Or Too Many Allegories
Instead of launching several topics, today I’ll start just this first thread. “Barton Fink” has been interpreted in many different ways, and to a considerable extent, I think the Coens calculated it to be that way. So to begin our discussion, I’d like to hear what all of you thought as your first reaction to the film. And for those who have seen it more than once, how did the experience compare to watching it the first time?
In my own case, although I had seen “Raising Arizona”, I didn’t realize that “Barton Fink” was by the same film makers. And even if I had, this was early enough in their career that I don’t think I could have had a sense of the “Coenesque”. The movie seemed liked it was going to be a “normal” story of a New York writer going to Hollywood in the ‘30s. But then we got to that bell at the hotel desk and all expectations were off.
What did you think about watching the film, and how much did you know about the movie before watching it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I won't be able to watch it until tomorrow night.
But I see some "Sunset Boulevard" comparisons already.
First, it was fantastic. I liked "Fargo" and "Blood Simple," but I wasn't mesmerized by either, and this exceeded my expectations. I expected "Barton Fink" to be good, but not crazy, what-next fabulous.
I thought of it as a deliciously creepy, almost horror film.
The hotel was wonderfully dreadful. I looked down and realized I was clutching my blanket when that wallpaper started to slowly peel -- no, ooze -- away. And the drains and Steve Buscemi and the elevator bellhop -- the place reminded me of a tomb. Aaack! And that stationery: "For a day or a lifetime." Hotel California or hell or what have you.
And the menacing characters ... Jack Lipnick was so funny, but he scared the hell out of me. I didn't read up on the movie beforehand but was half-covering my eyes whenever John Goodman entered the scene because I knew he was going to crack.
There was so much menace and quiet terror before a corpse entered the picture. Aaaaaack!
Nine or 10? This might be a 10. KC mentioned the other day that we hadn't yet watched a horror film ... I don't know ... it's not traditional horror by any means, but I think that's what I just watched.
FYI, it may be a couple of days before we can watch it. Some upstanding Newtonian absconded with the only copy from Blockbuster. Sorry.
I'm going to watch it right now! If I wait until after dark, alone in the house, I may get too creeped out.
My reaction to seeing it again: I saw it first in the early '90s, so I didn't remember any of the details. I just remembered who was in it, that it was about a writer and that it was lush and creepy. It was fun to see different scenes roll around and remember oh yeah, that guy. For instance, I had totally forgotten about the WIlliam Mayhew (Scott Fitzgerald!) character and his fantastic scenes with Judie Davis. I also had forgotten about the awesome Jewish movie mogul.
John Goodman was fantastic in it in every way — his voice, his physical makeup, his emotion.
And I thought John Turturro was a great type for every pompous-ass liberal intellectual self-important urban know-it-all you ever knew. Nothing excited him quite so much as the sound of his own voice. The emotional high point of the film, for me, was when Goodman's character screamed at him "YOU DON'T LISTEN!"
I do remember the first time I saw it that I loved it but didn't give it much thought. I was satisfied to think of it as a sort of haunting, atmospheric morality tale of some sort. I still have no idea what it means really, but this time — maybe because of this blog! — I have a burning curiosity to think it through.
Don’t you think that Mayhew is as much Faulkner as Fitzgerald? Wouldn’t Faulkner have been more likely to have written a doorstop novel titled “Nebuchadnezzar”?
The casting is certainly great, lets get a new thread started for that.
I don't know. Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon, a land of riches, which was Fitgerald's forte. Fitgerald even has a book called
"Babylon Revisited" and he was woking on "The Last Tycoon" when he died.
And in real life, Fitzgerald actually did become a Hollywood writer — a failed one — and he was a terrible alcoholic, and he did have a relationship with his secretary, and his beloved wife was confined to an insane asylum (there's a reference to Mayhew's drinking stemming from his wife having lost her mind). I thought the reference to F.
Scott was crystal clear, although Mayhew did have a southern accent like Faulkner. I LOVED when he told Judie Davis: "I gave you love, and you repaid me with pity, the basest coin thay is."
Ok, fair enough.
Mayhew must have been a fun role to play with those wonderful droll lines and all the staggering around and ranting.
Oh, Ricky, I just read on WIkipedia that Faulkner also went to Hollywood and "worked, uncredited, on a Wallace Beery wrestling picture called Flesh." WIkipedia says the character is a composite of F. Scott and Faulkner.
Damn. What’s the fun in arguing if we are both right?
So try this one out: would you rather read a large novel titled “Nebuchadnezzar” written by Faulkner or Fitzgerald? Until a few years ago, I would have said Fitzgerald. But I have been disappointed in rereading his work. I don’t think I’ll read any of it anymore except “Gatsby”. But I’d at least give Faulkner’s “Nebuchadnezzar” a try. What do you think it would be?
Oh, and I might have to look for that Beery picture.
I have to go with Fitzgerald, hon. I'm still a huge, huge fan — and getting huger.
Faulkner's "Nebu" would be about some tormented cotton tycoon with a whole bunch of crazy things going on.
Was Audrey's reference to Mayhew putting in an "idiot man child" a reference to Faulkner's "Sound and Fury"?
That's my take.
My first reaction to it was "what the hell?" I thought it was very good and very interesting, but I kept expecting things to be explained at the end, and, uh, they weren't.
And, for the record, I like Fitzgerald and think Faulkner is worthless.
Worthless? Honestly? I have never been a big fan, but enough really fucking smart people — including the genius who penned "Sons of Mississippi" — think he's not only great, but the greatest American novelist who ever lived, that the word "worthless" would not come to my mind, let alone cross my lips.
Explain yourself, Benjamin!
I tried to read The Sound and the Fury, and I didn't understand one jot or tittle. I have no use for writing I can't understand.
I feel the same about James Joyce.
I knew nothing about the movie before watching it, (I hadn't even heard of it), and I had no expectations. I thought I could sense something "Coenesque," but that may have been just because of the casting.
Post a Comment