Burn After Reading -- changing our person

Directors: Ethan Coen & Joel Coen, 2008.

In 2007, the Coen brothers hit the apex, the pinnacle of success, with their crime drama, No Country for Old Men. That movie won Oscars in four of the eight categories it was nominated for, including best actor (Jarvier Bardem), best director and best picture. This is their follow-on. Where No Country was a cold dark drama, set in the bleak Texan landscape, Burn After Reading is is a furry comedy set in the political landscape of Washington DC and its environs. What they have in common is a lack of redemptive focus. And while No Country was gripping, Burn is a slow burn, fizzling out. To paraphrase another critic, here the Coen brothers seem to be tired, on auto-pilot, basking in the afterglow of their golden statuettes.

As in many of their other movies, the brothers Coen populate this film with quality actors some of whom they have worked with before. George Clooney (O Brother Where Art Thou, Intolerable Cruelty) plays Harry Pfarrer, a State department Marshall with a big gun and a bigger libido. Richard Jenkins (The Man Who Wasn't There, Intolerable Cruelty) is Ted Treffon, manager at Hardbodies gym. Joel's wife, Frances McDormand (Fargo, The Man Who Wasn't There, Miller's Crossing), has a central role as Linda Litzke, a supervisor at the gym. She is a lonely woman, searching the on-line dating agencies for a date or a mate. Then there's John Malkovich playing foul-mouthed CIA analyst Osbourne Cox. Tilda Swinton is his wife, Katie Cox, a cold-hearted self-centered pediatrician with the bedside manner of a witch. Come to think of it, she played this role in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, although not married there. But the creme-de-la-creme is Brad Pitt, in an outrageous hairdo, as Chad Feldheimer, a personal trainer at the gym and friend to Linda. He is fabulously funny as a person who simply does not know how stupid he is. With the exception of Swinton, the writer-directors had all these particular actors in mind for the lead characters as they were developing their script. And it shows, in how well they work together.

When Osbourne is demoted and reassigned from the Balkan desk he takes it like a man -- he curses outrageously and quits unceremoniously. This does not endear him to his wife. But then again, she is sleeping with Harry and is ready to divorce Osbourne. Cox does what any suddenly unemployed man would do, he slobs out. But he can only take so much trash TV, and so starts his memoir. This memoir becomes the focal point for the movie.

Katie inadvertently copies parts of this memoir, along with Osbourne's financial portfolio, onto a CD, and this enigmatic CD is found in the locker room at Hardbodies. Chad sees it as "sigint," signals intelligence, the kind of espionage material that you must "burn after reading." He and Linda see it as their meal ticket.

When we first meet Linda, the Coens employ camera-work that lets us see her doctor but not her. She is consulting him for cosmetic surgery: not one, but four different procedures. She is "rebuilding herself". Whereas her employer rebuild bodies into hard bodies the old fashioned way, she wants to rebuild her body the quick way, with a nip here and a tuck there. But these surgeries are elective, and costly, and she does not have the money.

Chad and Linda are classic morons. They think they can blackmail the owner of the disc, Osbourne, for the money she needs for her surgeries. Their knowledge of the CIA and blackmail is what they've seen on TV. Osbourne, on the other hand, is a cynical and upset man who is not going to fork over cash to dopes, especially when the information is trivial. What ensues is a classic farce with everyone sleeping with someone else and not knowing what is going on; and with all roads leading to Osbourne.

The problem with Burn is that despite its plot complexity nothing really happens. It is simple nonsense. It could have been titled "Much Ado About Nothing" but that title was claimed by an Englishman several centuries ago. When it is over, there is a sense of emptiness. If this was an older movie on VHS, my recommendation for Burn After Reading would be to erase after viewing.

In fact, the Coen brothers seem to be almost self-deprecatory with some self-commentary on the narrative. Midway through the film Chad says, "Appearances can be deceptive." The film looks good but has no substance. Then an unnamed CIA superior (J.K. Simmons, the dad from Juno), whose room is in the carpeted corridors not the echoing linoleum hallways implying more intelligence, says to an underling, "Report back to me when it makes sense." But Burn After Reading never really makes much sense. Then at the end, he asks, "What did we learn?" And then, when this same underling is dumbstruck, he answers his own question, "Not to do it again." There is nothing to learn here. Not to watch it again, perhaps.

One of the plot motifs is idiocy. (The tag-line is: Intelligence is relative.) The two main "heroes," Chad and Linda, are morons. Their minds are simply too small to comprehend what they are doing and getting themselves into. Yet, the "intelligence officers" of the CIA, along with Harry, the State Department Marshall, are dimwitted. They do not know what is going on. These are the people we rely on to provide intelligence to the President and they are unknowing fools. The only two characters with any form of intelligence are Osbourne and Ted. Yet, Osbourne, catching Ted in an unwise act, tells him, "You represent the idiocy of today . . . You are part of a league of morons. Oh, yes. You see you're one of the morons I've been fighting my whole life." He mistakes an act of love for an act of lunacy.

Ted, a support part, is an interesting if ironical character. A former priest, he is a broken man surviving as manager of the gym. He who was formerly in the soul-building business, preaching the religion of orthodoxy, now works in body-building, preaching the religion of beautification. The soul has given way to the physical. Perhaps this is a deliberate allusion to the primacy of body over spirit. And from afar, Ted pines for Linda. Yet, she cannot see his attraction, she is blind to this person who might be perfect for her. She is focused on the physical, her body, as a means of attracting a partner.

Despite the shallowness of the film, this is perhaps the central ethical issue: who are we? Is it the soul or the body that defines who we are, our identity? Linda focused on the body, the shell that she inhabits. Her worth was proportional to her sex appeal. Until she could change her shape, her exterior, she was dissatisfied. She saw only defects and deficiencies. She could not believe anyone would really want her as she was, even though Ted clearly did. She wanted to become someone different, someone better. And she needed money, lots of it, to make this happen.

Biblically, it is not the physical that defines our identity. The holistic summation of body, soul and spirit is the composition of a person (Heb. 4:12). The body will die but the soul will live on (Matt. 10:28). Changing the body does not change the inner person. In fact, it is inevitable that the passage of time will ravage the body, and we can expect the physical to fail as we age. Yet, in contrast, we can see the inner person, the soul or spirit, grow and bloom in beauty with age. It is not guaranteed, though it can happen if our character develops. Like Linda, we may crave to be someone new, someone different, someone better. Yet God has given us a way to become a new person: "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Cor. 5:17)

Copyright ©2009, Martin Baggs

Life of Brian -- crucifixion but no resurrection

Director: Terry Jones, 1979.

I first saw Life of Brian in England when it was released. That was before I was a Christian. It had drawn accusations of blasphemy from some denominations. It was even banned in some countries. I thought it was hysterically funny back then. Seeing it again, now as a follower of the Christ, I still think it funny, though not quite as hilarious as I did 30 years ago.

This is Monty Python's sequel to The Holy Grail. Irreverent, it is a parody of life in first-century Judea. Of course it is a send-up of the life of Jesus, but in the silly Pythonesque way. If you like British comedy, and Monty Python in particular, you will think this funny, albeit full of profanity and even full-frontal nudity. If not, you might find it offensive and would do well to avoid it.

Back are the whole gang, Eric Idle, John Cleese, Michael Palin, Terry Jones and Graham Chapman. Each plays multiple roles, including female characters. In particular, Chapman stars as Brian Cohen and Jones plays his mom, the non-virgin Mandy.

The film starts like a Christmas story, with three wise men following the star to Bethlehem. There they find a new-born baby wrapped in swaddling clothes lying in a manger. But the baby is Brian, not Jesus. They have mistaken their final destination by 20 yards, a normal mistake even with a gps receiver. Discovering their mistake, they hastily take back their gifts and withdraw to the correct stable. This is the story of Brian's life. Mistaken identity will be the death of him.

As a man Brian resents the Romans. But then his mom lets him into a secret. He is half-Roman. She is a Jewish prostitute and his father was a centurion. Such revelations can cause havoc with a psyche, and Brian is no exception. He resorts to joining a terrorist organization, the Judean People's Front.

The film is a series of skits loosely connected together. Several are unforgettable. There is the scene of political fomentation, initiated with the question, what have the Romans ever done for us? Or the ex-leper scene, where a leper cured by Jesus is complaining of his lost livelihood. There is the stoning of a blasphemer skit, where the women, dressed as men, buy hand-crafted stones but are over-anxious to indulge in this Saturday afternoon entertainment. Then there is the weird space-ship animated/live-action sequence, thrown in apparently as a way to save Brian's life.

As much as this is a comedy, it is also a send-up of religion and religious intolerance. The multiple revolutionary organizations opposing the Roman rule parody the schisms and denominations in the church. They won't even work together and when caught trying to execute identical plots, they argue over whose idea it was and then fight each other rather than join forces. Sadly, we sometimes even see arguments within the Church as denominations fight other denominations over doctrinal disagreements. Jesus commanded his followers to love one another (John 13:34). By doing this, the world would know who we are (John 13:35). We are to give a witness to the world of the love of Jesus not the anger of humanity.

Another spoof is targeted against biblical interpretation. When the real Jesus is preaching his sermon on the mount, those at the back of his audience cannot hear well and wonder what he said. "I think it was 'Blessed are the cheesemakers.' " One spectator replies, "Aha, what's so special about the cheesemakers?" And another comments, "Well obviously, it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products." Too often arguments have ensued about how to interpret the Bible. Conservatives support a grammatical-historical interpretation, focusing on the literal meaning as understood by contextual analysis. Liberals have tended towards non-literal even allegorical interpretations. I approach the Bible as I would other texts, although of course this is holy scripture. Some portions of the Bible are poetic, others apocalyptic, others epistolary, and still others parabolic. Each genre requires us to approach it on its own terms.

Life of Brian, shot on the some of the same sets as Zeferelli's Jesus of Nazareth, does give a picture of what life might have been like for followers of Jesus. As Brian inadvertently was seen as the Savior, people flocked to him. "I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen to me? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!" But even against his wishes, they said, "Only the true Messiah denies His divinity." And Brian is put into a quandary. Even his mother says, "He's not the Messiah! He's a very naughty boy!" The film makes it clear that Brian is not the Savior. He does not want to be followed by these folks. Even when he accidentally loses a sandal, they think he has given them a sign, like foot-washing (John 13:17).

In this humorous way, we get a glimpse of what Jesus experienced. Many, looking for rescue from Roman rule, wanted to follow a messiah. There had been others claiming to be from God, but Jesus was (and is) the only true Messiah. And He didn't turn people away. He gave them signs, miracles, but even these followers were fickle. When they heard Jesus tell them to eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:66), pointing to the sacrament of communion, they turned away in disgust. Like the crowds following Brian, many who followed Jesus were not true believers and when trouble or undesirable teaching came they left.

Life of Brian falters a little toward the end, with some extended skits. But it closes with a bang. With over 100 criminals crucified on Passover, one (Eric Idle) leads them in a song, encouraging the dying to "always look on the bright side of life." Whistling while dying, they all join in on this finale. And it is good advice, even biblical advice (Phil. 4:8). As followers of Jesus, we are to be optimistic, even in the face of death. Death can kill our physical bodies but not our souls. Whether on the cross or on our life's course, our attitude will determine our response to circumstances. Maintaining a good attitude, focusing on what is good and right, and looking on the bright side of life will help us stay the course.

Although irreverent, it is not sacrilegious or blasphemous. The Life of Brian focuses on his birth, life and death. Pointedly absent is resurrection. Brian was a man and he did not rise from the dead. He whistled off into the sunset. Jesus, on the other hand, was Messiah. He died but he rose again (1 Cor. 15:20). And being resurrected he lives now. His resurrection allows us, his followers, to gain victory over sin and death even in our own lives (Rom. 6:8, Phil. 3:10).

Copyright ©2009, Martin Baggs

Noise -- sympathetic listening, empathetic suffering

Director: Matthew Saville, 2007.

This debut full length feature by Australian writer-director Saville is a complex psychological thriller. It starts with a bang, ends with a bang, and in between plays off the character of Constable Graham McGahan (Brendan Cowell).

A young woman, Lavinia Smart (Maia Thomas), carrying a large photo boards a subway train. As the train starts moving, a woman sitting near her slowly falls to the ground. Going to help, Lavinia discovers the shocking truth. The woman and other occupants of this carriage are dead, murdered in a heinous criminal act.
A second heinous crime has left another corpse in this town, linked somehow to the subway slaughter. The police are under pressure and a caravan (trailer) is set up near the second crime scene to allow witnesses to easily come in and give interviews to the police.

Cut to Constable McGahan. Disoriented, he collapses at the foot of an escalator, dizzy from a hearing problem. Diagnosed to be tinnitus, he is given a doctor's note and expects to be put on medical leave. But he is sorely disappointed. His superior ignores the note and instead of sick leave McGahan is sent to serve caravan duty.

Noise interweaves the stories of McGahan and Smart until their final intersection. Smart is scared. She is the lone survivor of the massacre, and the murderer somehow made off with the photo which has her name. Of the two detectives assigned to the case, one is blatantly unsympathetic while the other is more relational. But Smart thinks it is a case of good-cop, bad-cop.

McGahan, on the other hand, has his own problems. Tinnitus could be caused by a tumor. He has fears of cancer. Even the thought of it causes problems with his policewoman girlfriend.

Saville brings a discordant score to Noise that is uncomfortable. Yet this puts the viewer in McGahan's shoes, or rather his ears. At one point, he comes home with a loud ringing in his ears. So loud is it, that he turns on anything and everything, hi-fi, TV, faucet, radio, just so this other noise might drown out his inner noise. We get a real sense of how much noise, both external and internal, can affect a person.

But this noise problem has an impact on McGahan. He becomes a more sympathetic listener. As different people come into the caravan at night, he grows more patient in listening to them.

When Lavinia's photo turns up with a slogan spray-painted on it, the detectives won't tell her what it says. They are simply focused on the case, not worrying about the impacts on the victim. As the two narrative stories reach confluence, she asks McGahan to tell her what it says. She wants the truth, not some cockamamie platitude. Sensing her pain, he goes against police protocol and tells her.

Noise highlights this sense of empathetic sharing of suffering. Without his hearing problem, McGahan would not have been in this post. And it would have been unlikely that he would have resonated with Lavinia in her pain. In some ways, this illustrates the biblical idea of comfort arising from the ashes of suffering. Paul tells us "we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God" (2 Cor. 1:4). God will comfort his children in their hour of suffering. In turn, when we see others in trouble, we can proffer the hand of comfort. Having experienced it ourselves, we can empathize with others.

Copyright ©2009, Martin Baggs

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid -- fruits of stealing

Director: George Roy Hill, 1969.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were two real outlaws, depicted in this film as likable rogues, a sort of western Robin Hood and his merry men. In real life they led a gang called "The Wild Bunch." But The Wild Bunch was a Sam Peckinpah film also released in 1969 so their gang is renamed as "The Hole in the Wall Gang."

Paul Newman plays Butch and Robert Redford is Sundance. They are salt and pepper. As Sundance says to Butch, "You just keep thinkin' Butch. That's what you're good at." And Butch replies, "I have vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals." Butch is the ideas man in the gang, while Sundance is the gunslinger, the skilled shooter. The film is really about them, their friendship and joint adventures.

The gang has been robbing banks and trains for long enough to make the news and become wanted men. Unlike some thieves, they treat the people kindly, trying not to hurt or kill. But when they rob one too many trains, a special posse is hired to find them. This posse is led by an expert Indian tracker. When the gang splits up to escape, Butch and Sundance are the ones the posse follows. And this posse won't give up. Too much of the film is given over to this chase.

Butch Cassidy is not as much fun as I remembered, when I saw it decades ago for the first time. It certainly has great chemistry between the two stars. Indeed, this was the first of only two films featuring Newman and Redford. (The second, The Sting, was a better film with a superior screenplay and plot.) But it is drawn out and gets slow and tedious towards the end. Even the banter between Butch and Sundance, along with their female friend, Etta Place (Katherine Ross), gets tiresome.

What makes Butch Cassidy less compelling is its ambiguous genre. It is a western that morphs into a "Thelma and Louise"-like road movie. Throw in an Oscar-winning Bacharach song, "Raindrops keep falling on my head," and some comedy, and you have this genre-mosaic.

Set around the turn of century, the times were changing. The West was being tamed. Horses were being replaced by motor cars and even bicycles. When the bicycle shows up Butch buys one to show Etta, and takes her for a ride around her farm to the Bacharach tune. Quite why this song or this scene is in the movie is unclear. But it is there.

When Butch, Sundance and Etts sail for Bolivia in South America, they think they are leaving behind all their problems. But new ones emerge and old ones pursue. The langauage is a barrier and it is fun to see Etta teach the two scoundrels "robbing-bank" phrases in Spanish. As they return to their old ways, they start to build up a notorious reputation as the "Yanqui Bandidos". The leader of the posse, too, shows up, still looking for Butch and Sundance.

Deciding to go straight has its problems, too. Ironically, they are given the job of protecting the payroll from robbers. Strother Man, who appeared with Newman in Cool Hand Luke as the prison captain, plays Percy Garris, the American miner in Bolivia eking out a living. He gives them an economics and an ethics lesson. If the payroll is stolen by bandits then the workers, including them, will not get paid. Money does not grow on trees. If it is stolen, this hurts the common workforce. Without pay they will struggle to surivive. Stealing may profit the thieves but will leave the poor peons pained and distressed.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid look like simple scallywags with cheerful chitchat. But they are really criminals, outlaws. And unlike Robin Hood, they did not give their loot to the poor. They splurged or spent it on themselves, drinking, partying, and gambling. They were really not role-models or heroes. A sheriff friend tells them the truth, straight,-up no holds-barred:

You know, you should have let yourself get killed a long time ago when you had the chance. See, you may be the biggest thing that ever hit this area, but you're still two-bit outlaws. I never met a soul more affable than you, Butch, or faster than the Kid, but you're still nothing but two-bit outlaws on the dodge. It's over, don't you get that? Your time is over and you're gonna die bloody, and all you can do is choose where.

Whatever they thought of themselves, they were anachronistic law-breakers. Their crimes would catch up with them. They would pay with their lives.

The main ethical issue with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is it glamorizes stealing and living the outlaw life. Stealing is wrong. It is a sin. Both stealing and murder are listed in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20). In the end, they got what they deserved. They reaped the fruit of their choices.

Copyright ©2009, Martin Baggs