MovieChat Forums > Burn After Reading (2008) Discussion > Gaping Plot Holes Do In Coen Brothers Pa...

Gaping Plot Holes Do In Coen Brothers Parody


Whether you like parody or farce determines how you felt about a pivotal turn 10 minutes into the film. I was looking for a parody, a satirical imitation of a special brand of psychopathology-of-everyday-life that runs through Washington's culture of materialism and self-importance, where puffed up jobs in dulling Federal bureaucracies lead to chronic dissatisfaction, spiritual emptiness, and a polyamorous form of infidelity facilitated by Internet dating sites and escort services advertised in the yellow pages.

This parody begins promising enough when the film appears to set up a humorous cat-and-mouse game between ousted CIA analyst Oswald Cox (John Malkovich) and Treasury officer Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), whose promotion from the "young man's game" of personal protection into a desk job with the U.S. Marshals forces him to carry a concealed weapon out of vanity. The build-up of tension during this taut and intriguing 10 minutes is some of the best filmmaking I've seen in years ...

... and then it all falls apart when we're introduced to one of the dumbest and most deplorable characters in film: Linda Litzski (Frances McDormland). This is the point at which the Coens give in to pop culture silliness and BURN AFTER READING devolves from Woody Allen dysfunctional into farcically dumb and destructive Quentin Tarantino (e.g., Pulp Fiction).

Woody Allen proves you can write female characters who despite their cerebral proclivities and mature exteriors, exhibit a form of existential angst and lack of insight that ultimately translates into self-sabotage as well as unforeseen or invisible consequences to the world around them. HUSBANDS & WIVES features four such female characters and even though none of them are violent or developmentally delayed a la Litzske, we are not shorted social carnage. Why the Coens feel they need to have their plot flow through the moronic Linda (Frances McDormland) is beyond me. This is not a "moron" but a moron. Linda reasons morally and intellectually at a 2nd grade level and just like a chain can only be as strong as its weakest link, so BURN AFTER READING is doomed to juvenile absurdity once Linda pops on the scene.

And Linda is a comedy-killer. Despite their best efforts to eliminate sexual tension from the film by making attractive actors Pitt and Clooney look like dorks -- a sacrifice that can only help comedy -- they sabotage the comedy by giving Linda a loathsomeness that would bring a smile to Adolph Hitler. I mean, this is a woman you HATE. You want to walk on screen and take a led pipe to Linda's head. That kind of tension is not good for comedy. Now for a little background on Linda ...

Linda is shocked into self-righteous umbrage when her HMO will not pay for 4 cosmetic surgical procedures, which sends her into a search for money that a heroine addict would envy. Linda, a mere fitness instructor, asks her employer to advance her salary. Her prayers appear to be answered when two co-workers find in the woman's locker room a disc they mistakenly believe contains classified information. Suddenly, Linda assumes all ownership of the disc and hatches a scheme to extort its owner (Oswald Cox) for money in exchange for its return. When Oswald Cox (who is unclear how his memoir fell into their hands) does not play ball, the sociopath Linda slams the front of her Probe violently into the back of his diesel Benz 240D ("some people," she remarks of him) in the middle of moving traffic, flips him the middle finger, and then attempts to sell his disc to the Russians. When she is shocked into her self-righteous indignation that the Russians deem the information worthless "dribble," she uses her damsel in distress wiles to cajole co-workers to actually break into Cox's home to see what else they could steal from his computer, and both men are killed in separate incidents. Still, the unflappably selfish Linda reserves hope she can extract money from the Chinese and ultimately gets her money when the CIA itself decides to pay for her surgeries in exchange for her silence over the maelstrom of enigmatic events connected to their terminated CIA agent Cox.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

This is where the film jumps the shark in the worst imaginable way. I mean, the film suffers from a number of plot holes you can drive a truck through but this one takes the cake. Forget for a moment that the Coen brothers have never heard of a metropolitan police force. I mean, like any other level-headed person who wants to put an end to Linda's stalking, a real-life Oswald Cox would have phoned the police to report the hit-and-run on his car and the break-in to his home. Linda would have been taken into custody in mundane fashion and that would have been the end of her. But the CIA giving her money? How stupid to the Coens think we are. She thought the disc contained classified information. The CIA believed the disc must have contained at least level 3 clearance information. And yet they opt to pay her off instead of do what we have been doing in this country for decades: try her for treason and sentence her to death.

To add insult to injury, I believe the Coens intend for us to find Frances McDormland's Linda adorable (much like we do McDormland's character in FARGO). "Have you ever heard of the power of positive thinking," delivered in McDormland's signature schmaltz (along with "little chitland's feet -- chicki chicki chicki"), is supposed to warm the cockles of our heart. Yikes.

