Burn After Reading
Sep 15th, 2008 | By Rick | Category: Recent Cinema, Reviews
Riddle me this: What do you do if you’re Joel and Ethan Coen, and you’ve just made the most critically acclaimed film of 2007, that most everyone believes is practically perfect in every way, and that garnered four Academy awards, including Best Picture and Best Director? The answer, apparently, is you make Burn After Reading, a satire so slight — or is that so sly? — that at times it feels like it’s not even there.
The Coens signal their intentions right off the bat: the camera swoops in from outer space, down onto and into CIA headquarters. It is a familiar shot, complete with bombastic, militaristic music, and the Coens pull it off so well that if we didn’t know that it’s a comedy, we might think we’d really stumbled into a spy thriller. Once inside Langley, the camera follows the trail — literally, the feet – of analyst Osborne Cox (John Malkovich), as he attends the meeting that sets Burn’s plot into motion.
Malkovich with a glass and a gun
Cox, all bow-tie and old-school, is being demoted, and he doesn’t take it well: he resigns from the company and decides to write his memoirs. Meanwhile, his philandering wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) is comtemplating divorce, and as Osborne begins hanging around the house, drunkenly writing his memoirs (did I mention he’s got a drinking problem?), it pushes her over the edge and into her lawyer’s office. Somehow, Osborne’s memoirs get into the hands of moronic gym employees Linda and Chad (Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt) who somehow end up blackmailing him. Somehow as well, Katie’s treasury-department lover (George Clooney) becomes involved up to his eyeballs, as does Chad and Linda’s ex-priest boss (Richard Jenkins).
Through it all, the CIA is watching, as personified by David Rasche as Cox’s ex-boss and the great J.K. Simmons as his superior. They function as kind of a Greek chorus, commenting on the action from a windowless office at Langley. But a Greek chorus explains the action and comments on dramatic themes; Rasche and Simmons project befuddlement and a bemused lack of understanding. Their only concern is to cover their butts, and they intervene only sparingly to do so.
Jenkins, Pitt and McDormand examine the evidence
I like Burn After Reading in the same way I like other, more light-weight Coen fare (e.g., Intolerable Cruelty). There are some fabulous details, some classic Coen-esque moments. Linda’s haplessness is perfectly illustrated in her session with an automated phone menu — the voice asks her “English or Spanish,” she says, very distinctly, “English,” and the response is “I do not understand.” Cox lies back flat in his chair, mumbling portentous, half-baked memoir ideas into a tape recorder. The camera views him from ceiling height, like a specimen, through an archway from the other room.
The Coens have a way of finding the perfect moment and the perfect actor to fill it, then twisting it slightly so it veers into the bizarre. In this case, the acting is, by and large, fine. Although the role is not a stretch, Clooney is nevertheless very good as a charming womanizer who can’t remain faithful even to the woman with whom he’s currently cheating. Malkovich inhabits Cox’s pompous beltway persona nicely; his apoplectic, vein-popping rages are hilarious. Pitt acquits himself well in a one-note comic role, and Jenkins manages to be heartbreaking and kind of slimy at the same time. (Just why did he leave the priesthood, anyway?) Only McDormand comes off as less than convincing — it is difficult to believe that this supremely intelligent actress is as stupid as her character. You can see the wheels of her performance turning every minute.
MacGuffins 'R Us
The Coens’ editing — under their nom de guerre Roderick Jaynes — is first rate, and Carter Burwell’s score, so conspicuously absent in No Country for Old Men, strikes a grandiose, bombastic note. That’s good, because that’s what the film is all about: hollow bombast and empty portent. The score and editing and paranoid camera angles combine to signal Big Things, Important Doings, and Earth-Shattering Themes. None of them pan out — Burn After Reading is all sound and fury, signifying very little.
Which brings us back to Clooney’s beard: are we meant to think of Syriana when we see it? Maybe. Maybe we’re supposed to remember that overstuffed spy drama with its tagline: “everything is connected.” In Burn After Reading, everything is connected too, but the connections are utterly meaningless.
Tilda and Swinton sleep on Old Glory
And that’s the point — it’s why Burn is such a sly parody. The plot turns its turns, the characters connect their connections, and for what? Not a whole hell of a lot. There are no great conspiracies revealed, no great lessons learned or morals taught, and nothing of any consequence is accomplished. All there is is a bunch of venal, stupid people doing venal, stupid things. Perhaps, the Coens imply, that is the case with our intelligence establishment — and spy thrillers like Syriana — as well.
In the end, the characters’ fates are not even important enough to warrant screen time. Instead, we learn of what happens to them second hand, through the conversation of our CIA chorus. And that’s ok, because we haven’t been encouraged to sympathize with any of them one iota. In the end, they’re just bugs under the lens, interesting specimens to be examined for our — and the filmmakers’ — nihilistic pleasure.
