criterionforum.org

I finally got around to watching this (things have been so busy that I'd been sitting on the same three movies from netflix for the last three weeks) and thought it was definitely a return to form after the loathsome (to me, anyway) Burn After Reading.

Perhaps the ending has a bit to do with it, but I saw this as much more in the Barton Fink vein of the Coens' oeuvre. I don't see it as nihilistic at all.

In A Serious Man, the combination of slapstick and ironic distance, sometimes called the Coens' disdain for their characters, works in large part because in a certain way, Larry is superior, or thinks he is, to the characters around him

Spoiler

until the end. Moreover, his "superiority" only serves to confuse him and accelerate his downfall; when he goes up to the roof to fix the antennae, he surveys his neighborhood from a heightened vantage point, but winds peeping on his neighbor, with whom he'll later have sex.

In a different sense, of course, he's entirely too passive and he clearly missed the opportunity to put his foot down in his own house. But I'm just talking in terms of Larry's attempt to understand his misfortune and do the right thing while everything around him goes wrong.

And I thought the ending was phenomenal (again, a la Barton Fink). But I don't have anything to add on that score b/c Grand Illusion and Cronenfly's posts seem pretty spot-on to me.

Actually, to address one thing you said

jbeall wrote:

Spoiler

until the end. Moreover, his "superiority" only serves to confuse him and accelerate his downfall; when he goes up to the roof to fix the antennae, he surveys his neighborhood from a heightened vantage point, but winds peeping on his neighbor, with whom he'll later have sex.

Spoiler

He doesn't actually have sex with his neighbour, that happens in a dream/nightmare sequence. He does smoke a joint with her but I don't think anything else happened. Part of his resisting temptation I suppose.

You're right, of course. Sloppy on my part.

I'm not sure I can really put my finger on it, but this is a film that I return to again and again in the course of my days since seeing it a month or so ago. I think it's a remarkable film that resonates on many levels and I really need to see again to try and understand why and how. Reading the bit about Quantum physics posted above really makes me want to watch the opening again in particular - which I loved, but also couldn't quite understand the point of it all. It's just an extremely richly textured film that practically demands multiple viewings to fully appreciate I think. And that's not something I usually consider a good thing, but in this case I look forward to returning to it.

I'd only like to add that, unless I'm mistaken about the time-frame the film takes place in (1967, right?), the Columbia House Records salesperson must be some kind of seer. Both of the albums he tells Larry about (Santana's ABRAXAS and CCR's COSMO'S FACTORY) were not released until 1970.

Also...

Spoiler

I suspect the Coens are suggesting that Larry's actions might reflect on the whole of the U.S. given the high-strung classmate's final line concerning the coming storm ripping the flag off the pole.

I'd only like to add that, unless I'm mistaken about the time-frame the film takes place in (1967, right?), the Columbia House Records salesperson must be some kind of seer. Both of the albums he tells Larry about (Santana's ABRAXAS and CCR's COSMO'S FACTORY) were not released until 1970.

I imagine the albums were chosen deliberately, given their titles. Abraxas is, from what I understand, a religious term of Greek origin, sometimes used as the name of a monotheistic God. I would guess this was intended to have some significance, especially given that Larry Gopnick, on the phone with the Columbia House salesman, says something to the effect of, "I don't want Abraxas. I won't listen to Abraxas."

Titus wrote:

I'd only like to add that, unless I'm mistaken about the time-frame the film takes place in (1967, right?), the Columbia House Records salesperson must be some kind of seer. Both of the albums he tells Larry about (Santana's ABRAXAS and CCR's COSMO'S FACTORY) were not released until 1970.

I imagine the albums were chosen deliberately, given their titles. Abraxas is, from what I understand, a religious term of Greek origin, sometimes used as the name of a monotheistic God. I would guess this was intended to have some significance, especially given that Larry Gopnick, on the phone with the Columbia House salesman, says something to the effect of, "I don't want Abraxas. I won't listen to Abraxas."

Oh, I absolutely agree that the album titles were chosen deliberately...and it's intriguing that they seem to come from the future.

I thought the album titles subtly set the time frame for the film's actions.
Why do you say the film takes place in 1967?

Lemmy Caution wrote:I thought the album titles subtly set the time frame for the film's actions.
Why do you say the film takes place in 1967?

A featurette on the DVD regarding production design is entitled "Creating 1967" and most of the reviews and press releases I've seen comment that the main action takes place in '67 (apart from the one that noted the year as "1957"!). While it was still a popular song three years later, I imagine Jefferson Airplane's "Somebody To Love" would have been a bit passe by 1970. Also, "F Troop" was still airing first run in '67 (it's second and last season), although obviously Larry's son could be watching the show in syndication in '70.

Although I've only seen the film once, everything apart from the Columbia Record House albums seemed accurate for '67 from what I remember.

Interesting.
I just thought Somebody to Love set the earliest possible date, making it clear that it was 1967 or later. Doesn't seem necessary that the kid likes the song only in the year it came out. He could easily come across the song a few years later, been too young to catch it on first release, etc. F-troop seems a stronger case, with 1967 being the last season of its run, though as you say it could be in re-runs in 1969-70.

But that makes two 1967-related clues.
Also, the sexy neighbor asks whether our hero partakes of the new freedoms, which sounds more appropriate for '67 than '70, when they wouldn't be quite so new anymore.

