From: assist@orion.oac.uci.edu (ASSIST Coordination Site)
Subject: Re: Barton Fink
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:58:22 GMT

In article <2A918B4B.5699@orion.oac.uci.edu> assist@orion.oac.uci.edu (ASSIST Coordination Site) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.193107.21125@dazixco.ingr.com> doak@sunbug.dazixco.ingr.com writes:
>>
>>In article <17490143@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, mort@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jeff Mortensen) writes:
>>>In rec.arts.movies, meltdown@eng.umd.edu (Salil Parikh) writes:
>>>
>>>> I just saw Barton Fink.  Great film... except for the last ~10 minutes.
>>>> What gives?
>>>
>>>	opposite to your view of this movie.  The first hour and fifty
>>>	minutes are sumed up in one word: BORING! The last 15 minutes where
>>>	interesting.  How can we have such a difference in views?
>>
>>
>>   Since I asked the same question I'll answer too.  
>>   
>>   (WARNING: spoilers)
>>
>>   I often find movies (and books) that start slow work up to a powerful 
>>ending.  Barton Fink did move slow but the characters were being developed
>>and the plot was becoming more interesting.  When the writer's girlfriend
>>was murdered and the neighbor left the package behind it seemed to be
>>getting to the meat of the movie.  The fact that it then went into
>>never-never land instead of twisting and turning it's way to a wonderful
>>denouement was dissapointing.  In my humble opinion, it was the last
>>15 minutes that failed, not what came before.
>>   
>>
>>>	This is not just my opinion.  I had several guests over to watch this
>>>	movie, and they all have different tastes in films, yet they all      
>>>        agreed that this movie was BORING!   
>>>	
>>   Maybe you and your friends watch too many Hollywood movies.  
>>
>>
>>   But since you found the last 15 minutes so interesting maybe you 
>>can explain what no one else has:  What did it all mean?
>>
>>
>>
>>First, I should say that I thought this movie was brilliant
>>and not the least bit boring.  In all the postings I have read
>>regarding this movie, no one made reference to the most obvious
>>and ironic story line.  In the beggining of the film, Barton says that
>>he wants to write about the "common man".  In walks John Goodman's
>>character, a simple man,  who begins telling him, what else
>>"his stories."  Here is all the material which Barton needs to write
>>about, however, he is too self-absorbed in the fact that he has a mental
>>block, that he takes John Goodman's chatter as a distraction instead
>>of inspiration.  Barton has also become wrapped up in
>>the "Hollywood" trap of getting this "wrestling" 
>>film done for the studio in time, thus, straying further from 
>>his original intentions at the beginning of the film.
>
>Sorry, I accidentally sent this before I was finished, so I will
>continue the post:

>John Goodman's character all throughout the movie, IMO, kept trying
>to get Barton's attention as if to  say "write about me" and his
>actions which started out with the "friendly" chats escalated
>into more "aggressive" attention-getting actions.  By the end of
>the movie, John Goodman's character has given Barton a whole script
>worth of actions to write about yet Barton still does not have the
>"nerve" to address the material which has been laid out for him.  Even  
>as he sits on the beach with the box (which presumably is the head of
>the murdered woman) he is still attempting to escape from the reality
>at hand in his watching of the beautiful woman, the same as when he 
>was looking at the picture of the woman on the beach in his room,
>instead of confronting what is in the box and enduring the arduous
>task of writing.

>Kris

--