by Joel
#67 in Best of the 21st Century?, a series counting down the most acclaimed films of the previous decade. This review contains spoilers.
In his four-star review of A Serious Man, Roger Ebert writes, “I’m sure you’ve heard the old joke where Job asks the Lord why everything in his life is going wrong. Remember what the Lord replies? If you don’t remember the joke, ask anyone. I can’t prove it but I’m absolutely certain more than half of everyone on Earth has heard some version of that joke.” Well, no, I don’t remember what the Lord replies, because I don’t think I’ve ever heard some version of that joke (is that the joke?). However, Ebert’s withholding the punchline is very much in the spirit of the film he’s reviewing. This is a film that begins with a ghost (is it a ghost?) getting stabbed and ends with a tornado bearing down on a Hebrew school while the tinny sound of Jefferson Airplane reverberates from a transistor radio. In between, a woman kicks her husband out of the house and then makes him pay for her suddenly dead lover’s funeral; a boy tokes up before his Bar Mitzvah and receives a Grace Slick-inspired blessing from his 90-year-old rabbi; a relative with cysts is charged with gambling and arrested for soliciting sodomy; an escape across the Canadian border is brought to a bloody halt by anti-Semitic hunters (don’t worry, it’s all a dream!); and a Jewish dentist discovers a hidden Hebrew script on the inside teeth of a gentile. Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) is trapped in the center of this eventually literal cyclone, and throughout the film he wears a dumbly neurotic, perpetually perplexed expression. He doesn’t understand what’s going, yet at times he seems to behave just as irrationally as the incidents befalling him, particularly with all the crap he takes from his shrewish wife. Everyone in the movie seems to be acting according to the dictates of some hidden humor – in both senses of the word; gee, I wish someone would let me in on the joke.
No doubt a good deal of the confusion stems from the film’s Judaism/Jewishness. By separating the two terms I mean to suggest that the film employs both an engagement with the Jewish religion, and an employment of various tropes of secular Jewish culture; the latter will be somewhat familiar to outsiders (given their circulation in entertainment over the past century), while the former will remain largely mysterious. As a lapsed Catholic, descended from a mongrel mix of Poles, Frenchies, and Anglos, I’m on the outside looking in here. But then, is this particularly a function of the film’s use of Jewish culture and mysticism? That may be the particular milieu, yet brothers and co-writers/directors Joel and Ethan Coen always come off as insular, fascinated by their own self-enclosed universes, which we are allowed to enter as long as we don’t ask too many questions or get too miffed by their dark, often misanthropic sense of humor. At its best, as in The Big Lebowski, this formal control and idiosyncratic devotion rewards the initiated with an endlessly rich and hilarious world to explore. At its worst, as in the immensely cynical Burn After Reading one comes out feeling like the butt of an elaborate and mean-spirited practical joke.
A Serious Man, employing the rather conventional storyline of a suburban nebbish undergoing a comically overwrought midlife crisis, does not quite fall prey to the same lazy vices as the purposefully pointless Burn (a film which ended with one character turning to another and saying something to the effect of, “Well, that was pointless. Let’s never do that again.”). I use “lazy” advisedly – the Coen Brothers are stone-cold masters of cinematic form; I once wrote that they could adapt the yellow pages and give it at least the appearance of art. Yet they stubbornly coast on their mastery from time to time, allowing it to give a polished sheen to trite characterizations, cheap cynicism, and narrative randomness. It is not a question of form being held hostage to content, by the way; I still maintain that a truly bold and transporting style can make a great film from limited or even offensive material, and that a masterpiece is defined less by what it’s about than how it’s about it. But this sort of transformation can only occur with a style that’s open to the outside world, that is ambiguous enough to explore beyond the horizon of the text. This is not the sort of approach the Coens employ, and so they remain bound by their material.
Which brings us back to A Serious Man. The movie has the feel of an inside joke, which is irritating if you don’t “get” it, yet there are enough resonant, intriguing touches for one to suspect it’s not merely a put-on. There’s the shot of Larry standing atop his roof, where he’s climbed to fixes the TV antenna (broken connection to those signals from the sky – be they televisual or Yahwist). He pauses to takes in the suburban landscape around him, much like Moses surveying the Promised Land – in both cases the observer is excluded from ever entering. Or the enticing clutter of the ancient Rabbi Marhak’s imposing den, where the recently Bar Mitzhvahed (and occasionally stoned) must pass looming portraits of Isaac’s near-sacrifice and jars of what appear to be giant bugs floating in formaldehyde. Or the outlandishly vast blackboard surrounding Professor Larry in a looming lecture hall, covered impressively with endless equations meant to convey the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (how does he write up that high? – answer: another dream).
