A Serious Man. It's seriously good. *SPOILERS allowed from post 60*

Stargal

Saw it this evening and well, it's hard to put into words how good it is. It's a typical Coen film in that you're as likely to leave the cinema wondering whether there is any point in leading a good life and if God really exists, as you are to leave thinking that it was a good film.

It's dark, it's trippy, it's nuanced and it's also laugh-out-loud funny. I heard one of the ticket seller guys as the cinema describing it as a comedy but even though it's hilarious, it's really not a comedy (unless you think the whole thing about questioning the meaning of life is funny).

Ending is a total kicker - there's a few seconds of wtf before it suddenly clicks into place. Sigh. Awesomeness.

(Also, the trailer? Serious contender for one of the best trailers ever).

budgemook

Never even heard about it. Coen brothers can do no wrong IMO. Will be going to see this.

imeddyhobbs

Thanks op,I was wondering about this one,Looking forward to it now!

Basq

I largely love The Coen Brothers.. but their comedic efforts as of late just never click with me.

I just felt downright bored throughout 'Burn After Reading'.. but after seeing the trailer for 'A Serious Man' on TV the other night, it does look much more engaging than 'Burn' (although 'Burn' had a fantastic trailer too).

Just looking at the cast list for 'A Serious Man' on IMDb.. a very unknown cast - apart from Adam Arkin ('Little Miss Sunshine'), Richard Kind (TV's 'Spin City'), Simon Helberg (TV's 'The Big Bang Theory').

Illkillya

Stargal wrote: »

Saw it this evening and well, it's hard to put into words how good it is. It's a typical Coen film in that you're as likely to leave the cinema wondering whether there is any point in leading a good life and if God really exists, as you are to leave thinking that it was a good film.

It's dark, it's trippy, it's nuanced and it's also laugh-out-loud funny. I heard one of the ticket seller guys as the cinema describing it as a comedy but even though it's hilarious, it's really not a comedy (unless you think the whole thing about questioning the meaning of life is funny).

Ending is a total kicker - there's a few seconds of wtf before it suddenly clicks into place. Sigh. Awesomeness.

(Also, the trailer? Serious contender for one of the best trailers ever).

Yes it is a masterpiece in my opinion, up there with Fargo.

Driver 8

I quite enjoyed it, i have to say. Stargal, any chance of telling us your interpretation of the ending (with spoiler tags of course), because it pretty much baffled me.

That_Guy

Gonna go see this tomorrow. Really looking forward to it. Saw the trailer and it just looks fantastic.

Roll on what seems to be, another masterpiece for the Coen's.

Stargal

Driver 8 wrote: »

I quite enjoyed it, i have to say. Stargal, any chance of telling us your interpretation of the ending (with spoiler tags of course), because it pretty much baffled me.

This is my take on it:

Basically, it doesn't matter whether you're a good or a bad person. Life is arbitrary and in the end, we're all going to die.

This is why: Larry has always tried to be a good person. He isn't hugely religious but he wants to do the right thing - he pays for the funeral of his wife's lover, even though he knows it's absurd. He calls around to his sexeh neighbour to see if he can help out. However he sees people like Si Abelman, who claims to be a serious man but who was actually sending those bad letters to the tenure committee, and begins to wonder why he's so good all the time when such bad things are happening to him. At the end of the film, he does one bad thing (which wasn't really that bad in the first place) and he immediately gets a phonecall from his doctor announcing that he has a serious, possible terminal, illness. None of his good-doings mattered.

At the same time, his son has been both good and bad. He hasn't been all that serious about leading a good life (cos not many teenagers are). And so when he sees the tornado coming and realises that they could all be killed, he understands that he doesn't have to pay the money back to the bully. What does it matter? They could all die.

So Larry is possibly coming to the end of his life and realising he could have been bad for all that it matters now. His son is at the start of his life and making the exact same realisation. They've both faced death and it's changed their perspective on life. Religion hasn't helped them at all.

That's my take on it, but I can see how people could take it an entirely opposite way as well -

the phone call from the doctor could in fact be proof that there is a God and we're going to be punished if we do bad things (presuming that the Jewish God is as vengeful as the Christian God!). This doesn't really ring true for me though. Not sure why but it just doesn't seem right.

I'd be interested to hear how other people read the ending though (and also what people made of the Jewish parable/story at the beginning of the film).

