MovieChat Forums > Burn After Reading (2008) Discussion > How Stupid Do the Coens Think We Are?

How Stupid Do the Coens Think We Are?

posted 12 years ago by giarmomatthew
47 replies | jump to latest

Let us count the plot holes in the film. I haven't seen plot holes this big since the premise of the film Double Jeopardy:

1. no one calls the local police

Osborne Cox in real life would have availed himself of the rather quick and easy way to put an end to that sociopathic Linda's stalking. There were witnesses to her hit-and-run on his diesel Benz. He also could have phoned in the extortion attempt and what he believed to be a break-in.

2. CIA would never pay Linda off in end

There was nothing for the CIA to cover up. The CIA director admitted not knowing what the CIA did wrong, so why would he pay this woman for her silence?

3. Linda would be tried for treason and either imprisoned for life or executed.

As far as Linda knew, she possessed classified government material and attempted to sell it to a foreign power. As far as the CIA knew, there may have been level 3 clearance data on that disc. So why did no one pursue her arrest and Federal prosecution?

4. Osborne Cox could have fought Katie's maneuver to take control of joint bank accounts. In fact, banks require two signatures on both accounts before they could be completely emptied and closed. Oops!

5. No dating web sites are set up to allow women to surf male photos without males being granted the same opportunity. No man would agree to join such a site. They would insist on being able to see the women they were considering dating. BeWithMeDC.com is absurd. Why the Coens felt they needed to stipulate this is beyond me.

6. How did Harry Pfarer clean up the mess in Katie's bedroom without her knowing someone was shot in her closet?

7. While there are men stupid enough to bring a concealed weapon to a first date, I don't know of many women who would let a gun-toting stranger into their home.

8. Do the Coens expect us to believe people as stupid as Linda and Chad really exist? These are not "morons," but morons. Linda is astounded her HMO will not pay for not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 cosmetic surgical procedures. She is also astounded her employer will not advance her salary. She also is under the impression Cox is obligated by some Good Samaritan Tax to offer her thousands of dollars in reward money for finding his disc. When he doesn't agree, she gets violent with him.

9. The disc itself is worthless. It's the info on the disc that WOULD be worth anything.

Why do Linda and Chad assume that even if the info were valuable that Cox would pay for the disc. It's not the disc that's valuable, it's the information on it. And he has it on his PC.

Some of the critics who reviewed the film praised the Coens attention to detail and realism. I agree I enjoyed the scenes where Cox was terminated and where Katie conspired with her attorney, but no one in their right mind could ignore the gaping plot holes above.

The Coens acknowledged writing this script at the same time they wrote the script for NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. And the lack of focus / discipline showed.

[–] ZabyPS3 12 years ago

Disagree with all your points. None of these are plot holes. I don't think you understood the movie all that well. To me the movie is about stupidity, naivaty and laziness. All of your points are explained by that.

1. Osbourne is obviously extremely intellegent, but he's also an alcoholic, violent (retrospectively we discover) ex-CIA agent, in the middle of a breakdown. Seems to me he would rather deal with morons like Linda and Chad himself. Just like he would rather kill Ted in the street than call the police.

2. I think you kinda missed the point of the scenes with the CIA bosses - the CIA are lazy, apathetic, maybe even corupt, and they would rather pay a few thousand bucks, than spend weeks of their time investigating exactly what this crazy woman did. Everything else sorted itself out, Linda was the only lose end, so pay her off with a few $.

3. Again, the CIA aren't interested in prosecuting a moron like Linda. It seems obvious to them that the Russians would not be interested in a deal like this any more. If this was sensitive material, then the Russians would likely give her straight over to the US government. The cold war ended a long time ago, but Linda is too stupid to realise. The head CIA guy even says 'The Russians?? Really??'. Sure, if it was North Koera or Iran, then maybe the CIA would be concerned...

4. Katie is cold and manipulative, she has obviously been working for a long tme to take Osbourne for every penny. Maybe she has got Osbourne to sign something during one of his drunken stupors? Maybe she has manipulated their accounts so she is the sole owner? It seems to me that Osbourne isn't the type of guy who actually does the household banking...Katie obviously wears the financial trousers in their marriage.

5. Maybe in the conventional sense of a dating website. But if a dating site offered it, I'm sure some men would still put their pictures up there. And eh, the site in the film seems to be for men who are only interested in sex, so it's not a mainstream site.

6. Um, water, soap and a credit card (for replacement clothes).

7. Seems to me that Linda was excited by the gun, and Harry's stories about being an ex-agent. Danger is exciting, especially to a dolt like Linda.

8. Sorry to say, but there are people as stupid as Linda and Chad. There really are. You need to get out more.

9. What? Of course the CD is worthless. It's the threat of blackmail that's worth something, ie that the information would be sold to someone else against Osbourne's will. I don't think even Linda thought that the piece of plastic was the value part in this????? Not sure why you even mentioned this one.

