Burn After Reading

This film is a light hearted take on the excercise of intelligence gathering. The Coens have turned the solemn idea of 'knowledge is power' into the ironic comment that 'intelligence is relative'.
This film wants to be intriguing and funny first, but it also wants to be appreciated as a piece of filmmaking.
So, how does it set out to be intriguing and funny? The script is the key. The success of 'Burn After Reading' in this regard depends on the mutually supporting elements of the intrigue, in the shape of a dangerous game, played out by a closely related group , and the amusement, provided by the ham fisted attempts by the idiosynchratic characters to play it. But it also wants to succeed as a piece of cinema. This will be accomplished by good craftsmanship. Of course the two are really one and the same. So, is the plot intriguing ? It is intruiging to watch a bunch of lives cross as they do in this tale. The object of the game that the Coens depict is to gather intelligence on people, and use this intelligence to your advantage. This game is the one played because, as Linda Litski [McDormad] believes, 'knowledge is power'. However, what really matters in this yarn is that 'intelligence is relative'.
So those who play will be befuddled,bascially. The game being played out is as random as the characters who play it. Every action is either ill infomed or duplicitous or both. No one, especially not the C.I.A.,knows what's going on. 'Report back to me when it makes sense', orders the C.I.A. head, played by J.K. Simmons. The script is strong enough that you are satisfied by its attempts to interweave the characters lives, and that their interactions are as random as their poor judgedment and ungainly attempts at espionage would entail. Success for the Coens there.
Is the film amusing? The attempts at extortion by the team of Litsky and Feldheimer [Pitt] are reminiscent of lame teenage antics. Think nervous attempts at fooling a parent or coy attempts at finding out if your crush likes you. This juvenile approach is a good idea, it is not too wide of the mark to imagine that there are many people who act this way. However, the air headed Feldheimer is too much. His grooving is slightly overdone. His vocabulary is probably too limited.
The searing misanthropy of Osbourne Cox [Malkovich] serves the plot well. His growing fury at the 'idiots' who are invading his pius world of espionage, and his personal life, acts to anchor the folly of the characters around him. But his outbursts are probably too intense to be funny. His delivery is too psychotic. He is the straight man here, but the Coens were probably trying to recreat the humour of Walter's outbursts in 'The Big Lebowski'.
The ebullient Harry sees Clooney in screwball mode. He does the screwball role well, his physical humour is not overdone, and is actually quite courageous, as he flings himself down stairs in one scene. But his monotone voice is still out of place. It doesn't help his comedy turns.
Is the film well made? Well, the script ticks the box of being intruiging , while the comedy is hit and miss. J.K. Simons is miscast as the rather perfunctory C.I.A. head. Someone like Tim Robbins would have been better. We wait for him to be his usual brash self, and he ends up as rather forgetable. He doesn't fit the role. The familiar Coens type score builds the sense of menace reminiscent of that in Fargo. Here, as in Fargo, it acts more as a plot device, given that the film is basically light hearted. The sequence where Clooney and Pitt meet on screen is very well choregraphed, and well shot. It is the most accomplished thing about the film, it combines all the best elements of filmmaking , with good choreography, camera work, performances, music, and good editing.
So ,'Burn After Reading' is a fairly engaging yarn. It is not consistently funny. It is well made, but not outstandingly so. It is ok.