2009 riddleRating: 17/20 (Jen: 17/20)
Plot: Larry's a midwestern physics professor with a wife and two children. One day, his life gets much more complicated. His wife tells him that she is leaving him for their friend Sy. His son is addicted to the marijuana. His daughter steals from him to save up for a nose job. One of his failing students is trying to first bribe him and later sue him. Suddenly, not much makes sense about Larry's life. He seeks the counsel of a triad of rabbis.
I expected more straight comedy here, but this is more Fink than Lebowski or Burn After Reading. It's pretty clear early on that watching this movie will be like wading neck deep through an existential funk. Like Old Testament Job, albeit more comically, poor Larry is tested, dragged through shit, and spun in dizzying circles. It's hard to not feel for the guy. Accuse the Coens of being unnecessarily difficult, convoluted, and obscenely quirky if you must, but they have a way of making films that closer than any other filmmakers' works to matching the confusion of human existence. A Serious Man is a film that questions rather than answers, and it does it in a way that is typically Coen while being something completely new. This is the type of movie I'll likely never feel that I've completely grasped, possibly because of what I miss by not being Jewish or by not being smart enough to understand simple philosophical concepts. But I'm fascinated by what seems to be a lack of answers from the three rabbis (faith, mystery, and abandonment?), by the connections with Biblical Job, by the recontextualizing of that Jefferson Airplane song, and by the unlikely marriage of spirituality and science to fool us into thinking the world is a logical place. I need to watch this again and will have no problem doing just that.
15 comments:
Really? I don't know if I'm more surprised that it got a best picture nod, or that Jen gave it a 17, as well. You must be smarter than I am to find so much depth to this.
As you mention in the later review, there's something about the guy that just rubs me the wrong way. If Job was as big of a clueless, spineless wimp as our Larry, then I hope Satan is still somehow fucking with him. My breaking point was when he was willing to fund the burial of his wife's lover. Once I dislike the main character who is in almost every scene, then I'm probably not going to like the film. Besides being a wimp, he is impossibly stupid for not immediately reporting the bribe to his superiors. Who can you pull for in this? The cheating wife? The stoner kid? The smarmy lover? The useless clergy? The horrifying Paul from "Spin City"?
There is no one to like in this ode to Jewish masochism (except for the kid's friend who always says "fucker"), and any chance that I will ever convert has been destroyed by watching this. It is well filmed, of course. Quirkiness and randomness abound, but it was not an enjoyable film, and unlike you guys and the Acedemy, I didn't get it. A 14.
I'm really confused about why you didn't like Larry. Clueless? Everybody in Larry's situation would be clueless, wouldn't they? He's a guy who's done nothing wrong (unless, like Hamlet, NOT doing enough is his fatal error) and he has all these bad things happening to him all at once. It doesn't make sense any way you look at it. "Why, God, why?" What believer hasn't said those words? Spineless? I think he was just trying to do the right thing. And remember, Sy was his friend as well as his wife's lover. And stupid? Again, I think he just wants to do the right thing and he's really put in a difficult situation when he's in possession of that money after the kid leaves. I really pulled for the guy.
The rabbi, as I mentioned, weren't useless. They all three were able to give him solid advice. He just wasn't in a position to understand what that advice was.
Quirky? Yeah. That's hardly surprising in a Coen bro. movie. But random? I can't think of a single moment in this that was wasted. I thought its structure matched the structure of life which, as you know, isn't random at all. Is this really any more random than life?
And regarding the "depth"...did you really not get anything at all out of this? The more I think about it, the more I think that it's open-ended which, I realize, is frustrating for a lot of people. But did you really not get ANYTHING out of it?
I'm fairly confident that when I get around to rewatching this, I'll be ready to put it right up there with the very best Coen brother movies.
Jen's comment to you: "I liked it."
Clueless/ spineless: He does not stand up for himself to ANYONE. He pays for Sy's funeral. He allows his cheating wife to make HIM move to the hotel. he knows in his heart that the kid left the money, but is too weak to act on is and dithers instead.
