haha, this is getting ridiculous. who do they think they are? david fincher? from AICN...
QUINT: The only other thing I wanted to bring up was your collaboration with the Coen Bros because I'm a huuuuge Coen Bros fan...
GEORGE CLOONEY: I'm going to be doing another film with them probably in the Spring. It's called BURN AFTER READING. It's really fun, really funny. I'll do anything they want. I really will... (pause)
http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=22381
or in your case.. Burn BEFORE Reading
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abffe.com%2FGraphics%2FBook-burning.gif&hash=16321ab5f2b5b88ba31f6ed1e3b15463ba0f9a09)
Clooney Reuniting with Coens a Third Time
Source: Production Weekly
George Clooney will reunite with Joel Coen and Ethan Coen on Burn After Reading, their third collaboration together after Intolerable Cruelty and O Brother, Where Art Thou?.
Production Weekly says the Coen Bros. script is loosely based on the novel "Burn Before Reading: Presidents, CIA Directors, and Secret Intelligence," by Admiral Stansfield Turner, who served as director of the CIA from 1977 to 1981.
The contemporary East Coast caper is about a CIA agent who is writing a book and he loses the disc. Clooney wouldn't play the agent, but instead a killer.
Production is scheduled to begin in August, after he wraps filming on Leatherheads, which starts shooting early next spring.
Focus books actress for back-back films
McDormand to star in 'Pettigrew,' 'Burn'
Source: Variety
Focus Features has booked Frances McDormand for back-to-back pics.
McDormand will play the title character in "Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day," an adaptation of the Winifred Watson period comic novel that will shoot in London in April. Bharat Nalluri, who is coming off the HBO pic "Tsunami: The Aftermath," will direct. The script was written by Simon Beaufoy ("The Full Monty") and David Magee ("Finding Neverland"). Nellie Bellflower and Stephen Garrett are producing.
She plays a governess in the 1800s who gets a taste of glamour when she goes to work in the home of a nightclub songstress. One of Pettigrew's chores is to sort out the entertainer's unrespectable affairs.
McDormand will then head to New York to star opposite George Clooney in "Burn After Reading," a dark comedy about the CIA that will be directed and produced by Joel and Ethan Coen. Film is also being produced by Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner's Working Title.
The film will mark McDormand's fifth film with the Coens (she's married to Joel). Aside from her Oscar-winning turn in "Fargo," McDormand starred in "Raising Arizona," "Miller's Crossing" and "The Man Who Wasn't There."
Pitt feels the 'Burn' for Coen brothers
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Brad Pitt has signed on to join his "Ocean's Thirteen" co-star George Clooney in the Coen brothers' "Burn After Reading" for Working Title Films.
The black comedy, which also stars Frances McDormand, centers on a CIA agent who loses the disc of the book he is writing. Like the film's title, the screenplay is shrouded in secrecy, and it is unclear what role Pitt will play.
The actor will begin shooting the film in late August.
Joel and Ethan Coen penned the screenplay, and Joel Coen will direct the contemporary project.
Working Title's Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner are producing alongside the Coens. Focus Features will distribute worldwide.
a few more details from the Coen Q&A...
- they're ditching Roger Deakins as DP and using Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki
- this will be their first movie without storyboards because they want to capture a more 'cinema verite' style
- John Malkovich will be in this movie
- this is their next film after No Country For Old Men and they're in pre-production now
i loved brad pitt's "cameo" in being john malkovich.
I sleep in a drawer.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fanimatedtv.about.com%2Flibrary%2Fgraphics%2Fralph.jpg&hash=0a9163c5f13f5bb23a393a4ce3f10686b5f79fa1)
Malkovich, 'Burn' make good match
Source: Hollywood Reporter
John Malkovich is in negotiations to star opposite George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand in the Coen brothers' "Burn After Reading" for Focus Features and Working Title Films.
The dark screwball comedy centers on Ozzie Cox (Malkovich), a former CIA agent who loses the disc of the memoir he is writing. McDormand will play Cox's philandering wife. Clooney is set to play an assassin. Because the screenplay is being kept under wraps, it is unclear what Pitt's character will be.
Shooting is scheduled to begin in August.
Joel and Ethan Coen penned the screenplay, and the former will direct the contemporary-set project.
Working Title's Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner are producing alongside the Coens.
i scooped the Hollywood Reporter by a week. 8)
So How's the Script for the Coen Brothers' 'Burn After Reading,' Starring Pitt and Clooney?
Source: NY Magazine
The Coen Brothers are currently in Cannes, presenting their extremely well-received No Country for Old Men. It seems likely that this Western noir, adapted from a Cormac McCarthy novel and starring Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem, will be hailed as a return to form for the Coens after the mild disappointments of The Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty. Meanwhile, the trades have been actively reporting superstar casting of the Coens' next film, Burn After Reading: George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and John Malkovich have all been announced, and the Hollywood Reporter keeps referring to the script for Burn After Reading as being "shrouded in secrecy." But not so shrouded in secrecy that we couldn't read it!
As one could expect from a pair of writer-directors who followed Barton Fink with The Hudsucker Proxy, and The Man Who Wasn't There with Intolerable Cruelty, Burn After Reading is a comedy; its dark wit and ridiculously tangled plot differ substantially from the austere drama of No Country for Old Men. Malkovich plays Osbourne Cox, an alcoholic fired CIA agent whose memoir manuscript accidentally leaks. Pitt plays Chad Feldheimer, a dim-bulb personal trainer who finds the CD-ROM containing the manuscript and launches a plan to profit from the discovery. And Clooney plays Harry Pfarrer, a gone-slightly-to-seed Treasury agent whose philandering lands him in the middle of the ensuing mess.
We've speculated before that this film, starring as it does Clooney, might complete the Clooney-Coen "idiot trilogy," after O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Intolerable Cruelty. Given the number of foolish misunderstandings, romantic entanglements, accidental shootings, Lycra-clad asses, and "lactose reflux" references in the script, we think we're right. The screenplay is awfully funny, as in this exchange when Chad helps his best friend, Linda, check out an Internet dating site and comes across a potential beau with aviator glasses:
Chad:
He uh, he might not be a loser.
Linda:
How can you tell?
Chad:
That's a Brioni suit.
Linda:
Oh yeah?
Chad:
Shit yeah.
Linda (dubious):
Does he look like he has a sense of humor?
Chad:
He looks like his optometrist has a sense of humor.
And if Burn After Reading, like Intolerable Cruelty before it, is marred with a few more gruesome deaths than is strictly necessary, it's quite apparent that the stars already cast are aligned perfectly with their roles: Clooney the aging Lothario who winds up straight man to an outlandish caper, Malkovich the unhinged secret-keeper at the end of his tether, and Pitt as a muscle-bound doofus with big dreams. It's the dumbest role Pitt's played, actually, since his memorable scenes in True Romance, and watching Pitt and Clooney play stupid will make a nice change from their smarter-than-the-room routine in the upcoming Ocean's Whatever. Look for Burn After Reading to shoot this summer and premiere in 2008.
first pictures from the set of Burn After Reading featuring Brad Pitt (with a bloody nose) here:
http://justjared.buzznet.com/2007/09/23/brad-pitt-bloody-nose/
hah
choo.
urns
And I really thought there would be some more Coen-esque news about this :doh:
100 pages into the script. I'm loving it. No one can portray stupid like the Coens.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filmofilia.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F01%2Fburnaftereeading_s.jpg&hash=f2a1a3424fdc59477b50081f3eec74a02552732a)
Hilarious Spoiler Pics here: http://imdb.com/media/rm2064030464/tt0887883
Coens' 'Burn' to open wide
Focus, Working Title expand plans for comedy
Source: Variety
Focus Features and Working Title have decided to go wide when opening the Coen brothers' next film, "Burn After Reading," on Sept. 12 because of the film's comedic appeal and cast.
