New Coen Bros, A Serious Man

NICE trailer.

Middling trailer, looks to have about the same heft as Burn After Reading (which I enjoyed).

I am so fucking excited about this film. Everything I've heard - including waaay advance stuff from friends who went to see them talk about it at temple - suggests retro Jewish Fargo. Was filmed in the Twin Cities in places designed to evoke St Louis Park, MN in 1967. Over on the Gentile side of town my parents would have been busy making me at the time.

Will definitely watch.

great trailer

I'm in Suzy's hometown pride boat, but this looks MUCH better than early descriptions indicated.

I was born in St Louis Park in 1970, so the retro part's exciting to me.

where is a serious man, who really aims movie?

i will see this

this looks pretty great and i have no idea what sort of film it will be

Seems like of like Revolutionary Road + Philip Roth.

this looks pretty great and i have no idea what sort of film it will be

otm, being waiting for months for the trailer to come out. Having seen it I'm no wiser as to what the film will be like. In terms of sound design I can't remember a more complete trailer, really stoked for it now after seeing it.

Dr. Morbius what are ur thoughts :)

http://www.brendanmcgetrick.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/han-solo-frozen-in-carbonite.jpg

So, the Coens will have now set a film in every decade from the 1920s through the present, except for the '70s.

I'm too lazy to do it, but can someone list them in chronological order of when they're set?

They're like the August Wilson of film.

No Country is set in the late 1970s, I believe.

20s: Miller's Crossing
30s: O Brother Where Art Thou?
40s: Barton Fink (1941), The Man Who Wasn't There (1949)
50s: The Hudsucker Proxy
60s: A Serious Man
80s: No Country for Old Men (1980), Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Fargo (1987)
90s: The Big Lebowski
00s: Intolerable Cruelty, Ladykillers, Burn After Reading

(Assuming that Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski, Intolerable Cruelty, Ladykillers, and Burn After Reading are "contemporary.")

Lebowski is set at the start of the first Gulf War but not quite "contemporary" to the time it was produced

for a second, when I first glanced at this title, I thought it was Tom Ford's forthcoming directorial debut A Single Man.

xp Oh right. Still their only film set in the '90s, oddly.

awesome trailer. i'm totally down with trailers that pique interest without giving away much of the movie

Really wish more movie trailers had some measure of thought put into them like this one.

Revised:

1929: Miller's Crossing
1937: O Brother Where Art Thou?
1941: Barton Fink
1949: The Man Who Wasn't There
1958: The Hudsucker Proxy
1967: A Serious Man
1980: No Country for Old Men
1984*: Blood Simple
1986*: Raising Arizona
1987: Fargo
1991: The Big Lebowski
2002*: Intolerable Cruelty
2003*: The Ladykillers
2007*: Burn After Reading

*shooting date

They've never made a film where the action leaves the US.

Oh, except for a brief sojourn across the Mexican border in No Country.

These are the dudes responsible for the trailer, they've done some good stuff over the last while
http://www.markwoollen.com/

Hoberman all but calls them Jewish anti-Semites:

http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-09-29/film/for-serious-man-coen-brothers-aim-trademark-contempt-at-themselves/

but Armond loves it!

http://www.nypress.com/article-20412-the-humor-in-gloom.html

Who knew Hobermann had gender reassignment and a name-change to Ella Taylor?

a serious woman

the film is somewhere in between "great" (in parts) to mediocre/embarrassing (in other parts).

the last 30 minutes or so of the film (esp. the bar mitzvah scene) are truely great: only then did The Coen brothers took the film seriously and thoghtfully as they didnt for (most of) the rest of the movie, which is a not-so-much-inspiring take on judaism as philosophy and culture.
the comedy is vulgar on those parts because it was done while the directors didnt take their "job" seriously, and as a result - the characters,the story, the jokes are shallow, and some people would say even anti-semite (as they did).
at least they did made the effort to make the movie into something profound - a piece of art - at the last part,saving it from being their worst movie into being somewhere in the middle between their best and their worst to date.

still - some good sequences there too - the one where Gopnick is fixing the antenna on the roof is brilliant,for example.

frank grimes: the movie

i loved this

http://www.talkingfilms.net/wp-content/trailers/serious-man-tr1.jpg

http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/20/m_0fcac5bb5d14ac81db54b6cad104fa71.jpg

oops on me for attributing VV review.

Anyway, this is one of their best (like, top 4) and I'd declare it my favorite along with Raising Arizona if there wasn't some slippage into actual cruelty, as opposed to a study of gracelessness under pressure. All the roles are astoundingly well cast. And yeah, it's the most aerious American film about Judaism I can recall since Mazursky's Enemies. Key ambiguous line: "I didn't do anything."

Also, I know the guy who plays the shtetl husband in the prologue (he also did the Yiddish translation). We're in the same vintage film-comedy film buff circle.

^"misattributing"

"serious"

Morbs, I did not get to see ASM while home but you might wanna take a look at this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100804786.html

http://resizeimage.org/system/0002/7635/serious-man-9.jpg?1255889533311http://i35.tinypic.com/2wbri9w.jpg

Dybbuk, Schmybbuk: I Said "More Ham"

Some of the weakest sequences here are, predictably, pot-related

I loved this! I agree about the pot sequences though.

come on, "do you take advantage of the new freedoms?" is a brilliant scene

this movie is amazing. and speaks to my n american jewish upbringing with alarming specificity.

I just found out from my dad that Amy Landecker, who plays Mrs. Samsky, is my aunt Paula's stepdaughter and that, according to a Chicago Tribune interview, she modeled her performance after my aunt. o_O

I loved loved loved this.

Movie's only weakness was that despite Sy Ableman's character being amusing as all get out I found it somewhat difficult to believe that Gopnik's wife would actually fall for someone that thoroughly unexciting (not to mention so completely unctuous.) But that minor stretch of credulity aside, it was pitch perfect.

Ableman does come off as unctuous, but I can also see how his touchy-feeliness could represent an attractive alternative to Larry's essential conservativism.

I couldn't quite see it, but it's a minor complaint cuz Ableman's character is so hilariously funny that I was able to overlook it.

The bar mitzvah sequence definitely belongs on my list of favorite drug freak-out sequences ever.

anyone know if / when this will get nationwide release? or will i have to wait until it comes to the arthouse cinemas here?

It was art-house here in SF. About 25 people in the theater for the bargain matinee show and all members of the tribe. One guy put his hand on my shoulder warmly (Sy Ableman style) and nodded at me as he was walking by during the closing credits.

I tried to go see this on Saturday (5:15 show) at the local multiplex here in NJ. Sold out. I was not expecting that. I didn't know that many people wanted to see this.

"do you take advantage of the new freedoms?" IS a good line. I was thinking more of Danny's bar mitzvah being lame-o (bound to be Lebowski fans' fave).

I saw this at an Upper West Side matinee with maybe 7 people in the theater. I was the only one laughing much of time. (I know for sure a few of them didn't recognize the "Somebody to Love" lyrics when they are recited.)

