A Serious Man (Coens, 2009 (!!))

[Sycophant]

What the hell, Match Cut? Guys, how have I not heard about this? How have we not mentioned this? The Coen brothers have a new film that will be out in less than 3 months.

It is called A Serious Man. Here is IMDb's plot synopsis, which claims to be spoilertastic, but doesn't actually seem to be, unless the premise takes an hour to set up.

Filming has officially begun for "A Serious Man," starring Tony Award nominee Michael Stuhlbarg, Fred Melamed (from "Suspect") and Richard Kind ("The Visitor"). The Coen brothers Ethan and Joel will write, direct and produce and Working Title's Eric Fellner and Tim Bevan are serving as execs alongwide Robert Graf who has worked six times previously with the brothers. Also cast are actors Sari Wagner, Jessica McManus and Aaron Wolf from Minnesota where filming is taking place.

The story follows an ordinary mans search for clarity in a universe where Jefferson Airplane is on the radio and F-Troop is on TV. It is 1967, and Larry Gopnik, a physics professor at a quiet midwestern university, has just been informed by his wife Judith that she is leaving him. She has fallen in love with one of his more pompous colleagues, Sy Ableman, who seems to her a more substantial person than the feckless Larry. Larrys unemployable brother Arthur is sleeping on the couch, his son Danny is a discipline problem and a shirker at Hebrew school, and his daughter Sarah is filching money from his wallet in order to save up for a nose job. While his wife and Sy Ableman blithely make new domestic arrangements, and his brother becomes more and more of a burden, an anonymous hostile letter-writer is trying to sabotage Larrys chances for tenure at the university. Also, a graduate student seems to be trying to bribe him for a passing grade while at the same time threatening to sue him for defamation. Plus, the beautiful woman next door torments him by sunbathing nude. Struggling for equilibrium, Larry seeks advice from three different rabbis. Can anyone help him cope with his afflictions and become a righteous person; a mensch, a serious man?

This sounds pretty great! This is gonna be the brothers' first explicitly Jewish-themed movie, isn't it? I don't know much about most of the cast, but it features Richard Kind prominently, it looks like. That can only be a good thing!

I can't find a trailer. But IMDb tells me it's completed and it's got international release dates scheduled for later this year and a domestic date of October 2, 2009. I don't know what Focus Features's marketing strategy is, but I don't know that they're doing a good job.

Anyway. Hells yes!

[BuffaloWilder]

This sounds interesting - they are very Jewish.

[chrisnu]

Probably hadn't heard anything about it yet because there aren't huge names attached. Looking forward to it, though.

[Sycophant]

I am going to move to the alternate reality where Richard Kind is a huge name.

[Duncan]

This sounds interesting - they are very Jewish.

Are they?

[B-side]

Eh. I was completely indifferent to Burn After Reading. I wanna see them tackle another thriller.

[ledfloyd]

i've been anticipating this for awhile (http://ledfloyd18.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/10-most-anticipated-films-of-2009/). i have the script but have successfully resisted the urge to read it.

[Ezee E]

Eh. I was completely indifferent to Burn After Reading. I wanna see them tackle another thriller.
Their next movie is apparently Hail Caesar, a 1920's theater group doing the Caesar play, so we probably won't see a thriller from them for quite some time.

[B-side]

Their next movie is apparently Hail Caesar, a 1920's theater group doing the Caesar play, so we probably won't see a thriller from them for quite some time.

Well, I suppose it doesn't have to be a thriller per se, just something different.

[Saya]

I thought they were making some kind of Western movie next? Oh well, I don't mind. Always love Coen movies.

[Sycophant]

A domestic period suburban drama? Sounds different enough to me.

But then I think Burn After Reading is one of their finest films, so.

[trotchky]

A domestic period suburban drama? Sounds different enough to me.

Yeah.

Also, how would a thriller be something different for the Coens? That's pretty much one of two genres they've consistently worked with (comedy being the other one).

[B-side]

A domestic period suburban drama? Sounds different enough to me.

But then I think Burn After Reading is one of their finest films, so.

Heh. I didn't check out the synopsis, I thought it was another comedy.


Yeah.

Also, how would a thriller be something different for the Coens? That's pretty much one of two genres they've consistently worked with (comedy being the other one).

I was saying I wanna see them tackle another thriller, but anything different would be just as welcome.

[MadMan]

I want a trailer, just to see how this movie appears to work. Or at least to find out more. But hey its the Coens Brothers and Burn After Reading was utterly fantastic, so I have a good deal of faith here.

[Sxottlan]

Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/focus_features/aseriousman/).

Looks fantastic.

[chrisnu]

Pure Coen goodness.

[Sven]

Looks very weird but totally Coen. Can't wait.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Brilliant trailer. Can't wait.

[NickGlass]

I adore how the Coens capture reticent and sassy old chubby ladies.

[Wryan]

I adore how the Coens capture reticent and sassy old chubby ladies.

Didju check his trailer?

[megladon8]

Eh.

[Watashi]

For Coens standards, that was a really awful trailer.

[Henry Gale]

Oh wow, I love that trailer.

I barely knew a thing about it, so this definitely added a bunch of anticipation for me. Also nice to see very non-flashy casting after something like Burn After Reading (even if it looks to be very similar tonally).

[Ezee E]

Definitely Coen. The story itself isn't something I'm too pumped for, but you know, they're possibly the most consistently good director out there. I don't think I've given any movie less than a 7.

[Milky Joe]

Now that is a trailer.

[Spun Lepton]

Interesting trailer perfectly hides the basic story from the viewer. Way to go, trailer editor!

I'll still see it.

[Grouchy]

That's the best trailer I've seen in a while. Can't fathom what you guys are saying.

Mysterious, funny, to the point. And that beating thing is hilarious.

[number8]

Awesome. That got me pumped hard.

Did they cut this trailer themselves or something?

[Sycophant]

Coen trailers are the best trailers.

[Watashi]

I still think The Big Lebowski has the greatest trailer ever.

[Rowland]

A revisit of No Country for Old Men not only proved that I undervalued the film after my first viewing (I went from a 70 to my revised 82), but that the Coens can still produce top-notch material, since Burn After Reading, while hardly without its share of worthwhile elements, left me concerned.

In any case, I'm looking forward to this.

[Kurosawa Fan]

A revisit of No Country for Old Men not only proved that I undervalued the film after my first viewing (I went from a 70 to my revised 82), but that the Coens can still produce top-notch material, since Burn After Reading, while hardly without its share of worthwhile elements, left me concerned.

In any case, I'm looking forward to this.

I think you need to revisit Burn After Reading so you can prove that you undervalued that film as well. Then you'll be on pace with reality.

[megladon8]

I take it back.

I really want to see this movie.


EDIT: That woman's voice at the end..."the Rabbi is busy"...ugggghhhh.

That's what makes men's balls shrivel up an die.

[chrisnu]

One-sheet:

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7030/aseriousmanposter1.th.jpg (http://img8.imageshack.us/i/aseriousmanposter1.jpg/)

[Russ]

Avatar:


http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/4154/seriousmanav.jpg




:)

[Spun Lepton]

One-sheet:

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7030/aseriousmanposter1.th.jpg (http://img8.imageshack.us/i/aseriousmanposter1.jpg/)

Nice and simple, love it!

[number8]

By the way: http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/5711-the-coen-brothers-and-their-coenesque-trailers.html

[MadMan]

I cannot, and do not, understand those who dismiss No Country or Burn After Reading as being too mean spirited or state that they simply have characters that exist to be put through the meat grinder. So long as its highly effective, as in "Country," or for hilarious dark comedy purposes, as in "Burn," I really don't mind. Nor do I agree with it, anyways. If that's the case then they should really hate Tarentino for torturing The Bride throughout the Kill Bills, I guess.

