buff will want to miss. It is one of the most dynamic and powerful performance in recent memory. And so, you will not want to miss this, the Coen brothers most moody and tightest film, even beyond their other masterpiece, "Fargo."

It feels like the Coens were struggling with as much writer's block as Barton Fink himself.

[Pjtaylor-96-138044 · 6/10 · 30 April 2018]

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

You Don't Listen !

[ShootingShark · 8/10 · 28 December 2009]

Barton Fink is a playwright, the new darling of Broadway, who gets a tempting offer to write for a Hollywood studio. Reluctantly, he agrees, but when he is assigned a wrestling picture, he finds he is completely blocked up. With a deadline looming, can he come up with a good story ?

This movie, which won the Palme D'Or at the 1991 Cannes Film Festival, seems to be saying that fruity movies designed for critics, are worthless. Isn't that a delicious irony ? An arty movie reflecting on the self-indulgent, egotistical, uninvolving qualities of arty movies. Barton is so self-obsessed with the importance of his work he completely misses the point of everything that's happening around him. Only at the very end, when Lipnick finally chews him out, does he begin to understand the point of writing (and cinema), and it's not to win acclaim for yourself. What makes this especially weird is that for the Coen Brothers, this critical darling of a movie was sandwiched between two even better films, Miller's Crossing and The Hudsucker Proxy, two fantastic entertainment extravaganzas, both of which were mauled and bombed. It's a beautiful film though, filled to the brim with subtext which invites interpretation - the Hotel Earle is really Hell and Charlie is the Devil, is it Audrey's head in the box, wrestling as a metaphor for Barton's block, beauty as a distraction from work/reality, Mayhew as King Nebuchadnezzar unable to interpret his own dreams, Barton's surreal experiences of Hollywood. There as so many engaging little nods to these ideas, like the hotel stationery logo ("A day or a lifetime !") or the odd whooshing noises whenever a door is opened (Skip Lievsay's sound design is terrific). Of course some characters can be interpreted as disguised parodies, with Barton as Clifford Odets, Mayhew as William Faulkner and Lerner as Louis B. Mayer, but this is hardly a biopic or exposé story. The cast are all terrific, with Turturro giving a career-best turn, Goodman doing an incredible job with a character who seems to transform constantly throughout the film, Davis as a southern belle straight out of Tennessee Williams, Lerner and Shaloub injecting wry doses of humour, and Mahoney in a showstopping drunk role. The ace photography (the Coens first with cameraman Roger Deakins) is simply stunning throughout; long elegant takes, amazing ultra-closeups as we literally crawl into Barton's Underwood typewriter, a bravura down-the-plughole tracking shot. Combine this with Carter Burwell's typically spare, haunting score, and terrific production design by Dennis Gassner - the Earle is a much a character as any of the actual people - and the result is an unforgettable piece of fantasy drama and one of the Coen's best movies.

A bit overrated

[salvora · 6/10 · 4 July 2014]

This is a movie with very good actors, interesting characters and some good dialogues, but it's a bit overrated and it's far from a masterpiece. The plot is very slow at the beginning and it doesn't seem to get anywhere during the first half. The second half is a bit of a mess. The plot does become interesting for a little while as unexpected things start to happen and it makes the viewer wonder where it's going and what's going to happen next. But in the end the new plot turns pointless as it doesn't really add anything and the ending is just disappointing. There's no character development whatsoever and there is no good tale to tell. So why tell it?

quirky, dark comedy about "the life of the mind"

[fink_inc · 10/10 · 13 August 2005]

No-one makes films like the Coen brothers and Barton Fink is a film like no other. Like all their movies it can be watched over and over and each viewing is as rewarding as the last. It's basically a film about writer's block (it was written when the Brothers Coen were struggling with 'Miller's Crossing',in the midst of their own block) and how lonely the "life of the mind" is. But the message here is that a writer must do everything he can not to be isolated from his fellow man. Barton is trying to write a screenplay for the common man but won't even listen when one such common man (his neighbor in the Hotel Earl, played by John Goodman) tries to tell him stories. He's too interested in spouting clichés about the nobility of the art of writing and the great service he is providing in his works. From the above Barton Fink may sound a little dry but it is anything but and as is customary in Joel and Ethan's films, the narrative never goes where you think it will. If you see Barton Fink for anything though, it should be for the characters, because they are incredibly well written and acted.

