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

[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...ngers-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...ngers-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...ngers-man.html

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