In a Coen Brothers movie every pause and stutter, every "um" and grammatical (mis-)construction, every repetition and idiosyncratic pronunciation, is inscribed like a note on a musical staff. The composer-conductors write the music, indicate the pitch, tempo and duration of each passage, and the select musicians -- soloists and ensemble players -- attack their assigned parts with the virtuoso flair for which they are known. As composers have often written works specifically suited to the talents of their favorite musicians, so the Coens frequently write roles tailored to the individual actors they want to work with.
"Burn After Reading" is a deft little piece, directed with a straight face and performed with a roiling comedic energy that matches brio with precision. That's what makes it funny. Emmanuel Lebezki's cinematography, Carter Burwell's score, Roderick Jaynes' editing (yes, we all know that's a pseudonym) could proudly serve any modern espionage picture. All serve a ridiculously plotted absurdist farce, which is what the best spy stories usually boil down to, whether they're comic or tragic.
Inside this tight framework, the actors work with finely tuned gusto. As broad as they may be, these performances are exquisitely nuanced and controlled. They range from the managerially Pinteresque (Tilda Swinton, Richard Jenkins, David Rasche, JK Simmons) to the outright Looney Tunes (Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich). Nobody gets sloppy, even when their characters are out of control.
"Burn After Reading" belongs on the lighter side of the Coens' corpus, with "Raising Arizona," "The Hudsucker Proxy," "The Big Lebowski," "O Brother, Where Art Thou?," "Fargo" -- not just because it tilts toward the funny but because it doesn't plunge into the darker, bleaker humor of "Blood Simple," "Miller's Crossing," "Barton Fink," "The Man Who Wasn't There" or "No Country For Old Men" -- and it doesn't intend to, either. Still, there's a pristine Kubrickian bite to the work of the maestros Coen that reminds me of "Dr. Strangelove." Some of the performances here are as broad as George C. Scott's or Slim Pickens' in Kubrick's movie; others are as tightly tamped down as Sterling Hayden's or Peter Sellers' (as President Merkin Muffly, that is).
Kubrick and Terry Southern decided, in attempting to adapt Peter George's thriller novel "Red Alert," that the best way to tackle the material was to address the absurdity of it head-on. I got the feeling that's what the Coens were doing with the modern intelligence thriller "Burn After Reading," too -- though their ambitions here are more limited and the stakes considerably (and deliberately) punier. This is a movie about small-time spies and would-be spies who take themselves much more seriously than anyone else does. When JK Simmons delivers his version of Marge Gunderson's final "Fargo" speech at the end of this picture, the intent and effect is to turn Marge's sentiments on their heads -- trivializing the events of the film to emphasize the futility and meaningless of it all. (The Nihilists of "The Big Lebowski" would approve.)
Oh, OK, and here's the basic premise: Two employees of a D.C.-area Hardbodies Gym -- hyperactive trainer Chad Feldheimer (Pitt) and self-actualizing salesperson Linda Litzke (McDormand) -- come into possession of a data CD they believe is filled with state secrets from the "mem-wahs" of intelligence analyst Osborne Cox (Malkovich), whose brittle wife (Tilda Swinton, in a twist on her Oscar-winning role in "Michael Clayton") is conspiring with personal security veteran Harry Pfarrer (Clooney) to... That's all you need to know. Everybody in the movie is really, really clueless -- even the top spies, who have no idea of what to make of the other characters' dumb moves. It's funny because it's true.
I have a feeling that, as with most Coen movies, "Burn After Reading" will reveal further, subtler layers of juicy comedic deliciousness on repeated viewing -- and on cable, satellite and DVD especially, where the performances will perhaps be seen in more efficacious proportions.
Meanwhile, this film has the distinction of being the only political espionage comedy I know of to reference one of the greatest of all political espionage comedies, Theodore J. Flicker's still-relatively-obscure "The President's Analyst" (1967), starring James Coburn, Godfrey Cambridge and Severn Darden. The latter plays a lovably amoral Russian intelligence agent named Kropotkin. A Russian embassy official in "Burn After Reading" is named Krapotkin (same pronunciation). That makes me happy.
P.S. I don't know when or if I've ever used the word "efficacious" in a written piece before, but it seems like something that should be associated with a Coen Brothers movie, don't you think? I hear John Mahoney employing it in "Barton Fink," or Clooney in "O, Brother...".
One notion has stayed with me ever since I have seen No Country for Old Men. Many have commented it is the oddest of entries in the Coen brothers’ oeuvre, a film that indicates a significant departure not only from their style but also their tone.