Fago123

Where did you see the film? Seems to have a very limited release?

AnonoBoy

basquille wrote: »

Just looking at the cast list for 'A Serious Man' on IMDb.. a very unknown cast - apart from Adam Arkin ('Little Miss Sunshine'), Richard Kind (TV's 'Spin City'), Simon Helberg (TV's 'The Big Bang Theory').

I think you're getting Adam Arkin mixed up with Alan Arkin there Basquille.

A Serious Man is great. Went to see it recently in Cineworld and there was a number of walk outs through it. Even though it's hilarious at times, it's not an out and out comedy. It requires a good bit of thought.

I think it's a lot more similar to Barton Fink than the Big Lebowski in terms of tone. So if you liked that then you'll love this.

That_Guy

Fago123 wrote: »

Where did you see the film? Seems to have a very limited release?

It's out in Cineworld, not sure about the Savoy, IMC in Dun Laoighre..... em not sure where else.

Cineworld have I think 4 or 5 showings a day.

johnny_ultimate

That_Guy wrote: »

It's out in Cineworld, not sure about the Savoy, IMC in Dun Laoighre..... em not sure where else.

Cineworld have I think 4 or 5 showings a day.

Definitely not on IMC or Dundrum alas - a certain vampire film has taken over too many screens. Hopefully will get to see this tomorrow - I am a big fan of the Brothers overall, and I even loved Burn after Reading, which I really felt was one of the funniest comedies of recent times.

Duggy747

Pfft, don't waste your money on this tripe.........go see a proper film like 2012.

:P

I've been following the hype (the usual leading up to a Coen movie) and the reviews coming out have been incredibly positive about this film.

Burn After Reading left a bit of a sour taste so I'm actually looking forward to this movie, the premise and lack of reconisgable actors intrigues me.

I have to check out the trailer yet.

The record-breaking success of that vampire movie has left me reeling!

ntlbell

A lot of talk about people walking out during this

what's the deal?

Driver 8

No one walked out when I saw it, actually got big laughs too.

AnonoBoy

Driver 8 wrote: »

No one walked out when I saw it, actually got big laughs too.

Oh it got huge laughs when I saw it. Overall the crowd loved it I think but I did notice people leaving. I suppose some people didn't know what to expect and mightn't be too familiar with the Coens style.

That_Guy

I saw this yesterday. It was in the afternoon so the screen wasn't overly people.
I'd say around 12 or 13 people were there.

By the end there must have been only 6 left. A good few people walked out. I personally thought it was great and really hilarious in some parts.

The dream sequence when his brother gets shot in the boat by his next door neighbours was fcuking strange.

Also the ending was kinda weird but here's my take on it.

Even though you may be a good person and want to do right on to others and lead a good life, everybody will inevitably die whether they've lived a good or bad life.

Great film though.

Nichololas

Can't wait to see this, Burn After Reading felt a little flat to me.

bnt

Just saw this at the IFI this evening. It's one of those films where you can pick up on all kinds of symbolism and read stuff in to it, if you want to. For example, there's a running joke throughout the film in which Larry tries to see a rabbi, but on all three occasions it doesn't go the way he wishes it would.

I think there some Jewish symbolism in the idea of "try three times" - reward in persistence. The first enthusiastic young rabbi seems to be talking rubbish about the parking lot; however, the calendar on the wall behind him is turned to June 1967, a pivotal time in the history of Israel: it was the time of the Six Day War. You could say that this rabbi represents one possible future: blundering ahead as forces are unleashed that he won't understand until he's older. On his desk are the tablets of the Ten Commandments, written by the "Finger of God" (Exodus 31:18) - which we will meet later.

The second rabbi is about Larry's age, a little older perhaps, and he seems to be helpful at first, before going off on a tangent with the parable of the Goy's teeth, which he interprets in a vague "be nice to others" way. If this rabbi represents the present, well, the present is a mystery, to him and to Larry. The third rabbi won't see Larry at all - but he will happily see Larry's son Danny, straight after his Bar Mitzvah. This ancient rabbi, while obviously from the past, is yet bang up-to-date on the "Summer of Love", returning Danny's radio and quoting Jefferson Airplane at him. "When the truth is found to be lies, when all the hope inside you dies." Maybe young people know a thing or two after all?