[Boner M]

I very much want to see this movie.

[Spaceman Spiff]

A friend of mine who is not at all a Coen fan said that this is their best since Barton Fink and probably their funniest film.

Can't wait.

[ledfloyd]

glenn kenny has a piece up on this that has me chomping at the bit to see it.

[number8]

I really can't say enough about how phenomenal the ending to this movie is. I've been replaying it in my head ever since I first saw it.

This.

Loved it.

Also, the end credits made me laugh so hard. Cheap joke, yet it works.

No Jews were harmed in the making of this movie.

[Watashi]

I don't think the Coens has ever had a bad ending.

[Mysterious Dude]

I once again return from a Coen brothers film utterly baffled by the ending.

And I have Jefferson Airplane stuck in my head.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I once again return from a Coen brothers film utterly baffled by the ending.

Sounds fantastic.

[origami_mustache]

A friend of mine who is not at all a Coen fan said that this is their best since Barton Fink and probably their funniest film.


nope

[Spaceman Spiff]

I really can't say enough about how phenomenal the ending to this movie is. I've been replaying it in my head ever since I first saw it.

I'm not sure I liked it very much at all. Even if it did work within the film's overarching philosophy.

I have to think about this one a little bit. It's certainly a very interesting movie.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Why cheap?

I thought it was haunting, absurd, extreme.. but perfectly plausible in so far as it was keenly representative of the maliciously contingent world that the Coens were trying to represent throughout the whole movie.

Heh. I removed the cheap before I read this post, as I agree that it is plausible in the rampantly negative and cynical world the Coens build. It felt too easy and quick is maybe better.

I really liked the film overall though.

[Spaceman Spiff]

On another note, I loved the parts with the pot smoking kid and his friend. Reminded me a lot of my early teen years.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The bar mitzva scene was amazing.

Oh yes. My god that was hilarious.

[Watashi]

Loved it. Especially the ending. It's like the Coens looked back at No Country's ending and said, "not ambigious enough" and went all out in A Serious Man. Though I thought it fit the biblical tone set throughout the entire film perfectly. Like every new Coen film, one can't take away everything on one viewing.

[Sycophant]

This fucker was positively incredible. It's crazy that the Coens seem to further perfect their craft (which has been pretty much perfect for over a decade) and create a more varied--yet simultaneously more harmonious--canon with each passing film. Every minute, every question was riveting, and I laughed a lot.

This may be the best film I've seen this year. Or it's right there with Where the Wild Things Are. So great.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I have to chime in on the love, maybe my favourite Coen effort after No Country... and since I saw it Saturday, I haven't been able to get it out of my head. As funny as it is dark, you really have to see it to believe it. I don't think anything I could do to try to explain why it's worth seeing would do it justice, just wonderful... see it!

[Sycophant]

Also, the pre-credits sequence (so good) had me wishing it were possible for modern films to be shot in Academy ratio.

[Sycophant]

I think you need to revisit Burn After Reading so you can prove that you undervalued that film as well. Then you'll be on pace with reality.

It's been almost 3 months, but allow me to echo this.

[Ezee E]

It's playing near me now. Can't wait!

[Sycophant]

I'm not sure what the Academy ratio is, nor why the pre-credits sequence exemplified its virtues. What's the appeal for you?

1.37:1. It's not a superior format or anything, but it's very unlikely we'll see much shot in the older, more boxy, SDTV-sized format as time goes forward, whether it be television or film. It's a shame, really. Because I think it's sometimes a valid choice, not just for an old-timey feel, but it's conducive to using more mid-shots that seem to serve especially comedy well. I believe Larry David has stated that he still shoots Curb Your Enthusiasm in "full screen" format (1.33, I think, but pretty close to Academy ratio) for this reason. He won't transition to widescreen, because he thinks 1.33 just serves television comedy better.

[ThePlashyBubbler]

The current season of Curb has actually been airing in widescreen.

[chrisnu]

What a bleak, absurd, funny, thought-provoking movie. I must see it again.

[Spaceman Spiff]

"No one's playing the blame game, Larry..."

Line of the movie.

[Ezee E]

Simply awesome, although I'm trying to think of how the pre-credits sequence fits in with the rest of the movie. I have no idea right now.

Easily the most "Coen" movie out there. The conversations about the tenure had me laughing each time.

I saw it with a girl and one of her friends. The friend hated it, sighing throughout, and texting. Ugh. The girl, I'm pretty sure she didn't like it. She hated that it ended so quickly because she liked how it was about to end, and she really liked the performances of the actors. I'm fine with that. :)

[Ezee E]

Some say the baffled reaction to the pre-credits sequence was exactly the sort of response the Coens wanted. It compliments Larry's plight throughout the film. That is, trying to find comforting explications and meaning when there really aren't any.
Don't know if I like that then. I like the sequence itself still.

[Sxottlan]

Disturbing and pretty funny, although not as gutbusting as I was hoping. The funniest character was Ableman.

Haunting final shot though.

[Mysterious Dude]

The pre-credits sequence was actually familiar to me, because I saw a film earlier this year called The Dybbuk, a Yiddish-language film from the 1930's, that has kind of the same story. Not sure how it ties into A Serious Man, other than its Jewish-ness.

Also, is it possible that the Coen brothers don't like Asians? They're always depicting them as huge failures (in this film and Fargo).

[Dillard]

Good film. One of my favorite parts of the movie is the progression through the rabbi visits, and who gets invited into Marshak's chamber? The pot-smoking son, a seemingly unworthy candidate. Interesting theological comment there. That scene, in particular, is a favorite, as the son moves through the rabbi's two-room chamber, and the Coens give this movement the weight/gravity that reflects the son's awe of the strangeness of the place. Notice the science/medical paraphernalia. What was that? An embryo in a jar? The white-bearded Marshak looks on as the son approaches, all heavy lids, reading glasses, and dour mouth, almost like a wizard in appearance. And then he gives his "wisdom," which is really a subversion of the wisdom-giving as he, in a way, thanks the son for the gift of music and hands back the son's radio in a scene that turns to levity.

[Eleven]

The introductory scene:

makes me think of the dybbuk as a kind of Schrodinger's cat and the couple representing different ways to see the world. The husband lives up to the Rashi opening quote and receives the possible dybbuk "with simplicity," i.e. kindness and thankfulness and even wants to try to overlook the fact that his wife heard he was dead. The wife wants answers and proof and refuses to "accept mystery" and instead, in Schrodinger's terms, opens the box (echoes of Barton Fink there). The parable ends ambiguously as to whether she was right, but either the dybbuk was really alive and is probably now dead or the couple may be punished for stabbing a dybbuk. Not great outcomes either way.

In the rest of the film, the dybbuk could be representing uncertainty, mystery, or the incoming contemporary culture seeping into Larry's worldview, he could be echoed by Larry's visiting sad-sack brother.
This was a delightful mashup of Job and Kafka, and for my money the Coens' best since Lebowski.

[Sycophant]

I saw this again on Saturday and have been thinking about it (again) ever since. This is hands-down one of the best films I've seen about religion and faith and God, even if the film itself is arguably agnostic or maybe even nihilistic.

Something I've seen very little mention of is how--as Job-like as Larry's problems feel--most of Larry's challenges in the film are fairly mundane. There's nothing too extraordinary here. It all does seem to come crashing down at once (and maybe the exact nature of the Sy Ableman issue seems a bit exaggerated), but almost everything the Gopniks deal with are terribly common afflictions.

This film is probably a masterpiece.

[Mara]

Okay to see with Mom? Yes? No?