RSS 2.0
This is quite a brilliant piece of writing Rick, you really got into the skin of this picture. And much of what you say makes sense, but I guess it all comes down to individual perceptions. I gave the film 4/5 on my own review, and while it’s no NCFOM or FARGO, it’s still a formidable and(deliciously) nihilistic study by those masters of that filmic conceit.
By the way I do agree that the “wheels were turning” in McDormand’s performance, as you aptly assert, and that all the others in the cast were superb.
Thanks, Sam.
I’m not sure we disagree … if I gave star ratings, I might give it 3.5 or 4 as well. I think there’s always something going on under the hood of a Coen film, even the lighter-weight ones like this. For me it was a perfectly enjoyable couple of hours at the movies.
And I like that line “masters of that filmic conceit!”
This is truly an outstanding review, Rick. In short form you’ve nailed the best moments of BaR and made more than one point that I’ve not seen elsewhere.
To be expected from a Coen expert such as yourself, I suppose.
Thanks, Daniel, for the complement.
Although I wouldn’t call myself an expert, I guess I am kind of a major Coen fan.
Hi! Rick,
hmm…after reading all the different reviews… (Believe me, I have read some “mixed” reviews about this flick!)
… about this film, I am not sure if I should be “excited” about going to the theatre to watch the Coen’s Bros. film “Burn After Reading” or just “avoid” the Coen’s flick totally!
tks,
dcd
“In the end, the characters’ fates are not even important enough to warrant screen time. Instead, we learn of what happens to them second hand, through the conversation of our CIA chorus. And that’s ok, because we haven’t been encouraged to sympathize with any of them one iota.”
Rick,
That isn’t a very “good sign” is it? ….Usually, when people go to the theatre and emerge from the “darkness” they should at least want to “reflect” on the characters’ fates and the “plot” after the film end.
I think that is why people who enjoy watching films, purchase films on dvds even after they watch the same film on television over and over. (Strong character development and a very interesting storyline!)
(I know that is why I watch Huston’s “Maltese Falcon” repeatedly!…Maybe I am wrong?)
dcd
DCD,
We do indeed want to reflect on their fates. But it’s not that we don’t know what happens to the characters in “Burn After Reading,” we just don’t see what happens; we’re told about it in exposition. And that gives us a certain distance, almost like it’s an academic exercise, as if (as I wrote) they were bugs under a microscope.
Although I’m a big fan of their work, I don’t think this is their best, and I also don’t think they’re for everyone. They tend to inspire extremes of opinion in both their admirers and detractors.
“They tend to inspire extremes of opinion in both their admirers and detractors.”
Right you are!…Rick, I am quite sure that your readers who leave comments here on your blog page, can come up with “positive” comment(s) or critique(s) by their ‘admirers’ to “counteract” the negative opinion/comment that I just posted [below] by one “furious” serious detractor” of the Coen’s film “Burn After Reading”
He said, “This is the worse piece of crap i ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes on. I felt like my eyes were bleeding during the movie.i had the strong urge to throw my beverage at the screen. It just plain suck”
A Comment posted on another blog site….after the [poster]viewed the Coen’s film “Burning After Reading.”
My response [thoughts] to his post…Wow!…his comment is really “encouraging”…I want to “run” right out and see the Coen’s film!
dcd
I have no problem with disagreements over films in comments of this blog … that’s what comments are for.
I don’t think anyone’s going to comment here, however, because you posted that reviewer’s opinion anonymously and 2nd hand.
That certainly is a strong opinion, but again, to each his or her own.
“They tend to inspire extremes of opinion in both their admirers and detractors.”
Rick,
Oh no!…I wasn’t trying to “ignite” a debate, on your blog,
I was just basically, pointing out an example of 1 “detractor” of the Coen bros. recently release film “Burn After Reading” with an “extreme” opinion. (I am not sure if “hating” just one of their film(s) qualify him as a “detractor.”)
(I know, I know, but do he feel that way about all their films!…Then, there is a very “high probability”… he could be “officially” described as an Coens’ “detractor.”)
On the other hand, I am sure that their are people who can point out! several positive comments, by their admirers. (Not only people who post here on your blog, but everybody who think that the Coens’ should be admired for film excellance!) I was basically, providing an example(s) of your point!…when you mentioned that people have two extremes opinion(s) about the Coen’s work on film.
dcd
Love the review. I agree BaR is far from the best Coen Bros film out there, but it ranks highly. It definitely warrants multiple viewings just to get all the subtleties.
Thanks. I think you’re right. I’ll certainly see it again when it’s on video. Probably even pick it up, add it to my Coen collection.
Welcome to the Creek, Reel Whore (if that is your real name …)
Hi! Rick,
I checked-out! the Coen’s film “Burn After Reading”
yesterday and I can honestly say…that I enjoyed it!…in spite of all the “mixed” reviews!
dcd
Brad Pitt can be so funny, as long as he’s not taking himself too seriously… in any case, it’s about time someone made good use of his habitually spastic arm movements
dcd,
The review are mixed, but its got a 79% positive at Rotten Tomatoes, which is pretty good!
movie buff,
habitually spastic arm movements? I’ve never noticed …