"Look at the parking lot!" (Actually the junior rabbi has a point, but it's really not what Larry needs to hear.)

"bound to be Lebowski fans' fave"

Thinking it had more to do with being at bar mitzvah's and wishing I was stoned, frankly.

Kid on the school bus who called everyone a fucker: A+

also the dental story rabbi George Wyner told.

Junior rabbi was hysterical. Definitely my favorite of the three rabbi sequences. I liked the story of the goy's teeth, but it felt like it maybe belonged in a different Coen bros movie.

That fucker.

I also liked the kid who called every joint a fucker, "gimmee that fucker".

Sequence with Korean dad where he's explaining that he's going to sue Larry for defamation and bribe-taking was also priceless.

SPOILERS, obv

also I had audibility problems with the wife's line at the bar mitzvah: did she cop to writing the defamatory letters to the tenure committee?

I thought the handling of Sy's death was odd -- was it clearly established it was in the same chain-reaction accident that Larry caused, or elsewhere?

"also I had audibility problems with the wife's line at the bar mitzvah: did she cop to writing the defamatory letters to the tenure committee?"

No she let slip that Sy had been writing letters to the committee.

"I thought the handling of Sy's death was odd -- was it clearly established it was in the same chain-reaction accident that Larry caused, or elsewhere?"

Elsewhere.

Of course she thinks those letters were laudatory, Larry knows (or suspects) otherwise.

OK, I figured Sy was a much more logical candidate.

I hope you all stayed for nearly-the-last credit: "No Jews were harmed in the making of this film."

(well, I know jaymc left cuz watching the credits is too snobby)

Richard Kind gives a really heartbreaking performance as the genius brother. I thought that last dream sequence was unnecessarily vicious.

(well, I know jaymc left cuz watching the credits is too snobby)

What!

I left because my meter was 15 minutes expired!

Usually I like to stay for the whole credits, though:

Especially with movies that are heavy or intense or draining in some way, the credits give you an opportunity to let everything settle.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, March 1, 2005 3:27 PM (4 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I was sure you once said staying thru end-credits was a transparent attempt to impress others. Apologies if I'm mistaken.

(I'm sure you know who actually posted that if I'm wrong, you trainspotter)

This, maybe?

Sneaking food into movies is classic. Sneaking booze is even better. And reading all of the credits is the lamest sort of pseudo-movie-buff snobbery unless you're just trying to ID a certain song or actor. In which case who cares if people are being noisy and walking around? If you really hate people so much that you can't deal with the natural sort of interruptions that occur in a movie theater you should really just stay home with a DVD.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, March 1, 2005 8:26 PM (4 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

To which you replied, two years later:

btw, "walterkranz" needs to eat shit.

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:46 AM (2 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I saw this Friday before last at the Uptown theater in Minneapolis. The big laughs were local: the Red Owl supermarket, Embers, and real-life superlawyer Ron Meshbesher. My friend Ari played the colleague whose scenes all involved standing in the doorway of Gopnik's office.

Your friend (who looks eerily like Ira Glass) was great.

"bound to be Lebowski fans' fave"

Thinking it had more to do with being at bar mitzvah's and wishing I was stoned, frankly.

― Alex in SF, Monday, October 19, 2009 1:53 PM (32 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

for me it had to do with actually being stoned in synagogue haha

"I thought the handling of Sy's death was odd -- was it clearly established it was in the same chain-reaction accident that Larry caused, or elsewhere?"

Elsewhere.

― Alex in SF, Monday, October 19, 2009 2:01 PM (26 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

it was sort of retroactively established in that scene. can't wait to watch it again.

"for me it had to do with actually being stoned in synagogue haha"

I only went to synagogue for bar mitzvahs so my opportunities were more limited heh.

^^^Priceless exchange. Real-life superlawyer used to have the absolute epitome of keys-in-the-ashtray '70s parties.

Ari's comedy record:
http://www.arihoptman.com/index_files/dang.jpg

(Did not know that about the superlawyer!)

Eazy, I'm from St. Louis Park; ma famille has lived there for three generations and I have school friends who pepper this film with their extraness. That I didn't get to see it when home last week is a major bummer for me seeing as the fam are two miles from the theatre. NB am not a member of the frozen Chosen, but my mom throws Yiddish phrases into the mix and makes seriously amazing matzoh ball soup, which she attributes to growing up there.

Yeah, as with Hold Steady songs, I'm just glad to have good songs/movies/etc. that actually overlap with my specific childhood memories (born in the St. Louis Park hospital, though grew up in Burnsville, school in inner-city St. Paul and then Golden Valley).

yeah the MNness is def something I'm interested

would everyone agree this film does not hate Judaism, or the main character?

Yeah, I seriously don't understand that complaint. Ella Taylor's got some weird issues.

That cropped up in enough places for me to get all WTF about it.

ppl always complain that the coens are too mean

LOL remembering Minnewegian accent controversy re: Fargo and my opinion being OH YES YOU DO SOUND LIKE THAT. I mean, OH YAH, YOU BETCHA.

and sometimes I'm one of them, but many other films are more guilty of it. xp

suzy I like this credit of yr friend's:

"Mystery Science Theater 3000" .... Pancake Breakfast Extra

I think that's Eazy's friend.

I did not think Fargo was mean wrt lol mn accents! Ppl talk that way!

xp (The confusion is understandable, though.)

yeah

That MST3K guy is friends with my cousin - but I knew his brother Ch4d. My friend Avr0m is in the bar mitzvah scene.

chfourd?

surely you've never used a number in place of a letter, s1ocki?

I def. agree the movie didn't hate Larry, at all. It didn't hate Judaism either, it had more of a "humans not fitting into divine systems" thing going on.

surely you've never used a number in place of a letter, s1ocki?

― Yo! GOP Raps (suzy), Monday, October 19, 2009 4:50 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

n0 n3v3r

Esp. not when I talk about my friends Avrom and Chad.

"humans not fitting into divine systems"

To me, it's more amused with humans expecting "divine systems" to be repair manuals, like whatever the punchline the second rabbi uses, along the lines of "Hashem doesn't tell me everything."

I wonder if the rubes will boil as much at this film's sort-of-open ending the way they did with No Country. (This won't be nearly as big a hit, obv, lacking a killer.)

those rubes!

Rub3s.

lacking a killer

more importantly, lacking a bigger star than Richard Kind.

VERY excited for this -- especially with advance notice that there are twin-cities centric joeks herein, tho maybe of a vintage i won't get

No gentile babies were conceived during the time frame of this movie (except for me).

Ella Taylor: "To cap it all, Larry's pneumatic pothead of a neighbor (Amy Landecker), the sole looker in sight and therefore probably a shiksa"

There was a mezuzah on her door!