Sweating Bullets

[owen-watts · 7/10 · 28 January 2023]

I'd been wanting to see the Barton Fink ever since I first saw that bit in the Simpsons and I wasn't disappointed. The young Turturro is magnificent as the self-absorbed Fink and it's chock full of that visually specific characterful strangeness you get from the Coens. What let it down for me slightly was its slow sweaty collapse into what felt like pure allegory towards the end. The old film studies student in me gets itchy over that sort of thing. The observations on creative pressure and contract slavery for studios (surely today more relevant than even in the 40s) are really sharp though and the performances are all fantastic. Not utterly vital but seriously captivating.

Difficult to understand but the perfect portrait of the gap between the common public and the minds of the intellectuals.

[filipemanuelneto · 5/10 · 24 June 2017]

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.

You all got it wrong!! Why this is a masterpiece: (READ ON)

[mistagenki · 10 July 2004]

Spoiler Alert 98% of the above user comments have totally missed the idea of this movie, and yet some have gotten it exactly correct without even realizing it. Here is THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS MASTERPIECE MOVIE...

Those that stated that the first 2/3 of the movie is boring and then it starts to pick up when the action begins, have unwittingly seen the plot, and masterfully fulfilled its premise. See, Barton Fink is a boring, artsy, impassioned Jewish writer, that gets one lucky break, and is instantly summoned to write a movie that the execs are sure "will be a winner" (no pressure there, right Hollywood?). But since he is so much an "artist", he cannot lower himself to the level of writing a simple wrestling film, desiring instead to write witty stories about "the common man", films that "really mean something". Then he refuses to listen to common man stories, stuck instead on his own ideas of what that should be.

Well, OK, what is obvious here? Well the Coens for one, are Jewish WRITERS/ FILMMAKERS, who got one lucky break, "Blood Simple", and then were given the open door to make Hollywood films, are always branded as mere "artists", too idealistic for the majority of the masses (their movies are rarely fully appreciated or understood, and make only a small profit, but their genius high critic ratings keeps them afloat). So THEY ARE Barton Fink, quite literally and intentionally. It is THEIR personal tale, ensconced in a symbolic cloak.

Summary: Barton wants to write for the common man, and yet what the common man wants to see is this dumb "B"-rated wrestling flick, not some heartfelt idealistic piece about some friendly yokel. They want predictable mystery, unadulterated violence and blood, guns blazing, detectives crunching, and loud sex. As Barton stares at the image of his idealism (the beach picture), he longs for his ill conceived idealism to take form and materialize onto the paper. But of course it is a failure, because he sees himself as an "artist", not as a business man with epic visions.

Which is why finally, the mysterious Audrey (the real writer he is supposed to consult), who always helps Mayhew's stories out of a jam, becomes the catalyst for this story as well, by initiating the sex/horror/detective story as soon as she is asked to. Normal writers apparently are like either Fink or Mayhew, but she sees through to what makes for real-world successful writing (not some dorky contrived "common man" story), and she initiates the final action-filled finale immediately.

This is PURE GENIUS! "Adaptation" as one user here mentioned is like this film, because of the similarity in how the plot loops back in on itself. But this one is much more subtle, to the point where the "common man" would not even understand this movie, and thereby fulfill its message, that all people want are the action films that Hollywood dishes to us, just like the mogul states over and over, and we see delivered on the last third of the celluloid. In the end, Fink realizes his idealism, that what he really wanted is to get his artistic view rejected, so that he can maintain his idealistic (unrealistic) outlook, which is his true passion, the "fight" for self fulfillment. This is personified by the appearance of the girl on the beach, with Fink still not realizing what would be in the box, because he doesn't comprehend Hollywood thinking or action movies (or "mainstream" movies or plots). But he has achieved his goal, as has the movie for Joel and Ethan, as both being an incredibly well-thought and executed film, both an art flick, and an action piece with more perfectly executed symbolism than anyone since Wells.

Now you know why it won all the Cannes awards that year, and why these two brothers from St. Louis Park Minnesota are gods of the art film, while the contrasting Warchowski brothers were once gods of the "common man" film (the first Matrix at least). The Warchowski's even named the subtitle of the Matrix Reloaded as "The Burly Man", which if you look closely (zoom in), is the name of Barton Fink's mystery screenplay, thereby once again fulfilling the intention of this film to the fullest (that what common people want is delivered like clockwork in the Matrix), just like pure Bible prophecies.

Amen, brothers.