[Sycophant]

I don't know that much about your mother. I wouldn't see it with my mother. But then my mother would refuse simply on the grounds that it's R.

There are probably about two dozen f-words over the course of the film, a bit of nudity, and a short scene of goofy-looking (but not graphic) sex. That's what stands out to me as possibly offensive.

[Sven]

I think my favorite moment in the movie is when the kid is high at his bar mitzvah and the one elder is lifting the heavy scrolls above his head, muttering "Jesus Christ..." Or the cut back to his friend in the congregation who is clearly tripping mad balls.

[Derek]

Okay to see with Mom? Yes? No?

I would go one step further than Syco and say it's definitely agnostic and arguably atheistic. It does not paint faith in the most positive of lights, so that might be the most likely culprit to offend.

[Mara]

Okay, thanks. It might fall into the gray area of films that both my mother and I would enjoy, but would be awkward to see together.

[Ezee E]

I don't see why this would be an awkward one to see with family.

[Mysterious Dude]

I have a question.

Do you think that kid died in the tornado?

[Sycophant]

I have a question.

Do you think that kid died in the tornado?

Quite possibly!

[Spaceman Spiff]

I think my favorite moment in the movie is when the kid is high at his bar mitzvah and the one elder is lifting the heavy scrolls above his head, muttering "Jesus Christ..." Or the cut back to his friend in the congregation who is clearly tripping mad balls.

Yes. The sections with the kid were some of my favorite in the film.

[monolith94]

I wouldn't describe the film as "atheistic" at all. It's way, way too ambiguous to paint it in one corner, or another. Either way, good, good stuff.

[Derek]

I wouldn't describe the film as "atheistic" at all. It's way, way too ambiguous to paint it in one corner, or another. Either way, good, good stuff.

Well, it certainly doesn't paint faith or the search for meaning through organized religion in a positive light.

[Ezee E]

The final scene kinda makes me think it is not "atheistic"

[Mysterious Dude]

Interesting point I read about the film: even though it is modeled after the Book of Job, Larry's problems do not seem to come from God. They come from people. They come from his wife, his kids, his brother, his student, and Sy Ableman. It's only at the very end, after things seem to be getting better, that God suddenly decides to step in and punish him a little more.

[Derek]

The final scene kinda makes me think it is not "atheistic"

The final scene kinda made me think that Coens would get a kick out of people seeing the storm as an act of God after they spent the rest of the film pointing out the absurdity of seeing a higher power behind things such as that.

[Ezee E]

The final scene kinda made me think that Coens would get a kick out of people seeing the storm as an act of God after they spent the rest of the film pointing out the absurdity of seeing a higher power behind things such as that.
Nah. Antoine's reasoning is better, and funnier.

[monolith94]

Well, it certainly doesn't paint faith or the search for meaning through organized religion in a positive light.
Really, though? Really? Despite the seeming vapidity of the 1st Rabbi's words, his discussion about perspective comes back to haunt Larry in an inebriated moment. And the third Rabbi does seem to have some wisdom in the way he interacts with Larry's son. Even the second Rabbi has some wisdom, in showing Larry how sometimes we have to "accept the mystery".

[baby doll]

"There's another Jew, Mitch! Get 'um!"

Pure awesomeness.

[Derek]

Nah. Antoine's reasoning is better, and funnier.

Yeah, except it doesn't really fit with the rest of the film unless you think it's all about watching Larry suffer.


Really, though? Really? Despite the seeming vapidity of the 1st Rabbi's words, his discussion about perspective comes back to haunt Larry in an inebriated moment. And the third Rabbi does seem to have some wisdom in the way he interacts with Larry's son. Even the second Rabbi has some wisdom, in showing Larry how sometimes we have to "accept the mystery".

Really. Really! The entire religious structure is revealed to be little more than a sham. I'm not saying that the rabbis didn't ultimately offer any wise advice, but that quite simply they were ultimately as clueless as the rest of the characters. The young rabbi ("remember...the parking lot"), the second rabbi (his story of the markings on the teeth ultimately had no meaning or purpose aside from something as trite as accept the mystery) and the final rabbi, who is set up as a religious guru, gains his greatest insights from listening to pop music. Perhaps I'm biased in my distaste for organized religion, but I have a hard time accepting that this is meant to make it look anything short of foolish. Where does Larry's search for greater meaning, his serious approach towards life, his desire to do everything that's asked of him ultimately get him? Nowhere, because he is constantly met by the cruel randomness of life and his attempts to make sense of it (through the counsel of the rabbis) lead him only to further confusion. I say it's agnostic because it shows faith as weak, at least in Larry's case, and the supposed guidance of an organized religion to contain no more depth than a dime store novel or psychedelic rock lyrics. I mean, christ, if that's a positive portrait of faith, than I'm glad I lost mine years ago.

[Eleven]

I think it's as much, if not more, Kafka as Job.

[Derek]

I think it's as much, if not more, Kafka as Job.

Agreed. It definitely had a Kafkaesque feel to it.

[chrisnu]

I agree with Derek. It paints organized religion (or Judaism, at least) in a very negative light. I would say that the film is agnostic in that it doesn't lack the belief in a god (and the ending is a jab at that), but questions whether such a god cares about Larry (or anyone, for that matter), or is present in the (exaggeratedly vapid - or not) rabbis' knowledge or the liturgy of the synagogue at all.

[Eleven]

Agreed. It definitely had a Kafkaesque feel to it.

Mix in Antoine's observation that the problems faced by Larry are of a relatively prosaic sort, if a bit piled on, and his troubles are more easily explained by a social system (the late 60s, Jewish culture, what have you) that punishes, like Kafka's authorities, without real evidence of guilt, unless the passivity of floating through life be deemed the same thing (the double-edged "I didn't do anything!").

And by the way, what's a 'get?'

[Watashi]

Funny how athiests say it portrays faith in a negative light, while religious people think the opposite.

I side with mono.

[Derek]

Funny how athiests say it portrays faith in a negative light, while religious people think the opposite.

I side with mono.

Chrisnu is Christian I believe. And I'm agnostic, not atheistic.

Care to go into any depth about how it portrays faith in a positive light or how Larry's faith and relations with the church/rabbis ultimately help him?

[Watashi]

Chrisnu is Christian I believe. And I'm agnostic, not atheistic.

Care to go into any depth about how it portrays faith in a positive light or how Larry's faith and relations with the church/rabbis ultimately help him?
I don't think it paints faith in a positive light per se, but I do think there is an Old Testament vibe of God having a sick torturous sense of humor. I probably worded the above post wrong, because I do look at the film as one long morality tale of disasters ending with an actual physical to cap it off. I think the rabbis do offer wisdom, but nothing to confirm that God is real, but mostly as a "it's beyond understanding" advice full of metaphors that go nowhere. Never in the film, did I feel like the film was trying to say that God doesn't exist, but more as if he does exist, he's not the God we expect him to be.

[Derek]

I don't think it paints faith in a positive light per se, but I do think there is an Old Testament vibe of God having a sick torturous sense of humor.

I guess outside of the final shot, I didn't really see any evidence of any higher being at work. As someone said earlier, all of Larry's troubles come about because of humans and the random cruelty of the universe. To me, it seemed like the Coens were constantly poking fun at any attempts to make sense of it. The film's answer to Larry's repeated plea, "I didn't do anything." is essentially "shit happens."


I probably worded the above post wrong, because I do look at the film as one long morality tale of disasters ending with an actual physical to cap it off. I think the rabbis do offer wisdom, but nothing to confirm that God is real, but mostly as a "it's beyond understanding" advice full of metaphors that go nowhere. Never in the film, did I feel like the film was trying to say that God doesn't exist, but more as if he does exist, he's not the God we expect him to be.

