Joe from "Sunset Boulevard" and Barton are both blocked writers. Both are trapped in a creepy house/hotel. Both are fairly unsympathetic male leads. Both fall victim to their own ego in a sense. Both get chewed up and spit out by Hollywood. Max and Audrey are both trying to prop up someone's vanity by making him or her feel like they still have a career. Nora, past her prime, is lost in a world of paranoid delusion; and Mayhew, past his, is lost in a world of alcoholic delusion. In both films there's a murder because someone felt their needs were being ignored. Both films touch on the notion that Hollywood studios can make or break you, that Hollywood loves nothing more than a scandal. Both films have an "unnatural" twist: Joe telling a story after he is dead, Barton walking out of the flaming hotel and finding his fantasy girl on the beach.
Which do you think was a more compelling indictment of the movie-making culture?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Good question. I think Barton Fink says more negative about movie making. Compare Lipnick and Geisler in Barton Fink to Cecil B. DeMille in Sunset Boulevard. Most of the negative in Sunset Boulevard has to do with "what the public wants." Barton Fink makes fun of the hierarchy itself at Capitol.
I think so too.
I agree. In "Sunset Boulevard," we didn't get a look at the heartless studio execs who were keeping Norma out of the pictures or hear their callous remarks about her being old and washed-up. In "Barton Fink," the bastards were right in our faces.
Agree with Ben ... in "Sunset" they're catering to the public but still show some humanity as to how they treat Norma. She's even protected through her "arrest" even when her actions have gone beyond the pale of difficult Hollywood queen.
In "Barton Fink" I didn't get the feeling that the producers had much respect for their audience.
Good questions.
I was having a hard time choosing between this film and a couple of others. The contrast with “Sunset Boulevard” helped tip it this way.
If you had asked which is the better movie, I would have waved it off since I cannot compare them on that score. But I like the question you did pose. “Barton Fink” is both a broader and deeper indictment of the movie-making culture.
Remember one time we had a tangential discussion of “what is art?” And I suggested more directed questions about artistic practices and inquires were better? Maybe “Barton Fink” can illustrate that. What Lipnick wants are money making entertainments. He hasn’t the slightest interest in any artistic exploration. If a fruity New Yorker can make him a buck, then great. Otherwise, he’ll give the picture to a dependable hack. Fink, on the other hand, thinks of himself as all about Art. But that’s just pretentious and rather meaningless crap. He would need to engage in a real search and try to come to some sort of understanding of his subject to have much artistic merit. Besides being too self-centered for that, I think Fink lacks the curiosity. So what is in the box? We the viewers assume that we know. It seems that Fink might be making the same assumption. But does he investigate? Well, he squints at the box and gives it a tentative shake. But after that he just dutifully carries it around as part of his permanent baggage. The girl on the beach asks what’s in the box and he says he doesn’t know. She ask is it his and he says he doesn’t know.
Great point about curiosity. I didn't make the connection between art and intellectual curiosity, but you're right -- a good artist needs it, and Fink lacks it. As shown by many things, but especially the box.
Post a Comment