Dark spy-comedy stars George Clooney, Brad Pitt, John Malkovich, Frances McDormand and Tilda Swinton, who recently starred with Clooney in "Michael Clayton."
Announcement of the "Burn After Reading" release date comes one week after Joel and Ethan Coen's "No Country for Old Men" picked up Oscar wins for picture, director, adapted screenplay and supporting actor.
The Coens wrote, directed and produced "Burn," which revolves around an ousted CIA official whose memoir inadvertently falls into the hands of two bumbling Washington, D.C., gym employees.
Most of the pics directed by the Coen brothers have followed the traditional platform release pattern employed for specialty films that are less accessible commercially. Exceptions include Tom Hanks starrer "The Lady Killers"; "Intolerable Cruelty," starring Clooney opposite Catherine Zeta-Jones; and "The Big Lebowski."
"Everyone feels ('Burn After Reading') has the capability to play wide at that September playtime," said Focus prexy of distribution Jack Foley.
"Burn" isn't the first pic to stake a claim on Sept. 12. Already set to open on that date is Paramount Vantage's Keira Knightley-Ralph Fiennes starrer "The Duchess," although it will bow in a limited run.
Set to open wide alongside "Burn" are Jon Avnet's Robert De Niro-Al Pacino starrer "Righteous Kill," from Overture Films, and Lionsgate's "Tyler Perry's The Family That Preys Together."
Working Title co-chairs Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner are exec producing "Burn" with Robert Graf, who has worked on the Coens' past five films in various producing capacities.
"No Country for Old Men" is the Coen brothers' most successful film at the domestic box office, grossing $69.7 million through Sunday, according to Rentrak. The moody and violent modern-day Western began as a limited release.
George Clooney Tries To Explain 'Insane' Upcoming Comedies From The Coen Brothers'Burn After Reading,' 'Suburbicon' are more in the vein of 'Big Lebowski' than 'No Country for Old Men,' stars describe.Source: MTV
After spending a year with "No Country for Old Men," a serious, gut-wrenching drama that won nearly every conceivable award on the planet, you'd perhaps forgive the Coen brothers if they looked for a little escapism in their follow-up features, "Burn After Reading" and "Suburbicon."
Forget escapism, laughed several "Burn" co-stars: The Coens have finally gone off the friggin' deep end.
"I don't even understand what it is," star George Clooney chuckled of the "Burn" plot. "We have no idea what we've done. The only thing I feel confident about is, as bad and goofy and dim as I am in the movie, [Brad] Pitt might be dimmer. And that makes me know I have a little cover."
"I'm surrounded by buffoons!" co-star Tilda Swinton echoed of the all-star cast, which also includes Frances McDormand and John Malkovich. "It's insane."
"Burn After Reading" centers on two gym employees who wind up with a disk containing the memoirs of a CIA agent and their hilarious attempts to sell it.
"I'm married to John Malkovich and I'm having an affair with George Clooney, and I'm really angry about everything," Swinton said of the flick.
And those tidbits about "Burn" are a veritable treasure trove of information compared to what we know about "Suburbicon."
"There's nothing to explain what it is except it's a Coen brothers film — so it's insane," Clooney said of the mysterious project. "[In the movie],
I get clubbed to death with a tire iron.
It made me laugh."
When news leaked online that the Coens were handing "Suburbicon" over to Clooney to direct, it felt strange. Many wondered why they just wouldn't direct it themselves.
Apparently, so did the Coens, laughed Clooney.
"No, no, I wanted to do that, [but] I haven't stolen that one away from them yet. I think they are going to do it," Clooney said of "Suburbicon." "I think they are going to direct it, but I love that project. I have a part in it that I would love to play."
What is it? Who knows! But to focus on either story is to miss the point, the cast insisted, calling the movies, especially "Burn," free-wheeling comedies very much in the vein of "The Big Lebowski."
How free-wheeling? Would you believe that for character inspiration, Swinton looked toward ... "The Simpsons"?
"I look like Mrs. Krabappel in 'The Simpsons,' " she laughed about her appearance in "Burn." "I have this Krabappel hairdo."
And it will make you laugh out loud, enthused "No Country for Old Men" star Josh Brolin, who confessed to stealing a few peeks at the film while on the set of his own Coen film.
"I saw the first maybe seven minutes with Malkovich, who is so f---ing funny in this movie. It's unbelievable how funny he is," Brolin gushed. "The barely contained rage and the sh-- being thrown at him, it's pretty much the funniest stuff I've ever seen."
"Burn After Reading" opens September 12.
Booo! 8th line spoiler!!!
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firstshowing.net%2Fimg%2Fburnafterreading-apr-01.jpg&hash=5330994a1c869baf0962bbe0fcc6ee7a72457196)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firstshowing.net%2Fimg%2Fburnafterreading-apr-02.jpg&hash=3cd62d41cd78d86742a6709535a042cc85efe90a)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firstshowing.net%2Fimg%2Fburnafterreading-apr-03.jpg&hash=1931bd5dd563468aa4eae09279ee314bc52ee723)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firstshowing.net%2Fimg%2Fburnafterreading-apr-04.jpg&hash=4ece4645704a514487b7a812fa7ee2a035249579)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmovies.apple.com%2Ftrailers%2Ffocus_features%2Fburnafterreading%2Fimages%2Ftitle.gif&hash=f16d25ee7a8e84a6da03977306fddcc8f188f275)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmovies.apple.com%2Ftrailers%2Ffocus_features%2Fburnafterreading%2Fimages%2Fcast.gif&hash=761569463af96e98d3f2d99cf91fdced77aaf593)
http://www.apple.com/trailers/focus_features/burnafterreading/
Before The Devil Knows You're Not Funny
Looks fun. Glad they're doing something original again.
I've probably watched this at least 10 times so far. Very refreshing and that face Brad Pitt gives after getting punched is priceless.
This is going to be amazing. My most anticipated of 2008. Could be in the same vein of lebowski.
Quote from: SiliasRuby on May 30, 2008, 01:14:16 PM
Could be in the same vein of lebowski.
COULD BE...is the key here.
It could be terrible. But we'll see. Last year all you assholes were cynical about no country and this year its my turn. But after watching the trailer...J.K. Simmons is my favorite person ever.
Lets see if the lazy fucking critics will finally catch up with the Coens. It seems that even though they're known for, and lauded for, their thematic dexterity, every fucking time they follow a "SERIOUS OSCAR CONTENDER MOVIE FOR ADULTS" with something lighter, or more humorous, the critics are befuddled and whine about why "MOVIE Y" isn't just an extension of "MOVIE X"
Either way, "I thought you might be worried about the security of your shit" is already one of the best line deliveries in Brad Pitt's career so far. Goddamn, does it make me chuckle.
can we change the subheading of this forum from "Feverishly avoiding strike three?" cause i don't think the coen brothers are feverishly doing anything.
Quote from: squints on May 30, 2008, 08:14:35 PM
can we change the subheading of this forum from "Feverishly avoiding strike three?" cause i don't think the coen brothers are feverishly doing anything.
we did.
strikes against it:
september release date. no-mans-land. huge stars should equal summer release, and coming off a huge oscar winning film should equal equal a winter release.
it's set present day. the only coen films of the past 20 years that were set present day were Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers. it looks like they're about to complete their Suck Trilogy.
Intolerable Cruelty has a lot of funny stuff in it - the "sat before her before" dialogue, Gus "I see an ass. I nail it." Petch...I know there's more. The strike against The Ladykillers is that it was their only remake of an existing film.
Malkovich walking across the deck of a boat in a dressing gown, wielding a tomahawk = I know I'll enjoy this.
I actually want to see this film. It looks like a lot of fun. Big Lebowski was about nothing, but it was a stylistic nothing so people overrated it. All I see is a goofy plot here and a great cast. Brad Pitt made Snatch watchable and it looks like he will do good again here. I'll see the film with excitement and hope to ignore the over interpretation that comes with every Coen Brother film.