I wonder if that is really the case, because No Country For Old Men, to me, feels the closest that the Coen brother’s have ever come to tackle a own plot of their own creation from a radically different angle. The plot I’m referring to is that of Fargo, and if we care to juxtapose the two films, there seems to be a one-to-one mapping, albeit of the opposite nature. The tone in Fargo is kinda upbeat, because the good (townsfolk) always have the upperhand, are the stronger force. In No Country for Old Men, it is one of despair reflecting that of Tom Bell. In the former, there’s a lady who is the chief pursuer and one who is relentless. Here, the one’s a husband, and he is anything but relentless trying his best to evade. Fargo has an equally spiteful psychopath in Gaear, and if given the opportunity might have just been as cruel as Chigurh.
I wonder if No Country For Old Men, at least in the Coen brothers’ mind, is more of an adaptation of their own film rather than Cormac McCarthy’s masterpiece. You know, considering that it is them it wouldn’t be surprising.
I'm glad the Coens love making movies so much that they can make another one so quickly! Which mainstream film makers beside Spielberg and Woody Allen have the skill and access to enough tools to make films so quickly? And of course such radical changes of pace (from disturbed crime/noir, to goofy comedy, and sometimes a combination of the two) have become almost a hallmark of their career. Lucky us.
I can't wait to see this. That's all I have to say, I think I may have read too much already and maybe spoiled a few surprises, I just want it to open already.
Fargo doesn't plunge into dark, bleak humor?
"I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper...."
Barnaby: Yeah, I don't consider that terribly dark, under the circumstances. (Guess that says as much about me as anything.) "Fargo" is their warmest movie, though. In tone & emotion, if not in climate.
The Coen Brothers have been among my favorite filmmakers for as far back as I can recall (I grew up on films like THE HUDSUCKER PROXY, FARGO, THE BIG LEBOWSKI, O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?, THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE and (to some degree) BLOOD SIMPLE, RAISING ARIZONA, MILLER'S CROSSING, BARTON FINK, etc.
Incidently, I can recall going to the little twin theater the night THE HUDSUCKER PROXY opened in my Portland, Oregon suburb of Lake Oswego back in 1994. When the film started, the theater was about half-full or more. By the half-hour mark, me and my parents were the only ones who remained! Enjoyable and hilarious though.
I wasn't THAT excited when I first saw previews for BURN AFTER READING because the trailers looked strained in the complete opposite direction of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (their latest great work, from 2007) and it just didn't look that funny to me.
This is a case, I believe, of advertising being used to make a movie look less than the sum of its parts (or more than?). Like Kevin Smith's ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO (also in Toronto this year), I find myself grinning just at the description, with alternating out-loud chuckles. Looking forward to it already.
P.S.: As to the Coens' penchant for dark humor... it's there in everything (even the comparably "light" INTOLERABLE CRUELTY and THE LADYKILLERS!)...
I love the Coens. I don't really have much to say, just that I love the Coens' movies. I hope it doesn't take long for this movie to open in Portugal. I could, of course, get a friend to retrieve it illegally from the internet before it opens in these shores. But while, I admit, I have little against illegal downloading, I have much against watching an awaited for movie for the first time in a computer screen if it can be helped.
Roger Ebert mentions that "Burn After Reading" proves once again that when making a comedy, it is better to get good actors than to get funny ones. I agree, but I've long thought of Brad Pitt as an eminently comedic actor. It just seems that, with the exception of "Babel", his best perfomances have at least an undertone of comedy (I'm thinking of Tyler Durden here), and he seems more comfortable, more at ease, when allowed to indulge that side of himself as an actor. In heavy dramas, he always seems uncomfortable and unnatural. In comedies, he seems... lighter. More at ease, his perfomance seems to come more natural.
Anyway, the Coens rock!
Why didn't Roger Deakins do the cinematography?
bud,
According to IMDb, "he was unavailable, having committed to shoot Revolutionary Road."
Jim, I'd like to get your opionion on a common criticism aimed at the Coen Brothers; that they are "condescending" or "contemptuous" of their characters. I don't believe so, personally, but you must've heard about what Spike Lee said about them at the 2008 Cannes Film Festival? He didn't attack them for that specifically. I'm sure you heard about it, but for those that didn't he said:
"I always treat life and death with respect, but most people don't... Look, I love the Coen brothers; we all studied at NYU. But they treat life like a joke. Ha ha ha. A joke. It's like, 'Look how they killed that guy! Look how blood squirts out the side of his head!' I see things different than that."