So, having failed to get useful advice from the rabbis, Larry is left to figure things out for himself. Meanwhile, Larry's world has gone to pot: literally, in Danny's case and later Larry's. Arthur is gambling and possibly worse. ("Dad, what's sodomy?"). Larry's wife is unfaithful to him, and vice versa (whether or not sex is involved); his daughter suffers from vanity (saving for a nose job). Even Larry's science is not helping: a board full of equations to show the Uncertainty Principle? The "Finger of God" returns - whether to create or destroy, we do not know for sure.

I was surprised at how much of it I got, but I suspect there's far more that a Goy like me would not understand straight away. I can see books being written about this film.

beans

I noticed the IMDB is hopping with budding philosophers and analysts trying to nail down all the references and metaphors. I reckon it'll take a few watches before I'd even attempt!

Great film though, the opening scene (after the parable) is just so well conceived, that simple but engaging and original

coming out of the ear-canal

scene.

Illkillya

bnt wrote: »

I think there some Jewish symbolism in the idea of "try three times" - reward in persistence. The first enthusiastic young rabbi seems to be talking rubbish about the parking lot; however, the calendar on the wall behind him is turned to June 1967, a pivotal time in the history of Israel: it was the time of the Six Day War. You could say that this rabbi represents one possible future: blundering ahead as forces are unleashed that he won't understand until he's older. On his desk are the tablets of the Ten Commandments, written by the "Finger of God" (Exodus 31:18) - which we will meet later.

The second rabbi is about Larry's age, a little older perhaps, and he seems to be helpful at first, before going off on a tangent with the parable of the Goy's teeth, which he interprets in a vague "be nice to others" way. If this rabbi represents the present, well, the present is a mystery, to him and to Larry. The third rabbi won't see Larry at all - but he will happily see Larry's son Danny, straight after his Bar Mitzvah. This ancient rabbi, while obviously from the past, is yet bang up-to-date on the "Summer of Love", returning Danny's radio and quoting Jefferson Airplane at him. "When the truth is found to be lies, when all the hope inside you dies." Maybe young people know a thing or two after all?

So, having failed to get useful advice from the rabbis, Larry is left to figure things out for himself. Meanwhile, Larry's world has gone to pot: literally, in Danny's case and later Larry's. Arthur is gambling and possibly worse. ("Dad, what's sodomy?"). Larry's wife is unfaithful to him, and vice versa (whether or not sex is involved); his daughter suffers from vanity (saving for a nose job). Even Larry's science is not helping: a board full of equations to show the Uncertainty Principle? The "Finger of God" returns - whether to create or destroy, we do not know for sure.

Some interesting thoughts... I saw the movie about 6 weeks ago, so I wish I had posted whlie it was fresh in my mind. But my takeaway was a bit more simple:

The rabbis mostly symbolised the fact that nobody has the answers. Wisdom is merely the knowledge that we know nothing for sure. Enlightenment occurs when you realise that the search for enlightenment is a complete waste of time (reminded me of the movie Pi in this respect). Life is full of contradictions. Starting with the introduction, the dybbuk that bled, moving onto Schroedinger's Cat, which was referenced again when the Korean guy's father was discussing the money that existed, but didn't really exist at the same time. It ties into the quantum superpositions that are referenced again later while Larry works out a proof stating that we can never really be certain of anything (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?). There is always a storm brewing, in your lifetime, such is life - you will never find some true peace / enlightenment. Sometime of these storms simply blow over (he'll get back with the wife, he'll forget the neighbour, the bully problem disappears, etc.) but there will always be something new cropping up. Anyone who appears to be enlightened, the likes of Sol, are probably just fake.

Etc, etc, could go on. Great film for discussion.

Valmont

basquille wrote: »

I
I just felt downright bored throughout 'Burn After Reading'..

Even though I found it hilarious the whole way through, I see what you mean. It just didn't have the Coen kick it should have.

johnny_ultimate

Just back from this and I'm pretty sure it is brilliant, but seems like the kind of film a few days of quiet reflection is necessary to fully draw some sort of conclusion from! Very strange film, and very funny

(how brilliant was the Canadian boat scene, or the story of the 'goy's teeth'?)