I'm with mod on this one, suck trilogy.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogsmithmedia.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2008%2F06%2Fbar1-%282%29.jpg&hash=d1c97bcd9050d6f92366de9b1ac6a4feb2c4b577)
if Saul Bass were not very good...
New Trailer here. (http://movies.yahoo.com/premieres/8406849/standardformat/)
International Teaser here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udgWnHV-pho)
Quote from: modage on June 17, 2008, 05:34:54 PM
Burn After Reading Poster
if Saul Bass were not very good...
haha, wicked.
Quote from: modage on May 31, 2008, 12:41:01 PM
strikes against it:
september release date. no-mans-land. huge stars should equal summer release, and coming off a huge oscar winning film should equal equal a winter release.
it's set present day. the only coen films of the past 20 years that were set present day were Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers. it looks like they're about to complete their Suck Trilogy.
Lebowski was released in March which is an even worse date. Don't get me wrong, I doubt this is going to do any business but if it's as weird as Clooney says it is I still think there is a good chance it could be pretty great.
I read the script. You can download it over at thepiratebay.org.
It's fun, I really liked it. I don't think it's in the vein of Lebowski at all. Great characters, fun story, great dialogue.
I'll surely be at my second home (arclight hollywood) on opening day for it.
Suck Trilogy :)
Yeah, I guess we'll see on this one. Brad Pitt seems LOL funny, JK Simmons seems dry Coen funny, but the rest of the trailer is not up to par.
Revisiting Coen Country for Odd Men
By BRUCE HEADLAM; New York Times
SOMETHING just went horribly wrong," he said.
The sound of hysterical laughter is heard.
That line of dialogue and the stage direction that follows could have plausibly been found in many of the 13 major movies created by the Coen brothers: black comedies like "Blood Simple," "Barton Fink" or "Fargo" where invariably something does go horribly wrong.
Here, however, the speaker is Joel Coen, and the laughter is provided by Ethan, his younger brother (by three years). They were responding to the question of whether their big night at the Academy Awards last February — four Oscars for "No Country for Old Men," including best picture — changed the brothers' outlook on the film industry, or their place in it, or in any way represented an apotheosis of their 24-year career as darlings of art-house cinema.
Apparently not. According to the Coens, who spoke by phone from their hometown, Minneapolis, where they are currently shooting their next movie, the Oscars were barely an interruption.
"It was very amusing to us," Ethan said.
"Went right into the 'Life is strange' file," Joel said.
The Coens' "Life is strange" file must be overflowing by now. For more than two decades they have made popular movies — some loved by critics, some loathed — by following a simple formula: Typically, a slightly down-on-his luck protagonist driven by a single motivating belief ("The Dude abides," "I'm a writer") gets involved in a low-level criminal plot involving kidnapping or extortion, setting off a chain reaction of complications and reversals. And more often than not, somebody gets shot in the face.
Their steady progress as filmmakers contradicts the prescribed path for independent (or at least independent-minded) directors in Hollywood: Make a few small-budget movies, maybe in a genre like film noir, then climb the Hollywood pay scale until, like Bryan Singer or Christopher Nolan, you're given the big-budget summer extravaganza.
What keeps filmmakers on this path — other than money — is the ability to make the kind of films they want. The Coens have been able to navigate their way all along, without once setting foot on a "Batman" soundstage.
"We've never navigated anything," Ethan said. "We've been lucky."
It's not luck, however, that the two have been working in lockstep their whole Hollywood careers.
Sometimes Ethan, 50, is credited as the writer, and sometimes Joel, 53, as director. But in reality both conceive the film, write the screenplay and direct, and edit under the joint pseudonym Roderick Jaynes. You think your family is close? These guys finish each other's movies.
That may work wonderfully on the set, where actors call them the Two-Headed Director. In an interview, however, the Coens are tough sledding. Like many close brothers they have developed an almost impregnable wall of in-jokes and verbal shorthand broken up by inexplicable fits of laughter, shared references and large inaudible patches when they speak over each other in a race to the next punch line.
Their new movie, "Burn After Reading," is set in Washington, or rather in the gray area between the old file-and-dagger Washington of Allen Dulles and the creeping suburbs that surround it. Frances McDormand, Joel's wife, plays Linda Litzke, a literally wide-eyed employee of Hardbodies Fitness gym, whose signature line, "I'm trying to reinvent myself," underscores her belief that four expensive plastic surgeries will help her meet a better class of man on Internet dating sites.
Through a series of strained coincidences (if plots had their own Hollywood guild, "Burn After Reading" wouldn't qualify for a union card), Linda receives a computer disk containing a draft of a memoir written by Osbourne Cox (John Malkovich), an angry alcoholic relic of the C.I.A. whose wife (Tilda Swinton) is having an affair with a federal marshal and aging Lothario (George Clooney). Linda decides to trade the memoir for cash, aided by a dimwitted personal trainer played by Brad Pitt, showing again that he's a great character actor in a leading man's body.
With its coldly satirical tone, stylized dialogue and broadly drawn characters, "Burn" will feel like familiar territory for longtime fans, a return to Coen Country for Odd Men. Is "Burn" a deliberate return to form, a step away from being Very Important Oscar-Winning Filmmakers? "It was nothing like that," Ethan said. "To tell you the truth, we started writing down actors we wanted to work with."
One was Richard Jenkins, who has appeared in three Coen films, starting with "The Man Who Wasn't There" in 2001.
"They're incredibly consistent, absolutely the same," said Mr. Jenkins, who has also worked with Hollywood's other best-known brother team, Bobby and Peter Farrelly. Those filmmakers have more defined roles, he said, but the Coens are almost interchangeable on the set when working with the actors. "I can't imagine them not being together making a movie. I can't think of one without the other."
The Two-Headed Director is one way to think about the Coens. Another — to borrow a concept from the horror movies they grew up on — is that they share the same brain, one cut crosswise. Ethan, whose first reaction to almost any question is to reject the premise out of hand with "No, that's not it" or "I don't remember," occupies the lower half, and Joel, who tends to pause, then provide a slightly more politic answer, occupies the other.
Together the Coens, like any divided brain, have little capacity for abstraction or intellectualism, and they resist delving into the philosophy or the processes underpinning their films. Analyzing their work, Joel says, "is just not something that interests us." Profiles of the pair frequently mention that Ethan wrote his senior thesis at Princeton on Wittgenstein — the sort of biographical detail film-studies types love — but, when asked, Ethan said he "can't honestly remember" what he wrote.
The sons of academics, they were raised in a heavily Jewish section in Minneapolis. But asking the Coens how growing up there affected their movies is like asking J .R. R. Tolkien how much time he spent in Middle-Earth before writing "The Hobbit."
Their next film, which they're working on now, is based on their childhood, but beyond that, they give no answers to how their city, its social structure or the dialect they heard as relative outsiders affected their work. "Scandinavian. That about sums it up," Joel said.
They will cop to this: They watched a lot of television. Now in their mid-50s, they're part of the last generation of filmmakers with a serendipitous relationship to old Hollywood, before VHS and infomercials, when being a cinephile meant watching whatever was on the late show.
"There wasn't HBO or movies on demand. There wasn't a lot of choice," Joel said, adding that they watched "a lot of Hercules movies" and that they and Mr. Clooney have wanted to do a Hercules movie for years.
"The local affiliate had the entire Joseph E. Levine catalog," Ethan said. "A lot of horror, but he also owned Fellini's movies, so occasionally, '8 ½' would be mixed in. All dubbed."
"Badly dubbed," Joel agreed. "Marcello sounded like Hugh Grant. Very stuttery."
In their teens they began to make their own movies on Super 8 millimeter, starting with a short film, "Henry Kissinger, Man on the Go." "It didn't have a strong narrative," Joel said. "It was really based on the fact that Ethan had a striking resemblance to Kissinger," establishing a Coen brothers theme early: the desperate character looking for some kind of payoff.