At its strongest, A Serious Man hints at a fascinating world offscreen, a rich panoply of ever-deeper mystery and textural richness. The characters dip a toe into this world of milk and honey (or, in this case, pot and incense) but somehow we’re always distanced from its revelations, and they – particularly Larry – are eternally befuddled by what they’re missing, or the question of if they’re really missing anything at all. The film is structured around Larry’s visits to the helpless rabbis, culminating in the denial of his request to see Marhak. Lawyers, doctors, relatives, and fellow teachers along the way provide sounding boards for his confusion, but offer little in the way of insight. There’s enough going on, and the Coens’ touches are just barely evocative enough, to convince us that the hero’s (ha!) dry, secular neurosis is not all there is, but it’s uncertain to what extent the withholding of a greater experience is down to dramatic necessity or an inability of the film and filmmakers to actually take that leap of faith (given that the Coens, of course, created this particular necessity, perhaps a bit of both).
Less commendable than A Serious Man‘s suggestive touches is the Coens’ reliance on increasingly predictable and dissatisfying bouts of violence as well as deadpan cliched characterizations (the maddening Korean student, sometimes amusing but all in all a rather easy and obvious device; the humorously uber-goy yet again rather glibly-drawn neighbors). At one point, when Larry sends his brother off in a canoe, it’s enjoyably wry yet also quietly touching in its wacky way. Watching this, and knowing the directors’ instincts, we ask ourselves – is the brother about to get his head blown off? Yep, he is. Later on, an old man – for no apparent reason – drops dead in a law office. We’ve been here before, numerous times, and what may have once been shocking in the Coens’ cinema is now tiresomely rote. One chuckles, but kind of resents the brothers for their employment of “subversive” devices which, rather than subvert, given them a “see-we’re-just-kidding” escape hatch every time.
Anyway, cheap shots and deadpan remove aside, A Serious Man remains compelling enough to warrant repeat viewings. This is where I get off; I’ve only seen the film once, and like Larry Gopnik barred from the rabbi’s door, I’ll have to come back later to glean more secrets, if indeed they amount to anything more rewarding then “When the truth is found to be lies, and all the joy within you dies…” followed by the incantations of the “Airplane”‘s names. I don’t know if they will, but then what do I know? Not even the punchline to the joke apparently…
Previous film: The Lives of Others
Next film: The World
I believe this came and went quickly out here. By the time we heard about it, it was gone.
Did not see I Basterds but this one sounds like I need to view it.
Cheers!
Interesting you mention Basterds. I was going to compare its opening to Serious Man in this review (both films, the work of highly accomplished, very self-enclosed auteurs, open with subtitled period pieces which are less interested in exploring their historical setting than using them for the connotations). Didn’t eventually go in that direction, but the comparison stayed with me. Both are films I found frustrating in some ways but in the end one has to acknowledge the filmmaking chops.
“adapt the yellow pages and give it at least the appearance of art” – can I steal that sometime please?
This is a superb review, Movieman, one that concurs with my own opinion of the film. The most troubling part for me in this otherwise hilarious film was the Coens’ insistence on not moving beyond schoolboy cynicism and explore what’s beyond. This has been my trouble with them for some time now (Even the one Coen film that I like – Fargo – ends with lines that sound fake to me now).
jafb, that’s about how I feel – it’s of course their prerogative to indulge in schoolboy cynicism, but then it’s ours too to feel restless with it! I’ve never been terribly keen on Fargo, as Coen masterpieces go I’d be much more inclined to endorse the warm and (to my mind) more imaginative Big Lebowski, contrarian as that might seem (though year by year it’s becoming less so – I think in the end Lebowski will be their most perpetually beloved film, much to their surprise).
This is the Coens’ best film.
I put it at #2 (behind only the masterful MAN WHO WASN’T THERE), this film is fantastic. I think perhaps the best American release this past year. I don’t find MovieMan’s quibbles with it accurate in the least.
