A Serious Man

[Gold Trumpet]

edit: found in the most obvious place possible. http://charlierose.com . don't think it'll be on the front page for long.

No, but it will always be available in search. His website is awesome because I can go back to the mid 90s and watch interviews he did.

[picolas]

have you figured out how to view the most recent ones? it seems like they don't become available until they're a year old.

[SiliasRuby]

Visual poetry at its finiest and its the best portrayal of the modern jewish people. Slightly surrealistic and yet grounded. I was one of the few people who really loved 'burn after reading' and it put that to shame. Honest and emotional performances across the board.

My favorites: Richard Kind and the dentist sequence...

[children with angels]

This may be their coldest film to date. They always flirt, and sometimes flat-out nail, detachment and nihilism, but I feel they went all the way here. Incredibly accomplished, but aggressively joyless, which left me feeling somewhat ambivalent.

[picolas]

i wouldn't call this aggressively joyless at all. it's clearly a comedy, and just the decision to make it funny is really important to its meaning.. i was clearer on this when i had just seen it, but the fact remains that people enjoy this movie. my theatre had a joy-filled reaction.

[children with angels]

Oh, it's certainly a comedy, it's just that the comedy is of such a relentlessly detached kind. They obviously do this a lot - the 'life is a ridiculous farce' angle - but they'll also often balance it with either a bit more warmth (Arizona, Hudsucker) or a commitment to slapstick (Burn After Reading, Ladykillers), or genuinely lovable characters (Lebowski, Fargo), that stops it from feeling quite so cold and misanthropic. I didn't feel like there was much of that kind of buffer here.

[john]

I dunno, misanthropy would suggest not just an emotional detachment from their characters, but a level of condemnation or pervasive sneer. In this case, Sthulbarg's Larry Gopnik. I don't see that. And, while in the minority, I rarely see that in an of Coen's films. There's a distance that came almost seem indifferent, but is really just objective. I have no doubt the Coen's relate to Gopnik, they just feel more comfortable as a viewer.

The humor that comes from the film is mostly at the expensive of those who don't bother listening to Gopnik, or wholly dismiss him, ("I mean, just look at that parking lot!")

There's a lot of warmth in this film, but there's also a finality to it that is very unforgiving.

I think the sequence regarding the goyams teeth is probably one of the sweetest, most bewildering seqments of any Coen film. It's humor completely underscoring exactly what I said earlier.

Joyless? No. But claustrophobic, yes. I felt a continual desire for this film to end because as this got worse, the more I cared about Gopnik, as lost as he may be. To establish that kind of care for a character requires a removal of misanthropy.

No Country was much colder because it was just as decisive to it's execution. Only it's intended execution didn't leave as much room for empathy as this film does.

A Serious Man is major Coens. An incredible accomplishment for them as filmmakers, and for modern cinema as a whole.

[children with angels]

I may have gone a little far with misanthropic, but I certainly felt very little of the warmth you did. However, on the misanthropy front: I'm sure you'd agree that there's certainly a condemnatory and sneering tone taken to virtually every character other than Larry (and perhaps his brother) - whether because they're selfish (son, daughter, wife), stupid (2/3 rabbis), excessively intimate (Sy), or otherwise. That's a lot of sneering to go around to begin with.

So then it's a question of whether Larry is being sneered at too. I think he's treated somewhat like Barton Fink is: as someone with somewhat-admirable (or at least understandable), but unachievable desires. Fink at least, though, is allowed some brief joy through his brief dalliance with Judy Davis, and seems to get an ambiguous degree of escape at the end. Larry is just pummelled again and again by the universe in a way that (when the 'universe' - i.e. the film - is as calculating and cold as the Coens make it here) invites me to feel he's being treated almost sadistically. His pain is also treated as cause for our laughter, as when he breaks down crying, making those absurd sounds, in the scene with his lawyer.

The goyam's teeth sequence is wonderful, but it hints at a degree of transcendence only to yank it away with the hilarious lack of moral/meaning - it's made arbitrary, and in that sense plugs away again at the theme of life's absurdity. And not, I would argue, in a warm way.

[Freelancer]

Spoiler:

I've read people mentioning A Serious Man is a retelling of the book of Job as O' Brother was a retelling of the Odyssey.  I'm not the best expert on the stories from the bible but I believe the book of Job begins with the man's family being killed by a strong wind.  So could this be more of a prequel to the book of Job since Larry's family is seemingly wiped out at the end of the film?

