Burn After Reading (Coens, 2008)

[Watashi]

A dark spy-comedy from Academy Award winners Joel and Ethan Coen. An ousted CIA official's (Academy Award nominee John Malkovich) memoir accidentally falls into the hands of two unwise gym employees intent on exploiting their find.

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/09/24/brad-pitt-burn-after-readin.jpg

http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2007/10/03/gal_clooney6.jpg

With this and Benjamin Button, 2008 looks to be an unstoppable year for Pitt.

[MadMan]

I eagerly await a trailer. Any movie featuring Malkovich, Pitt, and Cloney and directed by the Coen Brothers has a great chance of being seen by me.

[Sycophant]

Photography by Emmanuelle Lubezki. Shot on digital. Can't wait.

[megladon8]

Is this penned by the Coen's as well?

I wonder what the tone will be for the film - Raising Arizona-like comedy? More mainstream like The Ladykillers? Maybe even totally weird like Barton Fink?

I'm leaning towards it being more in the commercial vein - they seem to do a more art-inclined film every few years, funded by the success of their commercial projects (similar to Soderbergh doing the Ocean's movies)...and No Country For Old Men was arguably their most artful film in the past few years.

Though, then again, No Country has done surprisingly well at the box office.

I don't know what I'm trying to say here.

[Grouchy]

I don't know what I'm trying to say here.
Hahah!

Actually, before Intolerable Cruelty, I don't think I could call any Coens movie "commercial" - I consider that and Ladykillers a bit of a sellout. This looks great so far, but I'm afraid I it will be the return to that formula of "5% Coen weirdness, big stars and cheap laughs".

By the way, I'm dying to see No Country. It's already available in my country on DVD and obviously on the Internet, but I want the theater experience.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm ridiculously excited.

[Ezee E]

Tilda Swinton is also in this. At the SAGs she even said something about how it's a monster movie or something. ?????????

[chrisnu]

So is Frances McDormand. I'm pretty stoked.

[Wryan]

Pitt and Clooney playing "unwise gym employees"???

I'm. There.

[Sven]

I think Clooney plays an assassin, actually, sent by Malkovich to kill Pitt. That's what my local paper said, anyway. (They could be wrong.)

Some of this was shot a few blocks from where I live.

On the subject of digital, I'm actually kind of disappointed they went that route. I'm sure with Lubezki, it'll still look fine, but I can still tell the difference, and I much prefer the richer tones of film to flatter digital quality. One thing I've always liked about the Coens is that their pictures have that full, round, film quality to them.

[Sycophant]

Film is getting a wide release (http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/03/coens-burn-afte.html) in September. I think Thompson is right here in saying that this is at least partly due to No Country's success, but I don't think it's the first time a Coen film has opened wide.

[Sven]

Film is getting a wide release (http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/03/coens-burn-afte.html) in September. I think Thompson is right here in saying that this is at least partly due to No Country's success, but I don't think it's the first time a Coen film has opened wide.

I don't know about The Ladykillers, but I remember Intolerable Cruelty opening wide.

[megladon8]

The Ladykillers definitely opened wide - I saw it in the theatre, and we have quite a limited selection up here in Ottawa.

Actually I think the Coens' films are released wide pretty often. The only one I can remember not getting a theatrical release here was The Man Who Wasn't There.

[DSNT]

Actually I think the Coens' films are released wide pretty often.
Not really. I did some snooping around and it turns out only Intolerable Cruelty, Ladykillers and The Big Lebowski opened wide. Even Raising Arizona, Fargo and O' Brother Where Art Thou opened in limited. Hopefully No Country's success will change all that.

[Sycophant]

The Big Lebowski, I'm sure, only ended up wide because Fargo was such a success. I'd imagine the other two were also coasting off O Brother's relatively good performance.

Ell. Oh. Ell.

[megladon8]

Not really. I did some snooping around and it turns out only Intolerable Cruelty, Ladykillers and The Big Lebowski opened wide. Even Raising Arizona, Fargo and O' Brother Where Art Thou opened in limited. Hopefully No Country's success will change all that.


Well then I guess theatres in Ottawa go out of their way to get the Coens' films, because I distinctly remember every one of those movies playing here.

My dad saw O Brother, Where Art Thou? in the theatre, and my uncle saw Fargo - I remember because he got in a car accident on the way home from it.

But it doesn't really matter. I've been an admitted non-fan of theirs in the past, but No Country For Old Men may have single-handedly changed that, and I, too, am hoping more of their films make it to theatre now.

[Sycophant]

There's a difference between opening wide and playing a lot of theaters. Opening wide is what Spider-Man does. Opening limited is what No Country for Old Men did, even though it's now played in most areas.

Also, Ottawa's pretty major. It's a city in Canada that I in America am aware of.

[DSNT]

Well then I guess theatres in Ottawa go out of their way to get the Coens' films, because I distinctly remember every one of those movies playing here.

My dad saw O Brother, Where Art Thou? in the theatre, and my uncle saw Fargo - I remember because he got in a car accident on the way home from it.

But it doesn't really matter. I've been an admitted non-fan of theirs in the past, but No Country For Old Men may have single-handedly changed that, and I, too, am hoping more of their films make it to theatre now.
I saw them in theaters too, but not on opening weekend. The only Coen Bros film I haven't been able to see in theaters was The Man Who Wasn't There.

[megladon8]

Also, Ottawa's pretty major. It's a city in Canada that I in America am aware of.


But even so, we never get indie or foreign films unless there is Oscar buzz surrounding them, and even then, they only play them when the Oscars are coming up.

Hell, Ellen Page is Canadian, and we didn't get Juno until like a month ago.

Same with There Will Be Blood - we got it only about 5 weeks ago, and it was only here for about 2 weeks.

[number8]

I don't think you can guess a movie's release range by comparing it to what you usually get. There are different factors that contribute to which cities a certain movie plays at. It's not all just "only big cosmopolitan cities get the indies." I believe market research comes into play.


I'd imagine the other two were also coasting off O Brother's relatively good performance.

That... or the fact that they had Tom Hanks and George Clooney in the leads.

[Watashi]

New photos!

http://www.firstshowing.net/img/burnafterreading-apr-01.jpg

http://www.firstshowing.net/img/burnafterreading-apr-02.jpg

http://www.firstshowing.net/img/burnafterreading-apr-03.jpg

http://www.firstshowing.net/img/burnafterreading-apr-04.jpg

[Spinal]

It's opening the Venice Film Festival.

[MadMan]

Yeah this movie looks great. I can't wait.

[chrisnu]

Nice. The aesthetics of the first two images remind me of Intolerable Cruelty - light comedy, with a tinge of seriousness. The third reminds me of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Bemused, contemplative comedy. John Malkovich holding a gun and scotch whilst in a robe is pure Coen geekery. Can't wait.

[Sycophant]

Those pictures made me smile.

[Watashi]

Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/focus_features/burnafterreading/)

Definitely looks like the Coens are going back to their screwiness this time.

[Sven]

This movie's going to be sweet.

[megladon8]

Oh man, that left a big smile on my face.

I can't wait to see that.

[Ezee E]

Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/focus_features/burnafterreading/)

Definitely looks like the Coens are going back to their screwiness this time.
In case that wasn't obvious from the screenshots already.

[Watashi]

In case that wasn't obvious from the screenshots already.
Okay, Mr. "It's a monster movie".

[megladon8]

MALKOVICH: Give me the CD!

PITT: Once you give us the money, dickwad!

*punch*

[Ezee E]

Okay, Mr. "It's a monster movie".
just referencing Tilda Swinton.

[Raiders]

Looks great.

[Qrazy]

just referencing Tilda Swinton.

She's more attractive than Frances McDormand at least, at this point.

But she was fairly obnoxious in The Man from London, worst performance in the film.

[Boner M]

But she was fairly obnoxious in The Man from London, worst performance in the film.
Wasn't she dubbed over in that one?

Anyway, this looks cool. Kinda surprised it's taken this long for Malkovich to team with the Coens.

[Qrazy]

Wasn't she dubbed over in that one?

Anyway, this looks cool. Kinda surprised it's taken this long for Malkovich to team with the Coens.

Dunno, either way her emoting could have been toned down a few notches.

[transmogrifier]

I...don't know. I just don't know. :|

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm so ready for this.

[chrisnu]

Pure Coen madcap goodness. My favorite bits:

"Report to me when, uh..."

*nods*

"I don't know. When it makes sense."

"We'll interface with the FBI on this dead body."
"No, no! God no! Burn the body."
"OK."

[Spinal]

As long as J.K. Rowling doesn't have Irritable Bowell Syndrome in this one.

[Watashi]

Don't you mean J.K. Simmons?

[Spinal]

Don't you mean J.K. Simmons?

Ha! Yes. That typo is too funny to edit.

[Mara]

I never like Pitt so much as when he sheds his dignity a little bit. It's nice to see him loosening up.

The rest of the actors I like unconditionally, so I'm absolutely there.

[Dukefrukem]

did anyone realize apple is starting to allow viewing red band trailers on their site (as long as you have itunes installed)?

[Ezee E]

did anyone realize apple is starting to allow viewing red band trailers on their site (as long as you have itunes installed)?
Everyone that watched the trailer sure did.

[chrisnu]

did anyone realize apple is starting to allow viewing red band trailers on their site (as long as you have itunes installed)?
Hmm. I'm thinkin' that because I've already registered with the iTunes store, they know that I'm over 18. That may be the caveat. If someone younger than 18 can test out that theory, it will be appreciated. :)

[Winston*]

Hmm. I'm thinkin' that because I've already registered with the iTunes store, they know that I'm over 18. That may be the caveat. If someone younger than 18 can test out that theory, it will be appreciated. :)

Nah, I don't have an iTunes account and it let me watch the trailer on my iTunes no problem.

[Morris Schæffer]

What a cast! And is that Sledge Hammer? :)

[ThePlashyBubbler]

Anyone else agree Brad Pitt has the funniest sounding laugh in Hollywood? It was put on display in Jesse James for sure.

[Ezee E]

Anyone else agree Brad Pitt has the funniest sounding laugh in Hollywood? It was put on display in Jesse James for sure.
Agreed. ANytime he cracks up, I'll crack up.

[Thirdmango]

Oh Man, I can not wait!

[KK2.0]

count me in

[Russ]

Yeah, we love this poster:

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3627/1251fk7ih6.jpg

[Sycophant]

DO WANT.

[number8]

Fucking awesome.

[eternity]

Yeah, that poster is purdy.

[ledfloyd]

looks hitchcockian.

[Raiders]

looks hitchcockian.

I was thinking Saul Bass-ian.

[Russ]

I was thinking Saul Bass-ian.
Beat me to it.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/583/basssq9.jpg

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7774/basskb8.jpg

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/980/goldenarmpw3.jpg

[Sycophant]

I was thinking Saul Bass-ian.
That's what I was going to say, but then I couldn't remember his name for some horrible reason.

[Grouchy]

Awesome Saul Bass throwback.

And Tilda Swinton is a very attractive woman... Weird, but I'd engage in fornication with her.

[Ezee E]

And Tilda Swinton is a very attractive woman... Weird, but I'd engage in fornication with her.

Gross.

[eternity]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=udgWnHV-pho

New green band trailer

[Sycophant]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=udgWnHV-pho

New green band trailerThis trailer is heaven.

[MadMan]

After seeing the trailer for this film today at the showing of Get Smart, I realized that it confirmed what I originally thought after hearing about the cast: this film is a must see for me. And the part where "We'll interface with the FBI on this dead body."
"No, no! God no! Burn the body."
"OK." was uttered cracked me up. Great to see that J.K. Simmons is in this as well. Oh and the poster for the film is very old school awesome, a delight and treat for the eyes.

[NickGlass]

Fine. I'll be the first to say it--I'm still skeptical. I'll see it, surely, but I'm certainly not expecting the masterpiece everyone else is getting their pants wet over.

[Acapelli]

i'm not sure anyone's expecting a masterpiece, it just looks like it'll be a lot of fun and hopefully it'll be a triumphant return to comedy for them after the lukewarm receptions to intolerable cruelty and the ladykillers

[Sycophant]

Well, I loved both The Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty, so I'm stoked about them doing another comedy. It also looks kind of just generally insane. At any rate, that teaser is infinitely watchable to me. It's fantastic.

[Acapelli]

yeah but you have to admit that you're in the minority

i myself loved intolerable cruelty

[Sycophant]

yeah but you have to admit that you're in the minority

i myself loved intolerable cruelty
Yeah, but I'm still a bit baffled by the fact that it is minority opinion.

[NickGlass]

Yeah, but I'm still a bit baffled by the fact that it is minority opinion.

You're baffled by the fact that fans of the Coens think The Ladykillers is crude, unfunny and formulaic?

[Grouchy]

Yeah, I'm a huge Coenhead, but I don't really like those two. Seemed stupid and lazy from them. The Ladykillers is just goofiness without the smarts of Big Lebowski.

This looks a lot better.

[Ezee E]

Burn After Reading has a lot more of the older zaniness then the newer Coen comedies, which I also think are hilarious.

The audience-friendly trailer isn't very funny though.

[number8]

My site is giving away some swag, which includes a USB drive, heh.

http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/3949-burn-after-reading-giveaway.html

I'm not going to guarantee you a winner because that's how I'm gonna play it, son, but feel free to enter anyway.

[Kurosawa Fan]

*ahem*

mbeeckman18 has entered the sweepstakes.

*nudge*

[Watashi]

I just want the T-shirt.

[number8]

The early buzz is pretty bad, by the way. Apparently it's back to middling comedies again for the Coens. Although I liked the tv spot where they try to make it look serious and it says "From the makers of No Country for Old Men..." and then do that needle scratch sound. As if it's like this surprise offroad path for them to do a comedy.

[Raiders]

The early buzz is pretty bad, by the way. Apparently it's back to middling comedies again for the Coens.

Where? Didn't this just premier in Venice like, yesterday?

[Pop Trash]

Where? Didn't this just premier in Venice like, yesterday?
Yeah and there is an article at the top of IMDB's news page today about it. Apparently the reception was "warm" for the film.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Considering I've enjoyed nearly all of the Coen's "middling" comedies, I'm not deterred in the slightest.

[Sycophant]

Considering I've enjoyed nearly all of the Coen's "middling" comedies, I'm not deterred in the slightest.

Word.

[transmogrifier]

Considering I've enjoyed nearly all of the Coen's "middling" comedies, I'm not deterred in the slightest.

Considering I've enjoyed none of the Coen's "middling" comedies, I'm deterred totally.

[/counterpoint]

[ledfloyd]

entered the contest. i reeeeally want that shirt.

[MadMan]

What? Bad buzz? Everytime I see the trailer for this film I laugh my ass off. Brad Pitt's idiotic dancing alone cracks me up. I supposed that people who think the film is "middling" probably thought The Big Lebowski, one of the Coens best films, was "middling."

[Derek]

I supposed that people who think the film is "middling" probably thought The Big Lebowski, one of the Coens best films, was "middling."

Probably not since most critics liked that one, or at least changed their mind in retrospect. I think it's more in reference to Intolerable Cruelty and Ladykillers, although I don't think either of those even got particularly bad reviews.

[Derek]

I call the wrist bands. That is, dsmith724 calls the wrist bands.

[MadMan]

Probably not since most critics liked that one, or at least changed their mind in retrospect. I think it's more in reference to Intolerable Cruelty and Ladykillers, although I don't think either of those even got particularly bad reviews.Oh, I see. I actually want to see "Cruelty," as I think it looks quite sharp and even a bit funny. I will view "Ladykillers" with considerably low expectations.

[Derek]

Oh, I see. I actually want to see "Cruelty," as I think it looks quite sharp and even a bit funny. I will view "Ladykillers" with considerably low expectations.