But the metaphor is nonsensical, the story goes nowhere and ultimately communicates nothing meaningful and the final dallop of wisdom is from Grace Slick. I agree it never suggests God doesn't exist, but it sure as hell came across as being unsure whether or not He does. That'd be agnostic in my book.

[baby doll]

And by the way, what's a 'get?'They explain this in the film. It's a kind of kosher divorce, so his wife and Sy Abelman can remarry within the faith.

[baby doll]

As for the discussion as to whether the film is agnostic/anti-religious/whatever, it seems to me that the subject of the film is uncertainty. And the older (and therefore, presumably wiser) that the rabbis get, the more they realize how little they really know.

[Sycophant]

As for the discussion as to whether the film is agnostic/anti-religious/whatever, it seems to me that the subject of the film is uncertainty. And the older (and therefore, presumably wiser) that the rabbis get, the more they realize how little they really know.

I like this.

In retrospect, it seems kind of obvious. But still.

[Eleven]

They explain this in the film. It's a kind of kosher divorce, so his wife and Sy Abelman can remarry within the faith.

'Cause, see...there's this whole running joke in the movie about how...you know...people don't know what it is, which is...you know...why I facetiously asked.

[baby doll]

'Cause, see...there's this whole running joke in the movie about how...you know...people don't know what it is, which is...you know...why I facetiously asked.It's hard to gauge tone on a discussion forum. It's possible some one might've missed it.

[Eleven]

It's hard to gauge tone on a discussion forum. It's possible some one might've missed it.

True, it's not like I asked, "You don't speak Spanish, right?"

[Henry Gale]

My love for this movie keeps growing the more I think about it (and I only saw it last night). I know I'll have to see it again to know exactly what it all means to me, but as the film loosely bounces around in my head happily and hauntingly, it's still one of the most effective and rich experiences I've had all year.

The ideas are so perfectly scattered in such an elegant and awesomely enigmatic way that if you were to watch it completely trying to grasp every idea, or just let it all wash over you, it's such a strong piece of work and enjoy. The scene where Larry drives Arthur to sail off to Canada (later revealed to be a dream) was, for me, maybe the funniest scene of anything this year. The way the score became really lovely and corny just as he was waving and paddling off to nowhere in such a goofy way ("Goodbyyye!") to then having the neighbours show up right then the way they did. They way that suddenly causes the tonal and technical aesthetics of the scene to go nuts is amazing. I think everyone in the theatre, especially everyone I saw it with, were in complete hysterics. It was brilliant as it was, but it also summed up the movie for me in a small but perfect way before its actual conclusion.

I'd say these last three films from the last three years have given us a perfect pseudo-trilogy from the Coens, and one that as both individuals and a whole I will continue to revisit and adore for a very long time. One of the best films of the year for sure.

****

[chrisnu]

I watched this again, and felt that the final events had an even more malevolent twist than I originally thought:

Immediately after making the decision to change the boy's grade, he receives the disturbing phone call from his doctor. It's obvious that this could be seen as the god in this movie punishing him for this act of disobedience. However, the tornado warning was given even before he changed the grade. God was already planning to decimate the Hebrew school with the tornado. Everything had been predestined; there is the stipulation that God was the author of Larry's disobedience.

Just a thought. I still enjoy the movie a lot. I also enjoy how the seemingly irrational mysticism of Judaism portrayed in the films various characters contrasts so sharply with Larry's desire for order and logic in the classroom.

[Ezee E]

There's also the idea that God used the tornado to punish the kids for the loss of tradition. Its so over the top that I thought it was obvious there.

[baby doll]

I watched this again, and felt that the final events had an even more malevolent twist than I originally thought:

Immediately after making the decision to change the boy's grade, he receives the disturbing phone call from his doctor. It's obvious that this could be seen as the god in this movie punishing him for this act of disobedience. However, the tornado warning was given even before he changed the grade. God was already planning to decimate the Hebrew school with the tornado. Everything had been predestined; there is the stipulation that God was the author of Larry's disobedience.I disagree. We don't know if he changed the grade or not (only that he was tempted to), that he has a fatal disease (only that the doctor wants to speak to him in person), or that the school was destroyed (only that the old man was fumbling with the keys to the shelter). As for Ezee E's suggestion that the tornado is some how god's wrath, it's my understanding that they're a pretty common occurance in the midwestern United States.

[Ezee E]

But he did change the grade. It's a clear shot of him putting in C-.

And please, why else would the doctor want to talk to him in person? To congratulate him on his tenure? Silly.

[Derek]

I think soori's point was that this can all be seen as coincidence and happenstance as opposed to the "hand of God". Chrisnu even mentioned Larry's desire for order and logic, something which he cannot find in the world, with or without the assistance of religion. That his profession demands a search for absolute precision is an ironic counterpoint to pure chaos of the inexplicable world. This search for meaning and why things happen even when he doesn't "do anything" is in vain. There is no absolute truth which he's after and no true way to make sense of the universe. Whether or not God caused the tornado is almost irrelevant, because the ultimate point is that shit like that happens and we can't make any sense of it. If God caused it, he's a petty, vengeful bastard.

But either way, what I think is so brilliant about the film, especially in retrospect is how ambiguous the Coens leave everything. I disagree with how you read the film, but I think that has more to do with our personal perspectives than either one of us misreading it.

[baby doll]

But he did change the grade. It's a clear shot of him putting in C-.

And please, why else would the doctor want to talk to him in person? To congratulate him on his tenure? Silly.Maybe I'm imagining things, but I thought he erased the grade a second later.

As for the doctor, I think the important thing to note is simply that the character thinks that the doctor is going to give him some horrible news, but the film doesn't say definitively one way or the other whether he will. Maybe the character has some terminal illness, maybe it's something relatively minor. Maybe it's nothing at all. I'm just going by what's actually, physically on screen.

[Sycophant]

Maybe I'm imagining things, but I thought he erased the grade a second later.
Like 99.99% confident you're imagining things.


As for the doctor, I think the important thing to note is simply that the character thinks that the doctor is going to give him some horrible news, but the film doesn't say definitively one way or the other whether he will. Maybe the character has some terminal illness, maybe it's something relatively minor. Maybe it's nothing at all. I'm just going by what's actually, physically on screen.
You're right that it could be someting minor or nothing at all, but it is so, so, soooooo strongly implied that it's cancer or something.

[Eleven]

Larry erases the 'F,' writes a 'C,' seems to hesitate, then writes a '-' next to the 'C.'

Boom, the phone rings.

[baby doll]

Larry erases the 'F,' writes a 'C,' seems to hesitate, then writes a '-' next to the 'C.'

Boom, the phone rings.Okay, that sounds right, although I don't know about ''boom.''

[Eleven]

Okay, that sounds right, although I don't know about ''boom.''

Just emphasizin' its suddenness in relation to the writing of the '-.'

[Sycophant]

No, Eleven's right. Boom. It's instantaneous.

[Ezee E]

Larry erases the 'F,' writes a 'C,' seems to hesitate, then writes a '-' next to the 'C.'

Boom, the phone rings.
Yup. Love that.

[Eleven]

A serious 'boom,' even.

[baby doll]

No, Eleven's right. Boom. It's instantaneous.Still, I find the idea of a causal relation between the two a little dubious. Maybe that's just me being a fanatical atheist who refuses to see any kind of divine meaning in anything, but I think the notion that god gave him cancer is an interpretation you're bringing to the film that isn't necessarily there. Perhaps it's justified to some extent by the Jewish milieu (I don't know much about the religion, but it's my understanding that they're still working from the Old Testament, and from what I've heard of it, the character of god is portrayed in it as much more active and vengeful than in the sequel), but if god is punishing him now for changing the grade, what was s/he so pissed off about for the entire movie leading up to this scene?

