Source

Barton Fink (1991)

The Tapes From the Crypt series exists with the aim of sharing a love for film and as a tool for me to try my hand in reviewing films as a means to practice a different medium for writing. I decided due to my love for the genre and to give the series some consistency I would focus mainly on horror films.

But that begs the question; what is a horror film? How far can we stretch the limits of defining a genre without breaking the mold? Do we really need to be confined to genres? If you follow my blog, you'll quickly learn that I have a disdain for genres and labels.

I am not saying that I consider the 1991 Coen brothers movie Barton Fink a horror movie, by any means. "Dark comedy" could be a more fitting title, I suppose. Either way, I believe it has elements of the genre, and am open to the argument that it is, to some extent, a horror film, and due to my love for the film, I've decided to include it as a ".5", whatever that means.

Source

The first time I watched Barton Fink, I watched it again. It follows the writer Barton Fink, a renowned playwright in New York, as he travels to Los Angeles to take a stab at writing for the film industry. He is contracted to write a "B-movie" (although there is discrepancy about this term throughout the film) about wrestling, and from there, things just get strange.

If you haven't seen the movie, I'll run you down with a list of things that should make you want to watch the film, before I go on to spoil it for you. First things first; John Goodman has a lead role in the film, and it might be one of his best. That's saying a lot. Furthermore, Steve Buscemi plays the bellboy of the Hotel Earle, where Barton and Charlie(Goodman) are living. The film also has one of the funniest, most degrading corporate film industry scenes of all time.

Source

Ok, that's all I really want to say while holding my tongue. After this,

Spoilers

Source

A lot of interpretations of the film could and have been argued. Is Charlie satan? Is he part of Barton's mind? Or is he just an absolutely insane guy who murders people out of the goodness of his heart and then commits suicide by going to bed in a burning building?

My personal favorite theory is that the events of the film are simply a dream. I believe at one point during his anguished state of frustration, Barton simply slipped away into a long dream while staring at the painting. What about the final scene then? Where did the box come from? Is he still dreaming?

I don't believe Barton is still dreaming in the final scene, although I also don't think that all is what it seems. I believe there was an intentional jump in time as Barton loses his job and his sanity. The woman is either misrepresented by his own sanity or his recollection of the painting was adapted by his memory to serve as one in the same. If I were to continue with this theory, I would argue that the box is simply an empty box, or maybe does have something in it, but either way that he made it himself in his delusional state to give credibility to his insanity.

Source

The film also serves as a means to show both the dark side of the film writing industry and the harmful effects an ego can have on a writer. The first three-quarters of the film functions as a promotional tool for Barton's genius - there is no doubt in the viewer's mind that whatever the man produces will surely be a huge success.

And then bang, you suck, get out. That's that. There's the harsh reality of the film writer's industry. But was it Barton's fault? He develops quite an ego and let's it show at certain points of the film, although remains modest other than a few slip-ups When he finally gets past his writer's block, it's clear that he is not in his right state of mind. The way the director and writers(ironically) play with the first-time viewer's mind, you're somewhat led to believe that he actually is on the verge of an amazing script. But, we come to find out he had just lost it, and his work was essentially thrown in the trash without ever really exploring it.

Source

In summary, my theory is that Barton slipped out at some point staring at the painting, and Goodman and the series of events that ensued were all products of his imagination. None of the murders occurred; notice how after the script was written he was never approached by police nor were any implications of the rest of the events actually occurring made. He became entirely consumed by the events and as a result believed in his furious fit of writing that he was on the brink of something huge, as anyone who had gone through what he believed he had might. Extreme trauma often leads to creative intensity and confidence. Instead, he wrote a piece of shit and was fired due to his unreliability and poor efforts. All his ego is quickly stripped away with the mention of "20 other Barton Fink's on contract". He then breaks down and goes to sit on the beach, and, well, yeah. That's it, simply, other than the extreme psychological changes that took place within the man.

If anyone else is a fan of this movie I would really like to hear your opinions. I am by no means saying that mine is right, so please, share, critique, whatever. If you haven't seen it, go watch it. I don't think I spoiled that much. Leave any thoughts you might have in the comments :)

Manna - Collect what we all deserve
Presearch - Earn tokens while you search
Use steemfollower to connect with more Steemit users

Check out these faucets!
Moon DASH
Moon BCH
Moon LTC
Moon DOGE

Kryptonia - Earn SUP by doing simple tasks