I like Cruelty quite a bit, but Ladykillers was pretty "middling" though not bad. Haven't seen either since their theatrical run, so I should give them another look.

[Grouchy]

Oh, I see. I actually want to see "Cruelty," as I think it looks quite sharp and even a bit funny. I will view "Ladykillers" with considerably low expectations.
Believe me, I'm the biggest Lebowski fan alive. I love the shit out of O Brother, I think it's one of the most original comedies ever made. But those two movies were way below their class. They even seemed like a prayer for mainstream audiences.

That said, I just rewatched the red band trailer for this on youtube and laughed my ass off. "I meant the back of the car, not any kind of rear-entrance situation".

[Ezee E]

Well, when the Coen's actually do a bad movie, I'll believe bad buzz from them. Can't wait for it.

[EvilShoe]

Good news, my girlfriend liked it!
I, on the other hand, was babysitting my sister's kid.

I am not bitter.

[Morris Schæffer]

Hey Shoe! How have ya been? :)

[Watashi]

Shoe has a girlfriend? :eek:

What has this world come to?

[MadMan]

Yo Shoe. Long time no see man.

I'm going to see this film on Friday. I'm pretty excited.

[EvilShoe]

I've had a girlfriend for a year and half now, actually. Exactly a year and a half, I timed it.

I'm good Morris, how is u?

[Morris Schæffer]

I'm good Morris, how is u?

Terrible. I don't have a girlfriend. You lucky sod.:)

[number8]

It was hilarious.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

Eh, it was a complete mess and annoyingly self-aware of it ridiculousness, but I laughed quite a bit. Kind of average though...Brad Pitt's act grew a little tiresome but his squinting in the meeting with Malkovich was hilarious.

Does anybody know what version ( or where to get an mp3) of "CIA Man" played at the credits..it's not the version on the Fugs album...

[number8]

"Just keep an eye on them until... I don't know, until it starts making sense."

[Watashi]

McDormand was definitely my favorite part. I think her and Pitt and terrific onscreen chemistry.

Oh, and I'm pretty pissed that the trailer kinda spoiled the big shock halfway through the film. It would have been so much better if I didn't knew it was coming.

[number8]

McDormand was definitely my favorite part. I think her and Pitt and terrific onscreen chemistry.

Oh, and I'm pretty pissed that the trailer kinda spoiled the big shock halfway through the film. It would have been so much better if I didn't knew it was coming.

I don't remember the trailer much. What was it?

[Watashi]

I don't remember the trailer much. What was it?

The whole scene with the Clooney and the dead body (you only see the feet) was in the trailer so as soon as I saw Pitt go into the room, I knew immediately he was going to get shot. It kinda spoiled the fun.

[number8]

The whole scene with the Clooney and the dead body (you only see the feet) was in the trailer so as soon as I saw Pitt go into the room, I knew immediately he was going to get shot. It kinda spoiled the fun.

Ah. Good thing I forgot it, then.

[Thirdmango]

I enjoyed it quite a bit but different then usual. In this one there were a bunch of Laugh out loud moments which were truly amazing.

The revelation of the machine in the basement was amazing.

[NickGlass]

This made $6.5 million on Friday. A Coen Bros. film opening at the top of the box office with $20 million? Bizarre.

I'll be checking it out today or tomorrow, but I never thought I'd have to worry about it being sold out.

[Watashi]

This made $6.5 million on Friday. A Coen Bros. film opening at the top of the box office with $20 million? Bizarre.

I'll be checking it out today or tomorrow, but I never thought I'd have to worry about it being sold out.
Well, their last movie DID win Best Picture.

It's not that surprising. Though a lot of my crowd was silent during most of the film. I guess the Coens' humor just isn't for the regular movie-goers.

[eternity]

In many ways, Burn After Reading is a retread of last year's No Country for No Men in both themes, execution, and narrative. Conflicts created entirely by the characters as the film goes along, a very abrupt death of a main character as well as a very cynical one filled with dramatic irony, the questionable reality of the events (either a really bad gaffe by the Coens or a brilliant subtle hint, the dates shown throughout the film are out of order and months apart, Clooney's phone says 9-17-08, a few scenes later, it's 5-1-08 on the Russian security camera, Malkovich's memoirs are dated 11-22-04 in the memoirs save file.) The film was out of order and told through the information that Simmons had in the file of the events, which is just as out of order, incompetent and odd as the characters that are portrayed on screen.

8

[eternity]

This made $6.5 million on Friday. A Coen Bros. film opening at the top of the box office with $20 million? Bizarre.

I'll be checking it out today or tomorrow, but I never thought I'd have to worry about it being sold out.
George Clooney and Brad Pitt headlining a film will do that to your box office total.

[Sven]

Narrative twisting, heavy atmosphere, exaggerated characterization, inexplicable tension, shifting subjects, and airy exposition culminate in one of the most brilliantly unpredictable and disconcerting movies I've ever seen. Absolutely mind-boggling how they crafted this one.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Narrative twisting, heavy atmosphere, exaggerated characterization, inexplicable tension, shifting subjects, and airy exposition culminate in one of the most brilliantly unpredictable and disconcerting movies I've ever seen. Absolutely mind-boggling how they crafted this one.

Awe. Some.

[Mara]

Petty convenience store robberies and whacked out plans to steal people's babies and some implacable and campy Hell's Angels biker?

You bet your patootie. Just reading this line makes me want to see it again.

[Sven]

M. Ponto, I have to disagree with a few points in your review:


...a blatantly empty and plotless comedy...

Is it that the film has no plot? Or is it that it is ALL plot? I would agree with the latter: that there is so much plot that it renders itself, with the aide of Simmons's character in the film coupled with the cosmic framing, moot. And it is in reference to this existential mootness that I could understand people calling it "empty". However, the very process by which that mootness is rendered is an expert construction. In other words, when I hear "empty", I hear "devoid of meaning", but its emptiness IS the meaning.


I saw Burn After Reading on September 11th, seven years later. There’s no meaning to this.

You admitted to the post-9/11 paranoia that birthed the "Bourne Syndrome" and claim that there's no inherent meaning (however aided by serendipity) in this witnessing this film's refutation of that paranoia on 9/11?

[number8]

Is it that the film has no plot? Or is it that it is ALL plot? I would agree with the latter: that there is so much plot that it renders itself, with the aide of Simmons's character in the film coupled with the cosmic framing, moot. And it is in reference to this existential mootness that I could understand people calling it "empty". However, the very process by which that mootness is rendered is an expert construction. In other words, when I hear "empty", I hear "devoid of meaning", but its emptiness IS the meaning.

You're right, of course, and I should know better than to throw out comments that could be interpreted so negatively, but I was referring to the film's refusal to stick to one coherent plot. It has a lot of different catalysts (the pursuit of surgery, the lost CD, Clooney's infidelity) but none of them end up mattering in the end. It's a series of circus acts, almost as if it had no plot at all. I noted the lack of on-screen resolution. It's a dismissive act on the Coens' part, noting that all this running around is for naught.

As for "empty", you've answered your own question. It sounds like a diss, but I meant it in no such manner. Obviously it's a study of how complicated emptiness could be.


You admitted to the post-9/11 paranoia that birthed the "Bourne Syndrome" and claim that there's no inherent meaning (however aided by serendipity) in this witnessing this film's refutation of that paranoia on 9/11?

That's not what I said. I acknowledged the post-9/11 commentary. I was just saying that the fact that I coincidentally watched it on the date has no higher serendipituous meaning to it. I don't believe in those kind of things, so it was a joke.

[Sven]

Gotcha, on both counts. I think I figured what you meant, but I guess I was feeling combative.

[Ivan Drago]

It's not that surprising. Though a lot of my crowd was silent during most of the film. I guess the Coens' humor just isn't for the regular movie-goers.

Really? My crowd laughed a lot.

[Amnesiac]

Really? My crowd laughed a lot.

Ditto.

[number8]

Ditto.

Wats and his crazy humorless LA crowd...

[Ezee E]

Ditto.

Wats and his crazy humorless LA crowd...
Which brings a funny story.

David Fincher commented on after Fight Club came out, it only made $12 million, and he had citizens and people at his agency come up to him acting as if it was a funeral. "I'm sorry about Fight Club." To which he said something along the lines of, "Only in L.A. is a film as important as your loved ones," or something along those lines.

[MadMan]

This film was very, very funny. I'd say its probably going to end up being the funniest movie I see from 2008, although who knows? Something else may take that title. Anyways I didn't really mind that the film took a while to get going, or really become funny, as I was sort of enjoying the early moments due to the difference in tone from the film's overall humor. There was a lot of dark comedy in Burn, but then that's one of the things that the Coens do extremely well, and I liked how all of the characters were fairly clueless. Brad Pitt really stole the show here, seemingly pouring in all of skills and energy into a role that really was utterly hilarious, and highly enjoyable. But I have to say that J.K. Simmons really was the best-I loved all of his scenes, and all of them made me laugh so hard I cried tears. I didn't pick up on the shocking twist in the trailer, so my jaw dropped when Pitt got shot. The dildo machine was also a completely out of the blue and humorous bit as well. Malkvoich and McDormond were quite good as usual, and Clooney really was born to play a cheating womanizing husband. I liked how by the end of the film he was completely paranoid, and flipping shit. Overall, a fine followup to "No Country," and I like that the Coens haven't forgotten comedy, even if it hasn't gotten them the critical recognition that their dramas have.

[origami_mustache]

I didn't pick up on the shocking twist in the trailer, so my jaw dropped when Pitt got shot. The dildo machine was also a completely out of the blue and humorous bit as well.
.

There is just something so riveting about seeing such a big name headline actor like Pitt or DiCaprio get shot in the head. I love it.

[Amnesiac]

There is just something so riveting about seeing such a big name headline actor like Pitt or DiCaprio get shot in the head. I love it.

And its the second time you've been treated to such an occurrence within the past year (at least where Pitt is concerned).

[Sxottlan]

Yeah the chair got the biggest laugh at my screening.

[Sycophant]

This film plays like a great B-side to No Country for Old Men's hit single. Covering a lot of the same ideas with a more comedic tone (but never allowing it to fall entirely into full-on farce). It's the Coens doing what they do best: pitch black comedy, lovable losers who think they're far more clever and important than they ever could be, and some capital violence. And everyone's playing to their strengths here.

The smile on Brad Pitt's face right before he gets shot in the head is just about the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. That sequence was fantastic.

Tilda Swinton should be in everything. With George Clooney. And Richard Jenkins is really, really shining this year.

I'm really not sure how much the audience was laughing (except for at the Mormon line). My group (and especially me), however, was pretty much on the floor throughout.

[MadMan]

There is just something so riveting about seeing such a big name headline actor like Pitt or DiCaprio get shot in the head. I love it.Pretty much. I also agree with the spoiler in Sycophant's post.

I can't believe I forgot about Tilda Swinton. She really played the queen super bitch to a tee, and I liked how she interacted with both Malkvoich and Clooney.

Oh and the liberal use of the f-bomb reminded me of how much the Coens used it in The Big Lebowski. There were also some Fargo and Big Lebowski references peppered in; to me in some ways this film was a mix of some of their older films. With of course new stuff sort of peppered in as well. Interesting.

[Duncan]

Well, I liked it better than No Country for Old Men, but I'm definitely tiring of the Coens' cynicism. Fargo is a cynical movie where people do petty, stupid things but there is at least some balance. There's a mallard on a 2 cent stamp. Here, nothing. It's fine to make a satire showing how pathetic America has become. Bravo, I agree. But this seems like a defeatist film. Like, things have gone too far so we might as well enjoy the trainwreck. Fuck that, man. I've got better things to do and I don't care if they're small things. They make me happy.

[MadMan]

Well, I liked it better than No Country for Old Men, but I'm definitely tiring of the Coens' cynicism. Fargo is a cynical movie where people do petty, stupid things but there is at least some balance. There's a mallard on a 2 cent stamp. Here, nothing. It's fine to make a satire showing how pathetic America has become. Bravo, I agree. But this seems like a defeatist film. Like, things have gone too far so we might as well enjoy the trainwreck. Fuck that, man. I've got better things to do and I don't care if they're small things. They make me happy.Yeah, but it was pretty goddamn funny. Although I'm quite cynical. Misanthropy is too damn easy to turn to these days, and that kind of scares me however.

[Duncan]

From Manohla Dargis' review:


It isn’t that sadism can’t be a laugh riot; it’s just a question of modulation, of balancing the loud yuks and cruel jabs with some delicate feeling, mixing a real face in with the cartoons.

...

The Coens in turn have made their careers with impeccable technique and an exaggerated visual style — they sure love their low-angle shots and traveling cameras — but it’s a wonder they keep making films about a subject for which they often evince so little regard, namely other people.
She's such a great writer. Plus, she and I have very similar tastes.

[Duncan]

Ah, yes, I actually read that same review a few days ago. I don't necessarily agree that a 'real face' is of the utmost importance in a film that can potentially be understood as a cautionary tale of sorts. Or again, more optimistically, a wake-up call.

But perhaps the film does seem a touch too bleak, missing some crucial indication of hope buried in the absurdity. I can understand that. But maybe the film affronts us to adopt that kind of hope and muster up our own agency in light of the common foibles which Burn's caricatures present us. Or maybe I'm giving the Coens more credit than they are due. Perhaps they really are just bemused sadists.

I think the opening and closing shots, the glibness of the final C.I.A. discussion, and the overall tone all suggest a severe detachment from the proceedings. You can read the film as a mirror, but I don't get the feeling the Coens care what the audience sees. If people wake up, fine, they (and us, implicitly) will laugh at something else. If people don't wake up, fine, the same stupidity remains for our amusement. This is why I don't think one can read the film as a wake up call or cautionary tale. For a cautionary tale to work there has to be something to caution against. The Coens are having fun the way things are. They never seem anything more than indifferent to change. That's why you need a real face in there. Some empathetic character who serves as proof there are better people than this, and who you don't brutally kill off. Or, if you do kill them off, then don't emphasize their pathetic punyness by retreating back to some detached vantage point on high. Give them some dignity.


But, there was Richard Jenkins as the gym manager. A beacon of some sort of (relative) sensibility, however corruptible it ended up being. I would argue he wasn't corrupted by film's end. Jenkins acts foolishly out of care and loneliness, two motivations that I would hardly consider petty. Everyone else acts for sex and money. He acts for love. And he's hacked up for it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Best film of the year thus far. Totally blew away my expectations. It's a perfect parody of the last 8 years in this country, one of confusion, deceit, paranoia, and cover-up. The supporting characters were the highlights of the film, particularly Jenkins and Rasche. LOVED Clooney's final scene in the park with McDormand. Seriously, loved this film. I can't wait to see it again.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Thinking about it more, I think it's more a parody of the war in Iraq than of the current administration as a whole. I need to go to bed.

Man I loved this movie.

[chrisnu]

K-Fan, you've just convinced me to go see this right now.

*leaves*

[Watashi]

I think my deaf-mute grandmother could have predicted that KF would love this film.

[MadMan]

Thinking about it more, I think it's more a parody of the war in Iraq than of the current administration as a whole. I need to go to bed.

Man I loved this movie.How is it a parody of the war in Iraq? Or of the current administration? I must admit I fail to see how it really is either. Maybe I need to see the movie again. I want to anyways, as it is indeed pretty awesome.

[chrisnu]

Wow, that was more depressing than No Country for Old Men. Funny, but I was often wincing at the same time.

[Kurosawa Fan]

How is it a parody of the war in Iraq? Or of the current administration? I must admit I fail to see how it really is either. Maybe I need to see the movie again. I want to anyways, as it is indeed pretty awesome.

Some of this will contain SPOILERS, so I guess don't read if you haven't seen the film yet.


