Dec 9
Burning After Watching?
In recent days, SAB has received several letters expressing concerns regarding our decision to screen Burn After Reading as part of the Lost Films series. As there may be others in the community who share these concerns, but did not communicate with us directly, this letter outlines our rationale for selecting the film, based on the four criteria—cultural relevance, communication of truth, artistic merit, utility/appropriateness for audience—we use in selecting all of the films in the Lost Films series. Messiah College’s Statement on Engaging Popular Culture affirms that making intelligent, culturally relevant art pleases God. We believe that in Burn After Reading, the Coen Brothers have created such art: a film that critiques both the decadence of human nature and the selfishness of modern American culture. We also now fully understand that the Lost Film series was not an appropriate venue to screen this film as some members of the community found it highly offensive.
As you may already know, Burn After Reading is the latest film by Joel and Ethan Coen, the filmmaking team behind the Oscar-winning No Country for Old Men and other critically acclaimed works like Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou?, and Blood Simple. The fact that these well-respected artists have produced yet another film—and that this film was well-received by critics (garnering a 79% rating on the review aggregator website www.RottenTomatoes.com)—deems Burn After Reading as culturally relevant. Of course, this is just one criterion SAB uses in selecting films for weekend showings.
The redeeming value of Burn After Reading, in the eyes of SAB, comes form the film’s ability to communicate truths about contemporary society through satire. As most critics noted in their reviews, Burn After Reading is a darkly comic face in keeping with much of the Coen Brothers’ oeuvre (Fargo, The Ladykillers, etc.) The characters aren’t rendered as realistic people, but as absurd caricatures of particular vices the Coens see as endemic: lust, greed, and pride. Linda (Frances McDormand) thinks that the only way to find love is through a perfect body (pride, vanity, lust for physical beauty) and works with her friend Chad (Brad Pitt) to blackmail a spy in order to pay for her cosmetic surgeries (greed). Harry (George Clooney) beds lots of women in an attempt to satisfy his carnal desires (greed, lust). We’re not supposed to like the characters in Burn After Reading because they represent human depravity. This film in no way glorifies these social ills; rather the Coen Brothers are critiquing contemporary society.
Burn After Reading exhibits artistic merit in its use of satire, a highly regarded literary technique that allows an artist to comment upon particular societal ills through the use of humor. We see this use of satire in the performances of the central characters. Each actor utilizes hyperbole in constructing his or her character’s persona, building on a kernel of truth—every human possesses a sinful nature inclined toward greed, pride, or another vice—but radically exaggerating this until we, as audience members, see the inherent flaws in each character’s worldview. Understanding this, we laugh when Harry (George Clooney) builds a sex chair for his wife—a mechanical device that’s absurd and totally devoid of the warm intimacy expected between people who have committed their lives to one another.
To be clear: the Coens are not graphic about sex in this film. Actual depictions of intercourse and nudity do not fit the Coen Brothers’ purposes for Burn After Reading. The sex toy is depicted as an intimidating, Frankenstein-like monster—a symbol for the mechanical, non-intimate way that one character views sex—and no character is shown using the toy for physical gratification. In fact, by the end of the film, the same character who builds the toy completely demolishes it in frustration as he realizes the consequences of his selfish acts. Again, this character’s promiscuity is in no way glorified (he’s an unlikeable, non-heroic character).
But the Coens aren’t content with simple, happy endings. The conclusion of the film—wherein Osborn (John Malkovich) kills Ted (Richard Jenkins) with a hatchet—reinforces the Coens’ belief that the good guys don’t always win. It might not be a universally shared worldview, but as the (implied) particular perspective of two men who are active in shaping contemporary cinematic art, it’s an important one to engage as intelligent, critical thinkers.
Critics have observed most of the elements we’ve discussed above. For instance, Peter Howell of the Toronto Star wrote that “Burn After Reading nails the essential folly of humans pretending to be civilized.” Lisa Kennedy of the Denver Post suggested that “the ensemble is at once loose and pitch perfect. Hardly a one of them plays a wholly likable person, yet each reveals the desperate or stupid humanity of their characters.” Reinforcing the film’s myriad approaches to farce, Salon.com’s Andrew O’Heir noted, “The film is hilarious in patches, shocking in patches, utterly convincing in patches and close to brilliant in patches.”
The fourth criterion we use—utility/appropriateness—weighs the first three criteria against the context in which the film will be shown. Some films are appropriate for a large screening without context, while others are appropriate for a discussion-focused venue (like a classroom, Popanonymous, etc.). In selecting Burn After Reading for a weekend showing in Parmer Cinema, SAB underestimated the extent to which the film would be offensive to some members of the community. We have heard your concerns and now believe that a discussion-based viewing in a setting such as Popanonymous would have been more appropriate.
Once again, thank you for your concern. As we program for the spring semester we welcome your ideas and suggestions regarding future films that we could bring to Parmer Cinema. Please send future considerations to Devin Thomas at dt1181@messiah.edu. SAB encourages you to contact us directly to express interest and concern and to engage with our popular culture programming.