[chrisnu]

if god is punishing him now for changing the grade, what was s/he so pissed off about for the entire movie leading up to this scene?
If I'm going to try and think for the god in the movie, I think that s/he wasn't pissed off until Larry changed the grade. This is the first time I can think of Larry openly defying any of the Ten Commandments in the movie. He dreamed about committing adultery with Mrs. Samsky, but he didn't.

Another Biblical reference regarding why the god of this movie may have sent the tornado as a result of Larry's disobedience, rather than anything his son did:

"I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." Exodus 20:5 - this immediately follows the second commandment.

I just thought of another analogy: when he's talking to the young man who's failing his class, Larry talks about the need to understand the math, the logic, behind the physics, while the student believes that he fully understands based solely on illustrations. Also, when the student's father approaches Larry, he tells him to "accept the mystery". Another apparent clash of faith and reason.

Amy Landecker is really hot, BTW.

[Mysterious Dude]

I think "accept the mystery" might be a good moral to the second rabbi's story, too.

- "What happened to the goy?"
- "The goy? Who cares?"

[baby doll]

This is the first time I can think of Larry openly defying any of the Ten Commandments in the movie. He dreamed about committing adultery with Mrs. Samsky, but he didn't.Well, is it adultery at all, since his wife was originally planning to leave him?

[jamaul]

I really adore this film, and I actually tried to figure out if I could rework my already-solidified top 50 and fit this one in there. I've decided against it though, only because I specifically wanted to see this film a second time, so alas, it won't be included. But I would award it my highest rating.

I'd like to point out that my interpretation of the ending is that it culminates all of the themes laid forth from the beginning to the brilliant conclusion. I think one could dissect so much in the film and really spew forth a pages-long, in-depth treatise on all the various meanings, philosophical and theological references sprinkled throughout the film ... I kind of just wanted to say that when you consider that the phone does ring when he changes the grade, and that the hurricane speeds towards camera as the film's final shot --without really any reason except an act of nature (or God, or ... the Coen brothers) -- I think that with the cut to credits and the reprise of the Jefferson Airplane song (when the truth is found to be a lie) the Coen's have crafted, ultimately, a nihilistic perspective on life. We may go back and forth on "well, does Larry get the phone call because he changes the grade, as God’s way of punishing him?" when really, I think the Coen's are the true 'God's' at work here. So, in other words, any question of 'why?' throughout the film can be answered with both yes and no. But a better answer could very well be: 'because the Coen's wrote it that way.' Why does the phone ring? Because sometimes life just happens that way, and there is no reason. In fact, how self-centered a race are we really to think our actions are being scrutinized by a higher power and dished out accompanying punishments accordingly?

Such a playful, rich and wonderfully cynical film. After this, Burn After Reading and No Country, I think the Coen's are really delivering some of the best work of their careers; three films in which the only Gods that truly exist within the work are the ones writing the slug lines.

[Boner M]

Objectively, this rocked. But I had a throbbing headache during my viewing, so I'll have to see the film again sometime to gauge it better.

Dentist anecdote = scene of the year.

[B-side]

I need to see this immediately.

[B-side]

I need to see this immediately.

It's already being removed from theaters!:frustrated:

[B-side]

Great film.

[B-side]

Why has nobody mentioned the curse brought on in the beginning? I assumed that family was the ancestors of Larry. Is it not plausible that the dybbuk brought about the curse that plagued Larry?

[Spinal]

One of the year's best films. One of the Coens' best films. Like Trier's Antichrist, this films confronts truths that are almost unbearably painful. While Trier uses a dreamy landscape that often steps outside of reality, the Coens operate within the realm of the tedious and mundane. It's not really a grand gesture that brings down Larry Gopnik (omnious finale notwithstanding), it's an accumulation of smaller details. Burn After Reading was funnier. No Country for Old Men was more harrowing. But A Serious Man might ultimately score the most direct hit. This one stings.

[ledfloyd]

Dentist anecdote = scene of the year.
yep.

i think the ending, echoes the opening, which is an illustration of schroedinger's cat and the uncertainty principal. that is to say, it can be interpreted as an act of god or not. it could be fatal or not. this applies to both the phone call and the tornado. as it stands, both things are true at the same time.

[Adam]

Wow, I loved this movie. It's an almighty, juicy dig at anybody who claims to "know" what's going on here. It's not taking sides with agnostics or atheists or anybody, in my book. All it's doing is reveling in the sheer absurdity of organized religion and the search for understanding in life and just plain existence, in general. And it finally answers that age-old question: If there is a God, why do bad things happen to good people. The answer is "accept the mystery"

My favorite thing about A Serious Man is the absurd notion of accepting the mystery. Those three words are the perfect summation of our existence as well as the perfect summation of the Coens' entire body of work. A Serious Man solidifies their place as the biggest cinematic cock-teases of all time. All of their films have an element of building to nothing. It's become more pronounced recently with the endings of No Country and now this, but it's always been there. They love letting their audience down hard after thoroughly mounting anticipation and they've taken this as far as humanly possible in A Serious Man. First off, they introduce a million plot strands within like the first fifteen minutes and they just keep piling and piling and piling on and, hilariously, it leads nowhere. This is encapsulated flawlessly with the dentist vignette. And at the end, the Coens pull their greatest trick of all. They have God call their Job, but they don't let us know what he has to say

[ledfloyd]

i read job last night. this is one of those rare cases where the film is better than the book.

[Pop Trash]

Wow, I loved this movie. It's an almighty, juicy dig at anybody who claims to "know" what's going on here. It's not taking sides with agnostics or atheists or anybody, in my book. All it's doing is reveling in the sheer absurdity of organized religion and the search for understanding in life and just plain existence, in general. And it finally answers that age-old question: If there is a God, why do bad things happen to good people. The answer is "accept the mystery"


I haven't seen this yet but I always thought Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors tackled this question quite well. Or rather the inverse of this.

[Sycophant]

i read job last night. this is one of those rare cases where the film is better than the book.

This post is good times.

[BuffaloWilder]

The Book of Job is okay, I guess. I enjoy Ecclesiastes more, myself. Psalms is hit-or-miss.

[BuffaloWilder]

Also, what a great movie.

[Pop Trash]

This was pretty good, I guess. I'm just starting to feel like the Coen's non-ending endings are becoming something of a crutch. When it ended I was like "oh, they are doing that again? OK."

[Spinal]

I don't understand how it's a non-ending. What else does it need?

[MadMan]

Yeah the more I think about the ending, the more I like it alot. Not sure if I still remotely understand the jist of the whole moment, but it not only features a final scene that blindsides you, but is also rather shockingly abrrupt. I actually prefer ASM's ending to the one for No Country for Old Men's, although granted the latter is based on an actual book (from what I hear, it deviated a bit).

Spinal hit the nail on the head about this movie. However, in some ways I found the Coens latest to be funnier than Burn After Reading. This took the harsh realities of their previous two efforts and turned it up to unbearable, painful and hilarious levels. Also I'm sure there's something about the use of Jefferson's Airplane's classic "Someone to Love," but right now I can't put my finger on it. Maybe the answer will either come to me, or someone here will just ruin the fun and tell me.

Oh and the dream sequences were the funniest element of the entire movie, although the Bat Mitzvah part where the son passes despite being as high as a kite was also utterly hilarious. I wonder what they'll do next, considering that in this case they created a movie that lacked big stars, was on a smaller scale, and was quite intimate.