Well, it certainly isn't a direct interpretation, but the way I saw it, from the beginning you have the CIA, whose actions against Osborne Cox are the result of what happens afterward. Without their firing him (for unspecified reasons), there is no memoir, there is no secretary to make a disc of the memoir, and this mess wouldn't occur on the massive scale that it does. So we have all this chaos and violence and murder taking place right under their noses, and they sit back and watch it all happen, only getting involved to cover things up when necessary so the public won't know. And in the end, when the mess has hit its peak and their cover-up is flowing in all directions, their final conversation is the kicker, speaking of what a clusterfuck this turned into, and "What have we learned? I guess not to do it again... though I don't know what we did." It's suggesting that they won't learn from the mess they helped create, and a mess they could have intervened and done things correctly to help stop, but instead chose the worst plan of attack (in this case, to do nothing) and watched as things got messier and messier. It's loose mind you, but it jumped out at me while I was laying in bed last night trying to go to sleep. But even outside of the war itself, their depiction of the CIA was much like our current administration: lazy, confused, and seemingly uninterested in the problems in front of them unless it affects them personally.

[Duncan]

I don't know if it's a direct metaphor for anything in particular, but it's definitely a comment on the past 8 years. The Iraq War, ubiquitous intelligence blunders, obsession with image (personal or political), even the current financial crisis. The film is definitely informed by its time.

[Qrazy]

Well, I liked it better than No Country for Old Men, but I'm definitely tiring of the Coens' cynicism. Fargo is a cynical movie where people do petty, stupid things but there is at least some balance. There's a mallard on a 2 cent stamp. Here, nothing. It's fine to make a satire showing how pathetic America has become. Bravo, I agree. But this seems like a defeatist film. Like, things have gone too far so we might as well enjoy the trainwreck. Fuck that, man. I've got better things to do and I don't care if they're small things. They make me happy.

Yeah, I agree. I came away from this and many of the Coens films with an unpleasant feeling in the pit my stomach. Their approach towards and take on relationships is of a series of narcissistic characters who seem incapable of any real feeling towards one another. People go through the motions but even their pain and misery is presented as the butt of a joke. Such a world view rapidly becomes incredibly oppressive to me. I begin to think of my own life and relationships in these terms and it's a truly negative experience.

I enjoyed the film in parts. They're certainly filmmakers a cut above the majority. The manner in which they'll hold the camera on a character after a primary exchange has been completed allows for a level of nuance that many filmmakers ignore. Also their sense of humor and of tension is very strong.

I think it was Rowland (could be wrong) who said that while they saw what the Coens were going for with the end of No Country for Old Men they weren't sure if it was entirely successful. After this I'm even more inclined to agree than before. The ending of Burn After Reading just sort of pops up. It's nearly an irrelevancy. Once the film begins to build to it's seemingly inevitable conclusion all of the pieces are dropped and we're back to the office of JK Simmons. Simmons scenes in and of themselves were enjoyable and humorous but the compulsion to go there in the first place creates for an odd structural dynamic. Somewhat of a stretch perhaps but sometimes I feel as if the Coens recently watched Antonioni's L'eclisse and desired to emulate a semi-similar narrative abortion. The reason Antonioni's ending works though is because tonally/dramatically the energy of the film continues to build from the preceding moments. With both Burn and No Country however it's as if a pin has been taken to the cushion of the film and all their energy has been deflated. No Country is certainly more successful than Burn in this regard because of it's thematic conceits but I still feel the problem remains in both cases.

[Qrazy]

I'd argue that the dignity isn't absolutely necessary. This sympathetic character exists. You can't take away his purity of heart and sensibilities. You might argue that the Coens are trivializing this poor fellow alongside all the other misguided folks in Burn, but there are other possible avenues of interpretation. Perhaps the Coens are just, in their own little way, making us aware that this is what is becoming bankrupt (or, better yet, extinct) in society. This is what is being threatened. This is what we should try and save. Good, honest values undiluted by superficial obsession and swollen egos, among other things. Ted (gym manager) is a victim of the elaborate chaos and misdirected priorities of those dolts that surround him. He's helpless but to concede and fall victim to their madness, but he's still a beacon of good-natured sensibilities... and the proof that such things do still exist. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a martyr, but, by your own admission, these honest sensibilities do remain intact (and uncorrupted) regardless of his death. Can't say that for any other character in the film. Couldn't there be a poignancy in his death that coyly betrays the dismissive quality of the film's closing segments? That suggests a dying breed of sensible individuals and priorities that, however outnumbered, do exist in the world? And this, in turn, shows us what we need to work towards?

Or am I letting my optimistic inclinations get the best of me again? :)


The latter, I see little poignancy in his death or much general appreciation for the character's life. Even acting out of love he too falls prey to fate's cruel joke. Both the fool and the idealist in this film are the one's who pay for their desires and their actions with their lives. Beyond political (national/international) commentary (or perhaps in concert with) the film seems to me to be primarily about relationships... their transience, fragility, and final hollowness in a world filled with uncaring individuals. Marriages crumble, middle aged men and women become obsessed with their physical appearance to the exclusion of genuine emotion, everyone desires more money but few people have it.

In many ways it's a valid critique of the primary goals of American society but at the end of the day we're left to ask, is this really the way the world works? Will our dad always sit stoically and mutely by as we reveal our occupational failings? Will our search for love only yield unfunny, boring individuals or alternatively womanizing con artists? Will doing something out of love or friendship always result in negative consequences? To me the deck seems loaded. The Coens do have much to say... Malkovich sitting idly by watching Family Feud during the daytime hours, Swinton trying to force open a patient's mouth, McDormand's obsession with surgery or Clooney's with running. It's all fairly one-sided however. We have law firm employees shouting at unhappiness get over it already it happens to everyone or the sardonic laughter of the intelligence community. But frankly I don't believe that all relationships or all people are this hollow or cruel and kind hearted individuals don't always suffer as a result of their genuine good will.

[MadMan]

Some of this will contain SPOILERS, so I guess don't read if you haven't seen the film yet.


Well, it certainly isn't a direct interpretation, but the way I saw it, from the beginning you have the CIA, whose actions against Osborne Cox are the result of what happens afterward. Without their firing him (for unspecified reasons), there is no memoir, there is no secretary to make a disc of the memoir, and this mess wouldn't occur on the massive scale that it does. So we have all this chaos and violence and murder taking place right under their noses, and they sit back and watch it all happen, only getting involved to cover things up when necessary so the public won't know. And in the end, when the mess has hit its peak and their cover-up is flowing in all directions, their final conversation is the kicker, speaking of what a clusterfuck this turned into, and "What have we learned? I guess not to do it again... though I don't know what we did." It's suggesting that they won't learn from the mess they helped create, and a mess they could have intervened and done things correctly to help stop, but instead chose the worst plan of attack (in this case, to do nothing) and watched as things got messier and messier. It's loose mind you, but it jumped out at me while I was laying in bed last night trying to go to sleep. But even outside of the war itself, their depiction of the CIA was much like our current administration: lazy, confused, and seemingly uninterested in the problems in front of them unless it affects them personally.Holy shit. I never really saw it that way. That entire post makes 100% sense, and if that's really the case (which I bet it is) that's pretty genius on the part of the Coens. Wow. All of the scenes with Simmons and his lackey were pretty damn funny btw, maybe that's because they are also reflecting the audience's reactions to much of what is going on in a way. I mean come on, most of the time I was laughing but also going "What the hell? All of this shit is just horribly crazy and completely beyond the pale."

That last statement by the way also feeds into what I've read about much of the CIA's actions since they were created. Overthrowing governments, mucking in other countries affairs, supposedly killing Kennedy (and the motives for that possibly being because JFK simply backed off the Bay of Pigs, which in turn makes the hit all the more petty and silly). And of course either absorbing the blame for intelligence failures both related to 9-11 and the Iraq War, or simply deflecting blame all at the same time...I'd say the Coens Brothers simply hit the nail on the head with all that.

[Qrazy]

The film is primarily addressing middle America, specifically middle-aged middle America and so when I say 'is the world really that...' I was referring to that world, the one in which I live (except for the middle aged part). So I was already referring to the microcosm in my analysis, thus claiming that this microcosm itself I find to be lacking in even-handed assessment. In my dealings with middle America I do not find individuals to be as overly self-centered and self-serving as I feel the film presents them.

However, one of my primary complaints with the brothers work goes far beyond character and has much more to do with general construction. And speaking of microcosms, the dildo chair bit provides a perfect metaphor via which to demonstrate my point. In terms of the chair we spend a great deal of time with Clooney as he first buys these materials and then puts the chair together. We are intrigued, what is going on here? Perhaps we're gaining some insight into this character and his hobbies and in a way we certainly are. However the insight we are gaining seems to be that the Coens seem to believe that there isn't much insight to be gained. The construction of a sex chair is what this character is all about.

The totality of his energies are thereby reduced to a punchline, a chair rocking back and forth and a dildo protruding. And I feel like much of their work can be reduced to punchlines. And yes the punchline is funny, that much is true, but it's also a fleeting estimate of a character. Is that really all that Clooney's character is about? I don't think so, it seems like a fairly surface representation of a person to me. Antonioni also dealt with microcosms and shallow characters but he explored the source of their shallowness and the depth of their suffering. When Clooney cries over losing his wife a secondary character basically tells him to shut up and get over it. Clearly there isn't much room for sentiment in this universe, perhaps because the Coens prefer to see sentiment as kitsch.

[Pop Trash]

Watched this yesterday. It was quite good and very funny. Way funnier than the overrated Tropic Thunder IMO. The entire audience was rolling most of the time and some older lady in front of me couldn't control her guffaws.

But I can sort of see where Dargis is coming from in her review. It is missing some heart. But I don't know if it bothers me that much. It does seem like a total satire of the Washington types that have tanked our country the last 8 years or so. So I don't really feel bad that it is taking a swipe at those types of people. It is sort of Lebowski-esque in its big crazy clusterfuck that just winds up going everywhere and nowhere at the same time. It is missing The Dude's slacker zen but it makes up for it in its pointed critique of Washington's "cover your ass" mentality. I also liked how JK Simmons and the other CIA guy acted like a greek chorus to the ongoing nutso plot.

Overall: 8/10

[Ezee E]

Pretty good.

I find the selfishness of each character the most interesting. Everyone's all about themselves, making money in one way or another without having to do any type of work. Whether it be making machines, divorce settlements, the disc, or a memoir... It's all there for everyone.

I want that final credits song.

Also loved the little clips that were played in the background, especially the cooking scene on "Good Morning Seattle." I think I laughed harder at that then anything else.

[Wryan]

You think that's a Schwinn!

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

I want that final credits song.


I had to buy it on amazon for .89 because it is an alternate version that is on a obscure greatest hits compilation of the band. I'll post it here for everyone's enjoyment...give me a sec.

EDIT: Fugs - CIA Man (Burn After Reading credits song)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GQYMT6N8

[Watashi]

Sweet.

I won Ary's Burn After Reading contest.

[Spinal]

Best film I've seen so far this year. Early on, it felt like a minor effort to me, but the way the second half of the film unravels is not only utterly hilarious but truly extraordinary in the way it pits overwhelming governmental surveillance versus unpredictable human motivations. The commentary is so effortless and breezy that it almost comes as a surprise to find at the end that the film is actually saying something. Loved it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Yes! My prediction held true!

Glad you seemed to like it as much as I did.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Oh, and how great was Clooney's final meeting in the park with Francis McDormand? I had tears in my eyes from laughing.

[Spinal]

Oh, and how great was Clooney's final meeting in the park with Francis McDormand? I had tears in my eyes from laughing.

The film just gets better and better as it goes along. My favorite McDormand moment is probably her reaction to Clooney's basement surprise.

Favorite line that no one else laughed at in my screening:

"I'm not here repesenting Hardbodies."

[MacGuffin]

The Coen Brothers' approach to violence in movies is consistently fascinating. Always in short bursts, but always brutal. Taking into account everything else, I'd like to think they are some of the most talented filmmakers working in Hollywood right now. The two particular scenes were absolutely devastating. Then they go right back to effective dark comedy. It is strange and I haven't seen anything like it, I don't think.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The film just gets better and better as it goes along. My favorite McDormand moment is probably her reaction to Clooney's basement surprise.

Favorite line that no one else laughed at in my screening:

"I'm not here repesenting Hardbodies."

Both great moments. My wife and I were the only ones laughing at that line too, but there were only three other people in the theater with us, so that isn't very surprising I guess.

[Ezee E]

Just caught a few moments of O Brother today.

I much prefer Clooney in comedies than to his dramas.

[MadMan]

Oh, and how great was Clooney's final meeting in the park with Francis McDormand? I had tears in my eyes from laughing.That scene was indeed utterly hilarious. "Who are you?! Who do you work for!?!" Paranoia had never been so funny.

Glad to hear you liked it Spinal.

[Spinal]

I was thinking about how clever the marketing for this was ...

In the trailers, etc., they made it seem like Brad Pitt's character was the protagonist, a typical Coen character who had embarked on a quest beyond the scope of his own intelligence. It really sets up his unexpected death nicely.

[soitgoes...]

You think that's a Schwinn!This line received the biggest laugh at my bike-loving Eugene screening.

[Robby P]

It seems somewhat queer to me that this site has had such an overwhelmingly positive reaction to the movie. I believe Metacritic had an average score somewhere in the low 60s, and the 'tomatometer' didn't even break 80, if I recall.

I mean, I enjoyed the movie well enough ("I'm writing a memoir"), but the Coens have made far better pictures. This was a pretty minor effort on their part. The critical consensus seems to reflect that.

[Ezee E]

It seems somewhat queer to me that this site has had such an overwhelmingly positive reaction to the movie. I believe Metacritic had an average score somewhere in the low 60s, and the 'tomatometer' didn't even break 80, if I recall.

I mean, I enjoyed the movie well enough ("I'm writing a memoir"), but the Coens have made far better pictures. This was a pretty minor effort on their part. The critical consensus seems to reflect that.
Yes. But we're Match Cut. We liked Southland Tales.

[MadMan]

It seems somewhat queer to me that this site has had such an overwhelmingly positive reaction to the movie. I believe Metacritic had an average score somewhere in the low 60s, and the 'tomatometer' didn't even break 80, if I recall.

I mean, I enjoyed the movie well enough ("I'm writing a memoir"), but the Coens have made far better pictures. This was a pretty minor effort on their part. The critical consensus seems to reflect that.Well clearly they're wrong ;)

Although isn't a 60 on Metacritic a high score? 80 on the Tomatoemeter isn't too bad actually.

[Spinal]

I suppose I can see both sides. The film doesn't come out firing away like some of the Coens' other films. It takes a while for all of the comedic elements to fall into place. Once it gets rolling though, the way everything unravels and the way the film's theme is ultimately expressed are so masterful that I can give it nothing but my highest rating.

[Wryan]

The film just gets better and better as it goes along. My favorite McDormand moment is probably her reaction to Clooney's basement surprise.

Favorite line that no one else laughed at in my screening:

"I'm not here repesenting Hardbodies."

I liked that line a lot; reminded me of the Incredibles stinger: "You're not affiliated with me!"

[megladon8]

Burn After Reading

a review by Braden Adam


As I’ve grown older and become more knowledgeable about both myself and the world around me, I’ve come to be more appreciative of the Coen Brothers’ filmography, which deals almost exclusively with characters of below-average intelligence. It’s nice to see a couple of American storytellers who are simultaneously patriotic and cynical regarding their government and the so-called “average joe” of the American South. They have a great sense of humor when it comes to their country’s shortcomings, which is refreshing when considered among all the overly melodramatic, “my country, ‘tis of thee” fare that’s been churned out since 9/11 (though it’s always been prevalent in western [aka American] cinema). Burn After Reading is like a culmination of all their previous works, from the quirky romantic comedy of Raising Arizona to the ambiguous nihilism of No Country For Old Men. But while it feels like their whole career has led up to this film, the mixture of so many different themes, tones and textures is schizophrenic. The film is uneven at best, with its biggest problem being that it just isn’t that funny.

