Burn After Reading
Burn After Reading, the latest Coen brothers offering, has baffled me. Not in terms of what happened or what it meant…no, this film has baffled me in terms of my own response to it. In other words, I have no idea whether or not I liked it.
I definitely enjoyed watching it…that much I know. The experience of spending two hours in a theater with this film was a pleasant one. The acting (on the whole) was great and the plot was complicated enough that I didn’t really have time to question anything until it was all over. But at the end I really wasn’t sure whether or not I liked the film.
 |
I’m not a huge movie guy. I’ll watch them on DVD if I watch them at all. If I go to the movies I tend to go in spurts…and then not go again for a long time. Last year I had a spurt, and the movies I saw were all brilliant: Superbad, Juno and the Coens’ own No Country For Old Men. This year I had another spurt: Hamlet 2 was fantastic. The Dark Knight was pleasantly enjoyable. But Burn After Reading represents a stumble.
Maybe the fact that I can’t actually come out and say I disliked it means that its point missed me entirely…but I doubt that. More likely it’s just a film that tries a little too hard at certain points and not hard enough overall. I like the idea. I liked the characters. I even liked the ending in which we have all of the action summarized for us by two minor characters, who then leave us with an invitation to re-evaluate the film we’ve just seen. (Think a cross between Fargo’s absolute moral and No Country For Old Men’s metaphysical confusion.)
It was well-made. It was funny. It was tense. But in the end, it wasn’t really cohesive, and it strikes me as an example of a product amounting to far, far less than the sum of its parts.
The basic plot is that Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) chooses to resign from the CIA rather than accept a demotion, and he begins work on his memoirs. Somehow (it’s clear in the movie but not worth summarizing here) the memoirs—and a few financial records—end up found in a gym locker room. Linda (Frances McDormand) and Chad (Brad Pitt) take it as an opportunity to demand a huge ransom from the ex-CIA man, and a loose comedy of misfortunes ensues.
Alright, summarizing it makes it sound lousier than it actually is, but that’s only because I can’t get into it without giving away certain twists and plot reveals. I am the first person who will tell you that a movie that relies solely on the surprise of its twists doesn’t deserve to be made, but in this case the twists constitute the movie, and the plot goes through so much development that it feels like a character itself. Also—it has to be said—if you strip away the surprises, you’re not going to leave Burn After Reading’s audience with too much to enjoy.
A few of the characters stand out as excellent creations…particularly Linda and Chad. Linda spends the entire film trying everything she can think of to get the money for extensive plastic surgery. She is convinced that nobody can ever love her in the body that she has, despite the fact that she goes on many dates (they admittedly vary in quality but she’s never averse to sleeping with them) and that other characters in the film demonstrate significant attraction toward her. As far she can see, she is hideous. The ransom is going to serve as her ticket to a whole new face.
 |
McDormand plays Linda extremely well. She’s a very versatile actress, and she manages to get across the stubbornness of a woman who isn’t a bad person, but who also refuses to see any of the good in the world right under her nose. In order to make her big change she takes a big step; so big, in fact, that she finds it quickly impossible to turn back.
The other Favorite Character is Chad, played wonderfully thick by Brad Pitt—of whom I’m almost never a fan. He’s excellent here. Far more than just comic relief, he’s a fully-rendered character in his own right. (Although, okay, I admit it…he’s basically there for comic relief.) He’s a sort of mindless prettyboy who is far too optimistic and clueless to even know what he’s getting himself into. Every scene featuring Pitt warrants a smile, if only because his vacuous, puppy-like expressions manage to shape a character who has never, at any point in his entire life, had anything interesting to say.
Less successful are…all of the other characters. Malkovich’s Cox is kind of restrained by the limits of his own script. He doesn’t get much to say or do. He makes an impression while he’s on-screen, but when he disappears he’s easily forgotten about. That’s okay—the story sort of requires that—but his character is never really fleshed out, and he comes across as a sort of generic cuckold.
Tilda Swinton plays his wife, who is sleeping with George Clooney, who is also married to a woman sleeping around on him. George Clooney sleeps with Frances McDormand, too. And he builds his wife a chair with a dildo that pops up through the seat. At this point I’m wondering why I’m even writing a review.
Swinton’s character is a little too unbelievably cold. She’s not sympathetic in any sense, ever, at any point, which is surprising to me. The Coens are better writers than that; she deserves some substance. But as it stands you could remove her character entirely and replace it with a few sentences of narration and the film would be no poorer for it.