Yeah, didn't she also say, after Larry remarked that he didn't care for the neighbors on the other side, "Goys, huh?"

hmmm someone might want to mark this thread as full of spoilers already

yes! watch movies better crazy lady! it really disproves her whole risible "ugly jew" thesis

xp

The hot neighbor was so obv not a goy, tho clearly derived from Mrs Robinson (even the tropical plants in her house).

hmmm someone might want to mark this thread as full of spoilers already

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:05 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

after a movie comes out i think spoilers are fair game... i mean you can assume that we're actually talking about the film and not anticipating at this point no?

it hasn't been released everywhere

what happened to freedom of speech in this country

you're canadian

yes, what country did u think i was referring to

a country with free speech!

loved loved the ending

parking lot rabbi = omg. up there with any scene they've written.

this was so great

the son's friend looked EXACTLY like fred armisen.

omg I was trying to figure out who he looked like! that's it.

call w/ records club guy where he repeats santana's abraxis like 12 times was incredible

i think the coen brothers are making it about there father

Job was their dad?

embrace the mystery.

cause i heard they were basing the character off there dad, i also heard they basing it off the book of job, i could be wrong

Can't be both unless Job is their dad so yeah.

call w/ records club guy where he repeats santana's abraxis like 12 times was incredible

― johnny crunch, Saturday, 24 October 2009 14:28 (3 hours ago)

THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

i kinda dumb, and i know the ending is meant to be ambiguous, but what are we mean to infer about the kid and the 20 dollars? Why that meaningful look? Is he deciding not to give the money?

hes all lets see how this tornado plays out before i hand over the money - the general theme was disruption of staid lives - only unlike everyone else in the movie the kid sees possibility in the chaos - he does share their small minded outlook tho

can def see how some might get the impression that the coens dont like these people v much - tho the level of cultural insight and attention to detail is affection enough imo

OK I need a press screening for this, STAT. Very anxious to see this - British reviews are, so far, fantastic - but had a chat with a Jewish writer over here that really needed to go to shul re Midwest Jewry ie. he was surprised there *were* any. I relayed details of the conversation to my mom and it earned a big, fat WTF That said, British Jewish writer said he cursed his great-grandparents for getting off at Southampton instead of continuing on to Ellis Island.

I really really wanted to like this but just... didn't laugh. Yes, a bit too cruel, but that wasn't so much the problem for me - I just found it hammy and unfunny. I think there is something wrong with me, judging by the reaction of the rest of the (Washington DC) audience.

WaPo meets the Frozen Chosen

loved the ending of this

I quite enjoyed this. The first half seemed tenser and sadder to me. I think the tone lightened a bit in the second half, as the plot twists and tangents got a bit kookier, allowing the Coens to display their gifts of concision and visual narrative. Then when things finally seem to be lightening up, there comes the ominous twist of the ambiguous ending, seeming to foreshadow another downward lurch.

really really really did not dig this myself. everyone was just so damn miserable! didn't even warm up to the main character until the last quarter of the film. and the ending.. ugh. just too nihilistic for me, i guess

well, that speaks well of how your days go, cuz it seemed pretty lifelike to my eyes; mazel tov!

Miserable was probably not the right word - I meant almost every character felt irredeemably annoying and horrible. Makes sense for this movie, since they're all just different avenues to torture the main character, but it makes for a really aggravating film when it doesn't feel like it's really going anywhere, especially with that ending. I can't believe how much effort and time was wasted for that last joke with the last rabbi, for example. I kind of wish the movie ended after the opening scene.

believe me my days do not go well

But I don't think anyone else thinks they're torturing him, except maybe his wife's lover. Everyone has his reasons, etc.

btw I hafta go outta town and miss a party that the Shtetl Husband would be attending. :(

I have to think about why the usual Coen Bros misanthropy worked better in this context than any other. This is one of the best of the year.

if I am on the tenure track and suffer from tenure-process-related-paranoia, should I avoid this movie? Will it aggravate my symptoms?

hard to say

not unless yr husband leaves you for a serious man. :)

(given the Halloween photos, I'd say unlikely)

Do you take advantage of the new freedoms?

this was aight. the uncle with the suction tube was so disgusting

*sigh*

what r u sighing at

times done changed

the Richard Kind character enters like a walking cheapshot but he's rather heartbreaking, not "disgusting."

he's kind of both to be honest morbsy

every character is designed to be a huge problem for larry (do you see what happens, larry!?) but they all remained somehow warm and human, to me. trapped and blinkered and absolutely irritating, but not evil. this was way less misanthropic than burn after reading. very similar theological terrain to no country, too.

"a walking cheapshot" against who?

the infirm

the loud suctioning of fluid from his neck late at night was far from heartbreaking

"heartbreaking"

"scarequoting"

Some of the weakest sequences here are, predictably, pot-related

Pot mitzvah made me laugh.

And I literally forgot there was such a thing as Red Owl. I think I saw a few in Bloomington as they were dying off.

used to live a few blocks away from one that is now a kowalskis

my friend pointed out the use of some "stoner-cam" in this movie which i hadnt really remembered but sort of denigrates in my eyes, in retrospect

Loved this. I don't think I've ever seen a film that so effectively captured American synagogues - the detail was just incredible. And the stoned bar mitzvah was amazing - it really captures what a bar mitzvah FEELS like - you get shoved up onto stage, a metal pointer gets pushed into your hand, and a few minutes later you're uncomfortably parading past all of these old, wrinkled faces that you have no idea how to react to and a strange sense of being judged in a way you don't understand.

I also liked the almost zen parable feeling of the goy's teeth scene - though the person I was with took it as critical of rabbis, it actually reminded me of all the things I like about the Jewish tradition - the kind of shrugging, comic unknowingness of it.

I don't think it was full on "stoner cam," just an extremely shallow depth of field.

I heard some behind-the-scenes stories from the Sht3tl Husb4nd on Thursday night! Nothing scandalous, obv he was thrilled w/ the role.

Also, a friend tested for the Coens for the Richard Kind part!

I thought the megaracist next door was a little silly, and I had a few other minor quibbles, but otherwise I liked this quite a bit.

that neighbor was great tho. "is this guy bothering you?"

I realized after the film that the neighbor WASN'T actually a megaracist. He had a realistic degree of xenophobia, but the more horrific elements were just in Gopnik's mind (the jew-hunting dream, etc.). I think this ties in to the "perception" theme.

they really didnt get each other

Lousy limited release in the UK for this - only 27 screens nationwide by the look of it, despite five star reviews from nearly all quarters. Means a drive over to the other side of town for me, or a trip to the (rubbish) arthouse cinema. Broken Britain indeed.

Going tonight...

