Challenging convention

Juvenal, Petronius, Swift, Thackary,L.Carroll, Nobokov, Fitzgerald...(many others) They trick us into fascination of ugly-spirited persons and authors' contrivance. We forgive such satirists their trite or even petty conceits and pseudo- conceits. We root for them- we root for their monsters and annoying (anti) heroes. We need them!

Juvenal did not want us to root for, or remotely like, the object of his satire. This is likely true for Nabokov, Swift and Thackery, as well.

Petronius probably wants us to like his heroes, but Encolpius is hardly mean-spirited. Do you think the hero of that work is Lichus?

Carroll is clearly a dreamer, and his obnoxious characters are not his heroes. Alice is, and she's a perfectly normal, rational middle class girl.

Fitzgerald is obsessed with dreamers whose heroic dreams lift them into the world of romance. How you see Stahr or Gatsby or Dick Diver in the description you gave above is beyond me.

Avoiding convention whilst embracing it and letting the viewer (listener) know that they do well by knowing the joke. Sometimes it is a laugh joke , sometimes not.

In general, we love our heroes way too much- all the recent ones try to look as benificent and good and righteous as they can- what bores! That is why the old school (and studio-system sclerotic) heroes look so contemptible to us today. The flaws and annoyances of the old satire have been trained out of the canon as the audiences sleep-walk-consumed the vast SCHLOCK: John Wayne, Most of Tom Hanks' or Harrison Ford's or Tom Cruise's or Will Smith's Characters and scripts- preditable and unchallenging- way too harsh on the thin-skinned 17-34- Years old demographic who pay for Schlock and Überschlock.

I agree, but I don't see that this really relates to the Coens, who don't give us heroes, or even tolerable people, most of the time. I'd call Lebowski a hero. And the lead in Blood Simple. Mabye even borderline Nic Cage in Raising Arizona

My wife and I just saw this movie and we laughed our asses off. My advice to anyone reading these letters who hasn't seen the movie: just go and watch and laugh.

Forget that it is a Coen brothers movie with the baggage that brings. Just watch the movie. Trust me, whatever the Coens intended as dog-whistles for film buffs, you can watch it and enjoy the over-the-top performances and the goofy plot.

It's just a funny little movie.

"There are some hilarious movie-movie nudges here, so small that most viewers will miss them: ..."

This is the kind of writing that movie reviewers should avoid; it only announces pretentiousness and a penchant for self-congratulation. And the use of overwrought phrases like "superbly detailed" is another neon sign flashing "it's all about me, not the movie."

I saw "Burn After Reading" at a special preview Thursday night. It's not one of the Coens' better efforts, sad to say, and I generally love their films. There were some very funny parts, the usual bloodbath, and the ridiculousness of the story didn't bother me, but it was somehow just OK. I didn't hate it, but I'm glad I didn't have to pay to see it. It's a rental, for those of you who haven't seen it.

I know Frances McDormand was likely told to be over the top, but she was way, way, over the top, which was disappointing as she's usually spot-on. Same for George Clooney. Malkovich was playing psycho Malkovich. I actually liked Brad Pitt's performance the best, he was goofy without being obnoxious.

And yes, the picture of Putin in the Russian Embassy was very funny. Must have been the framing of the shot it appeared in.

Juvenal, Petronius, Swift, Thackary,L.Carroll, Nobokov, Fitzgerald...(many others) They trick us into fascination of ugly-spirited persons and authors' contrivance. We forgive such satirists their trite or even petty conceits and pseudo- conceits. We root for them- we root for their monsters and annoying (anti) heroes. We need them!

Avoiding convention whilst embracing it and letting the viewer (listener) know that they do well by knowing the joke. Sometimes it is a laugh joke , sometimes not.

In general, we love our heroes way too much- all the recent ones try to look as benificent and good and righteous as they can- what bores! That is why the old school (and studio-system sclerotic) heroes look so contemptible to us today. The flaws and annoyances of the old satire have been trained out of the canon as the audiences sleep-walk-consumed the vast SCHLOCK: John Wayne, Most of Tom Hanks' or Harrison Ford's or Tom Cruise's or Will Smith's Characters and scripts- preditable and unchallenging- way too harsh on the thin-skinned 17-34- Years old demographic who pay for Schlock and Überschlock.

The Coens are brave. Many may their releases be!

You're right that I haven't seen Barton Fink, and I should. I've seen most of their movies. I like some. I like The Big Labowski. I like Fargo. I like Blood Simple. I liked Raising Arizona way back when, but I don't think it has aged well. And though I enjoyed Oh, Brother when I saw it, I don't think I'd want to sit through it again. I still haven't seen No Country For Old Men, and I want to.

But I can't agree with you that they include themselves among the hapless idiots, and just kick back and laugh at it. The sort of cartoon characters they create, and the sophistication of their approach wouldn't be possible if they were, and I think someone that sophisticated has the distance to recognize he's not a violent, narcissistic idiot.

On the other hand, I might be judging them as guilty by association. The people I encounter who most love the Coens movies are the ones who are apt to go on about the "idiocy" (i.e. the ability to hold a separate opinion) they find in others. This kind of person doesn't ever seem to be self-deprecating.

"There's a certain kind of liberal who thinks everyone who doesn't act/think like them is stupid, or even borderline retarded (it's the left's counterpart to those on the right who think people that don't act like them are sinners). I believe this is the hardcore audience for Coen brothers movies. They love to laugh and jeer at the helpless morons in their hilarious/grotesque predicaments."

You must have missed "Barton Fink," in which the Coens mock themselves and (implicitly) their audience. I've never understood this idea that the filmakers and their fans were all sneering at the rest of humanity, in some kind of elitest/semi-solipsistic attitude; it seems more to me that both take a dim view of ALL of humanity, themselves included, but are also willing to laugh about it. Because hey - what can you do?

On the plus side, I know when I can completely disregard a review of one of their movies. If within the first two paragraphs the reviewer starts talking about how they hated "Fargo" or some other previous Coen movie, and mentions that same tired "they hate their characters" hypothesis, I don't need to bother reading the rest. See also: Andrew Sarris.