ACK! (to quote Christy)

Oh dear. I just read something very alarming in the big film book. The entry on the Coen brothers:

"Raising Arizona" was, for me, close to unwatchable; unfunny, technologically impelled, showy, and not just empty but condescending. "Barton Fink" was show-off time again, a dash of Nathanael West, a pinch of sophomore surrealism, numb satire, another kid's film — yet much more promising whenever John Goodman was on-screen, and fearsomely beautiful in the burning corridors, as if at last the Coens were on their way.

This raised my hackles, in part because I have generally agreed with everything this writer says. When he described Hugh Grant as "an incipient sneeze waiting for a vacant nose," I wanted to offer myself in marriage.

But this! Oh dear. What do you think of this wicked assessment?

What's in the Box, Part 2

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?