But the book of Job allusions are reinforced by the many references to the Ten Commandments.  Larry's children don't honor their mother and father.  Sy Ableman covets his neighbor's, Larry's, wife.  Larry isn't innocent when he changes the grade.  Larry covets his neighbor's house, he covets his neighbor's wife, he bears false witness against the korean student.  But I guess the changing of the grade is the more tangible sin leading to the tornado.   

The goyam's teeth sequence is wonderful, but it hints at a degree of transcendence only to yank it away with the hilarious lack of moral/meaning - it's made arbitrary, and in that sense plugs away again at the theme of life's absurdity.

One, especially Larry, usually believes a story like the teeth story are leading to a meaning but it's just a way to explain the unexplainable.  For example, in the beginning when Larry is talking to the korean student.  The korean student says he understood the story about the cat.  The story about a cat being the way Larry explained a physics problem.

In response, Larry says "But... you... you can't really understand the physics
          without understanding the math. The math tells how it
          really works. That's the real thing; the stories I give you in
          class are just illustrative; they're like, fables, say, to help
          give you a picture. An imperfect model. I mean-even I
          don't understand the dead cat. The math is how it really
          works."

Larry is in very much the same situation as the korean student when he talks to the rabbis.  Larry just wants a passing grade (an easy answer or pass) when he talks to the rabbis.  How could there be any real or helpful answer for someone asking the questions that Larry is asking of the rabbis.   

My first post, other than introducing myself in the Newb thread.

[Pas]

Fine post and good point about the connection between Larry and the korean student

[Alexandro]

well plotwise it is pretty close to the book of job, at least superficially.
to prove his faith in Him, God sends Job all sorts of disgraces. here, is kind of in reverse.
In any case, it was refreshing to see a Coen brothers film that really does not resemble any other Coen brothers film, with maybe the exception of Barton Fink. They really are all out there with the philosophical existential questions on this one. Also, is the first time in AGES probably ever, that they use almost unknown actors in every single part. They usually leave the lead for someone famous, but thankfully not here.

It's one of their very best films too, and it feels great to see them using their last decade earned mainstream recognition in offbeat projects like this. Bravo.

[pete]

alex and freelancer:

I think the kinship to Job is in spirit only...a man questions the bad things that happen to him.  the wind is quite a biblical device, and good catch on the connection, but it can't be a "prequel" since the character of job, at the beginning of the book of job, has the perfect life and has never questioned God's will.

the whole point of the book of job was that job was an innocent and pious man who'd done nothing wrong.  none of the horrible things happened to him because of his or anyone's sins - it was God allowing the devil to do whatever he wants to see if he can flip the pious man.  I don't think your reference of 10 commandments, then, is as relevant.  if anything, all the temptations and the assholes in the movie were forms of punishment, for the hero who just wants to be pious.

the coens, in an interview with the onion a.v. club, talks about the ambiguity of the movie in terms of its structure: a man talks to three rabbis - this could be the beginning of a fable or the set up to a joke, depending on how you look at it.  I hope that becomes useful in your reading of the film.

[Alexandro]

yes, it's kinda like what they did with the odyssey. thank god for the coens. really.

[Neil]

Before I attempt to say anything thoughtful about this film I must know:

Just after the 26 minute mark a fly flies on the top of camera lens inbetween larry and his brother, has anyone else witnessed this?  I bought my blu-ray from Blockbuster for a few dollars, and wondered if this has anything to do with that or if this is actually in the film.

While looking on IMBD for the notice of the fly, I came across;

In his argument with the Columbia House records employee over the phone, Larry Gopnik repeatedly rejects the album Abraxas by Santana. Abraxas is a Gnostic term for God, particularly a God who encompasses all things from Creator of the Universe to the Devil, and an etymological root for "abracadabra". It is thus implied that Larry Gopnik is vehemently rejecting God and magic.

this film is some top notch coens, that's for sure.

[Lottery]

I watched this about 2 weeks ago. It's one of my favourite Coen films for sure.


SPOILS

I haven't read through this thread but anyway: I made up my own mind interpreting this movie but I read a theory which I didn't even consider. I definitely felt the Coens were lying they said that the intro sequence was only there to set the mood. The theory claimed that Larry's brother was a dybbuk. It may seem like a bit of a stretch, so I'll have to find the specific post but it was quite an interesting theory which seemed pretty reasonable.

Also, the intro sequence was actually really creepy despite being pretty Coenesque (reminded me of Fink). They should try a Jewish folk horror movie or something.