[ledfloyd]

I don't understand how it's a non-ending. What else does it need?
yeah, i didn't think no country had a non-ending either. oh well.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Which Coen Brothers movie has a non-ending? I haven't noticed one.

[Raiders]

Just realized this is available OnDemand (DirecTV anyway). Will watch in about 30 minutes (yay for snow, I guess).

[Pop Trash]

Which Coen Brothers movie has a non-ending? I haven't noticed one.

It's just become their schtick. Lebowski, while having something more of an ending than A Serious Man or No Country, also added up to a clusterfuck of nothing much (same goes for Burn After Reading), which is obviously their point. I guess from how gaga a lot of film nerds went over this, I was expecting it to go in a more profound direction and it kind of didn't. Maybe I was expecting something more along the lines of the ending of Synecdoche, NY for example.

[number8]

Maybe I was expecting something more along the lines of the ending of Synecdoche, NY for example.

Obvious and telegraphed 20 minutes in? POW.

[Kurosawa Fan]

It's just become their schtick. Lebowski, while having something more of an ending than A Serious Man or No Country, also added up to a clusterfuck of nothing much (same goes for Burn After Reading), which is obviously their point. I guess from how gaga a lot of film nerds went over this, I was expecting it to go in a more profound direction and it kind of didn't. Maybe I was expecting something more along the lines of the ending of Synecdoche, NY for example.

You're saying No Country added up to nothing much? And A Serious Man? I'm befuddled by this response. To be completely honest, I don't know how to react. Are you asking for the films to spell out their exact meaning for you rather than leave things open to interpretation? Is that what you mean by non-ending or "nothing much"? Because I just don't see it.

[Pop Trash]

You're saying No Country added up to nothing much? And A Serious Man? I'm befuddled by this response. To be completely honest, I don't know how to react. Are you asking for the films to spell out their exact meaning for you rather than leave things open to interpretation? Is that what you mean by non-ending or "nothing much"? Because I just don't see it.

No, that was referring to Lebowski and Burn After Reading really. No Country and A Serious Man obviously had more on their mind. And it's not like Lebowski or BAR are completely empty headed. It's just that the Coen's were doing the "the point is that there is no point" type of nihilist/atheist thing.

[Pop Trash]

Obvious and telegraphed 20 minutes in? POW.
Srsly?

[Kurosawa Fan]

No, that was referring to Lebowski and Burn After Reading really. No Country and A Serious Man obviously had more on their mind. And it's not like Lebowski or BAR are completely empty headed. It's just that the Coen's were doing the "the point is that there is no point" type of nihilist/atheist thing.

I don't think you're giving the Coens enough credit. I don't think their thesis is that "there is no point", but rather, "we aren't sure either, but it's sure worth examining". I love that they're leaving there films open for viewer interpretation rather than preaching one particular point of view. It makes for a more satisfying experience for me.

[number8]

Srsly?

Yes. I pretty much knew that ending was coming the moment he began building. It's written all over the film's mood.

[Adam]

I don't think you're giving the Coens enough credit. I don't think their thesis is that "there is no point", but rather, "we aren't sure either, but it's sure worth examining". I love that they're leaving there films open for viewer interpretation rather than preaching one particular point of view. It makes for a more satisfying experience for me.

Calling the Coens nihilistic is unfairly reductive, but I still think Pop Trash has a better handle on A Serious Man and other recent Coen efforts than you do. They very purposefully do build to nothing - their endings are non-endings. That's the whole point. Like I said earlier in the thread, the dentist vignette in A Serious Man is pretty much a perfect, hilarious microcosm of what the Coens are all about

[Kurosawa Fan]

Calling the Coens nihilistic is unfairly reductive, but I still think Pop Trash has a better handle on A Serious Man and other recent Coen efforts than you do. They very purposefully do build to nothing - their endings are non-endings. That's the whole point. Like I said earlier in the thread, the dentist vignette in A Serious Man is pretty much a perfect, hilarious microcosm of what the Coens are all about

It would be impossible for me to care less what you think about how well of a handle I have on the material.

If you look at A Serious Man, a film that apparently has a "non-ending", to call it nihilistic is very short-sighted. That would mean that you think the Coen's meant for the doctor's phone call and the tornado to be coincidental events and nothing more. I think both events can be interpreted as the possibility of an existing god, just not a personal god who rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior. The film seemed to argue against the egocentricity inherent in religious doctrine, but I don't think it was meant as a strictly nihilistic film, and thus its ending is far from a "non-ending".

[Adam]

Oh, okay

[Kurosawa Fan]

Oh, okay

I edited my comment, as that alone was a bit more mean than I meant it to be. However, I don't take condescending remarks from 16 year olds seriously. If you'd like to discuss the film, I'm open to that, but to pretend that your opinion or interpretation is somehow more valid than that of others offers nothing in the way of a constructive dialogue and is useless to me.

[Adam]

I edited my comment, as that alone was a bit more mean than I meant it to be. However, I don't take condescending remarks from 16 year olds seriously. If you'd like to discuss the film, I'm open to that, but to pretend that your opinion or interpretation is somehow more valid than that of others offers nothing in the way of a constructive dialogue and is useless to me.

Well, I'm 19, for what those extra three+ years are worth. And I didn't mean to sound condescending or anything - sorry if I did. But, you know, I was just trying to say why I fall more in line with Pop Trash's take. I don't think my post was any less constructive than your response to Pop Trash


If you look at A Serious Man, a film that apparently has a "non-ending", to call it nihilistic is very short-sighted. That would mean that you think the Coen's meant for the doctor's phone call and the tornado to be coincidental events and nothing more. I think both events can be interpreted as the possibility of an existing god, just not a personal god who rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior. The film seemed to argue against the egocentricity inherent in religious doctrine, but I don't think it was meant as a strictly nihilistic film, and thus its ending is far from a "non-ending".

I made a point of saying in the first sentence of my post that calling the Coens nihilistic was unfairly reductive, so now I feel like you're being kind of an asshole to me without even reading what I said that was apparently so condescending. You're definitely right in saying the Coens are lampooning the idea of a God who exists to service us all on a personal level. But that doesn't mean the ending of the film isn't obviously lacking any kind of closure, which is what I meant when I called it a non-ending. Here's what I wrote here right after I saw the movie for the first time...


Wow, I loved this movie. It's an almighty, juicy dig at anybody who claims to "know" what's going on here. It's not taking sides with agnostics or atheists or anybody, in my book. All it's doing is reveling in the sheer absurdity of organized religion and the search for understanding in life and just plain existence, in general. And it finally answers that age-old question: If there is a God, why do bad things happen to good people. The answer is "accept the mystery"

My favorite thing about A Serious Man is the absurd notion of accepting the mystery. Those three words are the perfect summation of our existence as well as the perfect summation of the Coens' entire body of work. A Serious Man solidifies their place as the biggest cinematic cock-teases of all time. All of their films have an element of building to nothing. It's become more pronounced recently with the endings of No Country and now this, but it's always been there. They love letting their audience down hard after thoroughly mounting anticipation and they've taken this as far as humanly possible in A Serious Man. First off, they introduce a million plot strands within like the first fifteen minutes and they just keep piling and piling and piling on and, hilariously, it leads nowhere. This is encapsulated flawlessly with the dentist vignette. And at the end, the Coens pull their greatest trick of all. They have God call their Job, but they don't let us know what he has to say

[Kurosawa Fan]

I made a point of saying in the first sentence of my post that calling the Coens nihilistic was unfairly reductive, so now I feel like you're being kind of an asshole to me without even reading what I said that was apparently so condescending. You're definitely right in saying the Coens are lampooning the idea of a God who exists to service us all on a personal level. But that doesn't mean the ending of the film isn't obviously lacking any kind of closure, which is what I meant when I called it a non-ending. Here's what I wrote here right after I saw the movie for the first time...

