From: maureenw@sco.COM (Maureen Wilkes)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: BARTON FINK: say what?  (SPOILERS)
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:41:44 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Jul27.174622.1@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu> bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.192508.8083@dazixco.ingr.com>, doak@sunbug.ingr.com 
>(Doak Heyser) writes:
>
>>    I got to see Barton Fink the other day and was left a little perplexed.
>
>First of all, I believe the story of the film is not to be taken literally.
>I also don't believe it's a "dream", or a "decent into hell", or a "bad drug
>trip" as I've heard offered before.  It is, simply put, an alegory.

I thought of it as every writer's bad dream come true: his neuroses, fears,
and imaginings step out of the mist and into the daylight.  He actually
BECOMES a character, just as stuck and powerless in situations as the ones 
he creates.

>
>>    How did the writer's girlfriend die and if it was the next-door neighbor
>> why did he throw up when he saw her body?

I presumed it was an act, sort of a projectile version of crocodile tears.
Remember, after being sick he promptly collected the body and disposed of
it....he recovered from his "horror" pretty quickly.

>> Simple minds would like to know.  Thanks.

My fiance and I had a good rip-roaring discussion about it.  He's
not an analytical person when it comes to entertainment, so I was surprised
at how much thought the film provoked in him.  I took that as a complement
to the Coen brothers' skills, but others prefer the argument that a story's
intent and conclusion must be clear to be considered successful.

>
>Try this one on for size.  The characters represent various elements of 
>Barton's psyche.  Ya know, id, ego, etc.  Or even not that specific.  How about
>Charlie as "the everyman", or the "voice of the common man".  The woman I saw
>as Barton's muse, but a corrupting one.

Actually, I thought of her as the opposite to a muse.  I saw her as the 
object (and every writer has one) of his distraction -- in other words,
the person, activity, or thing that allows a writer to procrastinate from
his work.  Anything is easier than writing, and nothing's easier than NOT
writing -- for a writer, that is.  His interest in her became an excuse to
be distracted from his screenplay -- and her death was an ULTIMATE distraction!


> The Falkner-esque writer was what 
>Barton would become if he sold out to Hollywood.

It was also the classic disillusionment that accompanies many great 
transformations of spirit.  Sort of like learning there is no Santa Claus
and that the local priest buggers small boys in his spare time.

> Barton's mind was an
>alternatly pleasant and hellish place to be as he slipped in and out of 
>"selling out", or corrupting his talent.  
>
>There are similar themes in the writer-that-can't-write movies _Naked Lunch_,
>and _Kafka_.  I enjoyed all three, and almost view them as a trilogy.  They all
>examine, through metaphors, where a writer's inspiration comes from, and the
>effects his use of the inspiration.

I haven't seen NAKED LUNCH (the book left me with no desire to pursue 
anything further to do with Burroughs -- gee, does that mean I'm not one 
of Dan Quayle's cultural elite?).  But I have seen KAFKA, and was mesmerized.
Now that you mention it (and I'm glad you did), they do go quite well 
together.