Clooney, on the other hand, seems to be too much character. He’s a mess of mis-speakings, overthinking and nervous tics. He always, in every scene, seems like he’s experiencing dozens of small internal explosions. Every time the character opened his mouth I expected blood to gush out. He’s Ulysses Everett McGill without any depth or charm, and he’s also continuously irritating by his presence alone. Despite my misgivings about the other characters, only Clooney managed to keep me aware that I was watching an actor…which I guess is some kind of achievement.
 |
If this film came earlier in the career of the Coens, it’d fit much better. It seems to sparkle with promises it’s making but will be unable to keep. But by this point we know they are great film-makers, and so the bar is higher. They can do—and have done, and will do—much better.
As it stands, Burn After Reading just felt like an amalgam of the brothers’ superior films. Its grisly murders and chaos over a small sum is pure Fargo (and No Country For Old Men, to be fair). Its average-Joe-in-detective-fiction was handled better (and funnier) by The Big Lebowski. And the soundtrack borrows heavily from the piano-based melancholy of The Man Who Wasn’t There.
And yet, I can’t say whether I liked it or disliked it. Which means, of course, that on some level the Coens succeeded. I know that they want to leave their audience in a state of uncertainty when the film is over. That’s okay. But a film like this should invite another viewing…a reappraisal.
Instead, it just left me feeling as though the story didn’t deserve a second chance. Whatever good there was they’ve handled better before. I think I’ll just re-watch one of those films instead.
About this entry
- By Phil Reed
- Posted on Monday, September 15 2008 @ 3:14 pm
- Categorised in Film, Review
- Tagged with Burn After Reading, Coen Brothers, George Clooney, John Malkovich, Brad Pitt, Frances McDormand
- 10 comments
It seems odd to base a review around the central question of “did I like this film?” when you make it clear in the opening line (and at the end with your 3-star rating) that you did like it. Reading the review, I get the feeling more that you felt you shouldn’t have liked it and that you almost feel you’re letting yourself down by having enjoyed it. This is a bit like something that’s happened to me when I’ve watched certain films (notably “The Royal Tenenbaulms”) where I’ve felt I should enjoy the film but ultimately had to admit to myself I didn’t.
By Zagrebo
September 15, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
reply / #
My opening line made it clear that I liked the film? The line in which I explicitly say I’m baffled? Also, my three-star rating is meant to represent a neither positive nor negative response to the film. (It’s out of five, not four.)
In honesty, I’m leaning more toward a negative evaluation, but felt that two stars was unfair. I’d consider two stars to represent barely watchable.
In this case the film was watchable. But that doesn’t mean I like it…
>I get the feeling more that you felt you shouldn’t have liked it
On the contrary. I thought I should have (and would have) liked it. The Coens have done great films in the past…a lot of my favorites…their most recent was brilliant, and they grabbed up some of the best actors out there for this one. I don’t always go into films expecting to like them, but belive me, in this case I did.
By Phil Reed
September 15, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
reply / #
Sorry, my mistake. I meant the opening to the second paragraph:
“I definitely enjoyed watching it…that much I know. The experience of spending two hours in a theater with this film was a pleasant one.”
Whether or not someone enjoys a film surely hangs on whether they found the experience of watching it pleasant & entertaining or not. That’s something quite separate from the film’s worth or whether it lives-up to other films by the same director(s).
>On the contrary. I thought I should have (and would have) liked it. The Coens have done great films in the past…a lot of my favorites…their most recent was brilliant, and they grabbed up some of the best actors out there for this one. I don’t always go into films expecting to like them, but belive me, in this case I did.
I don’t mean so much your expectations of the film so much as your feelings after having watched it (and, apparently, enjoyed watching it). You seem to be veering towards the idea that you shouldn’t have enjoyed it, almost that you’d rather you didn’t.
From your review:
>And yet, I can’t say whether I liked it or disliked it.
You see, this is what puzzles me. You’ve already said you liked it and then made clear in the review that you have serious reservations about characterisation and (especially) as a Coen Brothers’ film but these aren’t the same as disliking a film. I don’t understand why you didn’t say “I enjoyed this film but…” which is how your review essentially reads.
PS I’m not having a go or anything, I’m just genuinely a bit puzzled.
By Zagrebo
September 15, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
reply / #
A better way of putting it would be to say that I’d like to know exactly what you mean by “disliked” given that you said you enjoyed the film. It seems weird that someone would enjoy a film and then declaim that they probably didn’t like it.
