Burn After Reading

"Jesus, what a clusterfuck!," exclaims the brilliant J.K. Simmons' CIA superior in the final scene of the Coen brothers latest, in all honesty he's not too wide of the mark in summing up a comedy which teeters on the edge of the incomprehensible. For the Coens this is the light relief section of their familiar serious to screwball one-two,'Burn After Reading' arriving only nine months after the Oscar winning neo-Western noir 'No Country For Old Men'. As that was widely regarded as their return to form then it may be sensible to expect that this latest offering may be back up to the heights previously reached by 'The Big Lebowski', 'Fargo' and 'Raising Arizona', sadly this is not the case.

The action unfolds in Washington D.C., kicking off at the C.I.A.'s Langley headquarters where Ozzie Cox (John Malkovich) reacts angrily to a demotion and quits his post. As some sort of misguided revenge he decides to pen some reveal-all memoirs which by a twist of fate end up on a lost disc in a gym where they are found by employees Chad (Brad Pitt) and Linda (Frances McDormand). Chad and Linda soon find themselves blackmailing Ozzie and offering the information to the Russians. Meanwhile horny Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney) who is sleeping with Ozzie's wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) and later Linda, who he meets through an internet dating site, becomes well and truly embroiled in the madcap antics. It's certainly confusing as a whole but in true Coen style everything seems to make some strange sort of sense as you're wading through. Similarities may be drawn with Lebowski then when it comes to a wacky storyline, but the charm, humour and central characters struggle to match up to The Dude and co.

Easy laughs are extorted as each character is initially introduced and we see the famous faces playing against type and reputation. Thus there are some great moments early on which arrive quick and fast, Malkovich cracks a superb Morman gag in the opening scene. However, as things progress and the plot becomes more and more zany the laughs become more and more sporadic. There's a limit to how many times an irate John Malkovich can be funny, Clooney's seediness soon runs out of steam and although one of the best Pitt's simple routine eventually grows dull. The problem is that the characters just aren't iconic enough or lovable enough to stick with for the duration, and it tends to be the brilliance of character more than anything that makes you stick with the Coens through the moments of confusion.

It's not that 'Burn After Reading' isn't funny, far from it, there are just as many chuckles gleaned here as in your average comedy. But that's all it is, average. I spent a while wondering whether it would be fair to criticise the Coens for making such a lightweight film in the wake of 'No Country For Old Men', after all, don't they deserve to have fun every once in a while? But it's hard not to accuse them of wasting their talent. We know that they're capable of creating cinematic masterpieces whereas any recent comedies have merely seen them stumble. Will we have to endure another 'Intolerable Cruelty' or 'The Ladykillers' in return for a 'Millers Crossing' or a 'Blood Simple'.

In a year when Hollywood has really struggled on the comedy front 'Burn After Reading' may be made to look better than it actually is. What may have slightly elevated it above some of it's weak competitors appears to be simply a small injection of intelligence into the script and, more notably, star power. To it's credit, a brief running time keeps things slick and without filler, the electric pace allowing for a lot to be packed in. There's rarely a poor moment, yet rarely a brilliant one. Had this been made by less prolific directors the tone of this review may have been more upbeat, but instead there's an overriding feeling of disappointment.

Verdict: There's fun to be had early on but it struggles to develop into more than a one-note joke.

Gomorrah

It's only in the closing moments of 'Gommorah' that the magnitude of what you've just seen really hits home. This is no glamourised gangster flick, it's an expose into one of the most brutal criminal organisations in the world. Just before the credits roll, director Matteo Garrone proffers some facts about the real-life Camorra organisation, one which is split up into numerous warring clans. Over the past thirty years they have been responsible for some 4000 deaths (more than any other single criminal or terrorist organisation), they earn their money through illegal activities within mainstream business sectors which is then invested into numerous more legal activities (stretching as far as an investment into the rebuilding of the World Trade Center) and they hold a monopoly over the illegal dumping of toxic waste which has poisoned farmlands and exponentially increased cancer rates in the region. This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it goes a long way to helping the reality of the preceding two hours sink in.

If you've never heard of the Camorra before, I'd suggest that you're probably not the only one. The Naples/Caserta-based group are surprisingly widely unknown. Perhaps this is largely down to a fear of exposing the truth, the author (Roberto Saviano) of the book on which the film is based was forced to flee into police protection. The film barely appears to try to dramatise the non-fiction source material, in fact the piece has an almost candid atmosphere, like that of a documentary. The camera follows the various characters like a grim voyeur, never reveling in yet never shying away from the most vicious and violent of events.

We are invited into Gommorah's Neopolitan heartland via five individual and interwoven story strands, each encompassing and highlighting a different aspect of the Cammora's far-reaching illegal activities. Arguably the most affecting is the thread following Gianfelice Imparato's Don Ciro,a man who seemingly serenely goes about visiting the families of imprisoned Camorra members to pay them reparation money. He is a man trapped in a highly dangerous and undoubtedly unwanted position, a victim of the stranglehold that the Camorra has over so many people in the region. Trapped is a word that can be used to describe virtually everyone we meet throughout, it is impossible for them to escape the Camorra's clutches. It's a far cry from the gangster lifestyle we're used to seeing through the eyes of Brando, Pacino and Liotta, this is an existence that few wish to be (or survive to be) part of.

The other stories show slick businessman Franco (Toni Servillo) running the aforementioned toxic waste dumping business and Salvatore Cantalupo's tailor, Pasquale, who is caught up in the violence after offering his services to Chinese fashion rivals. It's quite clear that this is a group with its fingers in many pies, and though some of their fund-raising may be legal it is built upon a foundation of intimidation and manipulation. Gomorrah also casts an eye upon the lure of crime for the young and impressionable, scenes eerily reminiscent of African militia groups show the lengths these children are forced to go to when they become involved with the Camorra.

The most enjoyable moments - in a film for the most part which is to be admired rather than enjoyed - are during Marco (Marco Macor) and Ciro's (Ciro Petrone) scenes. The two young upstarts aim to join the gangster lifestyle but operate outside of the Camorra but the (despicable yet unnervingly likable) pair inevitably find trouble. It seems that everybody involved does, there's rarely a moment free of threat in the carefully slow-paced proceedings. There is no crescendo, no tidy ending, for all this really is occurring and will keep occurring in a town where all the really matters is blood, money and power. This is the bleak but slowly resonating message that Garrone unflinchingly drives home.

Verdict: Agonisingly close to the 5-star mark, however, despite it being a fantastic piece of filmmaking it's far from an enjoyable experience.