After college — Princeton for Ethan, New York University for Joel — they had various jobs film editing before making "Blood Simple" in 1984. Since then they've moved with deliberateness of an airport novelist, putting out a film at least once every two years. Even "No Country," an adaptation, was sold on the basis of their script. "The alchemy was already there on the page," said Daniel Battsek, the chief executive of Miramax, which co-produced the film. "The only question of whether it would still be there on screen."
One explanation for their longevity is money — the lack of it. All told, the Coens have spent an estimated $340 million, the cost of a couple of summer blockbusters.
"They control their own destiny," said Eric Fellner, co-chairman of the British production company Working Title, which has been involved in five Coen brothers films, including "Burn After Reading." "I've talked to them many times about doing something bigger, something smaller, something more commercial. It's very hard to find anything that interests them."
Joel said: "To be quite honest our movies have never broken any records in terms of box office. We've never operated at that level. We've never threatened the bottom line of any company that finances us. So they're happy to finance us, because the stakes are so low."
"Even our Hercules movie would not be terribly expensive," he said. (The sound of laughter is again heard.)
Coen brothers films may be cheap, but they're not small. Long before "No Country" they built large frames for their films, then filled in their themes of morality, violence and the failure of communication using everyday vernacular, like the gangster slang of "Miller's Crossing" or the flat Minnesota accents of "Fargo." With apologies to Ethan's Princeton thesis adviser, that part is very Wittgenstein.
The opening scenes of "Burn After Reading," inside C.I.A. headquarters, make it appear that the Coens are flirting with another genre, in this case the paranoid thrillers of the 1970s, like "Three Days of the Condor" or "The Parallax View." Then the film takes a sharp twist into a gray zone without any apparent moral order — or at least the kind embodied in "No Country" by Carla Jean Moss or in "Fargo" in the final speech given by Marge, the policewoman played by Ms. McDormand.
"No character offers that kind of perspective" in "Burn," Ethan says. Even Cox's old superiors at the C.I.A. (played by J. K. Simmons and David Rasche), who the brothers wanted to function "like a Greek chorus," seem bewildered by events and — like many real C.I.A. agents, one suspects — just close the file rather than dwell on how things could go so wrong.
The Coens are big Hitchcock fans, and "Burn After Reading" has a MacGuffin (the device to move the plot along), in this case Cox's memoir. What's striking is that this MacGuffin, unlike the suitcase in "No Country," is worthless. "Why in God's name would they think that's worth anything?" the analyst's wife says in the film.
Ethan said the choice was deliberate: "We liked that idea. There's nothing at the center."
It's maybe the oddest turn, as if the audience watching "The Maltese Falcon" for the first time knew that the bird was a fake all along. But a final attempt to draw out the Coens about the meaning of "Burn After Reading" ends the interview to the evident relief of both brothers, who suddenly relax and seem ready to talk.
"Hey," Joel said, his voice brightening, "didn't Karl Popper go after Wittgenstein with a poker?"
The suck trilogy ? Peeeleasee this was awesome !
Funny but dark as hell, really unique. I loved it.
Quote from: Pas Rap on September 12, 2008, 09:14:54 PM
The suck trilogy ? Peeeleasee this was awesome !
Funny but dark as hell, really unique. I loved it.
sho' 'nuff.
The pacing for this was great. Very measured. Very deliberate. It doesn't even really attempt to hit the big jokes until the film really gets going and, by the last act, every laugh is completely earned.
If this fits in with Intolerable Cruelty and Ladykillers, for whatever reason leading us to lump films together, it's only that is seems to balance the Coen's attempt at a broader, audience friendly comedy without sacrificing any of their more recognizable characteristics.
Anyone who doesn't enjoy this and pines for No Country 2 should lighten the fuck up.
strictly as a comedy it's hit and miss for me (with some brilliant hits). the insanely dense plotting is pretty interesting, though.. it's easily their most modern film, although i see a lot of parallels with blood simple in that it's all about people acting on a web of assumptions.. the editing is extraordinary. one scene and moment in particular is so shockingly cut it's still super fresh in my mind and i want to frame-by-frame it to understand how they did it... all the performances are pretty great with the slight exception of mcdormand. pitt is phenomenal and a big-time scene stealer. somehow the coens loosened everyone's faces and bodies more than normal. kudos to them. overall this isn't another coen masterpiece, but the more i think about it the better it is. i need to see it again. and probably again.
edit: oh and the score is hilarious.
this is an absolutely great movie. I tried to keep my expectations low but I think as a result I ended up liking it as much as I've ever liked a Coen movie on first viewing. Very dark, very funny, very modern. A beautiful addition to the Coens incredibly diverse/similar body of work. This is sure to be one of my favorites this year.
There are just so many amazing scenes and moods. In particular I was madly in love with Malkovich's Cox, especially that amazing scene on the boat with his dad. Whenever this movie pretends to be serious it's hilarious on a whole other level. I've never seen anything like it.
I endorse this big time, and I expect it to make more money than any Coen movie to date, at least if the crowd in my theatre is any indication. I think this will have legs.
HORRIBLE. Unpleasant and unfunny. Repeated use of the word "fuck" does not make a comedy funny. The Coens need to retire the everyone looking for something storyline. They should also be barred from setting any future films in the present day. JK Simmons scenes were the only tolerable moments in the film. They should have saved No Country For after this dreck. Suck Trilogy complete.
Brad Pitt FTW
I'm going to watch this tomorrow, but no Coen Brother fan should take my opinion serious. Whatever I think will come from a totally different viewpoint than you guys, but I can already see that Coen fans will tear themselves apart over it. The arguing will be fun to watch.
Quote from: modage on September 14, 2008, 05:13:26 PM
HORRIBLE. Unpleasant and unfunny.
i loved this film, and a lot of what i enjoyed was both unpleasant and unfunny. although i haven't read the book i have a sense that they were drawing those elements from it. what i didn't like was the slickness of the film-- it was much more similar in tone to intolerable cruelty (for example) than i expected.
for what it's worth I also like Intolerable Cruelty and even Ladykillers, they're just the first two parts of the "suckier" trilogy, the third part of which will probably take a while. I liked this better than either of those though, by a fairly large margin
Yeah this was really good. I like how the head of the CIA was pretty much the same character as Juno's dad.
"what a clusterfuck."
this is an unfunny, unbelievably mean, and inconsiderate grumpy old man of a film. i don't think i've ever seen a movie quite like this, in that it seems designed to be completely unsatisfying in almost every regard, save for john malkovich and jk simmons. i didn't find it to be amusing nor ingenious and took the film to be an experiment in oscar momentum, an element i would appreciate had i not paid $8.50 to see it. (i buy children's tickets) emmanual lubezki grandstands to the point of distraction--"ooh, look at my compositional prowess and moody yet natural lighting!". tilda swinton might be the most incapable comic actor on the planet.
also, where the fuck did that score come from?
Yeah its the Coens selling out big time...and yet its still pretty funny. The score reminded me of overly dramatic stock music in the best possible sense. Kept the tone relatively light if you think about it.
Quote from: picolas on September 13, 2008, 02:25:21 AM
strictly as a comedy it's hit and miss for me
Same here. Although it felt like a retread of the other Coens' stories like this, just not at that level. I think that because it felt grounded in a reality, that the comedy wasn't as hearty as it should have. If it had gone more over-the-top, it would have played at a level similar to Raising Arizona or Big Lebowski. But instead, I felt like I was one step ahead of the movie and characters.