As for the ending, it certainly comes out of nowhere, and some interesting takes on it in this thread! Personally I felt

that the tornado may have symbolised the coming of Danny's adulthood post-Barmitzvah - just like his father, he is unlikely to have an easy ride. Of course, the spontaneous nature of death also seems like a valid one, backed up of course by the phonecall and Sal's untimely death - I loved how the Coen's setup a 'stealth transport' like death for Sal only to cut to another car crash at the opportune moment, perhaps even somewhat mocking their use own use of the trick in No Country. Perhaps father and son are being punished for the misdeeds, whereas their efforts at being 'good' are ultimately futile and damaging as well?

.

I thought it had a lot of bite to it overall. Very deep and complex ruminations on the nature of faith throughout. Personally, I felt the Coens were sort of mocking the ritual and morality of religion,

which I felt came across strongly in the Rabbis' advice, in particular the tooth story, that while sounding nice, actually said **** all about anything

. I read the whole film as a somewhat cynical take on the Jewish community, and yet somehow there is a quiet affection there too, and it sparkles with little details that bring the community to life.

I think the great thing about a film like this is that everyone can read it how they want - it is a film that puts a lot of ideas out there, but trusts the audience to make up their own minds about how to read it, which there isn't enough in contemporary cinema.

Flamed Diving

I couldn't tie the opening scene to the rest of the movie.

Anyone?

bnt

Not entirely sure about the opening scene either, to be honest.

I was a little horrified at the idea that the wife was so certain, that the rabbi had died and had come back as a dybbuk, that she would stab him, just because he didn't have all the right answers quickly enough. She could have been wrong - maybe he was just an old man who had been out in the cold - and, not knowing much about dybbuks, what do we make of the fact that he bled after he was stabbed? Was she still certain or did she even care that she might have been wrong? We don't know, but to me this ties in with the concept of (un)certainty, which recurs throughout the film: certainty of belief, uncertainty in physics (Heisenberg)? Everything that Larry had been certain of was vanishing before his eyes, starting with his marriage, his job, his morals ... his life.

SuperGrover

Saw this yesterday and loved it. A little taken aback by the ending but that's the way it's supposed to be. Looking forward to buying on DVD when it's released and checking it out again.

Something that I wonder about, though... the kind of person who walks out of a film of this calibre... what films do they not walk out of?

Anyone?

Fysh

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I couldn't tie the opening scene to the rest of the movie.

Anyone?

I think it depends on how you take the rest of the film, but for me it was:

The film as a whole explores the usefulness or otherwise of the Jewish faith in terms of Larry's life and the problems he faces. It becomes apparent that he is singularly ill-equipped to cope with the problems in his life, and none of the guidance or help he is offered is of any use. At the same time it becomes clear that the people around him who achieve their desires effectively do so through selfishness and behaviour broadly contrary to the principles Larry has interpreted from his religion. The science to which he has dedicated his professional life also offers no help - the institution does not support him, and the subject matter itself offers the uncertainty principle and the confusion of quantum physics as rebuttals to the idea that anything can ever be truly known.

This expands on the opening scene thematically:

Our characters in the opening scene have no science in their lives; its place is taken by a combination of religion and folklore. However, neither offers them any useful insight on how to deal with the potential dybbuk that they encounter. They have anecdotal evidence that the individual in question had died years previously, which matches the hurried/incomplete shave that the dybbuk sports; however, the fact remains that the dybbuk helped someone in need when he could have easily killed him if he wished. Upon being stabbed, the dybbuk appears unharmed for a time before he bleeds. Is the blood an illusion, or the truth? Was the death years prior factual, or a misunderstanding? Neither religion nor folklore offers any useful insight on them, and the only notion that might be claimed as any sort of certainty is that hasty, self-righteous action based on religion or folklore has a good chance of backfiring.

opr

Stargal wrote: »

Ending is a total kicker - there's a few seconds of wtf before it suddenly clicks into place. Sigh. Awesomeness.

Don't think anyone could put it better than that

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I couldn't tie the opening scene to the rest of the movie.

Anyone?

This is taken from another forum and I think it has some interesting views on the opening scene and the film.