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/5791/bar1rs4.jpg

Brad Pitt provides the greatest laughs in the film, with an immature energy and total disregard for self-seriousness. That is not to say that the other characters populating the film are “serious” (with George Clooney playing a neurotic, sex-addicted paranoiac, and Frances McDormand a plastic surgery obsessed gym worker scouring the online dating scene), but Pitt’s character is the most consistent because he is also the most one-note - he’s an idiot. Yes, all the other characters occupy different levels of stupidity, but it is Pitt who is the same person at the beginning and end of the story. When we are introduced to Clooney’s character at a dinner party, his eccentricities make him a near social cripple, unable to talk of anything other than his odd medical conditions. Later, we find he is paranoid beyond reason, secretive and incapable of relating to anyone (and, of course, a sex-addict). He is also having an affair with Tilda Swinton’s character - a powerful, successful and judgmental ice queen who loathes her own husband (John Malkovich) for his socially awkward, loser persona. Interesting characters, but their traits and motives don’t all add up. If Swinton hates her husband for his being an unlikable worm, why would she have an affair with an even more detestable snake like Clooney?

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/3364/bar2fn3.jpg

Ignoring the narrative inconsistencies, Burn After Reading is more depressing and disturbing than it is funny or clever. Brad Pitt, while stupid beyond comprehension, is the only character whose motivations are not entirely self-centered, and this leaves him arguably worse-off than anyone else in the story. That his loyalty to a friend leaves him where it does is pretty saddening to say the least. The whole film is quite saddening, though. John Malkovich plays the central character, a man so bitter after being downgraded from his job in the US government, that he has decided to write a memoir exposing many secrets and lies he has come into contact with. But by the end of the film, we come to see that his character wrongly assumed that his information made him “important”, and that he actually posed no threat at all. Now, if a man like that - who did have access to some pretty sensitive material - is looked at so lightly, that must mean that someone like, say, me, a lowly writer, must mean absolutely nothing in the world.

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/8720/bar3cv6.jpg


A stretch for sure, but this is what I left the theatre thinking. Any laughs I had with Brad Pitt’s hilarious attempts to intimidate John Malkovich, or George Clooney’s ability to “fit a run in” were lost by the depressing end, where the problems created by these stupid people are solved in a stupid way by even more stupid people occupying high positions in the government. Yes, the majority of American citizens are rather unintelligent, and yes, I realize that the government is corrupt and sneaky. This is not new ground to be covered, nor is it new ground to be spoofed. So what’s the point? To make a zany comedy? Just to have us laugh at how ridiculous this all is? That’s fine, but why then leave it all on such a dreary note? Why remind us of how insignificant our lives are, and how easily we could just be wiped from existence without anyone batting an eye? This ultimatum to the film is depressing, and negates any laughs to have come before.

I must digress and mention that John Malkovich and the Coen Brothers are a match made in heaven. Why they haven’t worked together before now is beyond me, but I hope they work together again, because Malkovich’s dry humor and sometimes self-serious delivery bordering on parody work perfectly with the Coens’ witty dialogue.

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3543/bar4mf1.jpg

Burn After Reading isn’t a bad movie by any means, it’s just too down-trodden for its own good. The gut-busting laughs die off about halfway through, and the depressing end leaves a bad taste in the mouth which cancels out any goodness to have come before it. The performances are strong, the Coens prove once again to be some of the most reliable writers of dialogue in Hollywood, and it’s all shot simply yet effectively. But for a comedy, it’s just not that funny, and if laughs don’t count in the critiquing of a comedy, then I guess I’m misunderstanding this whole “film critic” thing.

[Watashi]

Welcome back.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Very well written review meg, but I gotta say, I thought the film got funnier as it went along.

Welcome back indeed. I hope things are going well for you.

[MadMan]

Awesome review meg, even though I highly disagree with you. The film was hilarious. Good to have yah back though.

[KK2.0]

Good writing Meg, although i disagree with it completely. I mean, you never realized how insignificant you were before? :P And how come the laughs die halfway through? They just get better until it ends!

As you may have noticed, also loved how the story progresses and how funnier it becomes once you realize the absurdity of it all, and when you understand every character and their roles.

Pitt's character is charming in it's stupidity but to me it was also the less interesting, Clooney, Dormand and Malkovitch were all fantastic but i have to say Richard Jenkin's Ted, the loser Gym owner, was just as great and communicated a lot with a single expression. And yes, i also laughed hard at "I'm not representing Hardbodies"... perhaps the only one in the theater since the portuguese translation of it wasn't nearly as funny.

To say it's a reflection of today's America sounds a bit like an over-analysis of the thematic elements of the film, and despite being caricatures, there are characters like these anywhere in the world so, i guess their cynicism is directed towards everyone.

The best comedies to me are the darkest ones, maybe I'm a pessimist when it comes to the human race and laughing at it fells like revenge.

[Doclop]

So hysterical. Loved this movie. It's such an elevated and precise tone of humor that the smallest moments would work so well. And the DC stuff for me was just too much.

[Ezee E]

Saw this again yesterday. Still works the same way as I saw it the first time, if not a bit funnier as I know what I'm getting into this time.

Brad Pitt's character is still the highlight of the movie to me. His commital to such a silly character is admirable, but it doesn't seem over the top, despite the arm tossing on the treadmill.

[DavidSeven]

Smart film. Has its moments, but kind of unsatisfying.

[Amnesiac]

But I can sort of see where Dargis is coming from in her review. It is missing some heart. But I don't know if it bothers me that much.

Ditto. It didn't need it, right? I mean it did have some heart (i.e., one character) but by and large, this film is about vapid, vacuous superficial folk, that's the point.

[Spinal]

Smart film. Has its moments, but kind of unsatisfying.

This post is unsatisfying. Please elucidate.

[Russ]

Smart film. Has its moments, but kind of unsatisfying.
This post is unsatisfying. Please elucidate.
Although your response wasn't directed at me, I just watched it the other night and kinda see where he's coming from.

It's definitely not a 'casual' film. The viewer has to put a bit of effort into it (as with all Coen films, or really, any good film). But for the amount of effort required from the viewer, there's surprisingly little payoff. I mean payoff in the sense of some kind of release on the viewer's part. There's no entree, it's all appetizer. It's not an easy film to critique or encapsulate. I guess the best way to approach it, from a critical perspective, is to compare it with other efforts from their filmography. My favorites (ie., Fargo, Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski) all have one thing in common, imo: something of a sense of warmth, or at the very least, humanity in the protaganists. I've heard the criticism that BAR has no heart, and I think there's some merit to that. Now, that's not to say it's a bad film at all. I recommend it, but not like I would some of their other efforts. And it's probably not a surprising direction for the Coens to take, given the Oscar-winning bleakness of NCfOM. One thing I will mention: I did go back and watch the first thirty minutes (with subtitles and headphones, to catch all the nuances) and I was transfixed. Nobody does minutiae better than the Coens. That's probably what makes virtually all their films endlessly rewatchable.

[DavidSeven]

This post is unsatisfying. Please elucidate.

A couple of people have brought up the film's lack of humanity, and I think that's part of it. This is probably the Coens' most cynical (nihilistic?) vision yet. They've outdone No Country For Old Men. There's no Kelly Macdonald. No teens to lend a helping hand. It's a funny picture, but it's a cold one too. It might even be too intellectual. (pause for cringe). It's probably their most overtly political picture, but I don't think the film is human enough to affect the average viewer. This brand of nihilism is too far removed from the human experience to really hit home. Also, this thing with ending all the character arcs off-screen is either a poorly conceived new stylistic direction or a moment of self-parody that deflates the film more than it adds laughs. The narrative device might have been jarring in No Country, but is unsatisfying here.

[NickGlass]

A couple of people have brought up the film's lack of humanity, and I think that's part of it. This is probably the Coens' most cynical (nihilistic?) vision yet. They've outdone No Country For Old Men.

I know. It's awesome.

[Derek]

Also, this thing with ending all the character arcs off-screen is either a poorly conceived new stylistic direction or a moment of self-parody that deflates the film more than it adds laughs. The narrative device might have been jarring in No Country, but is unsatisfying here.

Brad Pitt getting shot in the face was off-screen?

[Raiders]

Ending this story off-screen was perfect. It succinctly captures the lack of care or thought really put into this by the authorities because, lest we forget, this whole quagmire was over something completely irrelevant. It is in keeping with the satire of all these people stammering over their pettiness and almost equates JK Simmons, or the CIA in general, as an impersonal God (notice the God's eye view that bookends the film as well as Malkovich's stammering about being crucified at the start) who doesn't understand the situation but lords over the events and in the end, dictates the resolution of the narrative.

[dreamdead]

This was quite a hoot. I actually thought Richard Jenkins gave this film its Kelly MacDonald character, humanizing what could otherwise be seen as a cipher for devotion and lending nuance to a film that otherwise works well in broad strokes. Pitt's entire character arc is interesting in that it's likely the most comedic in a sadistic kind of way, but it's Jenkins that delivers the film's sadness. What a year for him.

Unlike some film reviewers, I didn't find anything hurtful about the way the Coen's shot Frances McDormand's figure. It didn't seem like it was overkill or hateful in its critique of age, just typically Coen Brother reserved. And though Simmons works as a counterpoint to Jenkins' humanity, he too infused the film with a nice layer of quiet humanity, just one that's overwhelmed by the state of the nation.

[Izzy Black]

I am not particularly a fan of Burn After Reading (or the Coens brother in general), but the "lacking humanity" criticism has never gone over well with me. What exactly does that even mean? That most the people a person might know are genuinely complex or caring? OK - but how does this microcosm of experience hold for the entirety of humanity? I'm not so convinced that selfishness and vanity is not an epidemic that warrants - albeit exaggerated (this is comedic satire after all) - specific attention. What's more, the film is not necessarily telling a story about humanity (i.e. the proverbial HUMAN CONDITION) so much as it is about a bunch of vain people interlocked within society's incidentally interconnected governing and social web. One complaint is that, "but these characters are ciphers." Yeah, so, what of it? Is that not precisely the point? - a film about ciphers? - that is, zeroes; nobodies; zilch; nothingness? One might say, "well this does not do humanity justice," but who says it is trying to? And how does that make it inherently uninteresting? What are the directors trying to say and why are they saying it? As another poster and I had discussed not long ago, Samuel Beckett cut humanity down to repetitious talking heads that continuously failed to say or do anything meaningful, expressing nothing but the vanity, failure, and nothingness of their condition. Humanity is not all about this, but that does not mean humanity is not about this. Are we saying that a film about inhumanity is really lacking in humanity? I am pretty sure Beckett was suggesting otherwise - that this is humanity. But forget speaking in absolutes. That is beside the point. You should be able to make a film without complex, well-intending, self-reflective individuals and it still be about humanity.

I liked the points about God and the impersonal spectator, however. I had not considered this reading before.

[Qrazy]

I am not particularly a fan of Burn After Reading (or the Coens brother in general), but the "lacking humanity" criticism has never gone over well with me. What exactly does that even mean? That most the people a person might know are genuinely complex or caring? OK - but how does this microcosm of experience hold for the entirety of humanity? I'm not so convinced that selfishness and vanity is not an epidemic that warrants - albeit exaggerated (this is comedic satire after all) - specific attention. What's more, the film is not necessarily telling a story about humanity (i.e. the proverbial HUMAN CONDITION) so much as it is about a bunch of vain people interlocked within society's incidentally interconnected governing and social web. One complaint is that, "but these characters are ciphers." Yeah, so, what of it? Is that not precisely the point? - a film about ciphers? - that is, zeroes; nobodies; zilch; nothingness? One might say, "well this does not do humanity justice," but who says it is trying to? And how does that make it inherently uninteresting? What are the directors trying to say and why are they saying it? As another poster and I had discussed not long ago, Samuel Beckett cut humanity down to repetitious talking heads that continuously failed to say or do anything meaningful, expressing nothing but the vanity, failure, and nothingness of their condition. Humanity is not all about this, but that does not mean humanity is not about this. Are we saying that a film about inhumanity is really lacking in humanity? I am pretty sure Beckett was suggesting otherwise - that this is humanity. But forget speaking in absolutes. That is beside the point. You should be able to make a film without complex, well-intending, self-reflective individuals and it still be about humanity.

I liked the points about God and the impersonal spectator, however. I had not considered this reading before.

For me it's primarily a tonal/attitudinal approach. Yes Beckett takes a narrow focus in a certain sense but he takes a very broad focus in another sense. His work speaks to the human condition for me. When Molloy goes from hilariously random to desperately confused to deranged and murderous I get the sense that something genuine is being communicated about this character. With the Coens I feel that they often have the skill to communicate something meaningful and then instead choose not to. I found nothing meaningful or overly artistically purposive about the Hard Bodies manager getting axed on the street.

When people criticize this film or the Coens films in general for lacking humanity I think moreso they are indicting them for a certain approach towards viewing humanity. When they insert scenes such as Malkovich speaking to his father on the yacht or Clooney chopping carrots ad nauseum, those moments add something to the film. I think it is a film (and I believe this about most of their films) which does have something to say from time to time but then regrettably falls back on cruel ugliness or the cheap laugh ('Oh get over it man, it happens to everybody' - paraphrasing comment to Clooney by the divorce firm employee) and finally closes with their typical Coen 'What does it all mean?' 'Guess it doesn't mean much... i.e. I guess it means the world is an ugly, selfish place.' I tend to find the endings to many of their films quite thematically lazy and disingenuous because if they really believed their usual conclusion then why make the film in the first place? No their vision is not worthless, but in my view it does make it rather artistically limited.

If alternatively your criticism is primarily aimed at the use of the phrase lacking humanity as a sort of vague and hollow phrase I suppose that's reasonable. It does of course presuppose certain things about what a film/piece of art ought to do (ref: Heidegger's Letter on Humanism). Perhaps such critics should instead say lacking range of compassion or social/psychological nuance, etc. Still teleologically assumptive (most criticisms are) but at least lacking some of the baggage of the term humanity.

[Izzy Black]

For me it's primarily a tonal/attitudinal approach. Yes Beckett takes a narrow focus in a certain sense but he takes a very broad focus in another sense. His work speaks to the human condition for me. When Molloy goes from hilariously random to desperately confused to deranged and murderous I get the sense that something genuine is being communicated about this character. With the Coens I feel that they often have the skill to communicate something meaningful and then instead choose not to. I found nothing meaningful or overly artistically purposive about the Hard Bodies manager getting axed on the street.

When people criticize this film or the Coens films in general for lacking humanity I think moreso they are indicting them for a certain approach towards viewing humanity. When they insert scenes such as Malkovich speaking to his father on the yacht or Clooney chopping carrots ad nauseum, those moments add something to the film. I think it is a film (and I believe this about most of their films) which does have something to say from time to time but then regrettably falls back on cruel ugliness or the cheap laugh ('Oh get over it man, it happens to everybody' - paraphrasing comment to Clooney by the divorce firm employee) and finally closes with their typical Coen 'What does it all mean?' 'Guess it doesn't mean much... i.e. I guess it means the world is an ugly, selfish place.' I tend to find the endings to many of their films quite thematically lazy and disingenuous because if they really believed their usual conclusion then why make the film in the first place? No their vision is not worthless, but in my view it does make it rather artistically limited.