I'm not sure how long the time frame is for the action in the movie. But it all seems to occur during the same school year, leading up to the son's bar mitzvah. So I'd assume a less than 6 month time period.

Wasn't the dybbuk in the opening sequence also mentioned to have died three years earlier? I would have to re-check to be sure but I seem to remember that being mentioned.

Steve Garamond wrote:Wasn't the dybbuk in the opening sequence also mentioned to have died three years earlier? I would have to re-check to be sure but I seem to remember that being mentioned.

Yeah. Also, Sy's wife allegedly died three years ago, the bill Larry receives at the end is for $3,000, "Something to Love", "Dem Milner's Trern" (the Yiddish tune) and the Hebrew recording Danny has to recite are all heard three times in the film, there are three brief scenes of Danny and his bespectacled friend smoking a joint ("Gimme that fucker!"), Danny runs home from the bully three times, Larry visits his lawyer three times, the head of the tenure committee visits Larry three times, Sy, Clive and Mrs. Samsky are all seen in the film three times (not counting the dream sequences, which there are three of)... and then of course there's the three rabbis. Just to name a few examples.

Are the Coens some sort of numerologist pranksters, or am I just looking for Jesus in a grilled-cheese sandwich? Either way, this is certainly one of the most tightly and immaculately structured films I've seen in quite some time.

Most everything in film and storytelling happens in threes. That said, there are lots of hidden quantum mechanics references, particularly in regards to Schrodinger's Cat and the various plot mechanics.

Three reactions (Larry, the second Rabbi, and the lawyer Adam Arkin), all identical, to getting a get: "a what?".

I didn't realize a few loose ends that get taken care of nicely; it's not really the wife stealing money from his wallet, it's the daughter, his son's funds source was his uncle, Arthur. And it's interesting that Arthur knows the naked sunbather next door, as does the son - maybe she's getter her score from Fagle through the son?

I just watched this tonight and I can't shake it. While the Coens' more "cartoony" films where characters act like either Looney Tunes or caricatures have often left me cold, this one was able to win me over since the story of Job provides the framework and I could therefore see the film as something more than another demonstration of human folly and instead a depiction of the consequences of that folly. While Fargo to some extent touches upon the consequences of its characters' actions, that film's focus lay more upon the actions themselves than on questions of why Jerry Lundegaard was so complicit in his crimes. This film is a different sort since it focuses on how a "good" man can act badly - in the case of the son it is pure laziness, but for Larry as the stand-in for Job he seems to overcome every hurdle thrown his way only to fold at the last second.

I think the Coens' mentality is especially suited to the Wrath of God style narrative that this film displays, since God's punishment becomes a proxy for the Coens themselves as the executioners of their hapless characters. While the Job of the bible lived prosperously after his test, the Coens' Job is a stand-in for their world view as he falls prey to his poor decision and is thus punished. This is the first film I've seen that uses God within contemporary society not as solely a guiding light for believers, but as an actual presence in the lives of the characters and

Spoiler

as a source of destruction, as seen through the tornado, i.e. God's wrath, where the "unjust" are punished directly through God's intervention.

I'm willing to forgive the stereotypical characters since I think that in spite of them this film ranks among the Coens' best efforts, perhaps even their best, and certainly their most pessimistic since

Spoiler

God is the only source of punishment for the characters' actions, unlike in previous films where society or the characters themselves were the source of their punishment.

A nice study by the Journal of Religion and Film. Tells us who really was the serious man.
https://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/Vol15no2/Co ... usMan.html

Is there any love for A Serious Man here? This has grown on me.

FrauBlucher wrote:Is there any love for A Serious Man here? This has grown on me.

The dedicated thread is here. While board opinion appears to have been mixed a few years back, I think A Serious Man is one of the brothers' best films. An elegant balance of the comic and the cryptic, I feel it might have an edge over the similar Barton Fink and Inside Llewyn Davis in that Michael Stuhlbarg's lead character is easier to identify with.

I find A SERIOUS MAN terribly moving, and one of the brothers' best.

I think it's my second favorite after Miller's Crossing.

I love this film as well. As some have mentioned, it definitely has a Job-like vibe, or even Kafka with the mysterious before the rabbis segments. I remember in Rosenbaum's review he stated that he disliked the opening segment and found it off-putting. Honestly, I think it's a perfectly executed scene and it establishes the whole tone of the film.

The Hendrix tuned mystery tooth sequence is one I simply plug into youtube sometimes. Same with the "Uncertainty Principle" scene.

swo17 wrote:I think it's my second favorite after Miller's Crossing.

Not sure I've ever seen someone name this as their favorite, very interesting. Might give it a rewatch. I'm still stuck in the decades long love for Lebowski and Raising Arizona.

JohnShade wrote:

swo17 wrote:I think it's my second favorite after Miller's Crossing.

Not sure I've ever seen someone name this as their favorite, very interesting. Might give it a rewatch. I'm still stuck in the decades long love for Lebowski and Raising Arizona.

Actually, Miller's Crossing is my favorite as well...although the brothers have produced so many films now that I can pick favorites among the different styles (No Country For Old Men for philosophical drama, Raising Arizona for screwball comedy, Inside Llewyn Davis for best period send-up, etc.)

A third here for Miller's Crossing. Carter Burwell's score is beautiful and high on the list of its many virtues. Same goes for True Grit.
I revisited a Serious Man last year and was shocked by how good and (as jazzo say's above) moving it is, after being underwhelmed on release.