In my opinion the movie's theme has already been divulged by the end of the opening scene. It begins with the quote "Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you" which is the epitome of the entire film's theme and is exemplified in the opening scene. I believe that the man and woman represent the ways we can react to a situation and the alive/dead man represents the things we cannot understand such as god, divinity/coincidence, and tragedy. The wife reacts by letting her distress takeover and stabbing the man while the husband keeps a cool head and offers food and shelter. The husband did not question the fact of alive or dead or demon or human, he approached the situation with "simplicity" not allowing his head to become filled with questions. The mysterious man at first does not bleed when he is stabbed and faced with the surprised wife, but when he turns to the husband he begins to bleed. But all the same, he calmly gathers himself and leaves the house. It is the ultimate cluster**** and that is exactly what the Coen's want it to be. We cannot explain why or how things happen and destroy our lives by trying to understand it. Throughout the film Larry Gopnick attempts to understand why bad things are happening to a good man, sort of like a modern day Job. The Coen's create a story that is chock-full of symbols and adverse issues. But as the movie comes to a close it turns out none of Larry's previous problems matter because he is most likely terminally ill and that doesn't matter because there is a tornado about to kill everyone. At the end of the day, time spent trying to grasp the ultimate WHY is wasted because things just happen and there may or may not be a reason, why stress? Receive with simplicity.

Source which has some other good posts iit - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=698718&page=2

One of my favourite bits

When the tornado is approaching and the son thinks about paying the money but realises they both have bigger things to worry about which I took to mean how the small things in life matter so little in the end.

I mean just wow to the whole film, you could think about and analyse this film to death it has so much going on in almost every scene.

Opr

L31mr0d

Very good film. On the surface it is a competent comedy, but I'm sure there's a cornucopia of additional symbolism that I missed out on. (thankfully, 7 seasons of Curb your enthusiasm primed me for most of the Jewish terms and traditions)

Personally, I kind of got the feeling throughout that it was a parable on the trials of Job in the Bible. I will be doing some additional reading anyway, and will more than likely be watching it again.

Overall, very impressed. tbph, I liked it more than when I watched Fargo first.

Noffles

Watched it the other night with the missus, she totally hated it and thought it was pointless... I didn't hate it and didn't love it either.... strange is what I would of said it was.... I just didn't "get it" really, glad I've seen it but would not consider it again... ever!

kraggy

budgemook wrote: »

Never even heard about it. Coen brothers can do no wrong IMO. Will be going to see this.

Yes they can. Burn After Reading was atrocious.

They are one of my favourite directors though.

BarryM

kraggy wrote: »

Yes they can. Burn After Reading was atrocious.

They are one of my favourite directors though.

Well now, not seen it yet, very mixed opinions I've heard, but this thread is the most +ve I've seen. Coen's are numero uno for me, some not as good as others but all worth the visit.

Bye, Barry

Carroller16

Absolute tripe tbh

kraggy

Carroller16 wrote: »

Absolute tripe tbh

Which?

PLIIM

I thought this was a terrible movie.
The bros have dropped the ball lately. Hope they will be back soon, but this is not it.
Are people deciding what they thought of this before they even see it, based on the bros being behind it?
Avoid.

heebusjeebus

PLIIM and kraggy,
Can ye explain why ye didn't like the movie?

I saw it last night and I'm still undecided as to whether I like it or not. Thanks to reading this thread I can get a grasp on the symbolism in the movie which to be honest went straight over my head on first viewing.

Wreck

I finally got around to watching this last night, and I loved it. It's very funny, and very serious at the same time. There's some really interesting themes but I definitely need to rewatch it before drawing any conclusions.

Stargal wrote: »

Ending is a total kicker - there's a few seconds of wtf before it suddenly clicks into place. Sigh. Awesomeness.

Couldn't agree more.

c0rk3r

To enjoy this final and fully appreciate it you need to be aware of a couple of things before entering. You need to be familiar with the book of job which is one of the books of the Hebrew Bible. It relates the story of Job, his trials at the hands of the Satan, his theological discussions with friends on the origins and nature of his suffering, his challenge to God, and finally a response from God. Unfortunately not being jewish and knowing little of their teachings or culture i wasnt aware of this. The book of Job story is the spine of the film. Im disappointed this fell on deaf ears on my part and the movie on first viewing suffered because of it. I may watch it again over the weekend.