Quote from: samsong on September 14, 2008, 11:05:21 PM
i didn't find it to be amusing nor ingenious and took the film to be an experiment in oscar momentum, an element i would appreciate had i not paid $8.50 to see it. (i buy children's tickets)
they were working on this long before they won any Oscars for No Country so there goes that theory. You earned you kids admission, now grow up, this is better than you know
spoils
okay, after more reflection: the problem with this movie, to put it bluntly, is it thinks it's funnier than it is. sometimes it's right (dildo reveal), sometimes it's wrong (the whole secret crush subplot/divorce detective). this happens because unfortunately, as far as comedies go, the coens are no longer fully empathizing with their characters. instead the characters have become more like pawns in their elaborate stories of mayhem, being manipulated towards whatever the coens might think is funniest at any given moment, rather than what they truly might think is in their best interest as living breathing characters. that being said, i don't think this is an awful film. but i do feel like the coens are refusing to learn from their mistakes and getting into bad habits. or maybe they're slowly recovering. i don't know. i've never tried watching the ladykillers because what i've heard scares me.
Quote from: New Feeling on September 15, 2008, 01:50:51 AM
this is better than you know
i'd be indebted if you made a superfluously long list of the ways in which this is true.
I think the final scene summed up my thoughts on this pretty well: what the fuck just happened, what was the point. Disappointed. IMO they hit an all-time high with The Man Who Wasn't There, and everything they've done sine then hasn't been that great (I still don't care for No Country). If you like classic Coens, don't bother with this.
Quote from: samsong on September 15, 2008, 05:16:12 AM
Quote from: New Feeling on September 15, 2008, 01:50:51 AM
this is better than you know
i'd be indebted if you made a superfluously long list of the ways in which this is true.
WARNING SPOILERS!!!!!
This movie is the one where the Coens intentionally refuse to sympathize with anyone. That is interesting to me. All of their movies have been accused of being cold and heartless along the way, and this one is the first one that really earns it. But only towards it's characters, not towards the audience or the world. Towards which it is trying to humorously point out the error of our present ways. For once, there is no good guy, nothing close. While they've always found their character's sad situations somewhat funny, in this one they are completely without sympathy, because no one remotely deserves it. And that's sort of how Washington is
I love how Mcdormand and Pitt are essentially the bad guys in this, and people seem to want them to be more likeable. they are like Sholwalter and Grimsard in Fargo, they are the dumb greedy fucks who cause all the trouble. You keep expecting them to become the heroes and that never materializes, McDormand in particular staying completely self-obsesses and pathetic the whole way. the cool thing is, tons of regular people are exactly like that, but I never see it in this type of movie. At least not in this way.
The swearing, while not overly imaginative, seems closer to the way these type of people might really talk than most movie dialogue, and it is funny as a result. THE CIA guys in particular, I thought the number of fuck's coming out of Malkovich seemed totaly appropriate.
"I have a drinking problem? Fuck you, you're a Mormon"
Clooney and Pit give rediculous performances in this movie, and McDormand too, essentially making fools of themselves, but everyone else seems pretty under control. A backwards ass decision for a big hollywood movie, and a subversive one for sure. We are not supposed to like any of them, I think, though we are supposed to find them funny. And they are, if you don't mind laughing at the self-made problems of totally self-obsesssed people.
Which brings me to what I think this movie is all about, the self-obsession of our times. The only person who seems to remotely care about anyone else in this movie, is the ex-priest that gets axed to death trying to help, but even he is a complete fool for being in love with such a vile and pathetic person. The CIA aren't trying to help anyone, just keep themselves out of trouble, neither is pitt, or mcdormand, or clooney, or swinton, or malkovich, or the russians, or anyone else for that matter. Self-obsession run rampant in our tims, the Gym culture being an obvious symbol of this, and the repeated marital infidelities being another obvious one. This movie makes a mockery of marriage they way so many people have for most of time. The fact that it's all set in Washington and everyone is completely self-obsessed and unlikable is enough for me to give the film 4 stars right off the bat. No one seems to give a fuck about politics or serving their fellow man in the least
the music is over-dramatic for comedic effect, and I think it works wonderfully. When McDormand can't get her procedures approved, the emotional tone seems to be like a direct reference to Jerry Lundergaard's phone troubles, only it's is so much less consequential at this point. Mcdormand is simply nuts, and one of the least sympathetic characters I've ever seen as a result. I like this
I still can't get over that scene with Cox and his dad on the boat. It's insane
Brad Pitt is hilarious, even though he is completely overdoing it. So is that Janitor guy.
Coming Up Daisy! seriously now that is funny
the Dildo chair! that is funny too. Especially when Clooney has his breakdown
Malkovich's drinking problem, hilarious! you rarely see that shit in movies, not comedy ones anyway, and it is handles quite simply
This movie is almost exactly like every other Coen brothers movie while still being completely original, which continues to be a fascinating trend in their body of work. They are the most distinctive voice in cinema, with maybe two or three competitors. Even if you think you will hate this movie, every person who has an interest in cinema owes it to themselves to see every Coen movie at least twice in my opinion. They are all better on repeat viewing, or so I have found. and better and better and better.
The cinematography is great, if you don't hate moody yet natural lighting and perfect compositions, both Coen trademarks.
If you are not a good person you will probably not like this movie. It's making fun of you
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on September 14, 2008, 06:31:43 PM
I can already see that Coen fans will tear themselves apart over it. The arguing will be fun to watch.
Not really on both counts... this is an entertaining enough movie, but it's a retread.
Those who are claiming it brilliant (I elected not to read all of New Feeling's post yet) probably just love to love.
Mostly in agreement with Pic here. There are some really hilarious parts to this film and some classic Coenisms that made me chuckle, but it's mostly just trying to update the humor in something like Blood Simple.
It's not awful though... I don't get the hatred... I get the dislike, but not the hatred. Not from this group at least... and anyone who complains about the end was never a Coen fan, that's for damn sure.
I admit it. I love to love.
the two J.K. Simmons and David Rasche scenes were best. but yeah, what RegularKarate said.
you & me 3 for 3, GT? up top? (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mumsmeeting.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2FSmileyWave3.gif&hash=2a746ffd45dd89d2c1f4595ba0ff555a2144bdca)
the problem with the movie rests on its slightness, then we're divided into those who are bothered by it and those who aren't. it is pointless, but it is also fun. if you're willing to go with it, willing to ignore the fact that clooney and brad pitt have used up all their coasting privileges in the ocean's movies, then it is a good, dark comedy, in which the motivations are clear but their relationship with each other isn't. I actually think the coens restrained themselves quite a bit, because every scene has the potential to be completely slapstick. They're simply amused by characters crashing into each other's lives so liberally.
I really don't think this is pointless. I think the point is to turn a mirror on America, seriously but ridiculously, and I think it's going to age well. This will probably be their only Washington movie, might as well enjoy it.
i was hoping that it went without saying that i didn't actually want you to make that list, but could i have expected? well, whether it was out of spite or obliviousness, thanks. in the end, the only conclusion i can come to is that you're a coen brothers devotee.
i hardly find it subversive to make a film about washington d.c. with a slew of unlikable characters you can't sympathize for, but i also don't find that to be the case in Burn After Reading. there were darker undertones of sadness that are short-lived by the callousness of the satire and left unattended, content on mean spirited facetiousness (which i'm usually all for but there's a lot of unrealized potential in this film). the manager comes to mind, who i refuse to view as simply an object of ridicule. i found the film to be a tonal nightmare, inconsistent and muddled. the one instance that i thought these elements were brilliantly combined is the "insane" scene you keep referencing between cox and his father on the boat. in regard to lubezki's pristine photography, i thought it stood more as exhibitionism than a service to the film's interests, which i'm still pretty confused about as to what they actually are. that is to say i'm not sold on the idea that this film holds any mirrors up to anything. at times it is "entertaining enough" (a phrase i don't think should ever be associated with a worthwhile movie) but i found it to be a long 97 minutes and was, at times, extremely uninterested and bored--i didn't have that much fun.
the next time i see this movie will probably be at 3 in the morning on cable, and if i like it then you'll be the first to know.
sweet, I'll look forward to it.