A masterpiece of surrealism

[Mort-31 · 10/10 · 31 October 2000]

The Coen-movie I liked best was "Raising Arizona". But being realisic, I know that "Miller's Crossing" and "Barton Fink" were better. There is so much inside and behind this movie, it's impossible to refer to every single detail. John Turturro has never given a better performance than here, as arrogant, too ambitious author Barton Fink. John Goodman also plays his role for a lifetime. And of course, Michael Lerner was nominated for an Academy Award. The reason why he still is no star is that he didn't act in any other Coen-brothers-movie. It's a fact that with their direction actors reach their climax.

Some of my friends who saw this film disliked it because they didn't understand the plot. Well, this is not a movie for people who need instructions how to handle a film. You have to think, to guess what all the symbols mean, what the ending means. Whatever you'll guess it can't be completely wrong because a real masterpiece like this offers many possibilities for interpretation.

John Goodman, Forevery!

[Hitchcoc · 9/10 · 16 March 2010]

I knew I was entering the world of the insane when I picked this up. I wasn't disappointed. This is a dark comedy where people don't talk to each other, they just talk. Barton Fink is a big phony one hit wonder. He has these high ideals which he really doesn't understand. He's unable to see the forest for the trees. When he meets John Goodman's character, Charlie, he has an opportunity to find his muse, but he doesn't even listen. When he does, it's too late. The events of this film are wonderful, from Barton's speeches and his block. To Mayhew, the ersatz Faulkner, who drinks constantly and screeches. Barton Fink is so unlikeable that we don't even care what happens to him in other than a casual way. Goodman steals every scene he is in and ends up so much more that originally thought. This is a movie about taking everything to a higher pitch. It's about the artist and the dilettante. It's about the movies being a purely commercial enterprise. Wallace Beery is the king of the screen. It's a wrestling movie. For God's sake, they're asking for so little. Barton Fink is a whiny loser and he pays the price. The Coens are, without a doubt, the most refreshing thing of the last two decades.

"I've always found that writing comes from a great inner pain."

[ackstasis · 7/10 · 20 April 2007]

New York playwright Barton Fink lives in his own personal Hell. Whilst he purports to be the voice of the Common Man – of the two-bit salesmen and the fishmongers – he is not one himself. He presents other with the illusion of modesty, but he's knows that he's good at what he does and he loves to hear it. Barton claims to be a spokesman for the working-class, but his time is too important to be concerned with anything they have to say. Indeed, throughout the film, we hardly even meet any of these people whom Barton is said to represent – with the exception of his disruptive neighbour Charlie Meadows (played brilliantly by John Goodman), who turns out to be something more than a lousy insurance salesman.

My opening description has inevitably made out Barton Fink (John Turturro) to be a horrible, instantly unlikable character, though, for much of the film, we are led to believe everything that he claims, and to be sympathetic with him. After one of his New York plays, 'Bare Ruined Choirs', becomes a tremendous critical and commercial success, Barton is hired by Capitol Pictures in Los Angeles to write the screenplay for an upcoming Wallace Beery B-movie about professional wrestling. The only problem is that Barton is suffering from quite a debilitating case of writer's block.

At the 1991 Cannes Film Festival, the fourth film from Joel and Ethan Coen was unanimously awarded the prestigious Palme d'Or (Golden Palm). In an unprecedented occurrence in the history of the festival, 'Barton Fink' also left with the two other major awards, Best Actor (Turturro) and Best Director (Joel Coen). None of these accolades were undeserved – Turturro was extremely strong in the first leading role of his that I've seen, though perhaps a shade below his absolutely mesmeric turn as the slimy, double-crossing bookie, Bernie, in the Coen Brothers' previous effort, 'Miller's Crossing' (1990).

It is best not to take the events in 'Barton Fink' too literally. The Coen Brothers' pictures are rife with stunning imagery and symbolism, and, due to the tight-lipped media habits of the directors, multiple unverified interpretations of the film's meaning continue to circulate, ranging from the film being a simple satire of Hollywood, an allegory for Hell or even a representation of the rise of Nazicism! In terms of film-making style, 'Barton Fink' is one hundred percent "Coen-esque," though its heightened level of surrealism certainly invites comparisons with such films as David Lynch's debut masterpiece, 'Eraserhead.'