No, I read what you said and I'm certainly not being an asshole, but you're changing what Pop Trash said was his definition of "non-ending", which he said was that "the point is there is no point", and it especially applied to Burn After Reading. If we're changing the definition of "non-ending" to mean closure, it changes my stance entirely. Though how does this apply to Burn After Reading? Heck, I'm still not sure that I agree that A Serious Man offers no closure.

The point is, you're changing what Pop Trash said by offering up closure as your idea of "non-ending". This was his original post in reference to my asking which Coen films he felt had a non-ending:


It's just become their schtick. Lebowski, while having something more of an ending than A Serious Man or No Country, also added up to a clusterfuck of nothing much (same goes for Burn After Reading), which is obviously their point.

That is what I took issue with. Not that there isn't closure at the end of the story, but that their films add up to a clusterfuck of nothing much, which is their point.

[Adam]

Hmmm, I'm not even sure I know what we're arguing about here. I think maybe we're both reading what Pop Trash said differently? While the Coens might have "a point," the hallmark of their more recent movies seems to be, more than anything, that they love building up their audience's expectations and then letting them down. Their endings make thematic sense and are awesome, but you'd agree they're not exactly what you'd call traditionally satisfying denouements, yeah?

[Pop Trash]

Yes. I pretty much knew that ending was coming the moment he began building. It's written all over the film's mood.

So you knew there would be this beautifully written and executed voice-over delivered via one of Caden's actors through an ear piece directing him what to do in the last days and hours of his life, while the world has completely ended around him?

[number8]

So you knew there would be this beautifully written and executed voice-over delivered via one of Caden's actors through an ear piece directing him what to do in the last days and hours of his life, while the world has completely ended around him?

Right, that was the ending.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Hmmm, I'm not even sure I know what we're arguing about here. I think maybe we're both reading what Pop Trash said differently? While the Coens might have "a point," the hallmark of their more recent movies seems to be, more than anything, that they love building up their audience's expectations and then letting them down. Their endings make thematic sense and are awesome, but you'd agree they're not exactly what you'd call traditionally satisfying denouements, yeah?

Well, I'd disagree with the Coens "letting down" their audience (though I understand your meaning, I just can't jive with the wording), but yes, I certainly agree that they aren't traditional endings, and that the average audience might not be satisfied. But this is certainly different than not having an ending, or "adding up to a clusterfuck of nothing much". To me, it's a clusterfuck of VERY much, and it's up to the audience to decide where to take it when the credits roll.

[Winston*]

I'm not sure that that's a grammatically correct use of clusterfuck.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm not sure that that's a grammatically correct use of clusterfuck.

Quiet you.

[Pop Trash]

Right, that was the ending.

Uh huh.

[Ezee E]

Watched it a second time. There most certainly is an ending. I'll have to look up my thoughts and see if i even agree with them this time.

[Sycophant]

This film has an ending. In fact, in the way that it mirrors the film's beginning, it's very much an ending indeed.

[number8]

Uh huh.

Do you really not see how that is the most obvious choice to end that scenario? I'm kind of stunned.

[Cherish]

i think the ending, echoes the opening, which is an illustration of schroedinger's cat and the uncertainty principal. that is to say, it can be interpreted as an act of god or not. it could be fatal or not. this applies to both the phone call and the tornado. as it stands, both things are true at the same time.

I think this is perfectly put.


I'm just starting to feel like the Coen's non-ending endings are becoming something of a crutch. When it ended I was like "oh, they are doing that again? OK."

This "non-ending ending" seems very different to me than all others, because of what ledfloyd says above. It's much more necessary and elegant than any I've seen before.


Also I'm sure there's something about the use of Jefferson's Airplane's classic "Someone to Love," but right now I can't put my finger on it. Maybe the answer will either come to me, or someone here will just ruin the fun and tell me.

I don't want to ruin anyone's fun :lol:, so here's my take:

There's a strong strain of "appreciate what you have before it's gone" here. His brother points out how much richer Larry's life is; his colleague reminds him to cherish his son; all his problems in the movie are possibly about to be trivialized in the face of real suffering, etc. I think that fits with the song, which basically says that, when things are bad, find "somebody to love."

[Raiders]

As always, a marvelously meticulous and elegantly crafted film. The ending had me absolutely rolling, though also rather uncomfortable. I can't really tell if the implication is that God is finally smiting Larry and his kin (as is the Old Testament God's want to do) or if the Coens are just yet again punishing their little creations like an ant under the magnifying glass. All of Larry's problems have nothing to do with God or faith, and throughout the film he keeps telling that "he didn't do anything," but when he finally does take action, his deceit spawns a reaction (as Larry himself says earlier, every single action has a reaction). The contempt seems to go in all directions, from the organized religion purporting knowledge and clarity but offering nothing but platitudes, pointless anecdotes and finally simply repeating pop culture to characters' attempts to de-mystify the unexplainable to those who take free will out of the equation. The opening non-sequitur sets the stage for the film-long question of how much stock do we put in our faith. It's a pretty depressing film and the Coens seem bent on continuing to look at humanity with a contempt for its bullshit and clutter and to continue making flawlessly constructed films. The difference in the Coens' brand of cynicism over society and people and someone like Michael Haneke is that the Coens find comfort in our small idiosyncrasies and annoyances and embrace it as much as lambast it, thus giving humanity to their films even in the most nihilistic of circumstances, and it is all the difference in the world.

[Sven]

The contempt seems to go in all directions, from the organized religion purporting knowledge and clarity but offering nothing but platitudes

"Look at that parking lot."

Fine paragraph, Raiders.

[MadMan]

I don't want to ruin anyone's fun :lol:, so here's my take:

There's a strong strain of "appreciate what you have before it's gone" here. His brother points out how much richer Larry's life is; his colleague reminds him to cherish his son; all his problems in the movie are possibly about to be trivialized in the face of real suffering, etc. I think that fits with the song, which basically says that, when things are bad, find "somebody to love."Whoa. I really like your take on the song. The way you spell it out makes the scene where the wise old rabbi reveals he has listened to the song actually mean more. Beyond the fact that its quite funny and a complete and utter shock, of course. This could also feed into the nightmare Larry has where him and his brother are shot by the rednecks (aside from the obvious: its hilarious)-life is indeed rather fleeting.

Bravo, man. And excellent review, Raiders. I think its about time I watched a Michael Haneke film.

[Cherish]

Whoa. I really like your take on the song. The way you spell it out makes the scene where the wise old rabbi reveals he has listened to the song actually mean more. Beyond the fact that its quite funny and a complete and utter shock, of course. This could also feed into the nightmare Larry has where him and his brother are shot by the rednecks (aside from the obvious: its hilarious)-life is indeed rather fleeting.

Bravo, man.

Thanks!! You know, the first time I watched this, I thought the Coen's were completely scornful of the three rabbis. But, on a rewatch, I realized the second one had something good to say if you puzzled it out. Add that to the above, and I've changed my mind about the role of the rabbis.

[baby doll]

"Consequences have actions."
"Yes, often."

Still hilarious after three viewings.

[Spaceman Spiff]

"I saw Swedish Reverie! It wasn't even erotic..... although.... it was, in a way."

[number8]

I love this movie so much.

[MadMan]

The more I think about this movie, the more I realize its greatness. My previous rating feels too low.