So the Coens break far too many rules to pull off this farcical story, which I suspect explains the low popularity on Rotten Tomatoes among audiences (64%) despite some hilarious scenes relating John Malkovich's Oswald Cox to his wife Katie (Swinton) and his employer (the CIA). How Malkovich loses his job and his wife makes for great comedy, and the Coens do not need to sacrifice realism -- or intelligence -- to deliver the laughs here. In fact, it's the gritty realism that makes these scenes so funny: Katie Cox shows more guile than her CIA analyst husband when she secretly conspires with her attorney to gather intel on his finances and serve him only after she's emptied their bank accounts and changed the locks on the door. Malkovich is robbed of his job with the CIA, his marriage and finances by Harry Pfarer and wife Katie, and then he has to deal with the attempted robbery of information off his computer by sub-mental physical fitness professionals.

D.C. is ripe for comedic satire. I suspect dating sites like OKCupid do far more transactions here in DC, where it seems everyone is at various stages of dating 6-7 other people at the same time, than in other cities. However I am not sure why the Coens thought it necessary to create an unrealistic dating site (BeWithMeDC.com) where only the male users are required to submit photos. I have never seen any site like this and no man would ever join one. Also, the Coens arrange for all their serial daters to meet at benches around the Mall as if there are no other restaurants or trendy metro neighborhoods in DC/MD/DC for people to meet. Women I have met over the net here in DC have never arranged to have me meet them on the Mall in full view of the Washington Monument, but rather in Reston Town Center, Pentagon City shopping mall, Old Town Alexandria pubs, etc.

George Clooney's Harry Pfarrer is not entirely unrealistic as the love-starved, sex-addicted philanderer employed with the Marshall's Service, but what strains credibility is his over-the-top theatrical acting. He reacts to every minor provocation with an absurd vocal intonation and facial contortion and in a way this breaks a tie between elements of parody and farce and drags the film into the realm of the absurd.

What also strains credibility is Harry's need to carry a gun on all his dates even though his promotion into an administrative position (out of personal protection) does not require him to have one. While it's not unrealistic for him to brandish his gun on dates, few women would feel comfortable letting a gun-toting stranger into their home let alone into a gated area inside their own basement (as Linda does).

This could have been a comedy for the ages. Oh well.

reply

I think you missed the point entirely.

reply

I liked it.

reply

You just spent a lot of time and clumsy effort trying to explain that several plot lines of a Coen Brothers movie are implausible.
You must be loads of fun at parties.

reply

The OP's write up is about the worst possible analysis for this film I can imagine. It appears to be based largely upon the idea that he thinks the Coens want us to sympathize with with Frances McDormand's character Linda. But nothing could be further from the truth, Linda is obviously not meant to be sympathetic. In case we somehow miss that she is awful, and a moron, the Coens installed a fail-safe device in the form of Richard Jenson's gym-manager character. The fact that he see her as beautiful despite her idiocy, and she not only spurns him but coldly sends him to his death (as she did with Brad Pitt's character) is essential to the Coens' message. Linda is not only stupid and horrible, but her single-minded, empty narcissism is dangerous. And, of course, she comes out on top. The idiots are taking over, the Coens are saying in "Burn After Reading," and Linda is leading them.

Honestly, I don't even think her character is meant to be particularly funny, nor is Tilda Swinton's. For some reason, it's the men who play the hilarious bumblers in this movie. The women are more scary than anything.

Another central theme the OP doesn't seem to understand is that of the bureaucracy ruling through ineptitude (both their own and others). In the world of the film, they do anything it takes to clean up their messes. The joke is they don't even KNOW what they're doing.

Is it meant to be realistic? Holy crap, OF COURSE NOT. It's a fantasy in which suburban idiots collide with high-level government idiots. There are no "metropolitan police" because the Agency controls what they do (the clue to to this is that they are able to control the workings of the "FBI bumblers," so they can certainly control the cops as well). Of course this isn't real. It's just a comic idea: these people control everything but, in the end, control nothing.

As for Clooney's acting, it's no more cartoonish than Brad Pitt's, or John Malkovich's, or anyone else's. As in the Big Lebowski, these are alternate-dimension-like characters--caricatures. They're not meant to be thought of as real people. Nor is this meant to feel like the way the real world works. I'm not sure how that isn't obvious.

In short, no, none of those things the OP listed are plot holes. But whether you enjoy the film's campy style is a completely different matter. I recommend repeat viewings; like many Coen films, it gets better the more times you watch it. I actually didn't like it much the first time, but felt like there were scattered good elements that hinted I might be missing something. I was. I've seen it a couple more times now and it is, I have to say, moving up my list of favorite Coen films.

reply


Well written. Agree completely.

My 100 favorite movies http://www.imdb.com/list/Uvw_F2_GMx8/
What are your favorites?

reply

Giarmomatthew, If I understand correctly, you didn't like the movie because it didn't fit the mold you were expecting. Myself, I liked it because it was so fresh and unpredictable. Yes, maybe the CIA depiction was unrealistic but who cares? It was hilarious! And likewise with the rest of the movie. Plot holes? Not a problem! Loved it.

reply