I don't get the criticism : ''nothing was interesting except Malkovich and J.K. Simmons'' ... well, that's already half the movie. Then there's the Clooner/dildo moment that cannot be not funny. And then Pitt's good scenes everyone finds funny (security of your shit, come on!) ... so you got about 70% of the movie there.
this is pretty bad. its not fun, or funny. if you say you only liked malkovich or simmons or whatever its bullshit. simmons is funny in spider man 3 too and it was total shit. malkovich is always good. so the fact that they got a great cast doesnt mean the movie is any good. its pointless and stupid and it surprises me how the same people who did 'no country for old men' can release this shit less than a year later. its always a mystery with these coens, cause it happened the same way after an amazing film like 'lebowski' and then 'ladykillers', and so on... you never know what the fuck you are getting.
Quote from: kal on September 16, 2008, 11:47:00 PMits always a mystery with these coens, cause it happened the same way after an amazing film like 'lebowski' and then 'ladykillers', and so on... you never know what the fuck you are getting.
umm. ladykillers was long after lebowski. 6 years and three movies later. how many of their movies have you seen? the number of masterpieces far outweigh their recent "failures".
Quote from: picolas on September 17, 2008, 01:07:00 AM
Quote from: kal on September 16, 2008, 11:47:00 PMits always a mystery with these coens, cause it happened the same way after an amazing film like 'lebowski' and then 'ladykillers', and so on... you never know what the fuck you are getting.
umm. ladykillers was long after lebowski. 6 years and three movies later. how many of their movies have you seen? the number of masterpieces far outweigh their recent "failures".
Well honestly I dont remember how many years, I know it was a while, but they only made O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Intolerable Cruelty I think before Ladykillers. Before that they were very good, but just when they seemed to be getting back on track now with NCFOM, they release this shit that I think its worse than Intolerable Cruelty and Ladykillers combined.
The only legitimate criticism I've seen lofted at this film is that it is either cruel or indifferent to it's characters. Even that seems more like personal taste than valid criticism. I don't think the indifference hurts the film at all. If anything it is a benefit. Without having any protagonist to warm up to, it's hard to embrace the film as easily as other comedies of theirs, like Raising or Lebowski, or even Hudsucker.
Raising and Lebowski also trump Reading because there's a warm melancholy, even a bit of true reflection, that both of those film earn. Reading practically scoffs at either sentiment.
It's not their best work, even in this genre... but so far it's been puzzling to read people argue why it's so bad while the people who have been praising it have been much more direct and detailed.
"not funny", is irrelevant. It's taste. Personal discretion.
I'm also surprised at the knocks against Emmanuel Lubezki's cinematography. Not once did I think it stood out to the point of distraction.
Are we just practicing for the inevitable love/hate fiasco that is "W"?
It's funny, because as a constant critic of the Coens, I think I actually understood the purpose of this film. Most of the times I find their comedies to be masturbatory and pointless, but there seemed to be some logical thought to this one. It's still not a very good film, but it's definitely better than horrible.
The Coens are just doing a take on spy films and "serious" people in a "serious" world. Besides Pitt and McDormand, every character represents a status and prestige within the intelligence community. The purpose of Pitt and McDormand is that they hatch a scheme that makes absolutely no sense but sets off a chain of events that allow every character to come to their weakest point. It's a deconstruction of all the characters to their inner crux, however shallow it may be. At first certain characters are funny for weird superficial reasons manners (like Clooney's eating habits or Malkovich being Malkovich) but slowly the mannerisms become revealtions of true insecurities. The events (while they make no sense) become an unmasking of everyone. Stanley Kubrick once said the purpose of comedy was people trying to be serious and just failing. The Coens Brothers exemplify that idea here.
Which is why the tone of the film had be more serious and dead pan. The whole point of the film is that characters do become unmasked and revealed for their weaknesses. If the tone was more airy and absurd like the general Coen Brother approach, the whole point would be lost. The weird series of events would just be a bunch of weird series of events. If you only care about plot, they are, but as far characterization goes it's all for bringing everyone down to their basic purpose in life, whether it is to just be loved (Clooney) or to just get a surgey (McDormand) or to show someone you love them (the guy Malkovich kills). The film has different tones for every ending because each character is finding their own end and purpose. It's a comedy, but it is weighted to the characters.
That's really good for me because one thing about Coen comedies I always hated is how every character existed on one level of absurdity. Quentin Tarantino does this too, but the Coens too much write for characters who just represent their own personality. There isn't much difference between the major characters besides their interests. They all sound the same and thus usually represent same ideas. This film is weighted with different tones and levels of comedy between everyone. It allows the themes to get out better. The idea that the film is about the redudancy of seriousness in a serious world becomes very apparent by the end.
With all that being said, the film doesn't do much to distinguish itself. The great idea is that our status in this world makes fools out of us all, but that's old hat. The film uses the backdrop of the intelligence agency to shows its unintelligence because it is so blogged down by bureacratic bullshit, but again, that is old hat. It's a general subject for our world. When comedy greats like Dr. Strangelove and How I Won the War were made, they had the teeth to go after tough subjects that were very controversial, but Burn After Reading is about Coen brother-esque characters only. We understand their motivations and why the Coens find them amusing, but they are going after themes here and do have a decent back drop, but they still mainly regulate themselves to things of self interest.
That's a problem because the movie isn't really funny all around. Yes, scenes like the penis chair and some of Brad Pitt's work is funny, but they are too far and few between to make the whole movie worthwhile. And since I don't think any of the themes were truly honored, I can't recommend the movie, but at least I appreciated the effort.
Quote from: john on September 17, 2008, 02:51:05 AM
The only legitimate criticism I've seen lofted at this film is that it is either cruel or indifferent to it's characters.
it's also the same movie they've made at least 3 or 4 times, but this one is much worse. all of the actors are going out of their way to give 'comedic' performances and none of them landed anywhere near funny, malkovich included. i don't buy pitt, clooney or mcdormand as idiots and to see them floundering around in these scenes is embarrassing. as has been pointed out, their previous characters might have been dimwits or people in over their heads but you can feel the disinterest they have in these characters because i couldn't care less about them either. anyone who loves this i really have to wonder if you can tell the difference between their good films and these. the hate comes from seeing filmmakers who are capable of so much more waste their time and mine with this pointless film.
I enjoyed myself deeply but overall there were some sequences that just felt odd to me. The whole movie felt hit and miss to me. Brad pitt was great though.
Quote from: modage on September 18, 2008, 10:39:05 AM
Quote from: john on September 17, 2008, 02:51:05 AM
The only legitimate criticism I've seen lofted at this film is that it is either cruel or indifferent to it's characters.
anyone who loves this i really have to wonder if you can tell the difference between their good films and these.
I'm guessing someone who loves this can tell the difference between what he loves and what he loves not.
No one said this is the best movie of all time. It's just a nice complement to a dinner and a couple pints of beers.
Quote from: modage on September 18, 2008, 10:39:05 AM
anyone who loves this i really have to wonder if you can tell the difference between their good films and these.
That's the most presumptuous thing I've read on the internet all week... and it's the fucking internet, its powered by presumption.
I enjoy O.C. and Stiggs, too - but it doesn't mean I can't tell that there's a vast difference between that film and Nashville.
Quote from: modage on September 18, 2008, 10:39:05 AM
the hate comes from seeing filmmakers who are capable of so much more waste their time and mine with this pointless film.
I think you're letting your opinion of them define not only what they are capable of doing, but what they should be doing. There's a film fan enthusiasm in your sentiment that I empathize with... but a director being too precious regarding what project they choose to add to their filmography wastes just as much time as a director who will do anything. Even at their worst, I don't think the Coens are guilty of either.*
You must make pretty good use of your free time, too, if it was actually wasted watching a middle-of-the-road Coen farce.
*Soderbergh, on the other hand...
Quote from: john on September 19, 2008, 09:16:46 PM
Quote from: modage on September 18, 2008, 10:39:05 AM
anyone who loves this i really have to wonder if you can tell the difference between their good films and these.