A few things. I am not making the case that the Coens film has the psychological complexity or artistic insight of Beckett. I am speaking about something particular here. Which is this idea that characters need to have some full spectrum of human emotion, not that characters cannot be genuinely deranged. The Coens could have paid far more attention to the details of the type of character they were creating, but that does not mean they need to give their characters altruistic tendencies and the likes. The same type of criticism has been lunged at Kubrick, particularly A Clockwork Orange. The argument, then, is not that a grim perspective or restricted point-of-view some how substitutes for having to meaningfully develop these characterizations and concepts. If you recall, I said I am not particularly a fan of the film or the director, and for reasons that tread along this same territory of concern you have expressed. I am not merely saying that anything goes and the Coens are beyond criticism. I am not even making a defense of the Coen brothers or their film. I am addressing, in particular, a kind of criticism based on a film that "lacks humanity." My argument is that spitefulness, vanity, minimalism, selfishness, nihilism, narcissism, and a catalog of vapid characters wallowing in their emptiness and stagnation is as much about humanity as the next thing, and I think you can make meaningful films with these themes without having to some how "balance" it out by throwing in a token "good" or well-intending character.

This is where Beckett comes into play. Molloy shows this to an extent, but the further you go with Beckett, particularly with his dramatic works such as Waiting for Godot and Endgame, you find characters that are reducible to talking heads living inside of trash cans, relishing and self-absorbed in their own loathing, suffering, and despair, failing to communicate anything of meaning to each other. Beckett - exemplifying an almost degree-zero nihilism - shows the complete poverty of language. Clearly, though, we know that language can communicate, and his trashcan people and endless gray days do not accurately represent the full spectrum of human experience or the "human condition," but that does not change the aporia of Beckett's ontological skepticism of language, meaning, and humanity.

Albert Camus L’Étranger is another example. Take Mearsault. This character has no moral impulses whatsoever. He is completely indifferent to the world. In fact, his sociopathic qualities are so austere and emotionless that he is an alien to most of us, perhaps even a monster. This lack of emotional "depth," or "humanity" in no way diminishes the book, and just the same, his "inhumanity" is no less lacking of humanity. It is not the responsibility of Camus to represent the full spectrum of human emotion or humanity. What matters here is what Camus is trying to say with his character. That we can ironically relate to Mearsault's alienation and distance from the world, despite how alien or much of a stranger he may seem to us; that his attributes are symptomatic of a modern condition, or reflect an author's meditation on the horrors of the 20th Century; that autonomy, choice, and free-will are nebulous concepts but yet central to how we internally define ourselves. The point is that we can learn from ciphers, or simplistic and vain characters, and that there is no artistic rule of thumb that says we need characters with emotional depth or complexity to be meaningful. If nihilism is the perspective, you do not need to qualify it with elements of non-nihilism.


If alternatively your criticism is primarily aimed at the use of the phrase lacking humanity as a sort of vague and hollow phrase I suppose that's reasonable. It does of course presuppose certain things about what a film/piece of art ought to do (ref: Heidegger's Letter on Humanism).

Perhaps such critics should instead say lacking range of compassion or social/psychological nuance, etc. Still teleologically assumptive (most criticisms are) but at least lacking some of the baggage of the term humanity.

Yes, well, that would make things less complicated, but I still would take issue with the telos of the criticism in this case, and I am addressing both here.

[Izzy Black]

I recently watched Barry Lyndon, and I feel that a statement like this one would likely fit in nicely with an account of the film, particularly in regards to its more clinical aesthetic/narrative strategy.

Quite. Kubrick gets it a lot.

[Melville]

One complaint is that, "but these characters are ciphers." Yeah, so, what of it? Is that not precisely the point? - a film about ciphers? - that is, zeroes; nobodies; zilch; nothingness?
Did somebody call the characters ciphers? I don’t think the characters in Burn After Reading (or any Coen film) are ciphers at all. They are not empty nonentities. They are caricatures; they have one or two central traits that are exaggerated to absurd (and, hence, frequently comical) proportions. In Burn After Reading, these traits are all classic human foibles (stupidity, avarice, spite, jealousy, lust, vanity, etc.) that are part of the film’s satire.


One might say, "well this does not do humanity justice," but who says it is trying to? And how does that make it inherently uninteresting? What are the directors trying to say and why are they saying it? You should be able to make a film without complex, well-intending, self-reflective individuals and it still be about humanity.
While I agree that focusing on one particular aspect of humanity, to the exclusion of all others, can be interesting, I don’t see any particular reason why other people should also find it interesting. Some people think that “warmth” (as evinced in an empathic authorial tone or in sympathetic characters) is a valuable aspect of art, perhaps because they simply want art to be pleasant, or perhaps because they want art to express ethical ideals. Some people think that moderation and breadth in art, a “balanced” view of the world, are valuable: perhaps for the same reasons as above; perhaps because they think that focusing very narrowly on one aspect of humanity puts the art at such a distance from the complexity of human life that it can no longer say anything of relevance about humanity, since the focus on one aspect removes the meaningful context of recognizable experience; or perhaps because they think that focusing very narrowly on one aspect of humanity limits the breadth and import of what the artist can say about humanity. Maybe they think that art should always strive to provide a full picture of life. Everybody has some basic set of ideas, however fuzzy or contradictory, about what art should accomplish, and according to some such sets, cold films that exaggerate one aspect of humanity, to the exclusion of all others, simply can’t accomplish much of value.

EDIT: In other words, if people criticize the lack of characters with emotional depth or complexity, chances are they do have a rule of thumb that says films (or certain types of films, or films with certain goals) need characters with emotional depth or complexity to be meaningful.


and finally closes with their typical Coen 'What does it all mean?' 'Guess it doesn't mean much... i.e. I guess it means the world is an ugly, selfish place.'
That seems like an oversimplification. I’d say their endings, particularly in their most overtly philosophical films (Fargo and No Country for Old Men), are more about how people react to the meaningless, ugly, selfish world. Frances McDormand’s character struggles endlessly on and sees the beauty in the day; Kelly Macdonald’s refuses to give in to the ugliness even in the face of death; Tommy Lee Jones’s dreams of escape; and old men pretend that things used to be better. The Coens' films are certainly cynical and pessimistic, but they are too focused on vivid characterization (exaggerated though it might be) to be reduced to blasé nihilism. The life of their films is in their characters.

[Izzy Black]

Did somebody call the characters ciphers? I don’t think the characters in Burn After Reading (or any Coen film) are ciphers at all. They are not empty nonentities. They are caricatures; they have one or two central traits that are exaggerated to absurd (and, hence, frequently comical) proportions. In Burn After Reading, these traits are all classic human foibles (stupidity, avarice, spite, jealousy, lust, vanity, etc.) that are part of the film’s satire.

Yes, I was loosely responding (amongst other general claims after skimming the thread) to what dreamdead wrote here:


This was quite a hoot. I actually thought Richard Jenkins gave this film its Kelly MacDonald character, humanizing what could otherwise be seen as a cipher for devotion and lending nuance to a film that otherwise works well in broad strokes.

The characters are certainly caricatures, of course, but that does not mean the film is not dealing with ciphers. I would not say that they necessarily are or they are not, as it is tangential to my larger point, but I think the film flirts with this terrain. If we are saying without Jenkins such could be read as a cipher for devotion, the distinction between cipher and caricature in this case is vague. We could say these characters are absurd exaggerations, but we might also say that they only represent these things superficially (ineffectually).


While I agree that focusing on one particular aspect of humanity, to the exclusion of all others, can be interesting, I don’t see any particular reason why other people should also find it interesting. Some people think that “warmth” (as evinced in an empathic authorial tone or in sympathetic characters) is a valuable aspect of art, perhaps because they simply want art to be pleasant, or perhaps because they want art to express ethical ideals. Some people think that moderation and breadth in art, a “balanced” view of the world, are valuable: perhaps for the same reasons as above; perhaps because they think that focusing very narrowly on one aspect of humanity puts the art at such a distance from the complexity of human life that it can no longer say anything of relevance about humanity, since the focus on one aspect removes the meaningful context of recognizable experience; or perhaps because they think that focusing very narrowly on one aspect of humanity limits the breadth and import of what the artist can say about humanity. Maybe they think that art should always strive to provide a full picture of life. Everybody has some basic set of ideas, however fuzzy or contradictory, about what art should accomplish, and according to some such sets, cold films that exaggerate one aspect of humanity, to the exclusion of all others, simply can’t accomplish much of value.

This seems like a rather eloquent and round about way of saying "to each their own." This is not to undermine what you have written here, because I think it is important, but it is not something that I have taken for granted in my response. Clearly, I am aware we work with certain understandings of art when we approach a given work, but that does not mean these standards are free from criticism. If you note in my response to Qrazy, I pointed out that I am questioning this telos intentionally. If we are talking about teleology in art, then it is evident we are talking about a controversy or a debate over aesthetic values. Which is to say, my concerns here are normative ones rather than descriptive, something I consciously realize. I am challenging these assumptions directly.


EDIT: In other words, if people criticize the lack of characters with emotional depth or complexity, chances are they do have a rule of thumb that says films (or certain types of films, or films with certain goals) need characters with emotional depth or complexity to be meaningful.

Yes, people have their personal standards, but I am attempting to appeal to a more reasonable set of values. This is the rule of thumb that I am invoking. (Or you could say I am saying that this view is not a universal or shared rule of thumb - this is why). Additionally, what we tend to base our judgments on may not be rules we have conviction in, such as responses of habit or tendency. Someone may base their ethical choices on emotional whims, but that does not mean I cannot point to shared rules and values (and their better judgment) that they may not be considering in their actions.

[Melville]

Yes, I was loosely responding (amongst other general claims after skimming the thread) to what dreamdead wrote here:
Yeah, sorry, I didn't notice dreamdead's post until after I replied to yours. He seemed to be using "cipher" in the sense of "code", while I took you to be using it in the sense of "nonentity". I think I would still take issue with it even when used in the former sense, though, as I think there is still a distinction, however slight, between a cipher for something and an exaggerated version of something. (You might say the latter has more 'humanity' than the former. :)) However, it's a tangential point, I agree.


This seems like a rather eloquent and round about way of saying "to each their own." This is not to undermine what you have written here, because I think it is important, but it is not something that I have taken for granted in my response. Clearly, I am aware we work with certain understandings of art when we approach a given work, but that does not mean these standards are free from criticism. If you note in my response to Qrazy, I pointed out that I am questioning this telos intentionally. If we are talking about teleology in art, then it is evident we are talking about a controversy or a debate over aesthetic values. Which is to say, my concerns here are normative ones rather than descriptive, something I consciously realize. I am challenging these assumptions directly.
My point was not just "to each their own", though that was my primary point, but that there are perfectly reasonable underlying reasons why people might value 'humanity' in art. You seem to be challenging the conclusion ("art should have 'humanity'") that follows from the underlying assumptions (whatever they may be) rather than challenging the assumptions directly. While that is a worthwhile tactic if you can show that the conclusion contradicts some other standard that people agree with, and thus make them reevaluate their set of standards, you haven't actually addressed, let alone shown a contradiction with, any individual's standards.


Yes, people have their personal standards, but I am attempting to appeal to a more reasonable set of values. This is the rule of thumb that I am invoking. (Or you could say I am saying that this view is not a universal or shared rule of thumb - this is why). Additionally, what we tend to base our judgments on may not be rules we have conviction in, such as responses of habit or tendency.
That's all reasonable, especially the bolded part, but it seems somewhat like you are addressing thin air (or perhaps a straw man), since you haven't asked any particular poster why they value 'humanity' in art.

I guess I'm just saying that, in cases such as this, it's more worthwhile to ask people for deeper/more detailed reasoning before criticizing their conclusions (unless, of course, their conclusion is in itself self-contradictory).

[Qrazy]

A few things. I am not making the case that the Coens film has the psychological complexity or artistic insight of Beckett. I am speaking about something particular here. Which is this idea that characters need to have some full spectrum of human emotion, not that characters cannot be genuinely deranged. The Coens could have paid far more attention to the details of the type of character they were creating, but that does not mean they need to give their characters altruistic tendencies and the likes. The same type of criticism has been lunged at Kubrick, particularly A Clockwork Orange. The argument, then, is not that a grim perspective or restricted point-of-view some how substitutes for having to meaningfully develop these characterizations and concepts. If you recall, I said I am not particularly a fan of the film or the director, and for reasons that tread along this same territory of concern you have expressed. I am not merely saying that anything goes and the Coens are beyond criticism. I am not even making a defense of the Coen brothers or their film. I am addressing, in particular, a kind of criticism based on a film that "lacks humanity." My argument is that spitefulness, vanity, minimalism, selfishness, nihilism, narcissism, and a catalog of vapid characters wallowing in their emptiness and stagnation is as much about humanity as the next thing, and I think you can make meaningful films with these themes without having to some how "balance" it out by throwing in a token "good" or well-intending character.

Ok, no disagreement then. I just think that perhaps when people say that such and such a film lacks humanity they may more often be referring to a lack of complexity or insight or alternatively a lack of understanding or integrity in relation to the the seeming attitude of the work and not to a lack of altruistic characters... although it's true that sometimes they are referring to just that and explicitly say as much.


This is where Beckett comes into play. Molloy shows this to an extent, but the further you go with Beckett, particularly with his dramatic works such as Waiting for Godot and Endgame, you find characters that are reducible to talking heads living inside of trash cans, relishing and self-absorbed in their own loathing, suffering, and despair, failing to communicate anything of meaning to each other. Beckett - exemplifying an almost degree-zero nihilism - shows the complete poverty of language. Clearly, though, we know that language can communicate, and his trashcan people and endless gray days do not accurately represent the full spectrum of human experience or the "human condition," but that does not change the aporia of Beckett's ontological skepticism of language, meaning, and humanity.

I didn't come away from those two plays with that experience but theoretically I see what you're driving at.


Albert Camus L’Étranger is another example. Take Mearsault. This character has no moral impulses whatsoever. He is completely indifferent to the world. In fact, his sociopathic qualities are so austere and emotionless that he is an alien to most of us, perhaps even a monster. This lack of emotional "depth," or "humanity" in no way diminishes the book, and just the same, his "inhumanity" is no less lacking of humanity. It is not the responsibility of Camus to represent the full spectrum of human emotion or humanity. What matters here is what Camus is trying to say with his character. That we can ironically relate to Mearsault's alienation and distance from the world, despite how alien or much of a stranger he may seem to us; that his attributes are symptomatic of a modern condition, or reflect an author's meditation on the horrors of the 20th Century; that autonomy, choice, and free-will are nebulous concepts but yet central to how we internally define ourselves. The point is that we can learn from ciphers, or simplistic and vain characters, and that there is no artistic rule of thumb that says we need characters with emotional depth or complexity to be meaningful. If nihilism is the perspective, you do not need to qualify it with elements of non-nihilism.

Right, but in the structure of the works themselves (L'etranger, Godot, etc) I think a certain emotional integrity endures. Beckett, Camus, Fellini, Antonioni and others critique certain types of characters, lifestyles, ideas, etc but they rarely if ever condemn their cyphers utterly. So often when an individual criticizes a work for lacking humanity I think it's because they feel the film is thematically hollow or perhaps condemnatory towards it's characters and as a result simplistic. Still, if this is what they mean by the criticism 'lacking humanity' they probably ought to say as much instead, and when they do mean lacking humanity in the way you've described then I agree that their view of art is perhaps too exclusory.

[Qrazy]

That seems like an oversimplification. I’d say their endings, particularly in their most overtly philosophical films (Fargo and No Country for Old Men), are more about how people react to the meaningless, ugly, selfish world. Frances McDormand’s character struggles endlessly on and sees the beauty in the day; Kelly Macdonald’s refuses to give in to the ugliness even in the face of death; Tommy Lee Jones’s dreams of escape; and old men pretend that things used to be better. The Coens' films are certainly cynical and pessimistic, but they are too focused on vivid characterization (exaggerated though it might be) to be reduced to blasé nihilism. The life of their films is in their characters.