As I said above, I’d definitely endorse Big Lebowski in that regard, however there’s still a number of their 80s/90s classics I haven’t seen. And more recently, I still haven’t gotten around to O Brother Where Art Thou probably (next to Lebowski, or maybe even above it) their most popular movie. I would not argue with someone who put No Country for Old Men up top, though.
Very interesting read! Thanks for posting this! I’m considering a second viewing now.
The first time I was pretty baffled, but found the film hilarious and intriguing. I’m glad you mentioned the Coens using sort of lazy tactics for humour. Although I really enjoyed the moments with the Korean student, I can see where you are coming from. I recall enjoying tremendously the son’s friend who continuously says ‘Fuck’ every chance he gets. After the screening, I remember looking back and smiling at those scenes, yet also confounded by the sheer simplicity the directors employed to gain a laugh.
The Jewishness of the story adds color to the proceedings but focusing on a relatively insular community could also represent the alien nature of mid-Sixties bourgeois culture in general to a 2009 moviegoer. A Serious Man is set in a liminal moment in American history and invites us to question whether the moment was manmade or shaped by larger forces. It leaves us asking whether the Coens themselves mean to say that one of Larry’s decisions has provoked the wrath of “Ha-shem,” while we still recall what the film’s said about the power of stories to actually explain anything. I think the film does suffer from some characteristic sophomoricism (though that’s never really discredited the Coens for me), while Larry seems too weak to have even achieved what he has already, but it may be the brothers’ most intellectually ambitious effort, and thinking about it now makes me believe it will hold up under scrutiny.
I think the ’67 setting didn’t bother me so much, as that’s an epoch I’m very keen on albeit more from the youth culture than the suburban family perspective (not that the two didn’t overlap). I did get the feeling of only scratching the surface this time around, and suspect there’s a lot more to dig into. Agreed about Larry – how did he get so far being such a pushover?!
This is a towering, ultra-scrutinizing review, (and having it posted at this site is a great honor, as is the case with all the entries in this great series) but in the end I must reject the summary judgement, as this for me was clearly one of 2009’s best films, and as Joe notes above, probably the very best from the Coens. Even our pal Jon Lanthier-who is regularly the blogosphere’s most difficult-to-please critic (and I say that in the best possible sense) proclaimed this as the best film of last year in one of his SLANT MAGAZINE posts. But I don’t say that in the ‘my father is stronger than your father’ mode, but rather, to illustrate how this film crossed lines of resistance in the most rock solid corners of discernment. It’s critical reception was extraordinary across the board, and it was hip last year among the intellectual scribes to praise this film to high heaven. So, do I think then that Joel (and even my good friend JAFB) are playing devil’s advocate here by presenting what is practically a single position? Do I think Joel is playing hard to get? Do I think Joel is finding issues that aren’t visible?
The answer to all three questions is a resounding ‘no’ though I must admit I don’t share the specific objections he does, nor did I remotely find that the thrusts at humor in the film were achieved by lethargic writing. I’m saddened that you will need repeated viewings to cull the brilliance present in this film, as I do feel the work is unique in that it hits its mark immediately, though again, you wouldn’t be Joel Bocko if you didn’t watch with eagle-eye sagacity. This is quality that is critically refreshing, especially with all the unqualified hyperbole we are bombarded with. (I am guilty myself of this in fact) But as I say with this particular film, I am not buying it.
Let’s start with this contention, posed late in the review:
“Less commendable than A Serious Man‘s suggestive touches is the Coens’ reliance on increasingly predictable and dissatisfying bouts of violence as well as deadpan cliched characterizations (the maddening Korean student, sometimes amusing but all in all a rather easy and obvious device; the humorously uber-goy yet again rather glibly-drawn neighbors).”
First of all, the violence was never meant to surprise, as it was part of a story with clear autobiographical underpinnings, and the ‘deadpan cliched characterizations’ were purposely posed as examples of of characters and interactions that either really happened or were based on universally transcribed truths. But in a larger sense we can make similar accusations for any film by any director. I find this complaint as a severe example of nit-picking, which in the large picture here, means very little.
“Everyone in the movie seems to be acting according to the dictates of some hidden humor – in both senses of the word; gee, I wish someone would let me in on the joke.”
