However, when Barton fails to produce a piece of work that adheres to the generic Hollywood structure, without the “action, adventure, wrestling” (Coen; Coen, 1991: 48. 58) that the audience wants Lipnik changes character. When Fink claims that he thinks it is his best work yet, Lipnick aggressively tells Fink that “if your opinion mattered, I guess I’d resign or let you run the studio. ” (Coen; Coen, 1991: 1991: 1. 48. 17), a clear departure from his earlier claims that the ‘writer is king’.
He even calls Fink arrogant and yells: “you think you’re the only writer that can give me that Barton Fink feeling? (Coen; Coen, 1991: 50. 26) and informs Fink that he has twenty other writers who can give him the ‘Barton Fink feeling’. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the ‘Barton Fink feeling’ even is, as the play that brought him such critical acclaim was also about the struggles of the common man, a play “about all of us. ” (Coen; Coen, 1991: 1. 50. 17) This is likely because Lipnick cannot or does not read; throughout the play he has Lou read things out to him and thus likely simply heard that Fink was a critically acclaimed writer but not what he wrote about.
This provokes the need to look closer at earlier scenes in the film which subsequently reveals that there were elements of Barton being undermined as a skilled writer and literary genius from the moment he arrived in Hollywood. It is hard to miss the obvious joke in the title of the studio “Capitol Pictures” that instantly warns the viewer that profit is the primary concern of this studio, and all other studios in Hollywood. While Lipnick initially appears enthusiastic and generous, there are aspects of his initial interaction with Fink that indicate otherwise.
The point at which he tells Fink that the fact he does not go to the cinema and does not know any “technical mumbo-jumbo” (Coen; Coen, 1991: 15. 15) at first appears very generous, as Lipnick then tells Fink that Capitol Pictures only cares about one thing: “Can you tell a story, Bart? Can you make us laugh, can you make us cry? Can you make us wanna break out in to joyous song? ” (Coen; Coen, 1991: 15. 18). Although he intends to reassure Fink, this is one of the first inklings that Capitol Pictures only cares about getting what they want, getting a story that fits the strict formula of all Hollywood pictures.
In the scene in which Lipnick kisses Fink’s feet, Lou tells Fink that the “contents of [his] head are the property of Capitol Pictures” (Coen; Coen, 1991: 1. 18. 41) a comment that is put out of the viewer’s mind following Lipnick’s outburst, however this line is echoed in the final scene between Fink and Lipnick: “Anything you write is gonna be the property of Capitol Pictures. ” (Coen; Coen, 1991: 1. 49. 55) revealing that the studio has never cared about the writer at all, that keeping the writer happy is merely a ploy to force them to produce the type of works that makes the studio money.
The Player, however at no point pretends that the writer is important. Hopeful writers pitch ideas in twenty five words or less and hope to be one of the twelve films that make it to film each year. Griffin Mill often lies to authors, pretending that they have a chance “let me get back to you” (Altman, 1992: 08. 36). The studio believes that films will not be successful unless they contain certain elements: “Suspense, laughter, violence, hope, heart, nudity, sex, happy endings. Mainly happy endings” (Altman, 1992: 1. 43. 12).
Because of this, Hollywood has become full of recycled material; many of the pitches that Mill hears are marketed as being a mixture of two films “It’s Out of Africa meets Pretty Woman” (Altman, 1992: 6. 16), or sequels “The Graduate: Part Two” (Altman, 1992: 02. 12). Mill estimates that he hears fifty thousand pitches per year, which is how he excuses not getting back to writers and forcing brief pitches. This, however, results in the importance being placed on a single pitch rather than the individual genius of the writer.
Unlike in Barton Fink, in The Player, the studio does not hire writers; it pays writers per script if their pitch gets approved. One of the main ways in which the concept of the writer as an individual genius is undermined is through their continuous need to compromise. Writers have to compromise: “if you can guarantee me that ending you’ve got a deal” (Altman, 1992: 1. 59. 47) and all films must have stars; the running joke throughout the film is that Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis play every lead role.
One of the films that Griffin Mill does approve is proposed by Tom Oakley who insists that he will only give Mill’s studio the script if he promises not to taint it by using stars whose personality overwhelm the story: “No, no. There are no stars. No pat happy endings. ” (Altman, 1992: 1. 08. 10) However, the studio forces Oakley to compromise and has Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis star as the leads and even eventually concedes to a happy ending after poor a screen test and bad reaction from the audience. The audience is another key way in which Hollywood undermines the individual genius of the author.