Useless rabbi's: #1 is inexperienced parking lot guy. #2 is tooth message anecdote guy. They both can only recommend #3 too busy with nothing guy. You thought they were helpful? I liked how you tied them to three ideas much more than I liked watching their ineptitude.
Random: A tornado?
Open-ended? He s going to die of cancer and his kid is going to get sucked up. What's open-ended about this?
The Coen's are masters. Liking characters can be a matter of taste. In "A Serious Man" they have given me a character I can't root for, and whom they have chosen to destroy. No matter how stylishly they can do it, I still see no reason to like it.
Hi Jen.
The tornado might seem random, but it's actually a Biblical allusion. God communicates with Job out of a whirlwind (like the burning bush in Exodus) at one point in the story. If anything, it's too cutesy, but I thought it was a great ending to the movie. Haven't wrapped my head around why the son sees the tornado instead of Larry though.
I didn't say the rabbi were helpful...I just said they weren't useless. At least thematically.
But the "parking lot" rabbi was rambling about the wonders of God, sort of the infancy of faith. The second guy with the tooth story was hinting more about the mysteries of God. A more mature attitude toward spirituality, no? The final rabbi who didn't have time to talk to the guy? I take that as something like a defiant turning-your-back on God which is what Job's wife wanted him to do by the end of his story.
I've recently read bits of the book of Job, by the way...
And by "open-ended," I wasn't talking about the plot...thematically. I find it hard to believe that a person can watch the movie and not have some idea what the Coens are saying about life, God, etc.
I understand what you're saying about a character's likability and not criticizing you for your opinion, by the way...I was just looking for some clarity.
Wonderful analysis; disappointing film. You should do this for a living.
I hate this movie...its the worst "good" movie I might have ever seen.
There is nothing to it. Its plotless, its pointless and its mean. Not mean to the characters or events in the movie...its mean to the people that are watching it. Its lazy filmaking and the worst aspects of the Coens is on display here. (And I like a lot of their movies.)
There is a South Park episode, where Kyle gets a massive hemorrhoids, all while Cartman is getting everything he wants. Kyles parents tell him the story of Job to make him feel better. And Kyle points out that its a horrible story, with nothing redeeming or good about it. Just a sadistic God that is proving some idiotic point to Satan by torturing an innocent man.
Larry, in this movie, is not Job. He causes his own problems with his weakness. He is not an actual character, just a cardboard cutout of a spineless being.
Cory is being too nice about this movie. A 14? Its a one...or a Zero, or whatever number you use as your bottom of the barrel.
Cory didnt get anything out of this movie, because there is nothing to get. Its a slick production, of a sadistic vision. Its poorly written, (By that I mean not written at all) pretentious, lazy (Yes theres that word again) pointless filmmaking.
Everyone in Larrys situation would be clueless? God I hope not......cause Larry would not, could not exist.
I hated this movie. Its the poster child for what makes a bad movie. Open ended, pseudo intellectual garbage that strives for nothing, but is given status and prestige by people desperate to make it something more than what it really is. And the Coens are rewarded for foisting this drek on us by an Oscar nomination. BLEH.
"Blood Sucking Freaks", "I Spit on Your Grave", "Batman and Robin", "Caligula", "C.H.U.D.", "Godzilla vs the Smog Monster", "Hannibal", "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", "The X-Files: I Want to Believe". These are the types of films I think of when throwing around grades of a 1 or zero. Movies that are completely exploitative of the worst kind of human behavior (like rape, child molestation, or sadistic murder), or are incompetent on a level that is insulting to the viewer's intelligence or the original source material. Saying this is a 1 or zero is just hyperbole. There is MUCH worse crap out there deserving grades between 1 and 10.
My main issue is not so much the movie, but it was my expectations going in, given that it came from two of this generation's greatest filmmakers. My gripe is they gave this movie a platform that allowed it to get nominated over superior films. By itself, I think the quality of the film merits a 14. Coming from the makers of "Fargo", "Raising Arizona" and "No Country for Old Men", I feel let down by an average film. There are good Coen moments, it's just not a particularly good Coen movie.
I just couldn't disagree more, burymore...