6 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Thank you for bringing this film. As with most things, if you hear a response it will most likely be criticism…people who are upset are far, far more likely to let the person/institution know than those who enjoyed the product. Sitting in the full theatre on Friday night, I heard continual laughter and other signs of widespread enjoyment and understanding of the film, signs which wouldn’t be sent in an email. I can’t help but feel that those dissatisfied were by far the minority. Keep up the good work you’ve been doing by bringing challenging films that are more than top-earners.
I don’t really understand the controversy. The movie PORTRAYS a bunch of dirty idiots, it doesn’t condone their actions. The whole point of the movie is that most of the characters are shallow aimless fools. The one decent character (the gym manager) had a lot of trouble trying to sort through the absurdity - sound familiar?
To the writers who penned this blog post, well done. While I didn’t happen to see Burn After Reading while at Messiah, I’ve seen it before and I thought it was a terrific film that pinpointed specific negative aspects of society and threw them under a magnifying glass to expose them for their absurdity.
I’m glad that SAB added this film to their Lost Film series this past fall, I’m glad that students and other community members could critically engage the movie, and I’m glad that you wrote this entry to clear up some of the confusion people might have.
Why do we bring movies to Messiah College? I mean really, why would we even think of bringing them? This is why I attend Messiah College. The Administration uses extra-curricular means, to accomplish the educational goals of Messiah College. As an institution, Messiah finds it acceptable to bring film, music, and other mediums that are different ways to push forward the educational goal of Messiah College. Is that not why we bring movies to Messiah, so that we think about them? I would have many objections to movies being shown at Messiah purely for entertainment. The purpose of the medium of film (as well as the medium of music and other areas that SAB has oversight of) is to think critically about the message of the film. The message of Burn After Reading is that we live in a depraved world, and that the things that we do are often obscene, gross, and unbelievably horrid. That is truth. I find complaints about this film objectionable for two reasons. First, it assumes that we are bringing culture onto Messiah’s campus for purely entertainment purposes, which I know is not the case. The second objection is specific to Burn After Reading; it assumes that the world is too sinful. The fact is, that the world really is a horrible place to be; fallen, depraved, we live in a sinful world. A movie that portrays this reality is portraying truth. Burn After Reading certainly does not glorify sinful actions, in fact, it does exactly the opposite. By poking fun at the characters, the Coen Brothers have subtly mocked the culture that is so sinful. In summary, Messiah College needs to continue bringing in art that challenges students to think about the message. Burn After Reading accomplishes this goal, and conveys the truth that the world is a fallen place. By bringing this movie (and many others) we are fulfilling the educational mission of Messiah College by challenging students to think, challenging students to analyze, and challenging students to not simply be entertained.
As the four who commented above me already verbalized many of my thoughts, I won’t say too much about what was good or bad about the film or why it should have been brought in by SAB. I enjoyed Burn After Reading. When I saw the trailer in theatres a few months ago, I figured that I would enjoy it. I never expected it to be uplifting, nor did I expect it to be outwardly morally insightful. I knew it would not be a movie for everyone, and I was sure that it would offend some people I know with particular sensitivities. But for all of the reasons mentioned above, I think that was a good reason to bring this film to Messiah. While I was not considering such issues while viewing the film, my discussions with people since then have touched on several of these points. The satire is spot on–and the irredeemable characters, numerous shock-moments, and frequently confusing plot made for an enjoyable and thought-provoking film.
I write fiction in my spare time, and I realized a long time ago that if I wanted to be true to characters and to myself as an author, I would be unable to hold back actions and words. I do not feel that I have ever written anything gratuitous, then I have even made myself squeamish at times.
Many of the people who came to see the film and were offended probably did not watch the trailer or listen to any of the warnings regarding the rating. I will grant you–when watching the trailer, I did not see the murders or the sex toy, but I did get the sense that this would be an edgy movie. People should know what they are getting themselves into before they view a film. Have they seen a Clockwork Orange? I would say that film was much edgier and more explicit in many of its scenes. And never mind the book–I won’t even go there. That film, however, is frequently cited as culturally relevant. It is presented as less of a dark comic satire than Burn After Reading, but they touch on similar themes.
There is also the ever-present option of walking out of a movie. You paid a dollar to get in. If you don’t want to keep watching–don’t. No one is forcing you to stay. Either that, or critically consider what the movie is trying to portray, no matter what the movie is. That tends to be what writers and directors want you to do anyway…
I have had complaints with Lost Films before and this is no different. While I appreciate that people enjoy these films for entertainment and philosophical reasons, I feel that these movies take on a different significance when brought on to Messiah’s campus. Lost Films are open to the wider community beyond our campus and therefore the movies we choose to screen represent our approval as an institution.
Films like the Departed and Burn After Reading have such gratuitous, offensive content as to render their screening inappropriate in the Lost Films format. As an institution of Christian higher education, Messiah College needs to carefully choose which films they mark with their seal of approval. I encourage students to watch and discuss these films on their own time but have to disagree with them appearing in a large-scale, public format.
I understand that my opinion may be in the minority but know others who share my sentiments and don’t believe that simply because we are not the majority that our voice doesn’t count.
Thank you for posting about this and explaining your rationale. That is a definite improvement from last year where complaints were diverted or ignored. I also appreciate reading others’ opinions, it helps me challenge mine.