Yes it's true it was an oversimplification that does not apply to all of their films but I do find it applies to Burn After Reading. I meant to mention Fargo as an exception but forgot to add that to my post. Concerning No Country the more I've reflected upon it the less enthusiastic I've become. It reminds me of Hitchcock's North by Northwest. It is formally excellent and composed of some wonderful set pieces, but the overall film itself and what it has to say... *shrug*

[Melville]

but they rarely if ever condemn their cyphers utterly. So often when an individual criticizes a work for lacking humanity I think it's because they feel the film is thematically hollow or perhaps condemnatory towards it's characters and as a result simplistic.
Yeah, I assumed that "lacking humanity" is primarily intended to mean "lacking sympathy for humanity."


Yes it's true it was an oversimplification that does not apply to all of their films but I do find it applies to Burn After Reading. I meant to mention Fargo as an exception but forgot to add that to my post. Concerning No Country the more I've reflected upon it the less enthusiastic I've become. It reminds me of Hitchcock's North by Northwest. It is formally excellent and composed of some wonderful set pieces, but the overall film itself and what it has to say... *shrug*
I pretty much agree, though I think that the satirical and comedic intentions of Burn After Reading justify the somewhat simplistic cynicism; the limited philosophical goals make for a more tightly structured satire.

[Duncan]

Interesting discussion. I am agreeing/disagreeing with points by all posters. One thing I want to comment on:


It is not the responsibility of Camus to represent the full spectrum of human emotion or humanity. What matters here is what Camus is trying to say with his character. That we can ironically relate to Mearsault's alienation and distance from the world, despite how alien or much of a stranger he may seem to us; that his attributes are symptomatic of a modern condition, or reflect an author's meditation on the horrors of the 20th Century; that autonomy, choice, and free-will are nebulous concepts but yet central to how we internally define ourselves.

I largely agree with what you're saying here, especially the first sentence. Camus is exploring a narrow sliver of what 'humanity' can be, and is under no obligations to represent whatever remains. However, I think that throughout The Stranger the reader is keenly aware of what is not expressed, ie. grief over his mother's death, remorse over killing the Algerian, genuine affection for his girlfriend, etc. The circumspection of this particular individual's experience has a value in and of itself, but it is never suggested that this is what humanity is because there are always the bonds of implication linking Mearsault's experience with our own and with the broader experience of humanity. Plus, as you say, we can identify with him in certain ways.

The Coens, on the other hand, present a wider range of humanity (Everybody + Jenkins, essentially) only to have one term of the equation consumed by the other. The effect is more pronounced in NCfOM because there are wise figures in wheelchairs telling us so and protagonists have dreams they realize are just dreams and any speck of goodness is wiped away. Eventually the narrowing of humanity gets to a point where the film is no longer a narrow examination of what humanity can be, but about what humanity is: small, petty, superficial, greedy, indifferent.

If someone says Burn After Reading 'lacks humanity,' this does not necessarily mean that person believes a film or work of art must present the full spectrum of human emotion or experience. Personally, I think both Burn After Reading and No Country for Old Men are meant to be examinations of humanity as a whole, or at the very least about contemporary America as a whole (albeit flattened for allegorical or satirical effect). It turns out that, to me, the examinations themselves are rigid and narrow - not the subject matter. This is in contrast to works like Molloy or The Stranger, in which the subjects of examination are rarefied specimens of humanity, but the examination itself is nuanced, complex, broadening.

[Yxklyx]

I didn't care much for this. I was expecting a significant final act of sorts. The whole movie just felt like a buildup to ... nothing.

[Melville]

The Coens, on the other hand, present a wider range of humanity (Everybody + Jenkins, essentially) only to have one term of the equation consumed by the other. The effect is more pronounced in NCfOM because there are wise figures in wheelchairs telling us so and protagonists have dreams they realize are just dreams and any speck of goodness is wiped away. Eventually the narrowing of humanity gets to a point where the film is no longer a narrow examination of what humanity can be, but about what humanity is: small, petty, superficial, greedy, indifferent.
I think you're arriving at the wrong conclusion here. The mere fact that they present a range of characters makes clear that they are not saying humanity is small, petty, etc. Saying that the 'good' people are probably going to get screwed in the wave of pettiness is not the same as saying that humanity can be equated with that wave. I'll agree that they present the 'universe' as intrinsically indifferent, as exemplified by the closing shot of Burn after Reading and basically all of No Country for Old Men, but the range of character types they present is broad enough to prevent any sweeping statements about what humanity is (maybe what it is prone to or what it tends toward, but not what it is identical to).

[Duncan]

Just wanted to clarify a few things. Do you feel that The Coens decidedly set out to examine the wide spectrum of contemporary America and ended up failing in that pursuit because they ended up examining it in too inchoate or sketchy a fashion? In other words, they inadvertently narrowed their purview when what they really wanted was to adopt a more sweeping inspection of America? Thus, their intention was to forge a scathing, thorough critique (or examination) of contemporary USA but their examination ended up feeling circumscribed?

Personally, I thought the point of the film was to forge a circumscribed look into a microcosm of contemporary America. This didn't seem to be a diatribe against some wide-spread tendency within Americans to do this or that, but perhaps an indication that this tendency does exists within some Americans. Or within some human beings. Perhaps not a diagnosis of some endemic American affliction, but maybe something that works more insidiously, particularly in regards to certain circles of human beings. This isn't everywhere, it's simply, perhaps, somewhere.

Looking at it that way, I didn't really feel like the film failed.

I got the impression that it was more of an endemic, or even pandemic, and that this was fairly wide spread since pretty much every level of society is indicted here. Government, corporate mannequin-like people, the lower/middle class, um...idiots...everybody. Even Jenkins towards the end, in a way. So, yeah, I think it takes a very broad swathe of society and populates it with a very narrow range of humanity. At best, the result is a funny movie with some extremely obvious things to say about how pathetic people can be. Who didn't know these things already? If, however, the film is suggesting that this is the way people (and I extrapolate to generalities because the film covers so much social ground) actually are or at least, as Melville says, what we tend to...well, that's not so obvious and I take issue with that.

[Izzy Black]

Yeah, sorry, I didn't notice dreamdead's post until after I replied to yours. He seemed to be using "cipher" in the sense of "code", while I took you to be using it in the sense of "nonentity". I think I would still take issue with it even when used in the former sense, though, as I think there is still a distinction, however slight, between a cipher for something and an exaggerated version of something. (You might say the latter has more 'humanity' than the former. :)) However, it's a tangential point, I agree.

Fair enough.


My point was not just "to each their own", though that was my primary point, but that there are perfectly reasonable underlying reasons why people might value 'humanity' in art. You seem to be challenging the conclusion ("art should have 'humanity'") that follows from the underlying assumptions (whatever they may be) rather than challenging the assumptions directly. While that is a worthwhile tactic if you can show that the conclusion contradicts some other standard that people agree with, and thus make them reevaluate their set of standards, you haven't actually addressed, let alone shown a contradiction with, any individual's standards.

Not sure this is the case. I find my original post asked for clarifications, entertained rhetoricals, and engaged general arguments that support this criticism. My entire argument was trying to work through the kinks and misconceptions that these types of assumptions and criticisms apply. You say there are perfectly reasonable underlying reasons why they might value humanity in art, and I am questioning of what nature these reasons are, and inferring, or deducing - based on what people have written in this thread - the limitations of these reasoning, and how they may or not apply to the film in question. I am not convinced I followed some improper procedure of questioning the OP's critical standards with my post, and I find that I gave pretty of wiggle room for response, contention, and clarification.


That's all reasonable, especially the bolded part, but it seems somewhat like you are addressing thin air (or perhaps a straw man), since you haven't asked any particular poster why they value 'humanity' in art.
DavidSeven wrote:

A couple of people have brought up the film's lack of humanity, and I think that's part of it. This is probably the Coens' most cynical (nihilistic?) vision yet. They've outdone No Country For Old Men. There's no Kelly Macdonald. No teens to lend a helping hand. It's a funny picture, but it's a cold one too. It might even be too intellectual. (pause for cringe). It's probably their most overtly political picture, but I don't think the film is human enough to affect the average viewer. This brand of nihilism is too far removed from the human experience to really hit home. Also, this thing with ending all the character arcs off-screen is either a poorly conceived new stylistic direction or a moment of self-parody that deflates the film more than it adds laughs. The narrative device might have been jarring in No Country, but is unsatisfying here.

This was followed by dreamdead's post.

I do not think it is unwarranted to challenge a criticism that has been generally outlined and with the basic underlying reasons supporting the criticism made clear. At worst, I should have added a ton of quote strings to my post, but since the last page was an active discussion on these points, I figured it would not be a crime to post my general thoughts on the matter without citation.


I guess I'm just saying that, in cases such as this, it's more worthwhile to ask people for deeper/more detailed reasoning before criticizing their conclusions (unless, of course, their conclusion is in itself self-contradictory).

Addressed above. I was working with what seemed to be a general working criticism, and a criticism I am familiar with (I recalled similar discussions in my original post), so I do not think it was necessarily warranted that I ask a question when, the initial post was already a requested elucidation, and I felt as though I gathered the general sentiment. I also believe the nature of my post inquired upon deeper analysis in areas where I was uncertain, but I continued with my argument because I felt I had a general understanding of it, and applied various rhetorical possibilities so as to give the person who may reply plenty of arguments to work with. What is more, it is not necessary to view my response as responding to any one particular person, but entertaining a general criticism I find wanting, whereas, I was inviting a dialogue on the matter for those who may have some points to add.

[DavidSeven]

Don't like it when people assume "humanity" must mean "sympathy for humanity" or "altruistic characters." I'm concerned with what gets someone from A to B. Is it always a result of pure greed, selfishness, or pure evil? Do real people actually operate on that level? That view of humanity seems a bit too "easy." I don't think Kubrick ever broke it down in such a black/white or black/black way.

[Duncan]

I think you're arriving at the wrong conclusion here. The mere fact that they present a range of characters makes clear that they are not saying humanity is small, petty, etc. Saying that the 'good' people are probably going to get screwed in the wave of pettiness is not the same as saying that humanity can be equated with that wave. I'll agree that they present the 'universe' as intrinsically indifferent, as exemplified by the closing shot of Burn after Reading and basically all of No Country for Old Men, but the range of character types they present is broad enough to prevent any sweeping statements about what humanity is (maybe what it is prone to or what it tends toward, but not what it is identical to).

I realized when I was writing that that it didn't make any sense and that I was trying to have it both ways, but I went with it anyway because I couldn't figure out how to express it better. Let me try again.

I think the "prone to / tends toward" terminology you use is better. I agree that the Coens present the universe as being indifferent. However, if you consider humanity as a force acting on all of us, then I get the impression that the Coens think that force is pushing us in a specific direction, and that, by unconscious agreement, the force of our collective actions on one another is not indifferent, but intent on diminishing us. In other words, we tend to the small. Jenkins succumbs to this tendency by film's end. In NCfOM the tendency is manifested even more violently and completely.

[Izzy Black]

Ok, no disagreement then. I just think that perhaps when people say that such and such a film lacks humanity they may more often be referring to a lack of complexity or insight or alternatively a lack of understanding or integrity in relation to the the seeming attitude of the work and not to a lack of altruistic characters... although it's true that sometimes they are referring to just that and explicitly say as much.

Well the discussion on the last page that invited my response was the lack of a Kelly McDonald character or the merits of a Richard Jenkins character. As you can see, it seems we are talking about a token here.


I didn't come away from those two plays with that experience but theoretically I see what you're driving at.

Fair enough - but this is widely written on.


Right, but in the structure of the works themselves (L'etranger, Godot, etc) I think a certain emotional integrity endures. Beckett, Camus, Fellini, Antonioni and others critique certain types of characters, lifestyles, ideas, etc but they rarely if ever condemn their cyphers utterly. So often when an individual criticizes a work for lacking humanity I think it's because they feel the film is thematically hollow or perhaps condemnatory towards it's characters and as a result simplistic. Still, if this is what they mean by the criticism 'lacking humanity' they probably ought to say as much instead, and when they do mean lacking humanity in the way you've described then I agree that their view of art is perhaps too exclusory.

Right, well, I made it clear, I thought, as to the type of criticism I was addressing.

[Izzy Black]

Interesting discussion. I am agreeing/disagreeing with points by all posters. One thing I want to comment on:

I largely agree with what you're saying here, especially the first sentence. Camus is exploring a narrow sliver of what 'humanity' can be, and is under no obligations to represent whatever remains. However, I think that throughout The Stranger the reader is keenly aware of what is not expressed, ie. grief over his mother's death, remorse over killing the Algerian, genuine affection for his girlfriend, etc. The circumspection of this particular individual's experience has a value in and of itself, but it is never suggested that this is what humanity is because there are always the bonds of implication linking Mearsault's experience with our own and with the broader experience of humanity. Plus, as you say, we can identify with him in certain ways.

Sure.


The Coens, on the other hand, present a wider range of humanity (Everybody + Jenkins, essentially) only to have one term of the equation consumed by the other. The effect is more pronounced in NCfOM because there are wise figures in wheelchairs telling us so and protagonists have dreams they realize are just dreams and any speck of goodness is wiped away. Eventually the narrowing of humanity gets to a point where the film is no longer a narrow examination of what humanity can be, but about what humanity is: small, petty, superficial, greedy, indifferent.

Can't say I agree. Again, not particularly a Coens fan, but I do not think this is doing them justice. For one, I am pretty sure given the current milieu of cinema that the Coens are pretty aware of the mismatch/relationship between the audience's expectations and the themes of their films. Aside from this, though, in No Country for Old Men, the characters are not so dire (despite the general pessimism and nihilistic worldview). In fact, No Country presents us far more amiable characters to sympathize with than Camus does in his novel. The characters played by Tommy Lee Jones, Kelly Macdonald, and Woody Harrelson for example, along with the children on the street, the sales clerk, and other minor characters are all individuals clearly put at odds with the harrowing nihilism of Anton Cigurh and the greed of the drug cartel and Moss.


If someone says Burn After Reading 'lacks humanity,' this does not necessarily mean that person believes a film or work of art must present the full spectrum of human emotion or experience. Personally, I think both Burn After Reading and No Country for Old Men are meant to be examinations of humanity as a whole, or at the very least about contemporary America as a whole (albeit flattened for allegorical or satirical effect). It turns out that, to me, the examinations themselves are rigid and narrow - not the subject matter. This is in contrast to works like Molloy or The Stranger, in which the subjects of examination are rarefied specimens of humanity, but the examination itself is nuanced, complex, broadening.

I did not take Burn After Reading or No Country - not even in the slightest - to be examinations of humanity in its entirety at all. Regardless of this, I can't say I agree with your broader point either. I do not think Beckett is examining a microcosm of humanity. He is downright skeptical of language and meaning at its foundations. His worldviews are entirely insular and leave no "token" characters for us to relate. They are like horror nightmares. Now, this does not necessarily mean this is Beckett's intention, but he does not give us much to chew on in terms of looking at his work as a microscopic study. He even makes broad appeals to "humanity" and its decay.

[Qrazy]

I didn't care much for this. I was expecting a significant final act of sorts. The whole movie just felt like a buildup to ... nothing.

I agree with this. I also firmly believe they did it on purpose... but that doesn't make it any less obnoxious.

[Qrazy]

Fair enough - but this is widely written on.


I find that too often academicians either forget or altogether disregard Beckett's sense of humor. I agree that he's skeptical about language and epistemological foundations on a broad level but I don't come away from his work feeling enmeshed in utter despair.

[Izzy Black]

I find that too often academicians either forget or altogether disregard Beckett's sense of humor. I agree that he's skeptical about language and epistemological foundations on a broad level but I don't come away from his work feeling enmeshed in utter despair.