Even if the studio stays true to a script, if in the final stages the audience does not like any aspects of the film they will be changed: “A million-plus screenwriters, the audience wrote that ending. ” (Altman, 1992: 39. 36). Even the reference to ‘a million plus screen writers’ emphasises that the writing of a script is no longer the work of an individual but a collaborative process. Although the author is never explicitly removed from the process of either film, it is regularly hinted at. In Barton Fink, Fink is told that he is replaceable, disposable.
In The Player it is suggested by Larry Levy that writing is not the work of creative geniuses and that the studio should get rid of the writers and write their own scripts: “All I’m saying is I think a lot of time and money can be saved . if we came up with these stories on our own. ” (Altman, 1992: 42. 15) and although Griffin defends this notion, it is likely that he is doing so as if the writers were removed his job would no longer exist. In the film, David Kahane is killed by Mill in an altercation which can be seen as representing the literal death of the author.
David Kahane stands up to Mill and his refusal to conform to the Hollywood system arguably gets him killed and thus one could see this as suggesting that any writer who does not agree to Hollywood’s terms is unable to survive in Hollywood. Aside from the many striking instances of Hollywood undermining the romantic concept of the writer as an individual genius, the writers in these two films also aid the shattering of this illusion. The most blatant example of this is when the famous novelist and scriptwriter W. P Mayhew, whom Barton reveres as being “the finest novelist of our time” (Coen; Coen, 1991: 33. 30) is revealed to be a violent alcoholic and a fraud whose secretary and lover Audrey has written the “last couple” (Coen; Coen, 1991: 1. 05. 37) of books for him. Barton himself however also undermines the concept of the writer as an individual genius.
In her essay “A Room of One’s Own”, Virginia Woolf claims that “It is necessary to have five hundred a year and a room with a lock on the door if you are to write fiction or poetry. (Woolf, 2000: 103) Although Woolf is referring specifically to women, this suggestion is one that Fink appears to agree with wholeheartedly. The only reason he appears to have taken the job at Capitol Pictures is to fund his art: “a brief tenure in Hollywood could support you through the writing of any number of plays. ” (Coen; Coen, 1991: 6. 29) however this also undermines the concept of the individual author who writes for art not money. Fink chooses the dingy Earle hotel over any offered by Lipnick in order to keep himself to himself.
On his first night at the hotel he makes a noise complaint about his neighbour and on a few occasions even plugs his ears with cotton wool in order to block out any sounds around him. While Fink sees himself as an auteur, an artist who cannot and should not be restricted by money or elaborate hotels, the fact is that Barton Fink makes it strikingly obvious that by closing himself off to the world in his room, even blocking out sound with cotton wool, Fink cuts himself off from inspiration.
Further to his aspirations or illusions of being an auteur, Fink sees himself as a writer for the common man, an agent in the creation of a theatre of the masses. However, because of his arrogant view of himself, he fails to see that his is surrounded by inspiration of the struggles of the common man, even claiming that he is not like other authors who “insulate themselves from the common man” (Coen; Coen, 1991: 27. 11).
Charlie constantly tries to tell Fink that he “could tell you some stories” (Coen; Coen, 1991: 26. 6) but Fink talks over him every time, even though Fink himself admits “Strange as it may seem, Charlie, I guess I write about people like you. ” (Coen; Coen, 1991: 25. 39) In The Player, the promising Tom Oakley who refuses to sell his script without confirmation that there will be no stars compromises and ‘sells out’, undermining the idea of the auteur as a genius who writes what appeals to themselves, free of financial and social restrictions, uninterested in profit and success.
In conclusion, there are a number of ways in which Barton Fink and Tom Oakley highlight the reality that many writers themselves undermine the romantic concept of the author as an individual genius, by conforming to Hollywood’s demands or allowing the studio to alter their work. However, it is clear that Hollywood is the main culprit and that the primary ways in which Barton Fink and The Player undermine the romantic concept of the author as a literary genius are by portraying Hollywood as continuously overruling decisions made by the writer and putting constraints upon the writer in order to control the content produced.
In both Barton Fink and The Player, the writers are expected to adhere to a strict ‘tried and tested’ formula, designed to make as much money as possible. It is not the writer or the storyline that matters but how many stars appear and whether the story has a happy ending. The writers and their judgement are continuously questioned; Tom Oakley is asked why he does not want stars in his film by a very puzzled Mill and although the writer only gives the rights to Griffin’s studio because he promises an unhappy ending and no stars, both of these requests are ultimately overruled due to a negative audience reaction.
This perfectly exemplifies the suggestion that writing is no longer the work of an individual genius but a collaborative work between the writer, many studio executives and even the audience as those who view the test screening ultimately decide which parts of the film remain and which parts are changed.