Talk:Barton Fink

message: It's suppose to be "Barton Fink (film)" and not "Barton Fink" like EVERY OTHER Wikipedia article about a movie.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.39.24 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if there's another article likely to have the same name. (Usually if the movie is based on a book, or has a common title like "Australia". The name of this page is fine. Scartol • Tok 00:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone FIX the title of this article 

message: The Mayhew character obviously draws from William Faulkner -- though only partly. Most of all Mayhew and Audrey are based on crime writer Dashiell Hammett and his mistress, playwright Lillian Hellman. Hellman always denied that she had written any of Hammetts stories (the few he finished after they met) -- instead she admitted that Hammett had greatly helped her with her early plays. They officially co-wrote at least one screenplay. The Hammett/Hellman angle is emphasized in the film, as, after the killings of Mayhew and Audrey, Barton fears that 'Mad Man' Mundt has also killed his -- Barton's -- parents: Samuel (Hammetts original first name) and Lillian.
: There's more clous to the Hammett connection, such as Mayhews white clothes, described as typically Hammett by Lillian Hellman. Also, according to Hellmann, Wallace Beery (doing his first movie in 1913) was the favourite actor of Hammetts grandmother... -- Linkomfod 18:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mayhew and Audrey 

message: I find it interesting there is literally no commentary out there, in any review of the film, about how the film is a total and unabashed attack against the Group Theatre and its illustrious members such as Strasberg and Odets, among other legendary luminaries. Theotherday 09:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As postmodernists, the Coens are probably not especially "attacking" this group: What they're after is modernism in general, and its problems with balancing political radicalism and cultural elitism. -- Linkomfod 19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A veiled attack against Strasberg, Odets, and the Group theatre in general?

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 01:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: :Image:BartonFink.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been remedied. Thanks, HAL! Scartol • Tok 15:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:BartonFink.jpg

message: This recent copyedit removed a number of links in the lead. I'm worried that the effort to remove overlinking (which I appreciate) has tilted the balance in the other direction. I feel that the links in the lead to William Shakespeare and Stanley Kubrick and Preston Sturges deserve links, but I'd like to know what other folks think. Thanks for your feedback. Scartol • Tok 15:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did that reduction in wikilinking - I have been instructed that only one wikilink per subject per page is the desired goal; I have also been instructed that too many links in the lead paragraph is an undesirable situation as it makes that paragraph look like an ocean of blue, so the applicable links should either be placed: a) in the first place the subject appears; or b) reasonably spread out so as to not overwhelm a particular section of the page.  That was my goal.Raymondwinn (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is a bit of a special case when it comes to the generally practiced rule of one-link-per-page. We do want to avoid overlinking in the lead, but the place to do so is by striking links to commonly-known locations and concepts (no need to link street or New York, for example). I'm curious to know how other people feel about the people named above. (Also, please be careful about how you reply to messages – I had to fix the formatting in this section to keep it all from running together. Are you using a third-party program?) Scartol • Tok 13:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead links 

message: When reconstructing this article to lead it in the direction of FA-land, I created these images to compare the characters in Barton Fink with their real-life inspirations. At the FAC, an objection was raised about the necessity of these non-free images. In the interest of gathering consensus, what do other folks think? Do they significantly help the reader's understanding? Scartol • Tok 20:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Lipnick/Mayer photo fails because it appears to unnecessarily emphasize that one relationship, while the text states the character is a composite of several producers or producer types. However, the Mayhew/Faukner photo provides a good illustration of the Coens' statement that Mahoney was cast because of his resemblance to Faulkner. Although it isn't necessary for the article, there is a solid link between the photo and the film analysis. Given that more substantial link, I think a case can made for fair use.  — CactusWriter | needles 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mahoney/Faulkner image is striking, but I wonder if a better picture can be found to show the similarity between Turturro and Odets. Odets had curly hair that is not visible in the photo shown. Stetsonharry (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot comparisons 

message: I made some minor tweaks to the Clifford Odets section of this impressive article. For instance, the article said that Odets brought women up to his "hotel room" as recorded in the journal, when actually he lived in an apartment house (One Fifth Ave.) in 1940. I'm basing these fixes on the Journal itself, and not the source cited, so there may have to be an adjustment in the sourcing. Stetsonharry (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have access to the journal, so if you make changes to the information, please also include footnotes which point to the source you're using. Scartol • Tok 15:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Odets

message: Why the article has to tell the complete movie? Why not a simple synopsis?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.0.142.30 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot section is not long compared to the rest of the article, and is needed to understand the movie. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User  recently moved the plot to the beginning of the article, claiming in the edit summary "Plot not in correct place for MOS". I've searched the MOS for any mention of this, and can't find a single word about where the plot summary ought to go. I feel strongly that the background should go first, so that the reader knows the background of the work. Can anyone explain the thinking behind this change — or, better yet, point me to some mention in the MOS? Scartol • Tok 15:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He may be referencing MOS:FILM, which has the "Plot" section at first, though the guidelines do not explicitly state that it has to be in this order.  The standard argument is that it helps to put the "Plot" section first since it establishes context for the rest of the article, especially for those who have not seen the film.  I prefer it at the beginning, too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: A list of characters and which actor played them would have been helpful ...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.127.95 (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who played who? 