OK so I was totally verklempt. I don't want to spoil it for anyone but remembering the to-and-fro about the goyim neighbours, they may not have been friendly 24/7 but they did challenge the cops who came to hassle the Gopniks - and in one tiny scene you get my town, in a nutshell.

last scene so good

School friend who went to film with me lived next door to the Meshbeshers, so we were in LOL heaven. Many of our town's stories end with a bill from that lawyer.

haven't seen but black comedy by coens bros. zzzz

^^ morbius acolyte?

it may be a black comedy, but it's about as far removed from Big Lebowski as I can imagine

lol @ slocki - hoping to get to see this tomorrow, if the one decent screen round here has tickets.

ssshhh u guys moullet is sleeping, all tuckered out from not watching the movie

uh, I like SEVERAL black comedies by the Coens including this one. And dislike others.

thought this was pretty great. that ella taylor article was O_o

I think this might have held a lot more resonance for me had I been Jewish, but I loved how the youngest rabbi turned out to be the least inept of all of them.

I do think I totally missed the significance of the opening scene though. Very funny throughout though.

Matt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dybbuk

still need to see this---my friend hated it but couldn't articulate why

The friend who I saw it with hated it too - he said 'I feel like I've seen that shit a thousand times before', which I don't really understand, said it was boring with which I don't agree at all, and took issue with the ending, which I can comprehend at least. I think he was in a bad mood. I enjoyed it quite a lot, found it very immersive in fact.

aside from the usual slapstick nihilism of recent coen, i didn't really get much out of this beside trying to show up sam mendes and all those other goys who specialize in suburban hell movies. ella taylor's article was over the top, but I definitely felt a little queasy with the film's wallowing, though my jewish future-father-in-law from michigan was very "finally, a movie for me" about it.

lol mendes is half-jewish apparently

this is not remotely nihilist.

like you'd notice

Wait -- what does the film wallow in?

I didn't at all get the sense that this particular suburb was hell.

I live five minutes from this suburb, it seems fine

well we know what you think hell is. :)

xp

I grew up in this suburb, and all it is currently missing is a good sit-down delicatessen. Ella Taylor article just struck me as 'does not know what the fuck she's talking about'.

Suzy I think I drove by a sitdown deli yesterday??

forgive the shorthand guys, but I'm just referring to the genre of movies about suburbanites getting thrown through the wringer (mendes, payne, solondz), not that I feel the suburbs are actually hell.

WHAAAAT? A proper Jewish deli a la Lincoln Del (RIP)? Where was this? Are you counting Crossroads on Cedar Lake Road - because that's in Minnetonka/Hopkins/GV DMZ.

The difference with ASM is emphasis: the Villains of Krypton have a thesis they want to prove (lookit what prefab houses and perky wives to sensitive men), whereas ASM makes it clear that the guy's problems could have taken place in West Palm Beach or Brooklyn.

yeah, cuz the guy's problem was apparently, in large part, being Jewish.

I don't think the environment is directly causative of the guy's hell, it just happens to be the setting. (ie, he could just as well be in a shtetl)

xxp yeah

xp yes but not really. This is the film my jobless Irish Catholic ass most related to this year.

Suzy it was fishmans but I just checked and that is technically mpls

i really liked the opening dybbuk scene, the goy's teeth story, the stoned bar mitzvah, and the ending, but i think i disliked it overall cause i hate job stories.

opening dybbuk scene really reminded me of this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_96uP6vDZMT8/SorEyk_9hzI/AAAAAAAACd8/W021WwNivBk/s400/BLACK+SABBATH3.jpg

I have no problem with Job stories featuring some kind of unternebbish.

LOL the deli's own site (which suggests amazing food) says it's in St. Louis Park - it's the new place that took over one of the Lincoln Del's old sites. But it is so close to being Mpls that it should serve as some kind of border marker.

I think it does, really. it's right where Minnetonka blvd splits off from 7, which I tend to associate with the beginning of slp.

History lesson: Jews were redlined to the suburbs north of 7 when they made the great exodus from North Minneapolis after WWII; south of there (where my family still live) are still many Jewish families but not in the same numbers, because synagogues are not nearby and Edina can be seen from my house.

always thought Edina was WASPy?

Oh god, I miss the Lincoln Del.

is Edina where the MST3K studio was? cuz I been there.

That was Hopkins, I think. Or maybe that's just where their fan club PO box was.

Edina is so WASP, its high school team mascot is a fucking hornet. Also forget living there before 1968 if you were black or Jewish.

Our corner of SLP is all about Excelsior Boulevard.

(the film I would make about Mpls. suburbs could well be a John Justen horrorshow called 'Schmucks versus Cake Eaters' BTW)

In the time period ASM covers, my suburb was still mostly farms, I think.

I was also wondering if this film took place over six days in 1967.

Eric, which was your suburb? If it was Eden Prairie, my dad used to take us to a farm there when I was TINY to play with the horses of a farmer whose name I swear was Crank.

i keep thinking about this movie. the two keys for me are the opening scene -- a (fake?) folk tale, supposedly with a meaning and a lesson but providing neither really -- and the second rabbi's lesson of the goy's teeth -- ditto. who cares?. and that's the structure of the whole movie. more things happen. and then, this, and then, another thing. he has a dream. and then, the doctor calls. how does it end? it doesn't.

in memory, i can hear the second rabbi as the narrator of the whole thing; "his wife says, 'i have begged you'. his daughter asks about the bathroom. larry asks what's going on. nobody answers him." what happens? "who cares? oh, then there was a tornado"

Burnsville

That's where the other Eric on this thread (Eazy) grew up, IIRC.

Didn't realize Eazy was even a MN-ite. I don't follow the hastings thread enough, apparently.

It ends, goole; he and the kids die like the rest of us.

but, he had kids, presumably his kids' kids are the ones on this thread, or any thread, or in the theater, it goes on...

it's about a moment in the past worth commemorating (do you take advantage of the new freedoms?) which presupposes a future where the remembering happens!

ACCEPT THE MYSTERY

this film owned, hard-style.

for the record, I was such a rebel that I'd sit in hebrew school class with an earbud in my ear listening to Pink Floyd and the Doors.

Just got back from this. Could not stop laughing at the bar mitzvah scene. Growing up in Michigan, some parts rang really true like the tornado, the huntings neighbors, and the guy going to escape to Canada by rowing a canoe across a lake.

i really enjoyed this film

I also liked the almost zen parable feeling of the goy's teeth scene - though the person I was with took it as critical of rabbis, it actually reminded me of all the things I like about the Jewish tradition - the kind of shrugging, comic unknowingness of it.

^ This. Was my favourite sequence in the film. I really felt more in line with the haters than the ravers on this one; felt like a movie about how Jews fuck up, in the divine sense. All the mistakes they make, these lazy or venal errors, caring about the forest instead of the trees. And while I think the movie does essentially believe in God, and about some kind of truth out there, and isn't suggesting that the characters are bad or evil, this vision of the world felt ungenerous. The Rabbi's teeth story felt like the only representation of the main element of Judaism that I cling to, now, older and non-practicing - about living well, happily throwing yr arms up at the unknowable (or nonexistent).

Wish I could see this just as a character/setting/historical study, as many here have, but very much felt like a Commentary On Jews As Jews.

what's wrong with that, though?

oh, nothing - like it's not a critique of the film in itself, just an articulation of why i didn't like it. (and also why i didn't like its worldview. which makes me realise: a dislike for a film's ideology often functions as a critique of the film: see common debates over Slumdog Millionaire, Rachel Getting Married (which i loved), etc.)