You also need to know about Schrodingers thought experiment, It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. Schrödinger's Cat: A cat, along with a flask containing a poison, is placed in a sealed box shielded against environmentally induced quantum decoherence. If an internal Geiger counter detects radiation, the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. Hence the uncertainty

Also to a lesser extent you need to be aware of Quantum Mechanics duality too. Theres something beautifully poetic about "An uncertainy principle" in science.heh

Off topic and not related to the film

Erwin Schrodinger was quite a colourful character with some Irish roots. He took on a phd student not because of the guys talents but rather he was attracted to his wife who he ultimately stole away to be his mistress which his wife was ok with. 1930;s being a jew he saw whats was coming and moved from Germany. Oxford wasnt happy with him have a wife and mistress living in the same house so declined the offer, same with princeton. He was accepted to an institute in Ireland where he impregnated two of his students.

Enjoy the film

Doctor Zaius

Haha... nice little story on Schrodinger above. Interesting character.

As for the film, I really enjoyed it. Very thought provoking but humourous at the same time. Well acted, engaging storyline and beautifully shot. For me the quote at the start is what the film is all about and our failures to heed this advice.

A fantastic film and certainly a return to form after Burn after Reading.

BarryM

c0rk3r wrote: »

Erwin Schrodinger was quite a colourful character with some Irish roots. He took on a phd student not because of the guys talents but rather he was attracted to his wife who he ultimately stole away to be his mistress which his wife was ok with. 1930;s being a jew he saw whats was coming and moved from Germany. Oxford wasnt happy with him have a wife and mistress living in the same house so declined the offer, same with princeton. He was accepted to an institute in Ireland where he impregnated two of his students.

It was (supposedly) Eamon De Valera who invited/got him invited/arranged for him to be invited to the Institute for Advanced studies.


The last part of your remarks deserves a thread in itself!! In view of the news in todays papers about bloggers being sued, maybe not..... Is there any specific evidence of the matter??

everdead.ie

Stargal wrote: »

That's my take on it, but I can see how people could take it an entirely opposite way as well -

the phone call from the doctor could in fact be proof that there is a God and we're going to be punished if we do bad things (presuming that the Jewish God is as vengeful as the Christian God!). This doesn't really ring true for me though. Not sure why but it just doesn't seem right.

There the same so yes

Stargal

Oscar nominations come out on Tuesday morning and I'm really hoping to see A Serious Man get a nomination for Best Picture. *crosses fingers*

everdead.ie wrote: »

There the same so yes

CRINGE! Can't believe I wrote that. Cheers for not ripping the absolute piss out of me for that.

Nichololas

everdead.ie wrote: »

There the same so yes

Conceptually, yes. However, the relationship between Jews and God and between Christians and God is pretty different. For Christians, the new testament is the central text of their religion, and (most) view the old testament as a collection of allegories and fables. For Jews, the old testament/tanakh is the central text. In the new testament, god is portrayed as kind, forgiving and eternally loving being, whereas in the old testament he's wise, all-powerful and frankly kind of a dîck.

As to whether the phonecall is proof of God or not, I think that completely sidesteps the central thesis of the film - uncertainty. It could be God punishing Larry or it could very well just be coincidence. While you're free to interpret the movie as you like, I think the point that scene illustrates best is that we don't know.

Another interesting theory that was discussed in another forum is that the redneck neighbour and the hot redhead symbolize God and Satan respectively.

Redneck neighbour:

• Wears white in every scene (or almost)
• Dictates to Larry (the Jews) what his land is
• Protective of Larry/The Jews when a foreigner threatens him - "Is this man bothering you?
• Kind of a dick (see first paragraph of this post)

Redhead neighbour:

• Redhead, wears red clothes, everything in house is red or orange
• Smokes all the time
• Leads Larry into temptation (naked sunbathing, smoking cannabis, etc)
• Cold, expressionless eyes

As someone already said, I don't think you can fully appreciate the symbology and cultural references of this movie without being Jewish (I'm not). In fact, I would say the first viewing of this was heavily coloured by my catholic up-bringing and the notions and ideals of God that that brings, instead of seeing it from a Jewish (or at least, Jewish-aware ) perspective.

kraggy

BarryM wrote: »

Well now, not seen it yet, very mixed opinions I've heard, but this thread is the most +ve I've seen. Coen's are numero uno for me, some not as good as others but all worth the visit.

Bye, Barry

heebusjeebus wrote: »

PLIIM and kraggy,
Can ye explain why ye didn't like the movie?

I saw it last night and I'm still undecided as to whether I like it or not. Thanks to reading this thread I can get a grasp on the symbolism in the movie which to be honest went straight over my head on first viewing.