By Zagrebo
September 15, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
reply / #
>In honesty, I’m leaning more toward a negative evaluation, but felt that two stars was unfair. I’d consider two stars to represent barely watchable.
Would it be fair to say, then, that your evaluation is about what you think of the film in retrospect rather than whether you enjoyed it at the time?
By Zagrebo
September 15, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
reply / #
>Whether or not someone enjoys a film surely hangs on whether they found the experience of watching it pleasant & entertaining or not.
Gotta debate that “surely” there, I’m afraid. I’ve seen plenty of films and television shows that I’ve enjoyed the experience of watching, but wouldn’t say I liked. (Family Guy is an example…or Rob Brydon’s Annually Retentive.) You can enjoy the experience without coming out with a feeling of overall positivity.
Haven’t you ever watched a film that made you laugh without it actually convincing you it was a good film? It happens to me quite a lot…the Reno 911 movie kept me laughing most of the time, but that didn’t make it a good movie. My requirements for a good film require it to do something positive for me overall.
A few good laughs, two or three good characters and a good soundtrack are all positive things for a film to have, but they don’t automatically result in a good film overall.
>Would it be fair to say, then, that your evaluation is about what you think of the film in retrospect rather than whether you enjoyed it at the time?
I honestly don’t know what you’re asking me. Wouldn’t any review have to be written in retrospect?
By Phil Reed
September 15, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
reply / #
“Gotta debate that “surely” there, I’m afraid. I’ve seen plenty of films and television shows that I’ve enjoyed the experience of watching, but wouldn’t say I liked. (Family Guy is an example…or Rob Brydon’s Annually Retentive.) You can enjoy the experience without coming out with a feeling of overall positivity.
Haven’t you ever watched a film that made you laugh without it actually convincing you it was a good film? It happens to me quite a lot…my requirements for a good film requires it to do something positive for me overall. A few good laughs, two or three good characters and a good soundtrack are all positive things for a film to have, but they don’t automatically result in a good film overall.”
Hmmm. Well, that’s an interesting perspective. Certainly, if I watch something like “Family Guy” and it makes me laugh then I’d say I enjoyed it. I’ve certainly seen films I enjoyed on first viewing and then in retrospect (and especially after further viewings) thought were a bit crap (“Titanic” springs to mind) but that’s not the same as not enjoying them on first viewing. However, whilst I can’t say I share your reaction to some films it does at least make sense and it’s entirely believable that you’d have that reaction so I’ll accept that as an explanation.
>I honestly don’t know what you’re asking me. Wouldn’t any review have to be written in retrospect?
What I was getting at is that you say you’re not ensure whether you “enjoyed it” or “like it” past-tense, meaning (I assume) when you went to see it at the cinema and your review near the start seemed to make this perfectly clear.
By Zagrebo
September 15, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
reply / #
>My requirements for a good film require it to do something positive for me overall.
I think this is where we differ. Generally, if I enjoyed watching a film then as far as I’m concerned it was a good film regardless of whether I felt it did something positive for me but you seem, as regards liking a film, to be rather more than just whether it was enjoyable to watch. Fair do’s and, with that explanation, I see what you mean by “liked” in the context of the review.
By Zagrebo
September 15, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
reply / #
>I enjoyed the experience of watching it, but I’m not sure if I liked the film overall. That’s the answer and I’m sorry that I can’t make it any more clear without already repeating myself. If you’ve never had a similar experience with a piece of art then I’m glad for you, but as far as I’m aware a mixed reaction (genuinely mixed…that’s not always a polite way of saying “negative”) to art is not all that uncommon.
As I said, I think you’ve made yourself perfectly clear; it’s just that that isn’t how I, personally, would characterise a film as something I liked or not. Generally if I enjoyed watching a film then I’d say I liked it. There are, of course, films that I’ve not just enjoyed but I’ve taken something rather more away from be it that I’ve found them especially uplifting or enlightening. But then, as I said, different people can have a different definition of whether they “liked” a film or not. It’s just that your definition is different to mine; if I enjoyed a film then I liked it and hence why your review saying you enjoyed the film but weren’t sure whether you liked it seemed a bit odd to me.
By Zagrebo
September 15, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
reply / #
Phil, you should watch it again next month, and maybe a third time later, and by then you’ll know whether you like it or not ;)
I started to really LOVE some films only on the third time I saw them…
By Marleen
September 16, 2008 @ 7:37 am
reply / #