Well, I must say I think I understood the joke, and I have long appreciated the Coens’ particular kind of dysfunctional sensibilities, (I see Samuel Wilson -above- also understands and accepts their unorthodox cinematic language) which achieved full flower in this acerbic work, with deeper philosophical undertones. Stuhlbarg (terrific performance by the way) tries to make sense of the universe, but as he is advised at one point, he should just accept and embrace the mystery – that there are no real answers. In view of the strong current of apparent ‘Jewish self-loathing’ here, either explicit or implied, it’s no wonder there are unflattering characterizations, which has led some (like critic David Ehrenstein) to express strong condemnation for the brothers, who have clearly taking aim at the Jewish faith, or any faith in fact. I do understand and respect that position, though the Coens are nihilists who rarely provide answers for their queries, as was seen in Ethan;s recent theatrical ventures in Manhattan, OFFICES and ALMOST AN EVENING, with the latter taking aim at Biblical pomposity and the absurdity of eternal life.
Years down the road this brilliant work will be seen as the Coens ultimate statement, and best example of their own philosophy on life.
POST SCRIPT: Before you respond Joel, please understand that I am well aware that you didn’t issue any kind of a pan here; in fact as your last paragraph clearly proclaims, you thought on balance this was a very good film. I did not miss that at all, and I understand that you pointed to a number of things you really liked here. However, I come here like gang-busters to express unreserved enthusiasm for a film that (for me) should be discussed in overwhelmingly positive terms.
‘Stuhlbarg (terrific performance by the way) tries to make sense of the universe, but as he is advised at one point, he should just accept and embrace the mystery – that there are no real answers.”
fantastic, I’m also reminded of the junior rabbi’s speech about ‘looking to the parking lot’ (and his performance is fantastic too), reminded me of the Stan Brakhage quote: “Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of ‘Green’? How many rainbows can light create for the untutored eye? How aware of variations in heat waves can that eye be? Imagine a world alive with incomprehensible objects and shimmering with an endless variety of movement and innumerable gradations of color. Imagine a world before the ‘beginning was the word.”
Isn’t that this film in a nutshell? Characters crawl around in the dark looking for meaning, ye they have all this cultural baggage of meaning and interpretation weighing them down (here that is mostly Judaism) and making them unable to see things fresh and new.
The only legit quibble I have with this film comes from the audiophile in me: The film is set in 1967 (we see a calender at one point), and yet the record club is set to send him CCR’s COSMOS FACTORY and Santana’s ABRAXAS, both 1970 records. But even the choosing of these isn’t by accident: The Coens are CCR fans (LEBOWSKI showed this), and any CCR fan worth his salt knows COSMO’s is the best CCR album. As for the Santana we must think or realize what ABRAXAS means. It means literally, ‘black magic’, ‘supernatural’, or in Judaism has relevance to spiritual meanings. So when Larry proclaims “I don’t want that!” in reference to this albums title we understand his position on these things (if we didn’t already).
Jamie, see if you can track down a rather obscure book called LSD & the Search for God. It’s by a Chicago journalist who explored both the “God is dead” movement and the growing cult of acid in the late 60s, and he ties the two together along with providing a lively overview of theology, culture, and psychology in the 20th century & before, ending with his own very unpleasant mescalin trip (I think it’s mescaline). I actually stumbled across it years ago online (and later bought a copy on Amazon) – the Brakhage quote reminded me of it. I was going to do a post on it once upon a time but as is wont to happen, it did not materialize.
Actual title is “The Private Sea” (other part is the subtitle, obviously come up with by publishers looking to make a buck in the late 60s!). Author is William Braden. There is where I first read the whole thing:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/braden.htm
I think you’ll like it.