Plotless? That's not a fair argument. You've got a protagonist who has conflicts. You've got a beginning, a middle, and an end. You've got suspense. I think all the plot elements are there.
Pointless? I still don't see how you and Cory could watch this and not get anything at all from it. I like how it's thematically open-ended. I don't think that's lazy film-making at all. It's closer to the best kind of poetry, the stuff you can read once and think you understand and then read again twenty years later and because you're in a different time and place and a different age, you see it from a different perspective. I'm just not sure you or Cory brought enough into the experience. I can't speak for Larst or my wife (you are outnumbered, by the way...), but I really liked the spiritual questions brought up in this. It's a reflective, personal movie which brings up some heavy stuff, I believe in a very entertaining way. I come from a religious background (not Jewish), so maybe that helped me. But pointless? I just don't see how you can argue that. I think a lot of the point is that there are questions that just can't be answered, especially questions about God. But they're questions that are important enough to ask. Faith isn't enough. Just accepting God as a mysterious entity that we'll never fully figure out isn't enough.
Both you and Cory critize the character because he's weak. I don't get that either. That's like saying 'Hamlet' sucks because the main character can't make up his mind and do something. Human beings are weak. I still contend that Larry was trying his best to do the right thing.
'A Serious Man' is the second best movie from last year that I've seen. I haven't written about the first best yet. I need to write about 'District 9' and 'Zombieland' and 'You, the Living' when I get a chance. Want to guess which of those is the first best movie of last year?
Maybe you are right that one's (your) religous views color one's(your) view of this film. Larry has no personal ideas or personal strength. He gets kicked around and then looks for answers from anyone but himself. That makes him incredibly weak and confused... and kind of contemptable. I have little patience for someone who can't figure any of life out for themselves and seek all of their answers from a "higher" authority... most of them tend to vote Republican. As an adult who worked at sorting out my religous views, I bring plenty of personal experience to this film. I got plenty from "A Serious Man", just not much that I liked. I gave it a 14, but thinking more about it makes me want to drop my grade.
I don't know about your favorite film, but I'm guessing it is the one I haven't heard of ("You, the Living"). By the way, I'm halfway through "The Ninth Configuration", and as a lover of truly awful films, I recommend it highly to you. I don't want to spoil it, so everything else will be under ****Spoiler Alert****.
Religion can get me so worked up that I drop the i... twice.
I didnt see either a middle or an end to this movie...(Especially an end)
What plot was there? Some guy gets shat upon over and over again, and does absolutely nothing? Thats not a plot, its just events happening on the screen.
The only resolved "plot" element in the movie is the asian student giving Larry money, and Larry finally accepting it. Otherwise, everything else is left unresolved, and relies on the viewer to create his own ending. What happens to Larry? Who knows? What happens to the marriage? Who knows? What happens to the kid and his efforts to pay off his drug dealer? Who knows? Would anything ever happen between the weird, MILF neighbor and Larry? Who knows? What the hell was the deal with the brother? Who knows? The daughter? Who knows? Am I missing anything? Who knows?
Now you can give me your opinion on what happens to all these people, but its just that...your interpretation of events, rather than the filmmakers interpretation. That is why I call it lazy, and why I have no respect for it. Its like going to an art gallery, seeing an empty frame, and then being told to think about what should be in there. Then being told that its great art, since it made you think.
No its not...its just the artist (or in this case, the con man) preying on peoples desires to make things important and meaningful.
The point I am making here is, when you have a movie that relies almost entirely on the audience to write the ending, and to fill in the blanks, you dont have a movie, you have a social experiment. I dont pay to go see social experiments, I go to see an attempt by the filmmaker to make a stand on whatever issue they have presented. To resolve situations in a believable or interesting way. A Serious Man does none of these things. Its a blank frame that requires the audience to do all the work, and then sits back claiming that because the audience has to think, it makes it a good movie.
Making people think about creating their own movie is not great movie making...making people think about the issues and situations presented BY the filmmakers is what makes great movies. This film never once asks you to think about what the Coens have presented, and instead asked you to think about what you would do if you were in the Coens position. What movie would YOU have made instead of what movie was made.
