8.5
Netflix

"What did we learn?"
"... I don't know, sir"

Rewatch. Spy pastiche Burn After Reading might well be the most underrated of the Coens' films (along with, in my opinion and apparently nobody else's, the wonderful and eternally misunderstood Intolerable Cruelty). I can certainly see, and to some extent agree with, the charges against it: that it is vacuous, meaningless and, in its middle-finger to audience expectations, more than a little smug. At the time of its release Burn After Reading was met by critics and audiences alike with a general shrug of the shoulders, if not outright hostility, and even now it tends to be placed quite low on the many "Coen Brothers' Films Ranked" listicles you see on the internet. I wonder whether the subdued reaction at the time was partly because it was released as the follow-up to the Oscar-winning titan No Country For Old Men, with the result that by comparison this piece of frippery felt somewhat shallow and minor key (although I would note that the Coens' have always operated in this "serious one then silly one" kind of way: for example, they followed up Fargo with The Big Lebowski; more recently, Hollywood razzle-dazzle flick Hail, Ceaser! came after the mournful Inside Llewyn Davis).

With the above in mind, I completely accept that this is minor key Coens'. And yet. And yet.

Firstly, this is one tightly plotted film. It runs smoothly, like clockwork. There's a distinct rythmn to it that's hard to put into words but it just works. You might not be able to recall specifics of the plot a week after watching the film, but when you're watching it it flows beautifully.

The whole point to the film is of course that there is no point, the plot forming around a mixture of misunderstandings, coincidences and the extreme paranoia of most of the main characters. In this way it functions as a satire on the excesses and pretentions of the spy/crime genres (and it is worth noting that this pisstake extends to the Coens' own back catalogue, with a rather fabulous homage to Fargo included). But the Coens' take the mechanics of the plot itself (as opposed to the tone and themes) quite seriously, so despite the ridiculousness it makes sense (within the context of the world of the film), character motivations are consistent, there are well-executed twists, and so on. This means it is all surface level, but what an entertaining surface it is. It is a great example of a genre film which operates as a satire but at the same time is a very solid example of the genre in and of itself.

And secondly, there is the cast, most of whom had characters created by the Coens' expressly with the specific actors in mind. Brad Pitt is clearly having a lot of fun as an air-headed PT (I believe that he filmed Burn After Reading shortly after wrapping on the stodgy, Oscar-baiting The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. You can almost feel his relief as he gets to throw off the weight of the latter film and flex his comedic muscles). Frances McDormand is quietly heartbreaking in her quest to change her life and appearance. John Malkovich goes full John Malkovich, which for me is always a beautiful thing to see (he is also legitimately terrifying). Tilda Swinton, George Clooney, Richard Jenkins... Nobody is doing anything that is hugely outside of their comfort zones, but everyone brings their A-game, and the result is silly, funny, escapist fun.