(I posted quickly above but all my posts with my new wordpress ID site in unnecessary moderation, so I’ll give more thoughts as plain old ‘Jamie’)
To me this film reads like Philip Roth retelling a ‘Moby Dick’ like story of polytheism where numerous interpretations add up to a blank whiteness of the whale (though here its the stark blackness of a coming funnel). This is the philosophical story for America of today, and it’s no small accomplishment that is also perhaps the most touching Coens film to date (damn you MovieMan with that critic’s overused ‘misanthropic’ word! lol). I recently had a movie night with friends where this was shown, and in the the days that followed we had several email exchanges, I’ll include mine here (sorry they are so scattershot but I’m piecing just mine from several emails, but I think the context will be easy enough to see):
“…Thinking more about ‘A Serious Man’ I can’t help but continue to contemplate Larry and his Son’s fate and the connection between the two. It’s a wonderful secular film, but it’s also such a religious one. How else can be not draw the conclusions to both their fates are set in motion when both do things that are counter to a moral act (a religious equivalent of a sin)? (I find the son’s incredibly interesting in that he doesn’t pay up to Fagal, when in reality it is also money that he has obtained from stealing from his father so which is his sin that he must be punished for?). This is obviously exactly how the Coen’s want us to think, but a constant reminder that nothing it set in stone is always there (both their fates are hinted at but never shown). As if thinking in these (almost) obvious ways is not wanted, needed or productive. After all the Coens (I believe) don’t want us to be monomaniacs like Larry, or like the greatest monomaniac of them all Captain Ahab in ‘Moby Dick’. …”
“…I do think Larry’s Son is the main character. Or it’s a joint main character story (with obviously Larry being the other main character). Plot dissection 101 tells us that any stories main character is the character(s) that are central to the plot, climax, and resolution. The climax of this film is the bar-mitzvah sequence (of which the Son is focal), and the resolution of the story is a conclusion of the son’s and Larry’s fates. …”
“…Yesterday I read the ‘Moby Dick’ chapter again I had said earlier (‘The Whiteness of the Whale’). I believe it’s Chapter 42. I cannot stress this again, how important I think this to be. …”
“…A new thought I had on these ideas of the central dream sequence with the Mentaculus creating brother, and the Goy’s teeth. they both touch on something I articulated on Saturday night: this idea of closeness, being more sensitive to another human’s needs, emotional. Again, how ironic is it that I feel the most emotional scene the Coen’s have ever written and staged does not occur in reality? Is this potential closeness only fantasy? Is acceptance/togetherness only a dream? Isn’t it ironic that a goy (or any human) asking another for help and saving is in a mouth that would warrant another to look for clues and others rather then just asking if that person could use a helping hand? And isn’t where the clue is (a mouth) central to someone just wording “Help me”? Because of course we can’t. These clues being in a mouth is no accident when we know that the troubles in communication and articulation are central to an existentialists woes (of which the Coen’s certainly are). …”
“…The Brother (and his cyst) being central to both of these ideas is important to the story and therefore makes him central to the story as well. I found these rather interesting ideas while searching:
“That’s Rashi’s gloss on Deuteronomy 18:13, “Be wholehearted with the Lord, your God.” To be wholehearted, “There shall not be found among you anyone who passes his son or daughter through fire, a soothsayer, a diviner of [auspicious] times, one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer … For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord” (18:10-12). Actually, there is a soothsayer around Larry. His brother Arthur has compiled something called “The Mentaculus,” a series of equations that form “a probability map of the universe.” Judging from Arthur’s success at cards, it actually does predict the future — but Arthur is worse off than Larry (and apparently more abominable before the Lord).”…”
“….”Is it Larry’s brother, Arthur? Arthur is presented as a genius, who has a system for winning at cards, and spends countless hours writing his theories into a notebook, which is revealed to be a conglomerate of nonsense. Yet Arthur does not have a clue. He is jealous of his brother and complains that Larry’s life is just fine. “Look at all that God has given you. I have nothing.” Everything is relative. In reality, Arthur is a burden who won’t go away. He lives in Larry’s house, hogs the bathroom, and when Larry moves out to a motel, Arthur goes with him. He has a cyst on his neck that he keeps trying to drain but it comes back again and again. Arthur not only has a cyst. He is a cyst. He is certainly not a serious man.”…”
“…and from the Book of Job: “So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.”…”
“…I also found this form a Jewish writer, and found it to be rather interesting:
“Larry tells people that his wife and her lover Si have not slept together. He believes it. He exercises no discipline over his kids. In fact, he responds to his son’s badgering requests by climbing on top of the house to repair the TV reception. In the Coen Brothers’ typical style this is homage to a popular Broadway Play and film of that era. Larry fiddles with the TV antenna, thus making him the Fiddler on the Roof. At least Tevye argued with God. Larry’s gazing from the roof at the naked neighbor Mrs. Samsky is a reference to the Biblical King David eyeing Bathsheba who sunbathed on her roof. And there is a thinly veiled imitation of the most popular film of that era, the Graduate, when Mrs. Samsky brings drinks into the parlor where she is attempting to seduce Larry, who cannot act on any of his urges, moral or not.”…”
“I feel the ‘fake ending’ of the the brothers driving to Canada is the most emotional, honest, scene the Coens have ever done, it is of course, underscored by a fake shooting though (which says a lot too). This scene I remember shaking m up in the theater, it would be ‘Exhibit A’ I’d show to anyone who feels the Coen’s are overly cynical or dark.”