Watch the film a few more times, it gets better the more you watch it.

'then, you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forrest, wiiiiiiiiiiiiith.........a HERRING!'

[–] giarmomatthew 12 years ago

I've had to sit through the film a half dozen times already and it gets more preposterous each time.

Your explanations strain to string together (i.e., make a case for) a concatenation of at-best low probability events -- taken individually -- but even if I were prepared to grant you that each of these events is possible albeit improbable, the whole remains preposterous as a joint function of all these low probability events.

But as you hinted, this IS a farce. I criticize the Coens largely for getting lazy and silly in abandoning what could have been an award-winning parody. They were well on their way through the first ten minutes, but then they get sloppy and stupid when they introduce the physical fitness characters. You prize these characters overall, which is where we differ. You WANT the farce. You want McDormand's Litzke and Pitt's Feldheimer. I argue that despite some solid performances by the actors in portraying these implausibly sub-mental Washingtonians, that the characters themselves destroy the film. In this vein I am aligned with reviews by The New Yorker and other more mature periodicals.

I again say this film could never -- ever -- happen in real life. In any city -- let alone the Washington I know. You say the CIA is lazy? Corrupt? I disagree. But that's beside the point. I still think a lazy and corrupt CIA prosecutes Litzke for attempting to sell classified information to foreign powers. They would never reward that behavior by paying for her cosmetic surgery. You believe they would? E gads! You're as deluded as Litzke.

The Coens do an exemplary, phenomenal job with two scenes: the termination of Osborne Cox to open the film and the clandestine plotting of Katie Cox with her attorney. This is what has many critics scratching their heads -- why do the Coens then feel they have to sacrifice realism and intelligence to deliver laughs. In fact, they undermine the comedy by insulting the viewers' intelligence and angering viewers by creating a character in Litzke you want to walk on screen and kill yourself.

Now on to your other points ...

You seem to miss the point of many of my points anyway. Yes, Linda was excited by a gun, but you glossed right over my comment that Harry is obviously dating more than one woman and has probably met dozens of women via BeWithMeDC.com. I get that Linda is too pathological to see any red flags in the gun, but Monica sure should have and so should have many other women. By now Harry should be too reticent to show women his great big gun.

And BeWithMeDC.com is completely unrealistic. Before I was married, I have seen them all. OKCupid. PlentyofFish. EHarmony. Match.com. Yahoo Personals. Fling. You name it. I looked at it. No man would ever agree to the single-blind format and no dating web site presents one.

And it's Katie who doesn't do all the household banking. The film actually suggests this so perhaps YOU are the one who could benefit from watching the film a few more times. When the attorney asks her to get a picture of the household finances, it's clear that Osborne has far greater knowledge. In fact, near the end of the film, an exasperated Osborne is actually heard asking his banker over the phone "How could she have knowledge?"

You also have no clue what it takes to clean a crime scene. Getting blood out of all those clothes would require dry cleaning and even then ... Also the walls would have to be repainted. He has at most a few hours before Katie returns home. It's impossible! Stop being a shill for the Coens and at least admit THIS much.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Liz99 12 years ago

It's a frickin' comedy! Why are you expecting realism?

Have you seen other Coen brothers comedies? How accurate is "Oh, Brother Where Art Thou"? Or "Raising Arizona"? Or "Intolerable Cruelty"? Or "Fargo"?

This is not an expose of how the CIA operates, it's a farce about messed-up, middle-aged people and how some make just awful decisions. I can't believe you are worried about which part of a couple manages the bank accounts or a correct portrayal of dating sites. It's a fictional construct, not a documentary.

[–] karawolf 10 years ago

Some folks (op) are just too damn smart. They insist that EVERTHING be written and/or composed to their level of intelligence and if the rest of aren't entertained and don't like it, then that's OUR problem.

**these go to eleven **

[–] Horse_Caulk 9 years ago

"It's a frickin' comedy! Why are you expecting realism? "

The OP is an idiot of the worst kind.

[–] vedant_coolest 11 years ago

It's a movie meant to entertain people not examine in excruciating detail. Watch No country for old men of you want that much realism.

[–] psychosidious 11 years ago

"I still think a lazy and corrupt CIA prosecutes Litzke for attempting to sell classified information to foreign powers. They would never reward that behavior by paying for her cosmetic surgery. You believe they would? E gads! You're as deluded as Litzke."

They weren't "rewarding her behavior," they were buying her off because they didn't want to deal with her anymore.

Also, you're nitpicking the DATING SITE? Really? Just because the film doesn't go out of its way to show you the thrills of writing out messages and arranging the minute details of a date.