I said I didn't like Burn After Reading. I haven't seen A Serious Man.

Has it been out in Ireland yet? Just back from travelling so not up to date on releases/what's been out.

Guell72

Total waste of time. Yes i get all the references, but it doesnt mean i want to be bored out of my tree for the duration.

talking_walnut

@Enlil_Nick and c0rk3r

Enlightening posts, thanks.

I loved this film. I'm a big Cohen brothers head though. Saw it in the cinema recently. Not many people there and 1 couple walked out (probably not a great date movie ) but everyone there seemed to get into it. Suppose it's a film you'll either love or hate.

BarryM

Just seen it.Myself and Madame argued all the way home. For me that much discussion on any film justifies it. She hated it, boring, pointless etc., although we never miss a Coen film. They were exactly the elements, superficially, that made it for me. It may well be a Coen Bros indulgence, Woody Allen did the same (IMO) with Shadows & Fog. However, for me the film represents everything I like about their filmmaking, magnificent characterisations; I feel they must spend a lot of time interviewing for the parts. Where the hell did they get this lot? Not many if any well known actors, but every one fitted their role perfectly. Dozens of perfect fits.

And the meaning, if there is one?? For me the Coens representations are bleak, they would seem to have, at least in their film making, a very empty view of the world we live in, it is pointless, there is no message, there is only the now. This is superimposed on a jaundiced view of religion, IMO.

So, this one fits the mould. There is no purpose in life, all sort of things can happen and in the end do they matter. Wow, bleak or what?

All that apart, a marvellous example of the film makers art, by two people and their team who really know how to make movies. To hell with the story, don't come here if you want a beginning, middle and end. I have read the Jewish/Job implications discussed here. I have not much knowledge or interest in that, I just feel it was an abstraction of all the themes the Coens use - in the pursuit of making a good film. An indulgence, yes maybe, but with so many funny/bizarre gems, would you take it away from them? Me no.

Onlly one thing puzzles me, maybe it is because of my lack of interest in religions, I didn't see the significance of the prologue.

Bye, Barry

paulanthony

There seem to be many themes running through the film

I think one of them is -

When Larry meets with the Korean student at the start he tells him all actions have consequences. I think the movie is an explanation of this to an extent

Larry tries to lead a good life but never seems to get the help he needs and may have a terminal illness at the end, tries to be a good husband but his wife leaves him etc

Larry's son doesn't lead a particularly wholesome life it seems but does ok and gets his radio back in the end

The Korean student bribes Larry for a pass grade - and gets it

Sy Abelman splits up Larrys marriage - and is killed - but at his funeral the Rabbi only has good things to say about him

Larry's brother gets shot - even though its only a dream

Some people do good things, some people do bad things but the consequences don't really seem to be related

In the end they will all die and nobody really knows where they go after that

I suppose it is a bit of an examination of religion - Larry's faith is quite strong yet he gets no help from the Rabbi's and the old Rabbi is a bit like God, everybody says how wise he is but nobody can get to him

The Sparrow

I just watched A Serious Man. While it has definite good points, I can't help feeling a bit disappointed/ bemused.

First the good. It is an engaging story and very well acted and I never felt bored and there were a good few laughs throughout. But the ending really ruined it for me. Call me a philistine but I like my stories to have some sort of coherent ending where at least some of the plot points are pulled together. Throughout the movie I went with a lot of the bizarre stuff and I was increasingly looking forward to see how it was all pulled together in the ending.

But they just left it hanging and I felt a little short changed after investing some time and affection in the rest of the movie. This may not be a popular opinion on this thread, but I think the Coen's made the movie for people who like to analyse everything and come up with their own theories. If you like waffling on about all of the possible meanings of things then this is the movie for you. You can read almost anything into the majority of the scenes.

But if you like any kind of coherent story and expect that you will understand it without a degree in Jewish theology then I would have second thoughts.

pickarooney

I wasn't particularly entertained by this film, regardless of how much thought-provoking symbolism it contained. Ultimately that makes it a failure for me.

I'll never understand Schrödinger's Cat - how can it be alive if it has no air and is in a radioactive box with a shattered bottle of poison?

pickarooney

Thought just ocured to me - would anyone else like to see each Coen brother do a film on his own so we could exactly who was the talented one?