[Sycophant]

I'm reasonably confident this is one of my ten favorite movies now. I love it so much.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Everybody in this thread is talking about how humorous the movie was, but, apart from a few gags toward the beginning, this film felt like a kick to the nuts every ten minutes. That's not to chastise the film, since that's clearly its goal. I'm just an awfully sympathetic movie-watcher, and I thought the film was overwhelmingly sad. It's also beautiful, superbly acted, touching, and thoughtful. I liked how, despite all the awfulness that happens to Larry, there are still small moments of humanity. Like when he and his wife hold each other at their son's bar mitzvah. When Larry calms and hugs his brother in the empty pool. When the young rabbi tries his best to be helpful. In a way, it reminded me of the overall idea of 13 Conversations About One Thing, the idea that fortune does not care for us, and that's why it's so important that we care for each other.

A-

[Grouchy]

Floored by this. Amazing. The Coens have surpassed themselves.

I don't know if I have much to add to what's already been said, though. The movie is crazily funny and I think the last time I laughed this loud at a movie theater was, not casually, at Burn After Reading. Every moment is set up so brilliantly that the payoff (or lack of) gives almost a physical effect to the viewer. The brothers have honed their editing skills so much that the movies almost could be animated in their meticulous planning. None could have pulled off that heart attack joke so well. I read on IMDb that the writing start for this was the Bar Mitzvah scene near the end, which is absolutely awesome. The payoff with the Rabbi's teaching is priceless.

On a deeper level, the film has many moments of raw humanity that clash with the dark comedy. Larry hugging his brother at the pool or breaking down at the lawyer's office, for example, were like oasis of heart-tugging in the middle of all the elaborated mayhem the world of this movie is. The actors are all perfect, and I thought it was perfect that none of them are even remotely near star status - the realism of this film sort of demands the strange faces. Plus, you can tell they aren't playing it for laughs (specially Sthulbarg), which is why it's so damn funny.

I'm not so sure about the ending. I've seen the movie almost 12 hours ago, and it's slowly growing on me, but something didn't quite click with the doctor's phone call. It was almost like an admission of divine design after all the trouble the script went for to set up a universe of randomness. But then again, that same admission is contradictory and showing of how the character can't get a grasp on how the world works. I do love the imagery of the US flag and the tornado.

That Amy Andecker (the female neighbor) was sexy. I looked her up and she stars in a stage version of "Bug", the play that was made into the Friedkin movie. I'd love to see that.

[chrisnu]

I'm not so sure about the ending. I've seen the movie almost 12 hours ago, and it's slowly growing on me, but something didn't quite click with the doctor's phone call. It was almost like an admission of divine design after all the trouble the script went for to set up a universe of randomness. But then again, that same admission is contradictory and showing of how the character can't get a grasp on how the world works.
It could be an admission of divine design, but it could also be an example of indifferent coincidence. We're pattern-seeking people to a fault, and I like that this plays into our own apophenia.

[[ETM]]

I'm watching it right now. I'm at 1:21 and I still don't think I "get" it.

EDIT: Okay.

[lovejuice]

I'm not so sure about the ending. I've seen the movie almost 12 hours ago, and it's slowly growing on me, but something didn't quite click with the doctor's phone call. It was almost like an admission of divine design after all the trouble the script went for to set up a universe of randomness. But then again, that same admission is contradictory and showing of how the character can't get a grasp on how the world works. I do love the imagery of the US flag and the tornado.
i love the movie especially the ending. yet "the universe of randomness" is not quite the way i read it.

to me, the movie is about simply being alive and healthy is the best of fortune. the movie opens with the main character listening to a doctor's analysis that there's nothing wrong with him. he then undergoes all the hardship, and just when things starts to look up gets a supposedly bad news call from the doctor. suddenly you realize how "lucky" he has been so far.

there're also a lot of signs -- two dream sequences -- which seem to point out that death is in fact the end. just consider yourself lucky as long as you are not there.
the first sentence in my spoiler is actually one of buddist mantras though; that's why i read the movie this way.

[Grouchy]

Yes, since I wrote that I've grown to appreciate the ending and how it purposefully plays out against our conception of how a movie like this should end - overcoming obstacles, character evolution, etc. I also like your comment about the dream sequences.

I want to watch it again.

[Mysterious Dude]

Reason #1 that I'm pretty sure the ending is divine:

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind
- Job 38:1

[Raiders]

I didn't really notice before that Larry is teaching his students about the Uncertainty Principle and himself states it proves we never really know what is going on. Religion = physics, then?

[Rowland]

I didn't really notice before that Larry is teaching his students about the Uncertainty Principle and himself states it proves we never really know what is going on. Religion = physics, then?This is a great piece that goes into this very interpretation: http://wwwbillblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/schrodingers-man.html

[Robby P]

Incredible movie. I, too, thought the ending was purposefully ambiguous.

[Cherish]

I didn't really notice before that Larry is teaching his students about the Uncertainty Principle and himself states it proves we never really know what is going on. Religion = physics, then?

But math and science are not about the unknowable. Out of all of physics, it’s just this one thing (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle/Shrodinger’s Cat) that works as an analogy for an unprovable God. It’s a great, elegant analogy, but I don't think it has anything to say about science, only faith.


This is a great piece that goes into this very interpretation: http://wwwbillblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/schrodingers-man.html

That review makes some good points, but what he says about the tooth story is really weird. It had nothing to do with math!

[Dukefrukem]

Is the main underlining theme here, "why do bad things happen to good people?" (or serious people?) The movie is a parody of the question without an answer?

[Spinal]

Is the main underlining theme here, "why do bad things happen to good people?" (or serious people?) The movie is a parody of the question without an answer?

Basically. Except I wouldn't call it a parody. I think it's a genuine exploration.

[Dukefrukem]

Basically. Except I wouldn't call it a parody. I think it's a genuine exploration.

An exploration of a rhetorical question though?

[Spinal]

An exploration of a rhetorical question though?

How so?

[Dead & Messed Up]

An exploration of a rhetorical question though?

The "bad things happen to good people" question isn't really rhetorical if one believes in a loving God.

[MadMan]

I know that I wrote a review for this movie down in a notebook a couple years ago, and now I don't know where it is. So this is a short blurb I wrote about the film that's part of my Top 10 of 2009 list that happened to be the first blog post I ever made:


Further embracing their brand of dark comedy that has gotten only stronger and more harsh lately (see: Burn After Reading), the Brothers Coen craft a truly amazing movie. Hilarious, unforgiving, honest, never flinching, and not providing any easy answers (perhaps even no answers at all), this is one of their best movies to date. In fact it bests their previous two efforts, which is no easy feat, and proves that they are among the top tier directors working today. The ending is flat out gutsy, and the dream sequences are hands down the best thing about the entire movie.

[Dukefrukem]

The "bad things happen to good people" question isn't really rhetorical if one believes in a loving God.

I can buy that.

[Izzy Black]

But math and science are not about the unknowable. Out of all of physics, it’s just this one thing (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle/Shrodinger’s Cat) that works as an analogy for an unprovable God. It’s a great, elegant analogy, but I don't think it has anything to say about science, only faith.

I do think the film is saying something about science and faith. It's attempting to state, roughly, something about approaching the limits of human knowledge or understanding very generally.


That review makes some good points, but what he says about the tooth story is really weird. It had nothing to do with math!

The point of story is that it's anti-climatic. You think throughout all of it you're going to arrive at some epiphany, and it seems as though we get quite close to some kind of meaningful conclusion, but we never quite get there. We come up short.

[Izzy Black]

The "bad things happen to good people" question isn't really rhetorical if one believes in a loving God.

The film seriously questions that assumption, though. Believers do no better in this film.

[B-side]

This is a great piece that goes into this very interpretation: http://wwwbillblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/schrodingers-man.html

This also speaks to Socrates' Problem of Recognizing Instances and Meno's Paradox.