That's the most presumptuous thing I've read on the internet all week... and it's the fucking internet, its powered by presumption.
I enjoy O.C. and Stiggs, too - but it doesn't mean I can't tell that there's a vast difference between that film and Nashville.
Quote from: modage on September 18, 2008, 10:39:05 AM
the hate comes from seeing filmmakers who are capable of so much more waste their time and mine with this pointless film.
I think you're letting your opinion of them define not only what they are capable of doing, but what they should be doing. There's a film fan enthusiasm in your sentiment that I empathize with... but a director being too precious regarding what project they choose to add to their filmography wastes just as much time as a director who will do anything. Even at their worst, I don't think the Coens are guilty of either.*
You must make pretty good use of your free time, too, if it was actually wasted watching a middle-of-the-road Coen farce.
:bravo:
Quote from: john on September 19, 2008, 09:16:46 PM
I enjoy O.C. and Stiggs, too - but it doesn't mean I can't tell that there's a vast difference between that film and Nashville.
well thats good.
Quote from: john on September 19, 2008, 09:16:46 PM
You must make pretty good use of your free time, too, if it was actually wasted watching a middle-of-the-road Coen farce.
i do, actually. and i'm not going to waste it ever sitting through that turd again.
Quote from: modage on September 20, 2008, 09:28:14 AM
i'm not going to waste it ever...
too late for that, ay?
Of course our opinion of this is going to be colored from what we expect of the Coens. That's not to say we think the Coens should be doing a certain film, but we are entitled to have expectations from them. No? I think Mod is perfectly correct to point out the difference between their good films and this. Look at Miller's Crossing. That's a film that deals with multiple characters, double-crossings, subterfuge and hidden agendas. There is no comparison. If you didn't know otherwise you would have no idea these were from the same filmmaker. Of course, you wouldn't naturally link Miller's and other films in the Coens' oeuvre either... Lebowski... O Brother... But all their pre-Intolerable Cruelty films are unarguably in a different class from those since. I don't know what it is, but there is a significant change there. I'll keep on getting excited for all their films, but recently I've gotten used to being disappointed. I realize I differed in opinion with most of you over No Country, and I'm prepared to chalk that up to a simple matter of personal taste. But this film ranks alongside Cruelty and Ladykillers. It is not a good film.
Quote from: Sleepless on September 21, 2008, 10:46:35 AM
I think Mod is perfectly correct to point out the difference between their good films and this. Look at Miller's Crossing. That's a film that deals with multiple characters, double-crossings, subterfuge and hidden agendas. There is no comparison. If you didn't know otherwise you would have no idea these were from the same filmmaker.
I have to ask, why do you think Miller's Crossing is any good? Should it just be assumed it is?
To me Burn After Reading is by far the superior film. The plot happenings make no sense, but the characterization has logic on a deconstructionist line of thinking. With Miller's Crossing you have a film that extrapolates numerous genre references from the gangster film to the musical, but the references are as random as a Family Guy episode and usually mean absolutely nothing. The only major difference between the films is that the style references are more varied and pronounced in Miller's Crossing, but none of it has any significance.
I don't know, I know people here love the Coens and Kubrick, but I always wonder why. I'm not trying to be an asshole with questioning the love, but I think it is fair to ask also.
GT, only you could view Miller's Crossing as a merely a collection of references. It is a gangster film, yes, but it also an exploration of masculinity and everything that goes along with it: love, friendship, loyalty, selfishness. You might not agree with me that it is a good film, and that's fine. We've disagreed before, and we'll disagree again. There's no problem with that. But the comparison I was making - and why I brought up Miller's Crossing in the first place - was to demonstrate the Coens once made a film with similar elements to Burn After Reading, and handled the ideas far more successfully, and actually within a coherent narrative. In Miller's Crossing, Tom plays two gangs against each other as much to ultimately help his true friend Leo win in the end, as he does to express his own power and abilities. He plays people off one another, but he always does so with reason, he knows the end game even if no-one else does, the audience included. In Burn After Reading the plot is so muddled there isn't even a protagonist. Everyone muddles in and out of relevance to everyone else, often without even realizing. People lie and cheat, but with little purpose, and yet we are expected to admire this large tableaux of cause-and-effect, yet the events that occur are proven irrelevant and purposeless. It was just a coincidental mess that happened, it is not a story. It is a waste of my time to watch it. And that is why Burn After Reading is not a good film.
It's the equivalent of Brett Ratner or McG remaking Magnolia as a spy-caper.
Yes, Sleepless, everything you said about the story in Miller's Crossing is accurate. A synopsis of the film would say the same exact thing, but the stylistic references do nothing to advance the plot in the film. The film just combines slapstick with the musical and also the gangster genre. There is no marriage of the material and style.
I think the Coen Brothers played musical chairs with genres that were popular in the 1930s and 40s, the general time period in which the story is set. At random times through out the film the story will change tonal direction and become either musical-like or slapstick or something else. The original story continues on, but the tone of the film is always revolving. Then when the film becomes serious or heartwarming, it may or may not take itself seriously. It all depends on what heart strings the Coen Brothers feel like pressing.
See, I almost believe Miller's Crossing is a purposely bad movie. The film is so specific with what genre it recalls that it believes audience members will buy into genre ploys of the scene even if it doesn't make sense. And when the film becomes dramatic at the end with the expected execution in the woods, the film takes that tone. It wants viewers to believe that the scene is worthy of the dramatic tone it has even though very little about the film beforehand warranted such a scene.
It just seems to be a mockery of Howard Hawk's old idea that a great film required 3 great scenes. The Coen Brothers delivered those scenes in all their dramatic fashion, but laughed at him with the rest of the film because the stylistic references are so nonsensical and play against the expectations of the story. It's irreverence for irrevence's sake and what could be more boring?
Burn After Reading has a story that makes no sense on a superficial level, but the inner story between all the characters makes sense on a comedic level. That's noteworthy.
I don't know what you guys are talking about. I laughed a lot with this, an so were the people at the showing i went to. And so far a bunch of people have told me they liked it.
I don't think it's pointless at all.
i saw it with no country for old men fresh in mind, so my first impression is that this movie is of a profoundly inferior craft in every sense, but man i adored the last part. it's really only a movie about stupidity and paranoia, and the ridiculous lenghts to which our contemporary leaders and societies have taken these concepts. it reminded me of radiohead's hail to the thief, in the way that these two things seemed more like period pieces with very particular and narrow topics, rather than universal masterpieces. i liked it. i particularily liked how dismissive and playful it was with traditional espionage aesthetics (shoes). it didn't changed the way i see the world and shit but it was very relaxing to take a break and see stupid stuff when everyone's so serious and worried.
also, this movie answered the question 'which fictional character do you identify the most with'?
i am george clooney's character.
Quote from: cron on October 29, 2008, 02:31:40 AMalso, this movie answered the question 'which fictional character do you identify the most with'?
i am george clooney's character.
You build dildo chairs?
Quote from: MacGuffin on October 29, 2008, 09:40:07 AM
Quote from: cron on October 29, 2008, 02:31:40 AMalso, this movie answered the question 'which fictional character do you identify the most with'?
i am george clooney's character.
You build dildo chairs?
lol
Technically, there's a lot to be admired. The fact some people are saying Lubeszki's cinematography is intrusive and calls attention to itself, while others say the film is plain looking is telling. The first ten or so minutes I kept thinking the film had an "ugly" look. Plain, that's what I thought. But slowly I started noticing how even the shortest of shots made sense, aesthetically and storytelling wise. Then I started noticing the editing. I think the Coens have reached, in their last two films, a new level of precision. You may or may not like it, but they are cutting exactly where they should, using exactly what they have to use from every take, actor, moment, line. The writing is also wonderful. I dare any of you to write this kind of baroque comedic dialogue, with the wit and layers they do here. This is the work of two guys at the top of their games. I'm really just astonished to read some of the comments here. Really, someone complained about how the word "fuck" doesn't make a comedy. And how about the whole thing is pointless, and mean. Like that's something new with the Coens....