I really felt more in line with the haters than the ravers on this one; felt like a movie about how Jews fuck up, in the divine sense.

Well, they killed the Saviour.

seang, just look at the parking lot.

Hey, does the Directors Guild have a rule that only brothers can receive dual credit?

Nope. The two directors it took to bring Little Miss Sunshine to the screen were rewarded with one nod.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directors_Guild_of_America_Award_for_Outstanding_Directing_-_Feature_Film

so what was the big deal about rodriguez quitting the DGA so that frank miller could get co-credit for sin city?

Second viewing holds up. lol Rabbi "Scott"

The second viewing really brings out the lols.

"i'm fine.... someone just {throatcutting gesture} but..."

I think the Rodriguez-DGA spat was due to the fact that Miller didnt direct much of anything for Sin City. I think his credit was mostly due to his making the graphic novel.

Millers lack of directing chops was later fully revealed in "The Spirit".

I really, really enjoyed this, and I got the feeling I would have enjoyed it more if I knew a bit more about Judaism.

The quantum mechanics he is writing on the board in the lecture is not just bullshit symbols, so they clearly had some help, but it's wrong in quite a trivial algrebraic way. this must have been so obvious to whoever helped them that i suspect it is deliberate. Like he has gone nuts and forgotten that x - x = 0 (which is one of the mistakes).

Morbs: maybe you know some behind the scenes stuff here. Was the Serious Man prologue in 4:3 or something like that? Or am I misremembering? If it was, what was the reason?

What an awesome catch, caek! Does sound like a Coenish deliberate mistake.

Haha, I hope so. He literally writes q^2 - q^2 = 0 iirc. Quantum mechanics is weird, but it's not that weird.

^^^^you are expecting me to understand higher maths, LOL. To say I wasn't interested in post-algebra maths at school is putting it mildly; how did I ever get an A in Physics? I am sure many of the film's nerdier extras felt compelled to point it out on the scene.

Next time I'm home I have to get my mom to see it.

This was AWESOME. The younger rabbi + "goy's teeth" sequences = every conversation I ever had with a rabbi. that peculiar kind of avuncular unhelpfulness, stories that go nowhere, etc.

don't really get why the short was included at the beginning. it was funny and all, but seemed pretty unrelated to what followed.

i didn't understand it and felt maybe some knowledge of judaism would have helped me? but idk, i didn't mind it being there.

god, the goy's teeth sequence is one of the best things they've ever done. loved loved loved that.

"don't really get why the short was included at the beginning. it was funny and all, but seemed pretty unrelated to what followed."

every conversation I ever had with a rabbi. that peculiar kind of avuncular unhelpfulness, stories that go nowhere, etc

Larry Gopnik: I don't want it to just go away! I want an answer!
Rabbi Nachtner: Sure! We all want the answer! But Hashem doesn't owe us the answer, Larry. Hashem doesn't owe us anything. The obligation runs the other way.
Larry Gopnik: Why does he make us feel the questions if he's not gonna give us any answers?
Rabbi Nachtner: He hasn't told me.
Larry Gopnik: And... what happened to the goy?
Rabbi Nachtner: The goy? Who cares?

^^^was dying during this exchange

lol x-posts

"The goy? Who cares?" line is just LOL.

that peculiar kind of avuncular unhelpfulness, stories that go nowhere, etc

fwiw this is always why i wanted to be a jew---priests were weird and creepy, rabbis seemed like funny bros

Judaism: We're Funnier

Look at the parking lot, Larry. Just look at that parking lot.

god, the goy's teeth sequence is one of the best things they've ever done. loved loved loved that.

― iatee, Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:27 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark

^^^

Loved this movie. Way more laugh-out-loud funny than I'd been led to expect.

i need to watch this again. "do you take advantage of the new freedoms?"

Seen it four times, now, I think. Still awesome, and ever funnier.

The AV Club's recent article on Synecdoche, NY mentioned that it would make a great double bill w/ this, which is both true and freaks me out a big since those are my respective #1 flicks of the last two years.

SNY, being the work of a first-time director, has nowhere near the discipline and focus that ASM has.

The likes of "Look at the parking lot" is not a particularly Jewish concept; can fit in Zen, Christian mysticism, etc. It's good advice, just not offered in timely or effective fashion by Rabbi Scott.

The likes of "Look at the parking lot" is not a particularly Jewish concept; can fit in Zen, Christian mysticism, etc.

yeah well the mystic subsets of all the major religions are nearly identical when you get right down it

Raging Bull = Catholic version

WHAT'D I DO, WHAT'D I DO

i assumed the stuff at the beginning was to show that gopnik is cursed? (the couple were relations of gopnik's etc, though i could be reading in way too much.)

I didn't catch that they were related to Gopnik but maybe I just missed that

The likes of "Look at the parking lot" is not a particularly Jewish concept; can fit in Zen, Christian mysticism, etc.

yeah well the mystic subsets of all the major religions are nearly identical when you get right down it

― Wrinkles, I'll see you on the other side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:37 AM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark

this section of the movie parallels with the stoner lady next door, it's about "the sixties" -- the youngest rabbi, fresh out of school, probably has a lot of "the world is alive!!" type ish in his head! lutheran pastors of that age are the same way

i dont think they DID literally make some connection, but it was the best connection i could figure

I haven't formed any ideas about the relationship btwn the prologue and the main plot, other than wives sure can cause trouble huh?

Jews too.

sy is the dybbuk

shit happens

other than wives sure can cause trouble huh?

uh its the husband who brings home the dybbuk

altho I guess whether or not Fyvush actually is a dybbuk is open to interpretation

i was waiting during the whole middle third for some confirmation that the couple in the shtetl are larry's actual forbears, but, after a while, it's like, no, they're not going to give it to me that simply are they.

the shtetl sequence was actually lifted from an old f-troop

rarely rerun

It's from McHale's Navy.

u know he is credited at the end as "dybbuk?"

did f-troop routinely have joeks that were "lol, the indians are all really jews (cos that's who played the indians in the movies)"? cos i saw one episode once on nick at nite and that was basically the deal.

all i remember about f-troop is a lot of bug-eyed double-takes and neck-snapping cuts between scenes

amplified by Blaxing Saddles

xp

i saw the point of the prologue to be the deliberate ambiguity of whether the visitor was truly the rabbi or a dybbuk? the question is dramatically unresolved, but i think it ties into Larry's struggle over whether his trials are supernatural or mundane in their origin, faith vs. doubt, etc.

i mean, it's tempting to assume that the wife is wrong but the coens sometimes bring strange infernal visions to the screen (raising arizona, barton fink) so i don't think a possible dybbuk fits in there dramatically

ugh, I mean I think it *does* fit in there dramatically

I only asked my actor-acquaintance who played the Shtetl Husband if Fyvush Finkel was a dybbuk IRL

Whether or the wife is wrong about it being the dybbuk is sort of beside the point though as she's clearly not very polite to guests!

finally saw this--my favorite coen bros maybe ever

ppl who think this is as misanthropic as burn after reading or raising arizona must have seen a difft movie than me, they loved these characters

"they" being the coens.

great ending.

loved the scene w/ the kid and the old rabbi

yeah I didn't get the sense that this was mean-spirited the way RA and BAR are, this seemed very affectionate to me

Raising Arizona is not misanthropic! Moves me to tears every time.

max, "be a good boy."