message: Is there any particular reason that none of Barton Finks Academy Award nominations aren't mentioned? This is a genuine question - not trying to sound snarky. .... 14:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason is that I am a doofus who somehow forgot when I was reconstructing it for FAC. Thank you for pointing out this glaring omission – I have added the info at the end of the first Reception paragraph. Scartol • Tok 19:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academy Awards 

message: The first paragraph of the Symbolism section seems a bit off to me, particularly this: Others have suggested that the second half of the movie is an extended dream sequence.[33] Some elements of the film are clearly meant to arrive at such conclusions; for example, when Barton enters the elevator for the first time he says to Pete the doorman: "Six, please." Pete responds: "Next stop, six." An instant later, the bell sounds and as Barton exits: "This stop, six." Together, this dialogue announces the Biblical Number of the Beast.[60]. I don't see how the doorman thing (which happens in the first 10-15 minutes of the film) is an example of what the second half of the movie should be.
Another side note: the lede mentions the box rather prominently, pointing out that critics can't agree on what it symbolizes. But the box is never mentioned again for the rest of the article, which leaves the reader wondering. Everything in the lede should be explained in more depth somewhere within the article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree that the box needs mention in the article, and that the paragraph you mention is a bit disorganized. (It makes sense to me, but that's probably because I wrote it, and I've seen the movie like 30 times by now.) I'll try to clean these up soon. Scartol • Tok 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I expect that em dash was added after the FAC passed; I'm always very rigorous about using spaced en dashes in my writing. Thanks for fixing them, although I personally prefer fidelity to the original, since I feel that there is a difference in meaning depending on the type of punctuation used. (Then again, I'm a pedantic English teacher and something of a nerd, heh.) Scartol • Tok 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind if you want to restore them to the way they were; you have a system that makes sense, I just hadn't noticed at first because of that one stray em dash someone had stuck in. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coherence issue 

message: This article is currently up for nomination as a Today's Featured Article.--Chimino (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFA nomination 

message: Can someone explain to me why the plot summary needed references?  My understanding is that the source for the summary is the film itself, and that it does not require other sources.  Am I missing something? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in plot summary 

message: Hi. The article reads more like the second than the first. Is that OK?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.162.175 (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends. What's not allowed is original research, a "personal essay." An article about a piece of art of culture is bound to involve exploring subjective elements (style, symbolism, themes), but if it works from reliable sources, it's OK. In two sittings I looked over the article with your question in mind; aside from references to the screenplay, other sources are cited, and assuming the arguments in the article are found in these sources, this should be fine. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopaedia entry or essay? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Barton Fink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110822124757/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/1991/awardCompetition.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/1991/awardCompetition.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080503125522/http://www.youknow-forkids.com:80/bartonfink.txt to http://www.youknow-forkids.com/bartonfink.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Barton Fink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513031916/http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/01/roderick_jaynes_imaginary_osca.html to http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/01/roderick_jaynes_imaginary_osca.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112110054/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1256702709940 to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1256702709940
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130416051909/http://www.avclub.com/articles/john-turturro%2C58178/2/ to http://www.avclub.com/articles/john-turturro%2C58178/2/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: No one else is seeing the resemblance/possible inspiration from?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.194.250 (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  George S Kaufman 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Barton Fink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525043057/http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/09/21/coen-brothers-want-john-turturro-to-get-old-for-barton-fink-sequel-old-fink/ to http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/09/21/coen-brothers-want-john-turturro-to-get-old-for-barton-fink-sequel-old-fink/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: While the sources in the article seem reliable, the description of Sullivan's Travels seems somewhat inaccurate:
"Sullivan's Travels (1941), written and directed by Preston Sturges. ... Sullivan's Travels, released the year in which Barton Fink is set, follows successful director John Sullivan, who decides to create a film of deep social import – not unlike Barton's desire to create entertainment for "the common man". Sullivan eventually decides that comedic entertainment is a key role for filmmakers"
In Sullivan's Travels, Sullivan wants to create a supposedly serious film depicting the sorrows of humanity. While traveling incognito, he experiences some of these sorrows himself and ends up prisoner in a labor camp. He discovers that his fellow prisoners briefly forget their own sorrows and experience pure joy, when allowed to see animated comedy shorts. His realization seems to be that the audience does not need to learn about sorrows, but seeks entertainment from films. Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sullivan's Travels 

message: Part of the analysis in the article concerns the character Barton Fink's supposed aspirations towards creating high art. I am not certain there are enough indications of this in the summary of the film. Fink's line of work, before becoming a screenwriter, is writing ephemeral theatrical productions for Broadway theatres, a major aspect of American popular culture. He is writing for the masses of New York City, and his income depends on selling tickets. Dimadick (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  High art 

message: Is the Bob Dylan painting Typist in the Deep Focus section of his Retrospectrum worthy of inclusion? Nobel Prizewinner.
https://www.facebook.com/EDLISAdmin/photos/oa.1380335105776649/1291225098042758 
EDLIS Café Press (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Dylan painting