I once even thought that the scene where Larry climbs to the roof, we get these fantastic early shots of a ladder pointed to the clouds warranted a discussion on Yeats: “Now that my ladder’s gone,
I must lie down where all my ladders start,
In the foul rag-and-bone shop of the heart.”
etc.
I could say quite a bit more (as I have many thoughts on it–I’ve seen it 4.5 times now), but that gets my thoughts on it out there enough.
I like this film very much. Its emotion (very telling consideruing who the director and writers are) is perfectly fused with visual audacity that has become a landmark trait of two men named COEN. I see the philosophical and political agenda weaved through this film like an effortlessly sewn thread and, at times, find their melding of it, within the overall presentation of comic anectdotes deeply enriching and rewarding. This is easily one of the bast films of 2009. For me, however, this film falls more into the BARTON FINK territory of the Coen’s canon of films. Although I like it, for me, it still falls short of their darker, less metaphorical works. This one is a hair under LEBOWSKI, FARGO and the great NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.
Yeah, I think beyond my more philosophical objections I can divide the Coens’ films up into the ones I like and the ones I admire (because even at their most oblique, you can’t help but be awed by their command), with some falling in between but leaning more one way than the other. The more I see by them the more I realize Big Lebowski may be the exception rather than the rule; by and large, I’m not totally a Coens person (in the sense of being simpatico with them all the way), but God do I love that movie.
NO COUNTRY is an interesting one… I’ve only seen it once (at the theater, and I own it and have never went back to it, maybe this review will make me revisit)
For me:
1. THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE (this may be my no. 1 of the decade though)
2. A SERIOUS MAN
3. BARTON FINK
4. FARGO
5. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
6. MILLERS CROSSING
7. BIG LEBOWSKI
(the rest– I don’t consider any others ‘masterpieces’, even though I enjoy HUDSUCKER, ARIZONA etc)
Thanks everybody for the responses. Jamie and Sam particularly, those are some meaty replies which I will have to return to if/when I see the movie again. For now I don’t have too much to add to what I already wrote. I have to dispute Sam with the flattering “eagle-eye” comment though, I feel I actually missed quite a bit while watching the movie and that there’s much more to plumb, as I suggested in the end of the essay. And I probably was not in the ideal mode to watch it either, but that’s often the case with timetabled reviews; I’ve made a commitment so I plunge in anyway, but I know I have to balance out my observations with the caveat that I may just not be “getting” the film in question (I’m thinking in particular of the last film in this countdown as well as this week’s; in both cases, I will fully stand behind my criticisms but also acknowledge that there may be mitigating factors I missed which are more important in a larger judgement).
Jamie, I’m re-reading Moby Dick right now too, at least until I was distracted by the 20 or so other books I’ve delved into! I tend to start reading or re-reading books on impulse/whim, which is great but ends up leading to a huge stack of half-read books accumulating over the months. Good catch with the Bethsheba analogy too.
You and I just have very, very different sensibilities – what to you is black is to me white and vice-versa, so it’s hard to approach things from a common ground. Ironically, I think we are probably ending up in similar places – responding to a work viscerally, yet in terms which engage the cerebral as well – but it seems to be different things that get us there. Ah well – vivre le difference!
I agree with you about the Larry-Arthur (whom I misidentified as the uncle, rather than the brother) canoe scene…up to the point where Arthur gets his head blown off. That’s why it irritated me – because it was the Coens doing a genuinely touching, daffy yet sincere scene and then they had to go and throw in excessive gore and a dream denouement. I fully understand that one can read numerous things into this violent outburst, but that has to be countered by the fact that they always take this course, and it’s getting a bit tired and juvenile. Yes, they cover their asses whenever they resort to “shock” violence or cliched characterizations (making sure that they can intellectually justify what they’re doing) but that only tends to irritate me the more. Anyway, no point re-hashing this disagreement, just though I’d clarify since maybe you though I didn’t like the scene; it was precisely because I liked it that the violence bugged me (and by the way, I laughed at the hunters’ appearance, it just felt like cheap laughter afterwards).
