The next couple of entries on the Netflix queue are Coen brother movies, which is good, because the only one I think I have seen of theirs up until now is O Brother Where Art Thou, which made me chuckle but which I did not seem to love as much as other people do. What I will say is that the Coens seem to make thinkers' movies, and I have been looking forward to seeing a few of them, though not necessarily Barton Fink. I queued this up when I read the description of the plot because it is about a writer fighting to be a writer who writes something meaningful in this sometimes meaningless world. Of course, it takes a few twists and turns, but that's what attracted me to the film because I fancy myself a writer (maybe not as much lately but erstwhile and hopefully in the future). Plus, I was intrigued by the potential intelligence of this film.
And it was definitely intelligent: not in that earth-shattering genius sort of way, but it was smart and multi-layered and encouraged you to react to some surreal situations. It also had that dark undercurrent that seems to punctuate many of the Coen brothers' films.
Barton Fink (John Turturro) is a playwright who has just met his first Broadway success in New York. As a result, Hollywood comes knocking, and Barton reluctantly agrees to write for the movies in anticipation of the financial reward, though seemingly at a compromise of his principles, as he believes writing should be about the hopes and dreams of the common man rather than some assemblage of abstract thoughts for literary minds or a commercial enterprise. This compromise manifests into writers' block; as a solution, he seeks out the advice of another novelist-turned-screenwriter, the drunk and animated W.P. Mayhew (John Mahoney, playing a Faulkner type). Mayhew's "personal" secretary Audrey (Judy Davis), who has ghost-written several of Mayhew's projects, takes an interest in Barton as does Barton's next-door-neighbor, Charlie (John Goodman in an outstanding performance), a likable salesman looking to chat away a few lonely nights. Things go horribly awry when Barton gets roped into a murder investigation, and the plot takes a few turns that I will not even risk spoiling. Other appearances include Tony Shalhoub as the producer behind Barton's potential film and Steve Buscemi as the bellhop for the run-down dump of a hotel in which Barton sets up residence.
I liked this movie because it worked on many levels that did not really seem to intersect. It was like lasagna, actually: distinct layers of noodles, meat, and cheese that work well together but are totally separate, parallel even. On the one hand, the film was about the writer's journey, and what I loved were the little details, the sounds of the empty hotel that seem to haunt and plague Barton as he struggles to write a "wrestling picture." The peeling of the wallpaper; the long, empty hall of unshined shoes; the picture of the woman staring at the ocean waves; I found it all to be a sensitive examination of the writer's mind and journey in the occasional struggle to create. In fact, the hotel became something of a visual metaphor for Barton's particular creative dilemma, and I thought it was kind of brilliant to sort of make the surrounds its own supporting character. I kept wondering where they filmed this movie, but I didn't dig into the DVD extras to look.
On the other hand, the movie is about what happens when an ordinary man gets caught in extraordinary circumstances and how the ordinary man reacts. The murder investigation throws the viewer for quite a loop, and the movie takes on a very surreal flavor as Barton struggles to piece together his shattered perceptions.
Of course, on the still other hand, the film is about how things are not what they seem. Shattered perceptions, particularly of the ideals that the common man or even the thinking man develops in his mind, are a dominant theme. I cannot spoil it, though. This movie worked so well for me because I knew little about it, so the twists were especially effective. I would not dream of ruining it for others who might want to see it.
The performances in this film by Turturro and Goodman were outstanding. I was especially impressed with John Goodman, who is known for his comedic acting, but he played the gregarious though decidedly "off" Charlie with skill I was not aware he had. John Turturro has always been one of those character actors that seems to find the center of his role so completely that suspension of disbelief is not even a question. Barton was a sympathetic character despite his cerebral qualities because he experiences real emotions, which Turturro seemed to portray with ease.
Also, this story was so original and well-executed, I am finally a believer in those who extol the Coens. I am looking forward to finally seeing Fargo, which I believe is next up on the queue.
I have a few miniscule complaints about this movie, however, that keep me from thinking this is a masterpiece or even perfectly entertaining. The pacing in the middle of the film seemed to slow to a bit of a crawl, when the beginning was already sort of ambling along at an easygoing trot. Perhaps it was to dull the viewer's senses a bit before the ensuing events unfolded, but I had the itch to pause the movie for a snack at that point, and I am not sure it was necessary given that the film was already moving at an almost methodical speed, drawing the viewer into the logical, frustrated, creative mind of Barton. Also: what was in the box?! I have a few theories (a head, for starters, and this film predated Seven), but why was it never opened? As with Lost in Translation, I find secrets like this a little annoying. I know Barton may not have wanted to find out or further shatter his already broken perspective, or maybe the lesson is that some things are better left secret and unknown, and ideals and fantasies are better suited to one's comfort and well being. With all of the attention to it, though, I felt a bit incomplete. Even with the beautiful ending frame, which was simply poetic, I still was left asking, "That's it??" Also, what happened to the no-doubt over-torched hotel? I found myself wondering after Chet, the Steve Buscemi character. He was so eager, after all.
All in all, however, these are minor flaws and quirky ones at that, and there are only a few, so I rate this movie an 8.5 between minor flaws/very good and perfectly entertaining. In terms of the test, I think I would purchase it if I found it for cheap, perhaps, but I don't know if I liked it enough to wishlist it right away. Still, this film is a very good one, and it makes you think. This writer appreciated though cautiously loved Barton's unusual journey.