I've probably seen the movie as many times as you have, and I always get the sense they are laughing AT those characters. its a comedy of errors populated by morons.

also lolz I have no idea what would move you to tears in RA, I know you ain't a sucker for babies/procreation/marriage

The ending totally does. Dude, real life and cinema do not signify in the same ways.

(I'm sure you're not completely amoral despite yr love for You Know What)

btw I've seen RA maybe 3x in 22 years, which is a lot for me.

despite yr love for You Know What

ah, the NEW love that dare not speak its name

I think we can all agree that BAR is pretty mean though, right guys?

i saw the point of the prologue to be the deliberate ambiguity of whether the visitor was truly the rabbi or a dybbuk? the question is dramatically unresolved, but i think it ties into Larry's struggle over whether his trials are supernatural or mundane in their origin, faith vs. doubt, etc.

― elmo leonard (elmo argonaut), Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:48 PM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^^ otm--echoes too w/ discussion of schroedingers cat, heisenberg. he talks w/ clives father, saying, did he leave the money, or didnt he, you cant have it both ways, dad says, "why not?"

so many scenes in this movie are punctuated with question--"who cares?" "why not?" "then what?"

u know he is credited at the end as "dybbuk?"

― mo collier mo problems (s1ocki), Thursday, February 18, 2010 12:28 PM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

like i said here... the question mark is in the actual credit, if i didnt make that cler

ahem clear

who cares?

me iirc

so what?

embrace the mystery

I didn't do anything

F Troop, a childhood favorite of mine, was like a dumbed down cavalry version of Sgt. Bilko. Some of the humor was pretty Borscht Belt (the Indians were the Hekawi tribe, as in "where the heck are we?"), but I think the only regular played by a former Catskills comic was Larry Storch's Corporal Agarn.

Film fans and car aficionados will have the chance to own a unique piece of movie memorabilia from one of the Best Picture nominees when Variety – The Children’s Charity of Southern California next week begins hosting the online auction of the 1966 Dodge Coronet used in Focus Features and Working Title Films’ A Serious Man. The film is nominated for two Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Original Screenplay (Joel & Ethan Coen). The auction will be live at www.eBay.com/varietyskids, starting Monday, February 22, 2010 and end Thursday, March 4, 2010 – right before the Oscars. Proceeds from the auction will go to help inspire hope, enrich lives and build a better future for the children in need in Southern California.

The auction will give collectors the chance to bid on the vintage vehicle seen on-screen as the car owned and driven by lead character Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg)...

Watching this right now for the first time. Impressions to come, but at the moment it feels very much a film about the ways that the Jewish community fails to help individuals deal with tragedy. Not sure if I feel totally comfortable with that, but it feels true to my experiences.

i almost don't want to watch it again: it was so dope the first time i don't think i could like it as much again. otoh, i want to watch it again.

^^^^^^

but Mordy, I thought the community helped as much as it could. ie, we all die alone.

Side note, but I recently interviewed Peter Himmelman, who grew up in St. Louis Park in the '60s and '70s a few years behind the Coens in school, and he said, "That is exactly my life."

Awesome. Sussman Lawrence were invited back to play countless dances and, I think, a prom there.

Best thing I've seen in maybe 5 years. Watched it on a plane, overtired and vulnerable to begin with, and it just destroyed me. So funny, so dark, so wonderful.

Not mentioned here yet, not sure if I imagined it and couldn't rewind to check: one of the messages in the first stack Larry gets from his secretary is his doctor calling about "urgent test results". He's flipping through when he gets distracted (by the Korean student maybe?) and never gets back to it. So even as Larry's life finally took a turn for the better near the end, I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Amazing ending.

except that doesnt he go to the doctor and get an x-ray sometime during the movie?

wasn't that the first thing we saw in the 'present'? so the urgent message came afterwards?

do we know how long a timespan the movie covered? cuz I try not to think of it in terms of 'horrible shit happens to dude for no reason' as much as I do 'bad shit happens to dude, gets worse because he can't deal with it', so leaving getting back to the doctor for an age (and so letting whatever's wrong with him get worse) would work for me, whereas being fucked through no fault of his own, less so.

I am happy that the actor who plays Sy Abelman FINALLY has a wikipedia page.

My favorite Sy Abelman moment: when he counts, silently, to 10.

About the message: maybe the first time (of the several) Larry comes into his university office and his secretary hands him his messages, he gets a small stack of them (including one from Columbia Records and maybe one from Sy Adelman?), and he's flipping through them, he flips past one that says "Dr Whatever, re: urgent test results" just as he gets distracted by something (his department head? the Korean student? his kid calling him about F Troop?) and doesn't notice. This is fairly early on.

I may have hallucinated it. But I spent the rest of the movie waiting for the phone call that only came in the last scene.

yeah, Richard Kind and Fred Melamed rooked out of Oscar nominations in favor of Martin Short doing Conrad Veidt.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Dodge-Coronet-4-DOOR-1966-EXCELLENT-CND-BLUE-USED-IN-COEN-BROS-A-SERIOUS-MAN_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem3a5815a773QQitemZ250585917299QQptZUSQ5fCarsQ5fTrucks

"Item location: Hastings, MN."

loved the score for this

i loved this movie

Finally saw this last night, possibly the best thing they've done. Only time will tell.

An excellent and substantial analysis of the themes of the movie by Todd Alcott, some of the ideas are a bit fanciful to me (Mr Brandt is God/Mrs Schlasky is the devil) but there's plenty to commend it http://toddalcott.livejournal.com/tag/coen%20bros

Not mentioned here yet, not sure if I imagined it and couldn't rewind to check: one of the messages in the first stack Larry gets from his secretary is his doctor calling about "urgent test results"

Re-watching, it's actually a message from Clive the Korean student's father re: "unfair test results".

i think i really need to see this don't i?

although i've never gotten excited by one of the coens' films before, so i'd be surprised if this did the trick. i suppose i'm just not on their wavelength. (my girlfriend likes them much more.)

Finally saw this last night, possibly the best thing they've done.

this is the growing buzz, isn't it? which is why i suddenly feel like i should see it.

the whole "god as protag" is sort of ridiculous. i mean, i can see the idea of god as a hidden agent being important to the film, but if you want to accept "god as protag" you'd have to throw out like almost every component element of that concept (protagonist) that makes it mean anything.

Some of the weakest sequences here are, predictably, pot-related

Another vote for you're nuts; the entire barmitzvah set piece was incredible.