I suspect he's referring to the moment in Fargo, you know the murder that prompts, "Whoa daddy." Even Showalter is horrified. This strikes me as an alarming inability on Lee's part to discern nuance. Your thoughts would be appreciated on this Spike Lee observation.
The full article:
http://www.cinematical.com/2008/05/21/spike-lee-throws-punches-at-coens-clint-eastwood/
Kudos for pimping "The President's Analyst"- it is a grossly under-appreciated piece of work, but it's one of those films that I will make an effort to watch anytime it's on.
It's especially notable for its prescience, as its final scene illustrates a world not unlike the one we find ourselves in now, where faceless, un-caring Corporations pretty much run everything from behind the scenes (the "Phone Company"'s motto at the end mirrors the attitudes of todays worst Corporate "citizens").
After about a half an hour I was not taken in by the Coen's riffing on the 21st century thriller genre, but the the movie spirals off into an alternate dimension where the Coens are deranged puppet masters who can't help but do the last thing you would expect. It's as though the Coens' make a movie by looking from the screen out at the audience and just try to come up with the one thing that would leave us with a befuddled look on our faces that inevitably turns to laughter due to the outlandishness of it all.
The Coens' don't seem to mind if a certain scene or gag doesn't quite gel because they can retool it for the next film. The Coens' never allow themselves to get hung up on the next puzzle piece but rather plug in something that may not be the obvious means to an end that other filmmakers might cling to. When the filmmakers don't hide the fact that the plot is secondary but at the same time do not sacrifice there characters in doing so... that's when you have something worth holding on to.
Spike Lee makes me laugh.
The violent moments in "Burn After Reading" are to get the audience to wake up. Yes, it's all fun and games til one of these morons is given a gun. Then the characters react accordingly. They don't laugh. They don't find it funny. They are truly deeply affected by it. And we don't laugh at the violence in "Burn", we laugh at the reactions of the people who should care and don't. Because that's the reality of it. The CIA, as an organization, doesn't care.
I remember watching Lee's "Bamboozled" and loving every minute of it until each and every character decided to shoot each other in the end. For a film about racial stereotyping Lee fell back on the worst stereotype of all. And in turn his violence served no purpose but to undermine his purpose. He has very little reason or room to talk.
Last year a lot of people said "No Country" was a companion piece to "Fargo". I never really saw that, outside a bag of money being involved, which in both really had nothing to do with the "stories". "Burn" feels like more a companion piece. It's about lonely and depressed people that can't help but not dig themselves into a whole. And the good people that are drug down with them. The characters in "Country" were archtypes. The characters in "Fargo" and "Burn" are mirrors, snapshots (hardly exaggerated) of how people are today. It's just that no one else cares to put these types of people on film. And if they did, they probably couldn't do it as well.
"Burn" was outstanding. I've written more at my blog.
Satish!
I loved your comment! That is exactly what I thought after I saw it. I haven't read the book, but I did often wonder if when they read it they just saw the exact same things they wanted to communicate through their most effective piece yet and one of their main topics best covered in Fargo and decided to adapt it themselves. By now, after having gone into analyzing No Country more in detail, I behold each of them more distinctly, but when I first saw it I simply thought them deliciously paralleling. I still do think there are parallels and though they are different works, I just like to see them in my mind as the negative of each other. (Fargo being the white of course.)
… about Spike Lee, maybe the formal respect with which he treats life and death do not allow him to be as effective in contemplating life and death as the Coens seem to do. The Coens’ true respect to life and death makes them a lot keener and better aware of what they are as to have the power to use them to effectively and vividly get across purer more comprehensive points regarding them. Not to discredit Lee as a filmmaker either (though I personally am not a big fan; but to be fair, I haven’t paid that close attention), but the Coens have done with these elements what few artists have and it is sad that he doesn’t seem to get it or maybe just hasn’t tried (which isn´t bad as he shouldn’t at all be obligated to anyway, there is a lot more in the universe to try to “get” than a specific series of movies not matter how great).
Well, Jim, I wish I could roll with you on this one, but I thought "Burn After Reading" was pretty mediocre. I was thrown off from the start with the crazy faces. Too much effort in the comedy. For what it's worth, my least favorite Coens film is "Raising Arizona," so maybe this particular strain of hoo-ha doesn't work for me. Did like the "mem-wahs," though.