His humor is widely noted by academics. Skepticism doesn't necessarily entail despair, but often, desperation permeates his work.

[Melville]

I figured it would not be a crime to post my general thoughts on the matter without citation.
I certainly didn't think you were committing a crime, and I meant no offense. If you weren't making interesting points, I wouldn't have written such a lengthy response.

My thinking was that your initial post, as exemplified by the questions

And how does that make it inherently uninteresting? What are the directors trying to say and why are they saying it?,
seemed to be predicated on the idea that if art says something of interest, then that alone should be sufficient to make it "good" (though I'm sure that's a drastic oversimplification of your own position). But that underlying assumption seems to differ, to a large extent, from the underlying assumptions being made by, e.g. Russ and DavidSeven, who said that the film "lacks a sense of warmth" and "might even be too intellectual". Those statements seem to require something more, or entirely different, of a film than its saying something interesting. So it seemed as though you were bypassing their underlying assumptions and taking your own as a given, rather than arguing the drawbacks of theirs and the strengths of your own.

Similarly, when you said that

Humanity is not all about this, but that does not mean humanity is not about this...You should be able to make a film without complex, well-intending, self-reflective individuals and it still be about humanity,
you didn't seem to be directly addressing DavidSeven's argument that "This brand of nihilism is too far removed from the human experience to really hit home." Actually, I guess that's where you'd disagree with me and say that your Beckett and Camus examples are meant to show precisely how it can hit home. Now I can't remember why it seemed like you weren't addressing that point; if I remember, I'll get back to it (though I think D7's qualifier, "this brand", is important; i.e., it's only the reductive, simplistic brand that doesn't hit home). Anyway, my apologies for derailing an interesting discussion about something onto a track headed toward an uninteresting discussion about that discussion.

Back onto the interesting discussion: I think the important thing then is whether or not the simplified versions of humanity, or the aspects being focused on, retain enough integral elements of humanity to be recognizable and meaningful simplifications. What must be maintained in the simplification in order to let the art "really hit home"? Also, how much external context is required, how clearly must the art relate the simplification to what is outside of it?


In other words, we tend to the small. Jenkins succumbs to this tendency by film's end. In NCfOM the tendency is manifested even more violently and completely.
Does Jenkins succumb? He's struggling to win love in a misguided way, but is it petty?

[Qrazy]

His humor is widely noted by academics. Skepticism doesn't necessarily entail despair, but often, desperation permeates his work.

I did not say all academicians, conceivably only the ones focusing overtly on this despair you mentioned. Meh.

[Amnesiac]

Does Jenkins succumb? He's struggling to win love in a misguided way, but is it petty?

Yeah, I don't know if I would categorize Jenkins' actions under any of the folllowing: "small, petty, superficial, greedy, indifferent". His actions connote desperation, the tipping point of his malaise and dejection, etc. And that all relates back to the fact that he seems to bear a marked difference from any of the other characters who populate the film — his longings and emotions seem less callous, less transient, less fickle, and far more potent. That kind of emotion and longing is certainly out of place amongst all the other characters that the Coens narrow their cross-hairs on. Naturally, he is the catalyst for a sort of dissonance within the film.

So, of course the odd man out is going to succumb to something eventually... but I'm not entirely sure it is either small or petty. I think it's something different. More noble even, despite its urgent desperation and the compromised morals, if only because we know there is a foundation of true, and frustrated, love at the bottom of all this.

[Izzy Black]

I certainly didn't think you were committing a crime, and I meant no offense. If you weren't making interesting points, I wouldn't have written such a lengthy response.

Ah, OK.


My thinking was that your initial post, as exemplified by the questions

seemed to be predicated on the idea that if art says something of interest, then that alone should be sufficient to make it "good" (though I'm sure that's a drastic oversimplification of your own position). But that underlying assumption seems to differ, to a large extent, from the underlying assumptions being made by, e.g. Russ and DavidSeven, who said that the film "lacks a sense of warmth" and "might even be too intellectual".

Yes, I do not think my arguments can be reduced to this rhetorical. In fact, it was qualified by the "and" to emphasize that it was an additional point rather than my main thesis. Moreover, it is not my point that everything worth interest is good, but rather, in many cases, interest correlates with the good, and does lacking in humanity make it uninteresting?


Those statements seem to require something more, or entirely different, of a film than its saying something interesting. So it seemed as though you were bypassing their underlying assumptions and taking your own as a given, rather than arguing the drawbacks of theirs and the strengths of your own.

This was not my argument. I also clarified my position even more in my reply to Qrazy before you had responded. The bulk of my response was addressing the nature of "humanity" and the charging of a film's quality for "lacking humanity." I felt as though I fairly analytically went about assessing this claim, and I directly entertained the position of "lacking warmth" (i.e. a Kelly Macdonald or Jenkins character), well-intending characters, the point of it being too divorced from the human experience, and so on. I took issue with all of these claims and this was my central concern.


Similarly, when you said that

you didn't seem to be directly addressing DavidSeven's argument that "This brand of nihilism is too far removed from the human experience to really hit home." Actually, I guess that's where you'd disagree with me and say that your Beckett and Camus examples are meant to show precisely how it can hit home. Now I can't remember why it seemed like you weren't addressing that point; if I remember, I'll get back to it (though I think D7's qualifier, "this brand", is important; i.e., it's only the reductive, simplistic brand that doesn't hit home).

Yes, this was part of my contention. I also believe I left plenty of room for clarification with regards to which brand of nihilism would be acceptable. My worry, however, was that the brand of nihilism (and, as I understood the "brand" distinction, DavidSeven contrasted this nihilism with the nihilism of No Country, which left me to assume that its nihilism was preferable due to its "good" characters) that would be otherwise suggested was one that would require something along the lines of "token" anti-nihilism (hence my concluding statement) to sell it to the audience. I was also attempting to investigate the nature of the "reductive, simplistic" brand that might entail simplistic or flat characters, which in my view, could be just as meaningful (meaning here is important to my argument; a word I used, along with "good," as an indicator of qualitative value aside from my use of "interest").


Anyway, my apologies for derailing an interesting discussion about something onto a track headed toward an uninteresting discussion about that discussion.

Not at all. Sometimes parties need to clarify their arguments before advancing the discussion. I grant that perhaps I could have been clearer in areas.


Back onto the interesting discussion: I think the important thing then is whether or not the simplified versions of humanity, or the aspects being focused on, retain enough integral elements of humanity to be recognizable and meaningful simplifications. What must be maintained in the simplification in order to let the art "really hit home"? Also, how much external context is required, how clearly must the art relate the simplification to what is outside of it?

This is a worthwhile question to ask. I would go a step further, though. I like the importance of absence in Camus' novel as Duncan noted in his post. The absence of particular elements of humanity can be every bit as meaningful as what is present. In many ways, it can be more significant. Beyond this, though, I find our general appeal to "humanity" is often very abstract and vague. I think we could do without the term as a basis for criticism altogether. Instead, let us just talk about what is there and what is not there, and decide why it matters.

[Izzy Black]

I did not say all academicians, conceivably only the ones focusing overtly on this despair you mentioned. Meh.
Hey, alright, OK!

[Izzy Black]

Don't like it when people assume "humanity" must mean "sympathy for humanity" or "altruistic characters." I'm concerned with what gets someone from A to B. Is it always a result of pure greed, selfishness, or pure evil? Do real people actually operate on that level?

Well, aside from other comments you made in your post that suggest this, what are your alternatives to selfishness and ill-intent? Indifference and good intentions (thinking of other people besides yourself)? I certainly think indifference is a motive found in Burn After Reading. That leaves us with good intentions.


That view of humanity seems a bit too "easy." I don't think Kubrick ever broke it down in such a black/white or black/black way.

Really? What was motivating Alex in A Clockwork Orange? He had no moral impulses. He could not even be "corrected." What about Barry Lyndon? Or are you saying that because Barry Lyndon had a token (his wife) and A Clockwork Orange had an amiable priest that these films are more complex? More meaningful? More accurate?

[Duncan]

I did not take Burn After Reading or No Country - not even in the slightest - to be examinations of humanity in its entirety at all. Not even No Country? Hmm. I could swear there was enough stuff in there about souls and evil and oldness and change and fate and will for it to be at least somewhat about humanity as a whole.


Regardless of this, I can't say I agree with your broader point either. I do not think Beckett is examining a microcosm of humanity. He is downright skeptical of language and meaning at its foundations. His worldviews are entirely insular and leave no "token" characters for us to relate. They are like horror nightmares. Now, this does not necessarily mean this is Beckett's intention, but he does not give us much to chew on in terms of looking at his work as a microscopic study. He even makes broad appeals to "humanity" and its decay. Well, I'm not exactly a Beckett scholar (have read or seen Molloy, Waiting for Godot, and Not I). Maybe I'm not understanding you properly, or maybe we're talking about two different things. Skepticism of language and meaning seem like fairly universal things to me, no? Even if not many people are thinking hard about such things, almost everybody has the feeling that there is always something left unexpressed by language. Or, that language expresses too much, that words mean too much, and that their meanings take over the relation of our experience to ourselves (in memory) and to others. There's a line somewhere in Molloy about that. I'm at work, don't have the book with me. Anyway, you say his work is insular, but not a microcosm. I disagree about the insularity. Don't appeals to humanity negate this claim? Isn't Godot one of the most diveresely interpreted plays ever written? It seems there are entry points to that play for everyone. Or are you saying that this diversity of opinion is actually evidence of its insularity?

[Izzy Black]

Not even No Country? Hmm. I could swear there was enough stuff in there about souls and evil and oldness and change and fate and will for it to be at least somewhat about humanity as a whole.

This is speaking rather vaguely. We could run down some specifics and perhaps see what is going on here. In general, the film seems to be making larger appeals to a particular context, culture, and time. Post-'nam, late 20th Century American society is what I envision. You considered this as well and I find myself agreeing more with this.


Well, I'm not exactly a Beckett scholar (have read or seen Molloy, Waiting for Godot, and Not I). Maybe I'm not understanding you properly, or maybe we're talking about two different things. Skepticism of language and meaning seem like fairly universal things to me, no? Even if not many people are thinking hard about such things, almost everybody has the feeling that there is always something left unexpressed by language. Or, that language expresses too much, that words mean too much, and that their meanings take over the relation of our experience to ourselves (in memory) and to others. There's a line somewhere in Molloy about that.

Sure, but this is merely an application of Beckett's themes to our own lives. This is what we take away from Beckett and find useful, not necessarily what Beckett is expressing or the general skepticism of his work. It is not even necessary that we buy into his skepticism to acknowledge its pervasiveness in his writings. His work functions almost as a deconstruction of language, logocentricism, metaphysical illusions, and general meanings derived from such. His plays show the failure of both language and ideology to sustain a meaningful existence. As such, there is no promise of future, and with lurid memories, no conviction in the past, and what is left is the moment.


I'm at work, don't have the book with me. Anyway, you say his work is insular, but not a microcosm. I disagree about the insularity. Don't appeals to humanity negate this claim? Isn't Godot one of the most diveresely interpreted plays ever written? It seems there are entry points to that play for everyone. Or are you saying that this diversity of opinion is actually evidence of its insularity?

What I mean by insular is that his examinations are limited to a restrictive worldview of insular individuals trapped in vain, self-absorbed realities. He is something of a solipsist in this sense. He and his characters are skeptical of all outside knowledge and his work presents a world that is a reflection of this uncertainty. As for the microcosm, to some extent you could actually say he is looking at a microcosm of humanity, especially if we consider his anti-essentialist and anti-totalizing anxieties, but what is presented in his work is to some degree universalizing. His work shows post-industrial desolate landscapes wracked with decay, disembodied heads reveling in despair from trashcans, and alienated individuals pitted at odds with an impotent, meaningless world that has collapsed from the weight of technology and intellectualism. Endgame, for example, presents an arguably post-nuclear environment of perpetual gray days where the characters remark about the decline and failure of civilization. This explains the absence of typical "universal" metaphysical hinges such as religion, myths, and axiomatic philosophies. These individuals are divested of the faculties and ethos that humanity has relied upon for centuries, suggesting a mechanized, modern milieu of hyper-intellectualism, destabilization, inertion, truncated interaction, and decay that has squandered the possibility of reliable meaning. Waiting for Godot has various fields of interpretation, but all of these interpretations are rooted around much of the same tenets of modern decay and skepticism, something which permeates his work. The burden of interpretation is also given rise by the wide frame of reference the work exudes.

[Qrazy]

Hey, alright, OK!

You seemed really defensive so I just figured I'd end the conversation at that point... I suppose I can understand though I tend to read comments from others on these forums as more antagonistic than they intended them to be.

[Izzy Black]

You seemed really defensive so I just figured I'd end the conversation at that point... I suppose I can understand though I tend to read comments from others on these forums as more antagonistic than they intended them to be.

Defensive - not at all! (Argumentative, I will grant.) I just thought I would toss that remark out there. Beyond that, I was conceding the point a bit in my last response.

[Qrazy]

Defensive - not at all! (Argumentative, I will grant.) I just thought I would toss that remark out there. Beyond that, I was conceding the point a bit in my last response.

Ah, guess I misread again then as I just admitted I am apt to do. Well I'll check back in on the convo later, midterm season.

[Melville]

Yes, I do not think my arguments can be reduced to this rhetorical.
OK, but it seems that the premise "interesting statements validate art" (or something closely analagous to it) underlies a lot of your argument, leading up to your statement that "The point is that we can learn from ciphers, or simplistic and vain characters"; in other words, "simplistic characters can be used to say something meaningful about us". Thus far in your arguments, the potential value in simplistic portrayals of humanity seems to be related solely to how they can be used to say something meaningful. However, the criticisms of the film as "lacking warmth" and being "too intellectual" suggest that the film saying something meaningful might not be particularly important, or that it might be counteracted by a displeasing tone or style. It seems possible that either (a) the viewer appreciates what the film is saying, but he simply doesn't appreciate the tone or style, because they don't jive with his own aesthetic sensibilities; or (b) the viewer finds that the statement itself is made less meaningful by the tone or style, since the way in which something is said can not be entirely disentangled from what is being said (especially in art, where what is being said is frequently embedded in the narrative and visual form of the art). Maybe I'll have more to say about this later.

(Again, don't take this as a criticism of what you've said. I'm basically going off on a tangent here in trying to pinpoint the points of divergence that lead to different valuations of the use of simplistic characters.)


that would be otherwise suggested was one that would require something along the lines of "token" anti-nihilism (hence my concluding statement) to sell it to the audience.
That brings me back to one of my earlier points (and a point raised by Qrazy and Duncan): the importance of context in creating meaningful statements about humanity. I think a "token" of anti-nihilism might do more than just make the nihilism palatable; it might be important, even essential, in making the nihilism meaningful. The nihilism might be meaningful, or most meaningful, when it is related to a broader spectrum of experience, and in particular, when it is contrasted with something else and shown to be more correct or meaningful than that other option. However, as you and Duncan noted, the absence of something might be used for the same effect. But then the absence must somehow become pointed; the reader/viewer must feel the presence of the absence. It may be that the one rhetorical/artistic strategy simply has greater impact on some viewers, making them see and appreciate the meaning more.

This is also relevant to what you were discussing with Duncan: the scope of No Country for Old Men's implications about humanity. It seems to me that the final scenes purposely broaden the scope by contrasting and showing the defeat of a range of characters. Kelly Macdonald is killed, the charitable children immediately begin squabbling, an old man tells us that terrible things have always happened in the world, even the self-designated agent of fate is sideswiped by fate, and the main character's dreams fade to a blackness of disheartening finality. These sequences broadent the scope of the nihilism (and I agree with Duncan that the scope here seems to be most of human experience), but it also adds to its impact by showing the contrasts to it being disproven or defeated.