I loved the exchange between fake Ira Glass and Gopnik in his office -
(badly, I'm sure, paraphrased):

Ira: "I shouldn't be telling you this, but we've gotten some letters to the tenure committee... disparaging you."
Gopnik: "Is the writing... idiomatic?"
Ira (pauses for thought): "No... in fact, they're quite eloquent."

I really loved this.

no, i just know pot + comedy = boredom

apologies if i said this before, but the scenes depicting the tense jewish/gentile relations were unsettling and genuine.

It's strange - I'm sure there were Gentiles in the town that were a bit taciturn with their Jewish neighbours for whatever reason (and tbh I'm sure that neighbour would have been considered fuckin' weird by anyone unfortunate enough to be next door) but we were not those neighbours. Few were; the suburb is known for its Jewish community.

oh i didn't mean that suburb in particular. but those scenes capture the feeling of being a particular type of outsider that i've felt, too (albeit in a different time and place).

I mean, I'm not going to deny a certain anti-Semitism of the lazy, centred on envy of either perceived wealth or intelligence. I for one, did not resent the Frozen Chosen. Also, in school, it was a huge, detention-punishable, all-tongues-wagging offense to call a classmate a schmuck, much less anything more inflammatory. Anyone who was going to do that pretty much got schooled within a month of starting 7th Grade.

thought this was even better second time around fwiw (and loved it to begin with)

Frozen Chosen--ha, name of MN klezmer compilation a decade ago, iIrc. Did this expression/joke precede Public Enemy?

The expression was current when I was in high school, so yes (we also said Chosen Frozen).

that lutheran wit!

Just who are you calling Lutheran?

that phrase was presumably created by jews to break the ice with their uneasy gentile neighbours i guess?

Collectively arrived at by comedy nerds in my high school.

it's a nice phrase!

Suzy, when were you in high school?

Btw, spending all Passover discussing this film with family.

Pete, I am old: class of '86.

Ah, you're a baby. Email me at petescholtes at gmail dot com, I'd love to ask you about da cities during that period for mah bookh.

Will do. Shall I put you in touch with M1ch3ll3 Str4uss, who is older than me and used to work at Northern Lights?

You're writing about about the Cities in the '80s, Pete? Sweet!

if u need the perspective of a 5 year old (in 86), lemme know

What a great movie.

Also, what a dark movie. Life is uncertain. Things happen. Move along, there's nothing to ponder here, except perhaps to the end of figuring that fact out. Sussman: "Is the answer in Caballah? In Torah? Or is there even a question?" No, there's no question. Just look at that parking lot.

First there is a parking lot, then there is no parking lot, then there is.

thinking about starting a dybbuk / not a dubbuk poll

As long as the third option is "Who cares?"

Having recently started journaling my dreams, I was impressed by the dream sequences. I love when Sy Ableman asserts that mathematics is the art of the possible, and Larry knows that's wrong, but can't remember what it actually is. (Otto von Bismark said that "Politics is the art of the possible.") It's an expression of how Larry knows that Sy is, or was, completely full of shit. And that obviously Sy was banging his wife. Sometimes we need dreams to tell us the obvious.

It took me a while to figure out the scene between the uncountably wise old Rabbi and the kid, but I think I have a handle on it. He's saying, "The things that are important to you now are as important as anything will ever be." Very old people can take the very long view of life, and children can take the shortcut, but neither can be bothered by the mushy middle that poor Larry is stuck in.

I like that take on the old rabbi

I have to comment on that rather unhinged Ella Taylor review.

A Serious Man is crowded with fat Jews, aggressive Jews, passive-aggressive Jews, traitor Jews, loser Jews, shyster-Jews, emo-Jews, Jews who slurp their chicken soup

Wow, that's a lot of Jewish stereotypes, most of which I've never heard of. Are you sure we're not taking about... people?

what you never saw the classic Nazi propaganda about emo-Jews

those are all total Jewish stereotypes. Which isn't to say the representation of Jews in that movie was a stretch, or to be surprised that the Coen brothers use exaggerated characters.

Doesn't a bit of the piss get taken out of stereotyping when that many bases are covered? I mean, I wonder if she even read that article back to herself.

I guess maybe she really meant to type "Jewish fatties, Jewish aggressors, Jewish passive-aggressors, Jew traitors, Jew losers, non-Gentile shysters, Chosen emos, chicken soup slurpers of the Jewish persuasion."

it's a bit... all cultures use stereotypes in their fictions. and a lot of them are pretty similar: apart from the chicken soup dude, maybe, all of those "types" could be found elsewhere, more or less. im not jewish so probably shdn't talk on it, but it does seem way the hell ott.

The fact that these people are Jewish is not the source of either the humor or the meaning of the movie. They're Jewish because these are people the Coens know and grew up with, in one way or another. I don't think they're meant to be exaggerated at all, at least not W.P. Mayhew-style.

(not to say that I don't love W.P. Mayhew.)

Take Arthur, for instance, the easiest target of ridicule in the movie, if one wanted to take that route. He takes a really, really long time in the bathroom, but that's not a stereotype. He has a cyst that's disgusting and needs draining, but that's not a stereotype, either. Arthur doesn't even kvetch. He's actually in constant pain. The one scene where he airs his grievances is more of a breakdown than anything that could be called specifically Jewish. And to boot, he might actually be a genius, though of course the movie doesn't tell us.

Well, from a culture that's given us the mensch, the schlemeil and the schmuck, often in very humorous contexts, it's hardly surprising that some of the characters here would be describable as such. Thought her insinuation of Coens being self-hating thoroughly missed the point. I found all those things she was on about - the exaggeration of habits and characteristics - to be more about the claustrophobia of growing up in a particular suburb and community where everything you do is under the microscope of your god and the neighbours, who may or may not have it in for you.

Btw: a detail I liked. Sy Ableman points out to Larry that the Jolly Roger has a pool. In the scene with Arthur by the pool, we see that the pool is empty.

if i wrote a piece of drama it would have various stereotypes from my background basically

granted it's not a frequently persecuted minority ethnic group but j/s

about the claustrophobia of growing up in a particular suburb and community where everything you do is under the microscope of your god and the neighbours, who may or may not have it in for you.

The neighbors, well... maybe there's something to be afraid of there. I freaked out myself when the people moved in upstairs who hung American flags in the front windows and drive a big-ass truck. Anyway, I relate very much to Larry's fears on that front. This is why I don't live in Texas anymore.

But I don't think Larry feels like he's under the microscope of God. He's too rational by nature to ever assume that he's being punished by God. But that's also his problem -- he also demands rationality from the world, and the world doesn't have gracious amounts of that to spare.

Which explains the opening scene, too.

Kind of.

Most every review I've read, positive or otherwise, has seen all three rabbis and all of their advices as being merely comic. What's comic is Larry's frustration, not the advice. All of the rabbis are saying something essential about our place in the world. The comedy (and tragedy) of it is that Larry is not the kind of person who will ever hear it.