A host of actors have made their careers through performing as Coen film regulars, and 'Barton Fink' contains at least three of them. Turturro ('Miller's Crossing', 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?'), as mentioned earlier, is brilliant in the main role, his character gradually changing from being likable to unlikable as we learn more about his nature. John Goodman ('Raising Arizona,' 'The Big Lebowski,' 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?') is fantastic as always as Barton's disruptive and deceptively "common" neighbour. Steve Buscemi, who seems to briefly appear in just about every Coen Brothers film, has an enjoyably quirky supporting role as Chet, the desk-man at the Earle Hotel where Barton stays. Other well-acted supporting roles include Jack Lipnick (an Oscar-nominated Michael Lerner), the fast-talking, no-nonsense head of Capitol Pictures; W.P. Mayhew (John Mahoney), the well-known but increasingly drunken writer; Mayhew's overworked "secretary" (Judy Davis); Capitol Pictures producer Ben Geisler (Tony Shalhoub), and Lipnick's unappreciated assistant, Lou Breeze (John Polito).

As I've expressed in just about every other Coen Brother's film review I've written, 'Barton Fink' is brimming with stunning imagery, witty dialogue and a cast of enjoyably quirky characters. Try not to take everything as literally as it is presented to you, and I'm sure you'll agree that this is one of their best.

Lesser-Viewed Coen Brothers Film Really Hits Hard

[gavin6942 · 8/10 · 26 January 2008]

While many of us know "Fargo" and "Big Lebowski", many fans still haven't heard of "Barton Fink", which is too bad. This is probably John Turturro's best role (and his least weird). Tony Shalhoub also gives an outstanding performance (at least as good as he was in "The Siege").

John Goodman? Heck, even he is pretty good here and I'm not a big fan of his (though the Coen Brothers do him justice like no others can). His portrayal of the questionable neighbor just really suits him.

There is supposed to be deep symbolism in this film -- some say it's an allegory for the rise of Nazism (and I can see that), while others say it's just a critique of Hollywood. I don't know. But, you know what? No matter what it's about, it's beautiful in a nihilistic way... and you will want to know: what's in the box? And I'm not going to tell you.

Hell-ywood

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 25 May 2006]

"Barton Fink" is, in my opinion, probably the Coen brothers' weirdest movie ever. Portraying the playwright title character (John Turturro) getting called to LA in 1941 to write a movie script and experiencing several strange things while suffering writer's block, they let out all the stops here. I should identify that although we usually expect unusual things from the Coen brothers, this is beyond bizarre. Of course, it is very likely that they're just showing how hellish Hollywood is (how many movies have shown that?). But that bug, plus Charlie Meadows (John Goodman), plus the picture on the wall - and of course the end scene - all add up to something really far out. What does it all add up to? I don't know, but the movie is worth seeing. Just be forewarned, this is not really an "easy" movie (well duh, it's a Coen brothers movie). Also starring Michael Lerner, Judy Davis, John Mahoney, Steve Buscemi and Tony Shalhoub.

"It's a goddam B picture, big men in tights, you know the drill."

[classicsoncall · 9/10 · 10 December 2007]

I couldn't help thinking during the fiery hallway scene that this in fact represented Barton Fink's own self imposed exile into the confines of hell, if not willingly, at least metaphorically in keeping with his original mission. You see, Fink (John Turturro) was in Hollywood to capitalize on his hit stage play success, only to fall victim to the 'common man', read that 'lowest common denominator' syndrome. Could there be anything lower than coming up with a wrestling film for Wallace Beery? He actually did one you know, 1932's "Flesh", but that's another story.

I don't know what it was about Turturro's appearance in the film, it reminded me of a cross between Roy Orbison and Elvis Costello. But he has the conflicted writer business down solid, with a writer's block that just won't quit. It would have been easy if only he took Mayhew's (John Mahoney) advice - "Well me, I just enjoy making things up." Intead, holding to his ideals of artistic integrity, Barton is doomed to police investigations, an affair that turns deadly, and a dreaded head in a box. Come on now, you know there's one in there.

You know, sometimes a film has a scene that you can just watch over and over again. I might be the only one on this, but I could do the same with Judy Davis's introduction in the story as Mayhew's secretary/lover Audrey. Just watch her face and mannerisms as she greets Fink at the door, they're priceless. Now Mayhew, every time he went into one of his drunken jags, he sounded to me just like Eddie 'Rochester' Anderson.

Great performances all around here. Turtorro goes without saying, but John Goodman, Tony Shalhoub, Michael Lerner, all brilliant characterizations. Steve Buscemi looked a little like the Gollum character from 'Lord of the Rings', now there would have been a casting coup.

Give the Coen Brothers some credit, they put memorable characters up on the screen with memorable stories. My favorite is still "Miller's Crossing", but this is right up there with the best. And if you think about that dance hall scene with the two military branches going at it, there was just enough grappling going on to give Barton the inspiration he needed for the wrestling flick, if only he could stoop so low.