I mentioned the word layers because the film, despite what the Coens want people to believe, and what most people believe around here, IS about something. New Feeling nailed it for me when he says is mainly about self-obsession. Man, I see people like those two idiots every day and always think to myself how come our culture (global, not only american) has devolved into this. Self obsessed little persons, sure they are "the ones", "special", that they will "make it". Meaning they will have money, more than the other, they will have real love. Gym culture is of course, the perfect environment to illustrate this. I've never met people more self obsessed and insanely egotistical than gym people. They also tend to be dumb as shit. Clueless about everything except their own value as individuals. The film shows all of them as idiots because they will do anything to achieve this pointless goal. So by the end, if the film declares itself pointless, it seems to be saying that it's not only the film, but the whole system that has grown to be one pointless enterprise. As they say, we can learn to never do it again, but what was that we did wrong? Do we really know?
So the film is about something. So it is not pointless. You may say is saying nothing new, but I don't think any film is saying anything new, and I don't think that's a requisite to make a piece of art. There are no rules as to what are subjects valuable to explore for artists, or methods. So if these guys want to make a misanthropic farce about the self obsession of our culture, it's completely valid.
I thought the acting was great all around. The dialogue is sharp and very very very difficult for an actor. Everyone of these guys amazed me with their delivery. And I love that they are not afraid to go over the top. I love it because doing that can be repellent, and they don't give a shit and take the challenge and go all the way with it. This is not a subtle film. This is the style needed for it to work. The only one I found out of place was Tilda Swinton. But the the four leads were superb.
I also like the way they changed tones throughout, as if trying to see with just how much they could get away with. A couple of people walked out of the movie where I saw it, but the majority stayed and laughed louder and louder as the film progressed. It is an acquired taste for sure, and for some people may not work. But this is not like Intolerable Cruelty or The Ladykillers where they were trying to go mainstream. This is the Coens trying to go the other way, just like with No Country.
I liked the music. But I liked it better than there was no music during most of the picture. The Coens rely often too much on music to create atmosphere, but here (and in no country) they have tried to get throug it with less and less.
I'm sorry of some of you guys hated it so much, and I'm sorry some of you guys have even said that people who liked this are to be questioned about their tastes in the Coen oeuvre. I also believe that by principle, if you say to yourself you love cinema and are serious about it, any Coen Brothers film should be seen at least twice, and way more times.
you may be right about the craftsmanship, but the point is no one gave a shit about this film. They didn't hate it passionately; it didn't offend anyone; people called it pointless because no one was sure what they were supposed to be watching, which is fine by a good number of folks in this thread, but not fine by everyone, especially those with their own expectations of a Coen Bros movie. that's an unfortunate fact that you also can't argue: no one cares.
well, by the way some of the comments were written around here, it seemed to be a very hated film. as if there was nothing redeemable about it. hence a bunch of people calling it pointless. which of ocurse it isn't. and when people don't give a shit about a movie, they don't spit out opinions on it. they just ignore it. at least that's what i do.
spoilers:
so i'm starting to realize i have a man crush on richard jenkins. between this and step brothers he's given two of my favorite comedy performances of the year. both roles are written as characteristic straight men and he sells them so well. pitts death in the film gets laughs for sheer audacity but jenkins death just felt wrong and mean spirited. i was off board at that point. too bad it was the ending, i enjoyed the rest of the film leading up to it very much.
You are right ddiggler...I'm drunk posting had fun at a dance cleb lst night yeahg.....fuck ya...gt acts like hes sooo smart...he probably is...so am I...I just don't show it here...all YOU see is I agree I agree I agree...yeah...thats the stuff...well I feel liuke michael's older bro in goddfather 1 and 2-not good eenough....welI'm sorry you sons of gunns with your sarcastic bullshit that very few could analyze ya ya...suckers...ya...fuckers....I boght BURN AFTER READINg you douches on BLU_RAY....awesome...blu-ray is awesome....mmmhmmm....I love pulp fiction and tom cruise...I don't care what anyone says fucker...I want to make love to kim H.....okay I'll calm down...my heads feeling heavy even though I know ALL the words to 'baby got back' even the female voices...bye guys..see some of you soon in LA ('I hope not' says the douchebag pubrick who isn't here)...I'm gonna listen to some beatles now...bye///Brad pitt is awesomely stipid in this movie by the way...gooodbye till tomorrow.
you're so Third Eye Blind-Self Titled Album.
The problem with BAR was that all the funniest scenes were described to the audience by the CIA spook. Cardinal rule of film making: show it, don't tell it.
Quote from: SiliasRuby on December 28, 2008, 03:56:45 AM
You are right ddiggler...I'm drunk posting had fun at a dance cleb lst night yeahg.....fuck ya...gt acts like hes sooo smart...he probably is...so am I...I just don't show it here...all YOU see is I agree I agree I agree...yeah...thats the stuff...well I feel liuke michael's older bro in goddfather 1 and 2-not good eenough....welI'm sorry you sons of gunns with your sarcastic bullshit that very few could analyze ya ya...suckers...ya...fuckers....I boght BURN AFTER READINg you douches on BLU_RAY....awesome...blu-ray is awesome....mmmhmmm....I love pulp fiction and tom cruise...I don't care what anyone says fucker...I want to make love to kim H.....okay I'll calm down...my heads feeling heavy even though I know ALL the words to 'baby got back' even the female voices...bye guys..see some of you soon in LA ('I hope not' says the douchebag pubrick who isn't here)...I'm gonna listen to some beatles now...bye///Brad pitt is awesomely stipid in this movie by the way...gooodbye till tomorrow.
HAHAHA. Ether. :bravo:
I remember when I used to post drunk.
I just went back and re-read most of my posts from late 04 to mid 05 in an effort to prove my point but instead, I ended up depression. :oops:
Quote from: SiliasRuby on December 28, 2008, 03:56:45 AM
You are right ddiggler...I'm drunk posting had fun at a dance cleb lst night yeahg.....fuck ya...gt acts like hes sooo smart...he probably is...so am I...I just don't show it here...all YOU see is I agree I agree I agree...yeah...thats the stuff...well I feel liuke michael's older bro in goddfather 1 and 2-not good eenough....welI'm sorry you sons of gunns with your sarcastic bullshit that very few could analyze ya ya...suckers...ya...fuckers....I boght BURN AFTER READINg you douches on BLU_RAY....awesome...blu-ray is awesome....mmmhmmm....I love pulp fiction and tom cruise...I don't care what anyone says fucker...I want to make love to kim H.....okay I'll calm down...my heads feeling heavy even though I know ALL the words to 'baby got back' even the female voices...bye guys..see some of you soon in LA ('I hope not' says the douchebag pubrick who isn't here)...I'm gonna listen to some beatles now...bye///Brad pitt is awesomely stipid in this movie by the way...gooodbye till tomorrow.
I can't believe i haven't seen that before. Gold.
Burn After Reading, in a scene at about the halfway mark, has within it at least five or six (or even more) different film references packed within its brisk running time. Such glorious density may have but one cinematic predecessor : the back room of Kubrick's Rainbow Fashions, a location that includes elements from virtually all his films. So we can define such a scene as a "compendium scene". In the case of Burn After Reading, without giving any plot points away, the film has, in one scene, very obviously in each instance : (a) Psycho (in more ways than one : both thematic and music cue); (b) To Live and Die in L.A. (1985), (c) Blue Velvet (1986) (and I included the dates for those two films to illustrate what may be a point of some kind being made, possibly); also (d) Clooney sings/hums a song from the 1930s, a tune which I think is from a Fred Astaire movie (I cannot recall; I haven't seen the film in years; possibly You'll Never Get Rich). So far I have mentioned four. I shall leave the rest for the world.
Just another Scrooby discovery. What have you discovered today?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMeTsWWnNI