Historical Innovation: Burn After Reading

The 2000s in America were a time of uncertainty and anxiety in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the wars and Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economic recession. The Coen brothers directed the 2008 film ‘Burn After Reading’ which captures the distinctive qualities of cinema in the 2000s. ‘Burn After Reading’ depicts the zeitgeist of a post-9/11 society where the border between truth and fiction is blurred through its examination of paranoia, surveillance, and the absurdity of human behavior.  The movie conveys a sense of anxiety by showing characters that are disoriented, perplexed, and unable to find meaning in their life. The movie’s use of satire and dark humor reflects the cultural climate of the era, when people were struggling with the absurdity of their surroundings. The film depicts how broken and disjointed modern society is through its intricate plot and non-linear narrative structure. Ultimately the film can be seen as a commentary on the state of the world in the 2000s, and an exploration of the human condition in a time of uncertainty and fear through its depiction of paranoia, surveillance, and the absurdity of human behavior.

The movie’s premise offers a satirical perspective on the world of espionage, as well as the paranoia and surveillance that go along with it. The movie shows a world where nobody can be trusted and everyone is always spying on one another. Either by their government or by others attempting to steal their secrets, the central characters are constantly being watched. Throughout the entire movie, there is a clear paranoid attitude, and the characters constantly keep an eye around them to see if anyone is watching them. Characters are being examined both physically and psychologically as they attempt to decipher one another’s intents and driving forces. The main message of the story is that privacy and security can never be maintained in a society where everyone is constantly observing one another. The premise of anxiety and monitoring is depicted in the movie through a variety of filmmaking approaches. Occasionally, the movie is shot with a handheld camera, giving it a documentary-style atmosphere and a sense of urgency. The use of close-ups and tight framing intensifies the characters’ feelings of being watched, as they appear trapped and confined within the frame. Or in other scenes, the film made us feel like the watcher. This is true of movie viewers, twisted into a different perspective in where we are watching someone while being in the movie. For example, when Brad Pitt’s character,  Chad Feldheimer, gets trapped in the closet watching George Clooney’s character, Harry Pfarrer. The camera (the viewers) also get trapped in the confines of the closet, only able to see Clooney through a small crack in the doorway. Additionally, these extreme close-ups of Pitt exude the utter panic, relief, and shock he is feeling in this moment and the ones following. Thus, urges us as the viewers to feel the same and further encourages that in scenes such as these in the film we are supposed to feel immersed as either the surveillance or the surveilled and ultimately pushing the narrative of utter paranoia that was apparent not only in the film but also in America. The soundtrack also plays a significant role in creating a tense and uneasy atmosphere, with the use of music and ambient noise that heightened the sense of surveillance. Or more specifically, the lack of a soundtrack plays a significant role in emphasizing the thematic elements of this film. During tense or stressful scenes, there is almost complete soundtrack silence except for quiet human noises such as whistling, walking, etc. Additionally, the use of flashbacks and non-linear storytelling keeps the audience on their toes and contributes to the sense of confusion and mistrust felt by the characters. In another sense, it gives the viewer complete power as the all-seeing surveyor. Since we as the viewers get to watch what all characters are doing and therefore gain more knowledge than the characters in the film, the directors create a sense of dramatic irony in the fact that even with the intense paranoia and surveillance in the film, the characters were still in the dark about each other. Overall, the Coen brothers’ masterful use of these techniques creates a gripping and unsettling depiction of the world of espionage and the paranoia and surveillance that comes with it, especially at a time after one of the most significant terrorist attacks on our country in history.

The dark humor in the movie effectively captures the absurdity of the behavior of individuals in the early 2000s. The movie denigrates the conceited and ignorant individuals who exist within the realm of politics and espionage by showing the ridiculousness of their intentions and conduct. For example, Osbourne Cox, John Malkovich’s character, believes that his memoirs are of high security and of worth to other people and possibly other countries. This stems from his insecurity which is also seen in the scene with his superiors at the beginning of the film, where he acts deeply offended when he is called out on his behavior and is demoted, although the allegations were true and he clearly could not be trusted. Characters in the movie are revealed to be innately flawed, with their conceit, narcissism, and incompetence on full display. Each character’s activities, which can range from absurd situations to horrifying crimes, are motivated by a mix of greed, desire, and misplaced ambition. The movie provides a biting commentary on the status of society in the early 2000s, when people were more and more concerned with their self-interests than with the welfare of society, through humor and caricature. The characters seem to embody the worst aspects of political self-interest and narcissism, a strong theme in 2000’s American society. Linda Litzke (Francis McDormand) is willing to commit blackmail and put her and her friend in harm’s to get money for cosmetic surgeries for herself. Osbourne Cox refuses to admit that he has a drinking problem, and also refuses to admit that he is chasing a false threat and that his memoirs are not as important as he thinks they are. Cox is a self-important, foolish character who is a frustrated CIA analyst who feels his employer has wronged him. His acts in the movie demonstrate the foolishness of unbridled ego and ambition because they are both absurd and dangerous. Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney) is interested only in sex and exercise. There is nothing complicated about Harry Pfarrer, who spends almost all of his time concealing extramarital affairs and trying to “get a run in”. He is, however, deeply paranoid as a holdover from his days as a US Marshall, causing him to delve deeper into a mystery that may or may not exist. Chad Felheimer depicts more incompetence than vanity and exudes an innocence bordering on stupidity and an illusion of grandeur that ultimately results in his tragic demise. He is willing to break into another person’s house and hide out in their closet without a second thought, proving that is a true depiction of absurd human behavior. Because they are involved in a deadly misunderstanding and are motivated by a mix of pride and paranoia, these people are put on a collision course with the harsh forces of fate and folly. The result is an extremely thought-provoking movie that uses humor to depict this period. Overall, the movie exposes the absurdity of human behavior at a period when self-interest and individualism were becoming more and more pervasive in society through its dark comedy and caricature.

Dark humor and a sarcastic tone were common in movies from the 2000s that attempted to criticize the excesses and shortcomings of modern society. These movies usually featured flawed, ethically suspicious, or downright ludicrous characters who served as a mirror to society at large and regularly employed humor as a weapon for social commentary. In light of this, the movie can be viewed as a shining example of the era’s filmmaking styles, using its clever use of satire and humor to make a keen commentary on modern politics and culture. The movie serves as a reminder of the ability of cinema to comment on and criticize the society in which it is produced and is still a compelling example of a time when filmmakers were struggling with the complexity and paradoxes of a quickly changing world. ‘Burn After Reading‘ is a sharp reflection on the state of civilization in the 2000s and is darkly humorous in tone. The movie criticizes a culture that values personal success over empathy and civic duty and is preoccupied with self-improvement, individualism, and unbridled ambition. The movie highlights the folly of human behavior and the consequences of our self-centered desires by portraying characters that are profoundly flawed and selfish. In the end, “Burn After Reading” argues the point that genuine personal growth and societal advancement result from reflection, empathy, and a readiness to take into account the needs and viewpoints of others rather than from recognition or achievement from others. In a time when individualism and self-interest are king, the movie continues to serve as a potent reminder of the value of community and human connection.