To close on a point of agreement, the inaccurate music picks really annoyed me too – especially since the movie seemed to get the tone and feel right in so many other regards! LOL
One last thing, because I didn’t mention it in the review. I loved Sy Abelman (or rather loved to hate him)! What an insufferably smug character, and a fantastically droll performance from Fred Melamad…
Aye Joel. Melamad was terrific as was the character he portrayed!
Ironically, given your recent Howl post he reminded me very superficially of a late-stage Allen Ginsberg looks-wise and a bit demeanor-wise as well (although I’m sure Sy was far more annoying!).
I have to say that this is my second favorite Coen Bros. movie after RAISING ARIZONA. I don’t know where this puts me. No doubt that this movie is weird, very weird, yet I couldn’t stop thinking about it for weeks, even now I think I want to see it three times again.
I have only seen this film once – around six months ago now. However, I agree with Sam’s point about the impression that even one initial viewing of it leaves. Indeed, not only do I think that it is the best Coen brothers’ film (to date – they are not done yet!), but, in time, could become my “considered” favourite film from 2009.
Jamie is right when he says that it is hard to get all of your thoughts across on this film in one go. However, here are some that occur to me, even if they do not seem to tie immediately back into the film.
For me, this film is preoccupied with arrogance, which may surprise some given how meek and mild Larry is. However, we, as human beings, do presume that things need to make sense, categorised, rationalised. Be it through religious or secular philosophical or scientific means, we want to be able to explain away the cosmos and our place in it.
Stephen Jay Gould refers to our species as being a small and accidental evolutionary twig. I like that. I also like Albert Camus’ remark about how scientists are reduced to poetry when trying to explain how we know about the existence of sub-molecular particles. We are a speck in the universe who have existed for next to no time at all. Yet, our way of seeing things has barely moved passed considering the Earth to be the centre of a universe – a place made by God for us, his chosen people, who have been created in his likeness… He who loves every hair on each of our heads.
In truth, neither science nor religion offers any genuine solace to the man lost in the void between them. Neither “good” nor “bad” things happen to people. Nor do we “deserve” that either should happen to us. Being a mensch or otherwise has nothing to do with anything. These are our arrogant and meaningless value judgements as microscopic beings in a vast and utterly uncaring universe.
Yet, as much as we could just go wallow in such nihilism, our lives do matter greatly to each one of us. That is the paradox. We are completely irrelevant and uniquely relevant at the same time. We live knowing only that we will die. We live as if we will not. Again, the paradox. Again the arrogance.
To look at this another way, an Asian student needs good grades and is willing to pay to get them. A white gun lover is an anti-Semite. A bored housewife seems well capable of getting frisky with just about anyone. Stock characters here, perhaps. Yet, how often do we casually make snap judgements about people that we encounter? Yet they are all unique and far more complex biochemical machines than even our very best technological advancements can still offer.
At the same time, despite such remarkable sophistication, our capacity for either absurd behaviour or senseless violent acts remains undimmed. Indeed, what to make of a life spent wishing for drab college tenure, a family that treats you with contempt, and a home in the despairingly bland suburbs?
One last thought… Dora brutally attacks, in an unprovoked manner, what she does not understand. Afterwards, she remains trapped in the darkness of her small cabin when the unexplained entity disappears back out into the huge world outside. She may be happy that her life can now continue on as she feels it ought to. However, what glorious things slip through her fingers due to the tininess of her outlook on life?
And, even then, does it really matter that she has passed up such opportunities?
Probably well into Rambledonia at this stage, so here I shall stop.
I think you are correct here, and I do think looking for a ‘definite meaning’ of existence is what the Coen’s are going on about (as I point out in previous post). As for the prologue that you touch on I’ve read it simply as the introduction of what the film is about in its simplest terms: living life as an active participant or idly letting your life happen right before your eyes (Larry is obviously in the wrong on this one in the Coen’s eyes as they have him continually make claims such as “I haven’t done anything” as bad things pile up), the wife chooses action over doing nothing. That’s what we are supposed to grasp I believe. Now we can debate if her action is correct or incorrect but the fact that she has taken control over her life’s outcome(s) is what is important here. Things are going to happen to us, so we might as well actively live our lives– it’s richer that way.
So, this is something new? What are the Coen’s saying that I have not heard before?