That is where I have the problems here.
Heh.
Just caught this discussion.
Not even gonna bother articulating why I thought it was great. You either sympathize with Larry, or you don't.
And don't get me wrong I don't like all Larrys, Larry from three's company and Larry the Cable Guy suck ass.
-Larry
ps I've been to the bar mitzvah of a 14 year old stoner, so maybe I could relate to a lot more of this movie as well....
Did you fall asleep while watching this, burymore?
How does it not have an ending? It might have an ending that's indeterminate, but inferences can be made, enough so that you can follow the pattern and know that nothing is going to work out for the guy, probably because of his character flaw, his inactivity or timidity or whatever you want to call it. I still don't understand why that flaw bothers you so much. Why do you need your movie characters to be perfect? Why do you need your movies to spoon-feed you every little detail? Don't you like to think when you watch movies, fill in the gaps, bring in your own life experiences?
This seems like a complete reversal of my feelings about the decidedly average 'It's a Wonderful Life'...that movie kinda offends me because it's all too neat and clean. Everything's handed to you--the tidy themes, the feel-good ending. And it makes everything completely unreal. Life only works like that in Hollywood. Here, the Coens refuse to tidy things up for you. I don't find this movie artsy, pretentious, experimental...and believe me, I know artsy, pretentious, and experimental. As I've said, there's an accuracy with the guy's story. He's a character who has a lot of bad things happen to him and he just doesn't know how to respond. His inability to act is his flaw, and this leads to his downfall. This movie would not have made any sense if he responded like a flawless human being, and it wouldn't have been nearly as realistic.
The minor details (What happens to the kid when the tornado reaches the school? Is Larry going to die from some terminal illness?) aren't important here anyway. This isn't a story that is pushed along by minor details. Neither is life, by the way. This story is pushed along by the meaning behind all those minor details. And I still find it difficult to believe that you and Cory could watch this without thinking you know something about what the Coens were trying to say about life, spirituality, love, death, or something.
So when Jimmy Stewart's character finds out that that money is missing and that he is going to jail and that his business will collapse...is all that just events happening on the screen? All that happens to John Wayne's character in 'The Quiet Man' are just events happening on the screen? How's what happens to Larry any less of a plot than that?
Let's go to your art gallery with the empty frame...I'm sure some douchebag of an artist has actually done that, by the way. But to the left of that empty frame, you've got Hieronymus Bosch's triptych with 'The Last Judgement'...there's a sort-of story in it, but you look at it and look at it (or maybe you just glance at it, get frustrated, and go on to the next painting) and can't figure out what it says. You decide it's bad art. Then you move on to Salvador Dali's 'The Temptation of St. Anthony,' and you're like, "Oh, shit! This is even worse! This makes no sense at all." And you give up and go on to the next picture. Because 'The Temptation of St. Anthony' is sucky art. Luckily for you, it's a picture of a flower. And not a Georgia O'Keefe vagina flower either. Just a nice flower. You understand it. It makes sense to you. It's easy.
That seems to be what's happening here. I'm not going to criticize anybody for not liking a movie that I happen to like. But to criticize a movie because you're not willing to invest the effort in unwrapping it because that's not what you pay to do? To say a movie has no meaning when there are people who have watched it and been able to grab meaning from it? You accuse the Coens of being lazy filmmakers, but it seems to me that you're being a lazy film watcher here. Personally, I feel a bit insulted when filmmakers treat me like a baby. I don't pay money (literally...I rarely pay to see a movie) to be spoon-fed or to be told what to think or feel. My favorite stories, poems, paintings, movies, etc. require the audience to build half the bridge while the artist builds the other half. This is the type of movie that a lot of people (I would even guess a majority of people) won't have the materials necessary to build their part of the bridge. These particular themes and this particular story might not be the types to inspire bridge building. Instead, it might make people, like you, want to jump off the bridge instead.
I'm glad you guys are around. I love discussing movies with intelligent cinemaholics.
And Larry...what's your problem with Larry from 'Three's Company'? I don't remember disliking that character. My favorite episode though is the one where Mr. Furley eats him.
Post a Comment