Have I missed the point?

[lee_a_scott · 6/10 · 25 November 2006]

Ahh…I am really not sure what I think of this movie. I mean, I could tell it was good – I have seen enough films to be able to make the distinction. The performances were spot on, with Turturro and Goodman excelling. It all looked very pretty and very characterful and all that sort of thing but I always seem to feel with Coen brothers films – what's the point? As with Fargo, I found the quirks of the characters interesting and watchable, but not very engaging. It was difficult to care who was doing what and why. There always seems to be a certain distance, which I felt in this and Fargo and Hudsucker, where the cleverness of the set ups kind of distances the audiences – the sort of problem that Barton faced whenever he held forth on his ideals. Maybe Barton Fink is a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Another Coen Brother great!

[artzau · 8/10 · 4 December 2000]

I liken the Coen brothers to Haagen-Daz ice cream, i.e., various stages of good. I would argue this dark film, laden with more allegories than Dante, is not their best...but, it's good, damn good. To begin with, stellar performances form Turturro, Goodman, Mahoney, Buscemi and Lehner. The thing I find amazing is the skill in bringing so much darkness to such a bright, colorful cinemagraphic work-- remindful of Ingmar Bergman's Cries and Whispers, in that regard-- that teeters on the edge. Goodman's last scene walking into the burning hotel room is eerie but very bright (why not? The damn place is burning down.) This is another great Coen brother film and let's hear it for Ethan and Joel! See it!

Hooray for Phonywood!

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 5 May 2016]

Ever since the day those brave pioneers came out west from the east coast with dreams of sunshine and perfect weather conditions for making movies, that ideal known as Hollywood (not the place, but the state of mind) has dashed many hopes and dreams. Whether it be for the phoniness of the people, lack of artistic respect of how movies are made and the absence of creative aspects has turned off many artists. Writers have exposed the shady world of filmmaking, both in California and abroad, and when Hollywood does it and gets away with it, it is practically a work of genius.

Praised playwright John Turturro finds that Broadway success make him wanted buy the biggest movie studio in Hollywood and when he arrives, he's fine he has been given a story he has no passion about. Struggling to find ideas in a dilapidated Beach Hotel, he meets wacky neighbor John Goodman (who turns out to be quite off the beam), finds a hopeful mentor in alcoholic author John Mahoney and falls in love with Mahoney's younger mistress/secretary, Judy Davis. Slowly but surely, Turturo finds out how Hollywood works behind the scenes, hiding scandal, building and breaking careers (and hearts), and ultimately how profit is more important than artistic integrity. Oh, and don't forget about the mysterious box that Goodman leaves behind.

An excellent cast walks around a very avant garde set (which got a well deserved Oscar nomination) as if they were in an ongoing dream state. The hallway set alone in the hotel is worthy of that honor. Oscar nominated Michael Lerner plays the flamboyant but crude studio head, with Tony Shalhoub outrageous as well as the talent scout who becomes his adviser. Steve Buscemi also steals scenes as the hotel clerk dressed in bellboy attire. While Lerner is excellent, I would have preferred the Oscar nomination go to Goodman, then very successful on T.V.'s "Roseanne".

For those who have gone to Hollywood hoping for some sort of success in film, whether it be in front of the camera or behind the scenes, it is a revelation especially if you have decided want you got there that it's not worth the destruction of your ethics. I am one of those who thought of a career as a film editor but unwilling to compromise my personal standards decided to remain a fan of the movies from afar. Like "Sunset Boulevard", "The Bad and the Beautiful", "The Big Knife" and others, this doesn't ask for apologies for biting the hand that feeds it, and in the end, got applause for taking a chunk out. It might not be for all tastes (as are most Cohen films), but artists should totally check it out.

Deep, meaningful, slow, and boring.

[Useful_Reviewer · 5/10 · 28 February 2010]

First it should be noted that this is not so much a comedy as a comedy/drama. The comedy parts are indeed funny, but there aren't that many of them. The drama parts are desperately slow and dull, but the entire movie is absolutely rife with metaphor and symbolic meaning. Also, the acting performances are fantastic.

So if you're the kind of person who likes to think about every possible idea the filmmakers could have been intending to communicate in every scene, then you'll have a great time with this movie, but if you prefer a story that moves from plot point to plot point at a reasonable pace, then you might find this very hard to sit through.

Personally, I felt the filmmakers were trying to beat me over the head with symbolism, metaphor, and atmosphere to try to make a point that most people already agree with.