Look, I get it, you think you're some high-brow film critic because you read The New Yorker. However, the CIA you want in this movie, one where all the people who do bad things are persecuted and they do everything they can to make things right, is honestly pretty simplistic. Government organizations are made up of people. People are often lazy and do what will cause them the least headaches. Doesn't that strike you as a more realistic and nuanced characterization? I mean, obviously it's an exaggeration, but it all fits in with the world of the movie.

[–] dustypistol 10 years ago

...In this vein I am aligned with reviews by The New Yorker and other more mature periodicals.

Well! You obviously believe yourself to be more mature and intellectually superior to the other posters... yet, only one sentence above that self-satisfied statement, you describe these characters that you so dislike as "implausibly sub-mental".

"Submental" isn't hyphenated as a rule. Oh, and it's a medical term meaning "located in, affecting, or performed on the area under the chin."

So... McDormand's and Pitt's characters are located under the chin? WHOSE chin? You're right... that IS implausible!! Good catch, smarty!

I'm sure you knew the meaning of the term, though, since you read the New Yorker and other mature periodicals. You were probably using it ironically, am I right?

Don't be mad, I'm just playin' :p have a sense of humor, folks, it's a comedy.

xo

[–] alkhmyst-743-479615 11 years ago

Oh, goodness gracious! How about this explanation? it's a comedy!!! The last time I looked into this, comedies were supposed to be ridiculous. Of course the characters do absurd, illogical things. Excuse me, I'm going to go now, and groan and shake my head several times.

[–] nrs05 11 years ago

is this actually a sincere post? or are you just trolling us? in what universe would you expect a coen bros. comedy to be full of "realism?" its not a f'ing documentary or something... have you even seen the coen bros' other comedies?

[–] slesleylawson 10 years ago

You act like you think everybody knows exactly what a Cohen movie should be about, but not all do. Why not explain what it is about this movie that makes it a uniquely Cohen movie and different from a non-Cohen movie?

[–] chilone (18016) 6 years ago

Lol! You see the above poster write "Coen", yet you write "Cohen" three times.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 6 years ago

3 years this thread got to sleep. 3 years. ... and you wake it up to tell it that it should spell better.

(this is a mediocre COEN film)

[–] chilone (18016) 6 years ago

I know that but if MovieChat is to survive, it needs activity. Not my favorite Coen Bros. film but I do like it.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 6 years ago

I salute your efforts.

Regarding the OP complaints: I understand his anger but the movie is of an aloof style that hovers above realism. What is weird to me is that it never seems to comfortably fit any genre. Doesn't really excel in any one direction. Still kinda enjoyed it though.

[–] steinb 11 years ago

Regarding point #9, from Linda and Chad's point of view, they don't know exactly what job Osbourne has. If Osbourne was still employed by the government and lost the disc, he *might* have paid money to get the disc back to avoid being fired or suspended for losing classified information. It is unlikely that would happen, but because Linda and Chad are morons, I would not call it a plot hole for them to assume they could get money out of Osbourne.

[–] AssetsonFire 11 years ago

Chad? Is that you?

~.~
I WANT THE TRUTH! http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

[–] jstachler 11 years ago

Appearances can be deceiving.

[–] zaptie 11 years ago

Deceptive*

[–] richardecredico 11 years ago

get over it and yourself

[–] flyersfan-490-892124 11 years ago

yeah no the only thing you proved is how stupid you are

[–] Buildinwings 11 years ago

This is far from a great film, but a lot of what you wrote above is either apparent from the concept alone, or based on your own woeful lack of experience.

1) These people don't want authorities involved because they've all committed bigger crimes than hit-and-run. They've all got something to hide.

2) The CIA not knowing what's on the disc wouldn't have any bearing on paying Linda for her silence. The story of an ex-agent going rogue is what they're paying her to never say, and the disc is proof that it happened.

3) Again, the CIA couldn't risk the story getting out that a former agent went rogue. Prosecuting Linda would have meant a public trial and the exposition of a lot of CIA secrets.

4) Incorrect, unless one of the two is custodially attached to the account. Either account-holder can close out an account... I know this because I just sent my wife in to close our own joint account last month.

5) Also incorrect. There are plenty of female-centric dating sites that give women their preference over men. Your lack of exposure to them doesn't mean they don't exist.

6) There's a bathroom in the the bedroom, complete with sink, tub, towels, and garbage liners. 2+2 here.

7) Again, your lack of exposure to different things is not a plot hole. It's a life-experience hole. Believe it or not, not all women turn into dainty flowers at the sight of a gun.

8) See above. Get out of the house once in a while, your lack of experience is not anyone's problem but your own.

9) The disc contains the information. I can't believe that needs to be explained to you.

Everyone who ever loved you was wrong.