I see your point, but the prologue did remind me greatly of how the good people of Hartlepool purportedly once hung a monkey because they thought that it was a Frenchman!
I also read about how that opening scene was meant to be a demonstration of the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat. From there, I liked the romantic idea of how we could actually be the ones inside of the box, unable to observe the world outside.
Tony, from my review at the time:
“Admittedly, there is nothing terribly new or surprising in such musings. Indeed, the story itself is inspired, in part, by the Book of Job. However, what makes this film a success is the manner in which the story gets told. ”
So I guess the question becomes where have I heard that criticism before? 🙂
Touché
Thanks, Longman – another great comment to mull over, especially after a return viewing. I love all these thoughts though I’m still a little skeptical that a Coen universe is the ideal forum for explorations of depth and meaning (I’d kind of like to see that parking lot the way the goofy rabbi describes, rather than just have it posed as an abstract idea, but I’ll admit that would be a different movie, a Lynch or a Rivette perhaps).
As for Rambledonia, I am its president so I welcome you with open arms! (You think this country’s bad off now, just wait till I get through with it…)
Jamie is vice-president but I think he’s planning a coup. 😉
Speaking on Lynch like films– watched THE TENANT (Polanski) the other night for the upcoming horror countdown, it’s always been a favorite of mine but I never realized how god damn Lynch like it is (before Lynch). I’ve watched LOST HIGHWAY and BLUE VELVET in the past few weeks so he was on my mind but all these films seem made by the same person, it’s quite fantastic.
This is brilliance incarnate Longman. You are really awesome.
I am leaving the house now to pick up Dennis Polifroni (my son Danny is coming along too) to see SPLICE at our local multiplex. Will check up at the site when I return later tonight.
A Serious Man is a good movie but for some reason its not one I have any desire to revisit. I don’t think it will ever be looked at as the Coen brother’s masterpiece as some have mentioned. It’s more of a niche picture in their filmography. It’s their Kundun or Barry Lyndon. Like Dennis I prefer their darker more dramatic work like Blood Simple, Fargo, and No Country For Old Men.
Fair enough Maurizio. It’s a position that many share for sure. Very much appreciate your input here.
I guess it seems less representative from their overall body of work. Maybe I’m wrong but I find it an odd film for diehard Coen brother fans to exhalt as their best.
This post is like a novella film discussion with the characters developed in glimpses through their comments to the original post. Wow! Well done!
Any real or perceived shortcomings of “A Serious Man” have little consequence to my viewing engagement with this film.
I found myself particular smitten with “A Serious Man” because of the impressionistic brush strokes depicting an inside world of Judaism/Jewishness that I didn’t always understand. This provided me with a sense that there is some serious living happening beyond how life is usually depicted to support a consuming culture.
The humour in “A Serious Man” was just right for me… allowing me to acknowledge that there is much we can’t control through humour of the best kind… where I am left smiling about me and what I am thinking. The film creates a space for the viewer to confront the fact that we will die it is a given – and we are not likely going to able to determine our own “how” (beyond suicide). This for me is the universality of the film which leaves me not really caring if I get “the joke” or the other inside jokes of the film. I am just thrilled that there IS a joke and there are inside jokes in the richness of confusion which comes from being present in ones life.
Maybe the film appeals to me because of how brightly it shines amongst the other gray pebbles around it? Regardless, it is a favourite from my recent viewings.
Terrell: Apologies to you for such a late response to this extraordinary comment, one of the most profound and beautifully-written on thsi entire thread. There is a strong current of verisimilitude running through your thoughts here, that I can’t say I haven’t felt myself. It’s always a special treat to have your input at this site, my very good friend.
In the week since penning this, it’s occurred to me that one drawback in my view of the film is that I didn’t really watch it as a comedy. As a “dark comedy” sure, but looking back on it, some of the humorous situations are just straightforwardly funny if you approach them with the simplicity the opening message asks for. Indeed, the more I recall Sy Abelman the more I smile to myself. Maybe it should be come for the laughs, stay for the philosophy rather than vice-versa and I put the cart before the horse. It’s sometimes hard to tell with the Coens, though.
Thanks for your comment, cp.
[…] film: The Gleaners & I Next film: A Serious Man Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)The Academy Awards on Wonders in the DarkGrizzly […]
[…] A Serious Man (2009, USA/UK/France), dir. Joel & Ethan […]