Gail sees a movie: A Serious Man
The first image in A Serious Man is a quote from Rashi: “Accept with simplicity everything that happens to you.” At the end of the credits, among the usual boilerplate, we see that “No Jews were harmed in the making of this motion picture.” In between is one of the most riveting films I have seen this year.
The film begins with an eight-minute subtitled scene entirely in Yiddish. This prologue about a visit from a mysterious and possibly evil stranger (the marvelous Fyvush Finkel) foreshadows the religious and philosophical inquiry that is to follow. The rest of the film takes place in 1967 Minnesota, and revolves around Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) and his family. Gopnik has lots of tsuris. His son Danny (Aaron Wolff) is more interested in smoking pot and listening to the Jefferson Airplane than in studying for his bar mitzvah. His daughter Sarah (Jessica McManus) is stealing money to get a nose job. His wife Judith (Sari Lennick) wants him to move out so her new flame Sy (Fred Melamed) can move in. Brother Arthur (Richard Kind) lives with Larry, and has no intention of leaving. This modern day Job has other problems too. His scary gentile neighbors want to build a shed on his property. His chances of tenure are being threatened. An Asian student who failed his class is trying to bribe and blackmail him. Larry tries to find the reasons for his suffering and possible solutions. His quest takes him to see three rabbis and his divorce lawyer (Adam Arkin).
Writers/directors Ethan and Joel Coen have populated this film with talented, but not big name, actors. Broadway veteran Michael Stuhlbarg makes Larry likeable and sympathetic, despite his passivity when being steamrolled by his wife and kids. When Larry does not stand up to his wife when she wants him to leave their home, Stuhlbarg makes Larry’s acquiescence seem more good-hearted than weak. Fred Melamed gives the funniest performance in the film. His Sy Ableman is shameless as he hugs Larry and tells him to move to a hotel, and then laughs at the idea that there might be another solution. Sy has a “new age” sensibility and Melamed plays him with a seriousness that is hilarious. Comic actor Richard Kind made me laugh and cry as troubled Uncle Arthur. Arthur has a cyst on his back, and Kind walks as if Arthur has the weight of the world on his shoulders. He is grateful to his brother but resents him as well.
The film has many moments that had just enough truth in them to make me squirm with discomfort while laughing. The scenes in the Hebrew school class and school bus will seem uncomfortably familiar to some, as the class writes notes, listens to music and deals with bullies. Sy Ableman and his advice seem right at home in 1967, as do the dilemmas of the Gopnik family. Those familiar with Judaism and Jewish culture will enjoy all of the references. The film does not explain most of them. But even if you do not fully get the jokes and situations, the themes are universal.
A Serious Man is both thought provoking and, for a Coen brothers film, strangely moving. Larry struggles to find meaning and the reasons why God inflicts pain on him, and the answers, although sometimes comic, are difficult to come by. Maybe there are no answers. As a blackmailer tells Larry, “Please, accept the mystery.” The film’s treatment of Jewish issues has angered some groups. After the preview screening I attended, the lobby was filled with people debating the meaning of the film and the issues it raised. I am still thinking and talking about it. In one of my favorite scenes, Larry stands in a classroom before a huge blackboard completely covered with equations. He is trying to explain the Uncertainty Principle. He tells the students that, “It proves we can’t ever really know what’s going on. So it shouldn’t bother you, not being able to figure anything out. Although you will be responsible for this on the midterm.” The very powerful end of the film suggests this may be true in other ways.
This film is vastly different from recent Hollywood comedies and different from the Coen brothers’ last two interesting efforts, Burn After Reading and No Country for Old Men. It left me asking many questions, including how something like this could come out of Hollywood. In a film about faith and lack of faith, the Coen brothers place their faith in the intelligence of the audience.
A Serious Man. Directed by Ethan Coen and Joel Coen. Michael Stuhlbarg (Larry Gopnik), Richard Kind (Uncle Arthur), Fred Melamed (Sy Ableman), Sari Lennick (Judith Gopnik), Aaron Wolff(Danny Gopnik), Jessica McManus(Sarah Gopnik), Fyvush Finkel,(Dybbuk?) and Adam Arkin (Divorce Lawyer). Focus Features, 2009.
Gail sees a movie appears every Wednesday.
Latest posts by Gail D. Rosen (Posts)
- Gail sees a movie: The Company Men - February 2, 2011
- Gail sees a movie: No Strings Attached - January 26, 2011
- Gail sees a movie: Country Strong - January 19, 2011
- Gail sees a movie: Tiny Furniture - January 12, 2011
- Gail sees a movie: Casino Jack - January 5, 2011
Print This Post
Good review, Gail.
I too thought this was a brilliant movie. It struck me as very funny while watching it. A day later, it seemed very sad and profound. I’m still not sure what to make of it this comic masterpiece. I’m not sure the Yiddish fable at the beginning works; if it connects to the story, which stands alone very well, the connection isn’t sufficiently obvious. But this is another great film from our best film makers (along with John Sayles).
Thanks, Jeff. I understand what you mean about the Yiddish scene, but I enjoyed it. I liked that it was left to the audience to interpret it. I thought the scene suggested that the difference between a superstitious age and a rational age is actually very slight. I am not really sure, but I like that I am still thinking about it.
Gail, I loved this movie. When looking through your links I found a reference to David Denby’s review in the New Yorker, and he hates this movie as much as we loved it. See http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/10/05/091005crci_cinema_denby.
I was struck by Denby’s remark about how Issac B. Singer would be disgusted with the main character for refusing to commit adultery with his sexy neighbor. Ironically, I find this situation analogous to the scene in my favorite Singer story “Gimpel the Fool” when Gimpel gives in to a demon and urinates into a batch of dough to be baked into the bread of his tormentors. In the Singer story, Gimpel has time to bury the loaves of bread before they could be sold and then he embarks on a life as a mendicant story-teller. For me, it is to the Coen brothers’ credit that the Powers-That-Be act too immediately and decisively for the main character to change his mind.
Quick clarification:
Singer’s Gimpel is a Job-ish man who takes Rashi’s advice throughout his life and accepts with simplicity the treacherous behavior of everyone around him. He finally sins, but then makes up for it and punishes himself by giving up his worldly comforts and becoming a story-telling “schnorrer.”
The Coen brothers’ Gopnik is a Job-ish man who also takes Rashi’s advice, but when he finally gives in and commits a (comparitively minor) sin, he is the victim of a harsh, instantaneous, cosmic slap-down.
Singer’s story is sad and inspirational. The Coen brothers’ story is merciless and ironic.
I haven’t seen the movie. But Fred’s comment about Singer reminds me of a scene in Lester Goran’s The Bright Streets of Surfside, his memoir about his friendship with Singer, whom he translated for and co-taught with at the University. One time, Goran was at a restaurant, a diner I think, with Singer and his wife, and — I don’t know if I am remembering it correctly — the waiters made a mistake or something, and Goran told Singer not to complain or not to ask the waiter to correct his mistake, because, as Goran told Singer, sometimes waiters spit in the food of customers who weren’t nice to them. Singer was horrified, couldn’t believe that such a thing could be true. Not the same as urinating in the bread, but one made me think of the other.
Anyway, it’s an excellent book. I recommend it.. I’m not unbiased on the subject, though, since I studied with Goran in Miami and consider him a friend.
“at the University” should have “of Miami” following it.
Thanks for you comments Fred and Scott, and for the tip about the book. Scott, you should see this film. The conversations it has sparked are almost as interesting as the film itself.