I was also attempting to investigate the nature of the "reductive, simplistic" brand that might entail simplistic or flat characters, which in my view, could be just as meaningful.
Yeah, I'm still trying to think about what aspects, and how much breadth, must be maintained in the simplification in order for it to work for me. Hopefully I'll come back to that tomorrow.


Beyond this, though, I find our general appeal to "humanity" is often very abstract and vague. I think we could do without the term as a basis for criticism altogether. Instead, let us just talk about what is there and what is not there, and decide why it matters.
I agree with this (though we are, after all, just tossing out ideas on a message board here, so vague language in brief reviews isn't really that a big deal), but I think many films, particularly films that I like, purposely try to make statements about what humanity is, or what its most important characteristics are, or what living as a human being fundamentally consists of. In that case, appealing to "humanity" might not be useful, but examining what "humanity" means, and what its typical connotations are, in light of what the film is saying, does seem important and useful.

[Izzy Black]

OK, but it seems that the premise "interesting statements validate art" (or something closely analagous to it) underlies a lot of your argument, leading up to your statement that "The point is that we can learn from ciphers, or simplistic and vain characters"; in other words, "simplistic characters can be used to say something meaningful about us". Thus far in your arguments, the potential value in simplistic portrayals of humanity seems to be related solely to how they can be used to say something meaningful. However, the criticisms of the film as "lacking warmth" and being "too intellectual" suggest that the film saying something meaningful might not be particularly important, or that it might be counteracted by a displeasing tone or style. It seems possible that either (a) the viewer appreciates what the film is saying, but he simply doesn't appreciate the tone or style, because they don't jive with his own aesthetic sensibilities;

This strikes me as rather vague. For starters, it seems you are anchoring the dexterity of my normative language on a rather confined reading of my argument. An additional point about "interest" does not underlie my entire argument because I spoke of the significance or the ability of simplistic characters to say something meaningful - or our ability to learn from them. All of these things bespeak a fairly broad criteria of value and meaning. This is where I am uncertain about your delimiting of the categorical valuations here. In the case of your (a), how is not "appreciating" the style or tone of something - or it not "jiving" with one's aesthetic sensibilities - not a matter of value, interest, and meaning? What is consistent with one's aesthetic sensibilities will likely be the case of something that is viewed as meaningful. I am pitching my bid here for what I think to be meaningful elements that might be under looked in certain uncritical conventional criticisms. If being "too intellectual" and "lacking warmth" are elements of tone and style that divest/counteract the work of its meaning/value/worth (which I do not think is the case - David, for example, seems to be talking about a matter of theme and content), then I am talking about tone and style here just the same.


or (b) the viewer finds that the statement itself is made less meaningful by the tone or style, since the way in which something is said can not be entirely disentangled from what is being said (especially in art, where what is being said is frequently embedded in the narrative and visual form of the art). Maybe I'll have more to say about this later.

Elucidation will probably be needed in this case. I could comment, but I think further clarity might help me to better understand what you are driving at specifically here.


(Again, don't take this as a criticism of what you've said. I'm basically going off on a tangent here in trying to pinpoint the points of divergence that lead to different valuations of the use of simplistic characters.)

Alright. I do suspect a form of criticism in the sense that you are suggesting that I missed or failed to address the general concern of this particular criticism, but hopefully I have clarified above.


That brings me back to one of my earlier points (and a point raised by Qrazy and Duncan): the importance of context in creating meaningful statements about humanity. I think a "token" of anti-nihilism might do more than just make the nihilism palatable; it might be important, even essential, in making the nihilism meaningful. The nihilism might be meaningful, or most meaningful, when it is related to a broader spectrum of experience, and in particular, when it is contrasted with something else and shown to be more correct or meaningful than that other option. However, as you and Duncan noted, the absence of something might be used for the same effect. But then the absence must somehow become pointed; the reader/viewer must feel the presence of the absence. It may be that the one rhetorical/artistic strategy simply has greater impact on some viewers, making them see and appreciate the meaning more.

Context is always important, but this is rather hazy. We would have to draw out specific examples if we are appealing to context, in this case. My argument is against a totalizing criticism for "lacking humanity" or the requirement of a "warm character" as a general rule for art. I obviously agree in some instances the contrast/dualism is effective, and even central, but this is certainly not always the case, and I do not see that any artwork requires it. As a general rule, though, I do reject that the "token" would make a nihilism most meaningful. There will almost always be the presence of "absence," some more inferred than others, but tossing in a "warm" character seems to be more for countervailing/egalitarian reasons enacted for the means of the audience's consolation rather than solidifying or augmenting any argument toward a particular worldview. As in the case of this conventional criticism, the concern seems more toward "accurate representation" and doing "justice" to humanity by displaying a full spectrum, which suggests that we expect to see the glimmer or possibility of hope in the face of despair (thus nullifying the nihilism in the existential sense should the viewer opt for this interpretive reading of the "open-text"). (An example - Sean Penn's cynicism contrasted with James Caviezel's optimism in The Thin Red Line; in the end, Witt dies in what was basically suicide and Penn's character says, "Where is your spark [of optimism now]?" The implication is not an outright despair or resolve to an unqualified nihilism, even though Sean Penn's character ostensibly "survives.")


This is also relevant to what you were discussing with Duncan: the scope of No Country for Old Men's implications about humanity. It seems to me that the final scenes purposely broaden the scope by contrasting and showing the defeat of a range of characters. Kelly Macdonald is killed, the charitable children immediately begin squabbling, an old man tells us that terrible things have always happened in the world, even the self-designated agent of fate is sideswiped by fate, and the main character's dreams fade to a blackness of disheartening finality. These sequences broadent the scope of the nihilism (and I agree with Duncan that the scope here seems to be most of human experience), but it also adds to its impact by showing the contrasts to it being disproven or defeated.

Not sure I agree. I do not read No Country for Old Men as an outright affirmation of nihilism. In fact, the work is only superficially nihilistic. Beckett has more potent strands of nihilism because he breaks down possibilities and conventional norms to fallback on, but Macdonald's defiance, Jones' humanism, and the corruptible good intentions of the children all reflect a trajectory of hope. In other words, pace Socrates, "A good man cannot be harmed." It could be read as Christian nihilism (in the Nietzschean sense), arguably, but the mere fact of material collapse does not mean there is complete moral/spiritual/emotional collapse. The moral decay only seems partial, but its consequences are dire in the physical realm. It also gives clues on how to reestablish order; the importance of choice (the will of Anton Chigurh as opposed to uncontrolled determinism) and following the rules of society so as to counteract chaos and chance. The film is not a resounding defeat for morality in the name of nihilism. It could even be read as a philosophical call-to-arms. It is wracked with wasteland modernist despair (Simone Weil would like this kind of movie), but it does not outright delve off knee-deep into the relativism we see in Beckett (though he has existential tendencies as well, but it is more nuanced and ambiguous) or some other postmodern thinkers. Which, in effect, limits the scope of its nihilism.


Yeah, I'm still trying to think about what aspects, and how much breadth, must be maintained in the simplification in order for it to work for me. Hopefully I'll come back to that tomorrow.

Sounds good. I shall follow suit.


I agree with this (though we are, after all, just tossing out ideas on a message board here, so vague language in brief reviews isn't really that a big deal), but I think many films, particularly films that I like, purposely try to make statements about what humanity is, or what its most important characteristics are, or what living as a human being fundamentally consists of. In that case, appealing to "humanity" might not be useful, but examining what "humanity" means, and what its typical connotations are, in light of what the film is saying, does seem important and useful.

Oh, no, do not get me wrong. I am all for making statements about humanity. I am just skeptical of criticisms that dock a film for lacking humanity. This is when the abstraction comes into play in my view.

[Spun Lepton]

I'm wearing new socks.

[Ezee E]

I'm wearing new socks.
Yeah, I have no idea what the last couple pages have been about either.

[Sycophant]

These last few pages have been some of the best Match Cutting I've seen in months. Been half-following it. Gonna read the whole damn thing when I've got the time.

[Spun Lepton]

These last few pages have been some of the best Match Cutting I've seen in months. Been half-following it. Gonna read the whole damn thing when I've got the time.

Because nothing screams film fandom like endless pedantics.

[Sycophant]

Oh, shit! Is this a "fandom" site?

EJECT EJECT EJECT

[Spun Lepton]

Oh, shit! Is this a "fandom" site?

EJECT EJECT EJECT

:lol:

[Sycophant]

In all seriousness (which is what I do here), "fandom" is a mentality I strive to avoid.

[Spun Lepton]

In all seriousness (which is what I do here), "fandom" is a mentality I strive to avoid.

Your definition must be different from mine, then.

[Melville]

Sorry, Israfel, I've been too busy with research to write an appropriately detailed response to your last post. Maybe someone else can step in to keep the discussion and/or pedantry going.

[Izzy Black]

Sorry, Israfel, I've been too busy with research to write an appropriately detailed response to your last post. Maybe someone else can step in to keep the discussion and/or pedantry going.

No problem. I am a bit busy as well. I have a feeling the discussion has about ran its course anyways. It seems more to be a matter of trying to clarify each other's arguments than a discussion of anything new going on at this point.

[megladon8]

After a re-watch on DVD, I think I may officially love this now.

It's very, very funny. Some laugh-out-load moments for sure, but the whole thing is smirk-inducing because even though these are situations and characters that are larger than life, they also feel like things we've experienced and people we've known. The Coens really conveyed their usual cynicism really well here, and made it both funny and pathetic to watch these self-centered and paranoid individuals interact with each other.

It was great. Every member of the cast works, and I'd particularly love to see Malkovich join with the Coens again. His acting style and their writing style fit like a glove.

[Dukefrukem]

WAAAAAAAAAAY better than A Serious Man. LOVED this.

[Watashi]

You don't need to bump up every old thread just to say that you saw the movie.

That's what the Film Discussion Thread is for.

[Sven]

I like that the threads are bumped. Reminds me of old dialogues, ensures that current one isn't lost in the mire of simultaneous film discussions.

[Ezee E]

I like that the threads are bumped. Reminds me of old dialogues, ensures that current one isn't lost in the mire of simultaneous film discussions.
Agreed. I do the same thing typically. I'll read through the thread, and comment otherwise. Nothing wrong with that.

[DavidSeven]

Some very strong analysis in this thread. From all parties.

I was glad to read this snippet below from Duncan again because it really pinpoints my exact problems with both Burn After Reading and No Country for Old Men. As craftsmen and writers of drama and humor, the Coen brothers have few peers. But I think their thematic examinations of humanity (especially in these two films) have recently been quite shallow and, frankly, overrated by critics and cinephiles alike. (Note: I have not seen A Serious Man, but will soon!)



If someone says Burn After Reading 'lacks humanity,' this does not necessarily mean that person believes a film or work of art must present the full spectrum of human emotion or experience. Personally, I think both Burn After Reading and No Country for Old Men are meant to be examinations of humanity as a whole, or at the very least about contemporary America as a whole (albeit flattened for allegorical or satirical effect). It turns out that, to me, the examinations themselves are rigid and narrow - not the subject matter. This is in contrast to works like Molloy or The Stranger, in which the subjects of examination are rarefied specimens of humanity, but the examination itself is nuanced, complex, broadening.

[Dukefrukem]

You don't need to bump up every old thread just to say that you saw the movie.

That's what the Film Discussion Thread is for.

Whatever you say Wats.

[number8]

I like that the threads are bumped. Reminds me of old dialogues, ensures that current one isn't lost in the mire of simultaneous film discussions.

Yep. I don't venture into FDT anymore. Too cluttered. More people should be bumping old threads.

[Raiders]

You don't need to bump up every old thread just to say that you saw the movie.

That's what the Film Discussion Thread is for.

This is incorrect. Please continue, Duke.

[Dukefrukem]

Anyway. I figured since I didn’t really like A Serious Man all that much I would comment on Burn After Reading; I’ve always been a fan of dark humor and I did enjoy a lot of those scene in A Serious Man, but I felt the characters in BAR were much more creative. Clooney, a cocky, womanizing sex fiend, is actually a paranoid wuss. The scene in the closet had me rolling (although I don’t know anyone who takes showers that quickly) along with Brad Pitt’s face right before the money shot. Malkovich is classic angry Malkovich. But I got the most enjoyment out of the CIA’s carefree attitude of the whole situation.

I’m a little perplexed on some of the earlier comment sin this thread though. Russ goes a head to mention that “It's definitely not a 'casual' film. The viewer has to put a bit of effort into it” which I completely disagree with. A Serious Man fits this description more than BAR plus it’s much shorter. BAR doesn’t waste it’s time with long shots. It’s characters are developed quickly and moves along between subplots.

DavidSeven says "Smart film. Has its moments, but kind of unsatisfying". Again, I disagree. Starting and ending at the CIA was the perfect conclusion, not to mention, Linda finally gets her surgery at the cost of the death of everyone she encounters on a regular basis. LOVE IT.

So far my rankings;

Fargo (still my fave)
Burn After Reading
No Country for Old Men
The Big Lebowski
A Serious Man
True Grit

[Grouchy]

I'm curious to know what you'd think about The Man Who Wasn't There.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm curious to know what you'd think about The Man Who Wasn't There.

I'll be watching it soon. I'm doing the Coens filmography.

[Li Lili]

So far my rankings;

Fargo (still my fave)
Burn After Reading
No Country for Old Men
The Big Lebowski
A Serious Man
True Grit

Fargo is also my favourite, I guess I would rank the first four like you, I haven't see A Serious Man, but saw most of their others, and definetly the first four are the ones that stand out.

[transmogrifier]

I agree with everyone who isn't Wats - why not use the thread that is specifically dedicated to the movie you just saw? Who cares how old it is? That's what it was made for, after all. The FDT can be to discuss movies that don't have their own threads, or news, gossip, recommendations or whatever.

[soitgoes...]

Completely agree. One out of every seven posts on the entire site ends up in the FDT. I like that thread and all, but it would be nice to spread out the love some. Plus when doing a search on a specific film it's much easier reading a thread on said film than a couple posts here and there scattered among ramblings on other films.

[MadMan]

Yes my understanding too was that threads like this one are geared toward discussing the movie in far more detail, and for nice long essays covering such films. To me FDT is just merely for random film talk and for movies that probably wouldn't gather so much discussion due to fewer people having seen them.

Duke I loved Burn After Reading, but I prefer A Serious Man overall. My current rankings of the Coens Brothers films are:

Fargo
A Serious Man-which might stand a chance of toppling Fargo in the future
The Big Lebowski
Blood Simple
No Country for Old Men
Raising Arizona
Burn After Reading
Miller's Crossing
O Brother Where Art Thou?
True Grit

The first three are masterworks, the next two are truly great, and the rest are great save for the last two on the list, which are merely near great/very good. I only have 6 Coen Brothers movies left to view-well 6 if you count Paris, je t'aime. The only one of theirs I have very little interest in seeing is The Ladykillers, but Tom Hanks and the famous "We must have waffles!" line tempt me a little.

[Gizmo]

I agree FDT is so cluttered I hardly even look in there, and thus miss out on a lot of conversation. I want to see what people are saying about the film I just watched or think I may watch soon. The easiest way to do that is a specific thread for that film, not a search through a few random posts in a catch-all thread spread through it's, what, 4th continuation....


Also, I saw this once and didn't like/get it:

Fargo
Raising Arizona
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
The Man Who Wasn't There
No Country for Old Men
The Big Lebowski
Burn After Reading

[Ezee E]

Anyone else want to prove how wats is so, so very wrong?

[MadMan]

Anyone else want to prove how wats is so, so very wrong?Nah I think we got it covered, heh.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm curious to know what you'd think about The Man Who Wasn't There.

The Man Who Wasn't There - it's good. Loved the random UFO scene towards the end. BBT was remarkable, probably his best performance I've seen yet.