BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Burn After Reading (with SPOILERS, please bear in mind)

 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
23:44 / 14.09.08
Went to see this last night, quite excited without much more than an inkling [ie, the cast list] of what they were doing with this one--and such sat through Bush Junior biopic previews and dumbasses a few rows back with very, very loud voices.

I really enjoyed it, but I might be the perfect audience for the Brothers at this point. It's quite non-traditional in its structure (primarily in how it ends, how it's resolved, and how this presented to the viewers), and operates on the premise that there's no way to turn from the train wreck, especially as the chassis drags further and further from the tracks, as it destroys more and more natural beauty -- people's lives.

It also manages to be quite surprising, and I like that the Brothers are able to indulge a little bit in their pulpy gore in a very restrained fashion.

We were quite divided on who our favourite characters were. The Accomplice went with Brad Pitt's Chad -- poor, foolish, athletic Chad, bumbling around like a big manchild with no real direction except that which Frances McDormand's Linda gives him. I favoured George Clooney, who felt unique in spite of sharing some generalized characteristics with other characters (the adultery, and the obsession with adultery).

It has interesting layers of action -- the street-level, main characters stumbling around and reacting to everything out of greed or sudden shock, not understanding what's going on but inventing scenarios and spy games to explain things at the same time that the bureaucratic government officials on another level watch everything, feel perplexed, try to contain it, treat it like just a thing that happens.

Dialogue was top notch. At times certain characters felt like specific Coen tropes (Clooney as quirky, neurotically particular character, Malkovich containing all foul language possible).

The cinematography wasn't amazing, which led us to wonder if they were using a new cinematographer or if there had been some kind of aesthetic shift that wasn't fully realized. Oddly, I was obsessed with the use of pattern and texture in people's clothes (particularly the ties men wore, and all of Tilda Swinton's blouses, as compared to Brad Pitt's skintight workout gear).

Has anyone else been to see this yet?
 
 
Benny the Ball
23:40 / 15.09.08
I haven't seen it yet, but am really up for it.

But it's interesting that you mentioned the Cinematography and implied a change of direction for them, as this is the first film since Barton Fink I think on which they have not used Roger Deakins.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
03:03 / 16.09.08
I'm not certain I'd describe the cinematography as "bad," per se, but it feels oddly off-style for them and feels much more conventional than I would expect.

I've noticed several people saying they were fairly "meh" about the movie, but I can't for the Earth of me see why. Maybe that would be different if I'd watched No Country For Old Men, but I still haven't gotten around to it (mostly because the hype wore me out).
 
 
Thorn Davis
08:25 / 20.10.08
Although I laughed more than I did in No Country For Old Men, I eventually found Burn After Reading to be a far more depressing film. It seemed to have such a bleak view of humanity, with everyone moving through the film in a kind of narcissistic stupor, and never really relating to anyone. The laughs just seemed to be there because otherwise this view of humanity as just... vile and selfish wuld be unpalatable.

That's not say I didn't think it was a good film - just that I was caught off guard by how misanthropic it was. I did love Malkovich being cast out of the CIA Mount Olympus to get bogged down with the ridiculous problems of the idiot mortals, that seemed baffling and incomprehensible when viewed from on high. The framing of the story using that device was terrific, and yeah the performances were great. Just... as with The Man Who Wasn't There, the whole thing was a lot heavier than I expected.
 
 
Seth
23:32 / 20.10.08
The cinematography wasn't amazing

That struck me as a definite choice. There are no wide, expansive shots because none of the characters have wide expansive perspectives. They're stuck in small worlds with small, selfish motivations. The opening and closing bookend shots therefore stood out much more than they might in other Coen movies, the enormous zoom and pull back shots to a global view from the perspective of spy satellites, shots that flatten any natural perceived beauty the Earth might have. This again is deliberate. The eye in the sky is brainless and can pick up no discernible pattern, no intelligible history. It implies that these kinds of events are going on everywhere, but while the spy satellite has a broad visual perspective it has no ideological perspective to interpret those events or intuit their meaning.

Yeah, the film is bleak. I think necessarily so. It's fairly John Gray, isn't it? It reminded me a lot of my job, to be honest. For all the mugging to the camera and deliberately farcical, silly acting, it rang remarkably true in a magnified sort of way. In a way it's the ultimate realisation of the Coen's recurrent obsession with shaggy dog stories, the most revealingly nihilistic film of theirs I've seen so far.
 
 
Mark Parsons
05:38 / 22.10.08
Funny as hell, beautifully misanthropic, crispy shot (IMO) and alas somewhat forgettable these two weeks later.

Papers: don't let the hype keep you away from NO COUNTRY for too long! It's a Cohen Bros highlight.
 
  
Add Your Reply