A Serious Man is crowded with fat Jews, aggressive Jews, passive-aggressive Jews, traitor Jews, loser Jews, shyster-Jews, emo-Jews, Jews who slurp their chicken soup

Which one of these is Mrs Samsky?

hot stoner jews

MILF JEW

milf jew > bear jew

as a gentile i must agree

MILF JEW

hmmm is this a website yet

JILF?

i don't think mrs samsky had kids so technically that would make her a JOUGAR

rofl

coen jougar mellowcamp

JOUGAR ELIMINATOR

I really enjoyed this. One of the Coen Bros. better films I think.

Not really seeing this as anti-semitic at all. Coens just continuing their tradition of populating their films with cartoon characters. And the only prominent gentiles in the movie are the dim, aggressive redneck neighbors, so w/e.

...and the Asians.

do east asians count as gentiles? i think they're beyond that biblical scope tbh.

JILF?

Chosen moms choose JILF.

hot stoner jews

So reductive! She has freedoms that are new.

Also, a John Boehner tan.

Chosen moms choose JILF.

lol

asians are the jews of asia

all jews are buddhists now

jewddhists

40 is kind of young for a cougar (or jougar), innit?

It's all about the size of the gap, innit?

Oh come on, ppl. Not even a groan?

i don't think mrs samsky had kids so technically that would make her a JOUGAR

― elmo leonard (elmo argonaut)

Seriously, how can you not call it JEWGAR?

Oh come on, ppl. Not even a groan?

I closed my laptop for a bit to watch Fringe on the DVR, but I lolled after the fact.

Did I imagine Arthur specifically bemoaning a 'curse' as the source of all their trouble during the pool/breakdown scene? It's the only thing I could link back to the prologue.

Did not love the ambiguous ending, but definitely made sense tying in with 'no questions answered' theme of the movie, rabbi's advice, schroedinger, etc.

enjoyed very much, on the whole. would echo the comment that a better workign knowledge of jewish culture would maybe have given me a bit more to take from it.

the movie struck me as a little self-loathing jew, tbh, but it was really the wife/daughter that came out of the whole thing stinking- at least the son got a little bit of fleshing out from being just another pain-in-the-ass for Larry to deal with every day.

I found the portrayal of Jews a little overly negative too, although I found the rabbis rather likable and almost zen-like -- which makes me wonder if I either got something some other people missed or just misread it out of wishful thinking (I didn't want to believe that the Coens would go for a trite cheapshot at the 'emptiness of religion').

At the same time, looking for antisemitic stereotypes is kind of an infinite feedback loop and for that reason a game I like to avoid where possible. I had a slight problem with the portrayal of a few characters because they seemed inhuman (the wife), but I think the film may be asking us to understand this as partly a product of the main character's perception.

Oh I guess I sort of said some of those things upthread.

i liked the rabbis too!

Also I feel like there has to be some kind of separation between kinds of stereotypes - particularly when they're being used in a knowing way by someone who grew up in a community as opposed to someone from outside. I mean if you grew up in a Synagogue you probably knew a few nebbishy Jews, and there is such a thing as a familiar cultural type. There's a difference between having that in a film about a Jewish community and placing a lone caricature of a nebbishy Jew for comic relief in a film otherwise devoid of Jewish characters. Like there's a difference between a Jewish stereotype as a token of a type of Jew and a Jewish stereotype as a token of The Jews.

I liked the first half of this but it wore on me by the end. I did like the rabbi scenes, though. "The story of the goy's teeth" was probably the best part.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_ky2g5scLwk1qa9bmvo1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1273528616&Signature=c62ktsUwAhj8fAr%2FivoG%2FC9toLs%3D

a serious max

i keep meaning to rent this, but every time i'm in the video store, something holds me back. i guess in all honesty i don't like any of the coen brothers' films very much, and i'm a little wary of this one, more out of instinct than thoughtful consideration. should i bother?

i'd say no, given that you don't like any of their others very much, but then i think that maybe makes you a little bit crazy anyway.

i'm a bit insulted. i can't formulate a general objection to them, and i grow tired of those who insist on doing so. but i just don't have particularly warm feelings about anything i've seen by them, and i have pretty negative feelings about some of their films, like 'man who wasn't there.' none of their films sticks in my mind as an experience i want to linger over or return to.

are you the same darragh mac who writes for senses of cinema?

nope.

the 'ur a little bit mad' was me just being confused btw, sorry if it came over a little strong.

amateurist i share your discontent w/ most of the coens' stuff but 'srs man' is every bit as good as this thread would suggest

amateurist i share your discontent w/ most of the coens' stuff

YOU'RE BOTH CRAZY

ok i'll stop

amateurist fwiw i really loved this one and hated the man who wasn't there so... i say go for it

i'm a bit insulted. i can't formulate a general objection to them, and i grow tired of those who insist on doing so. but i just don't have particularly warm feelings about anything i've seen by them, and i have pretty negative feelings about some of their films, like 'man who wasn't there.' none of their films sticks in my mind as an experience i want to linger over or return to.

― by another name (amateurist), Monday, May 10, 2010 11:32 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

i'd say 1) this is fairly atypical, 2) i don't like "man who wasn't there" (or any of their films from the 2000s really) but liked this, 3) imo this and "lebowski" are their best films. idk you might not like it, but im sure you'll watch much worse films in any given year.

the man who wasn't there is probably one of their worst movies. they def. have stinkers in their catalog.

this movie, tho, is amazing

so, what's everyone's problem with the man who wasn't there? curious because I've seen it but honestly don't remember much about it.

my reaction at the time was, "yeah, it was alright."

terrible cast, pointless plot, half-assed screenplay, an homage that adds nothing to its sources, empty

I liked this movie a lot but generally I agree with amateurist re the Coens.

i like everything they have done, to varying degrees – with the exception of big liebowski, which i kind of just feel is just silly and aimless, and oh brother! where art thou, which never really connected with me.

man who wasn't there was super boring iirc

I think I liked it enough when I watched it, but can't for the life of me remember ANYTHING about it.

the movie that wasn't there iirc

The Movie That Wasn't There

lol

man, who wasn't there?

Basically the two Minnesota-set Coen movies are, imo, their best. Except maybe No Country.

I liked The Man Who Wasn't There, but I'm a big fan of the source material. It's definitely better than the Hudsucker Proxy or the Big Lebowski.

this movie was kind of like a cohen brothers's' napoleon dynamite

sorry I have no idea what I meant by that I just wanted to type it

this movie wasn't bad by any means but I felt like it wasn't doing anything new/I really never felt a connection to it for whatever reason

I liked The Man Who Wasn't There, but I'm a big fan of the source material

I am too, but this movie didn't even come close to the moody intensity oc the best Cain screen adaptations imho. cast, as I said, was terrible.

It's definitely better than the Hudsucker Proxy or the Big Lebowski.

totally disagree on both counts but I tend to be the lone Hudsucker stan around here

nah man i like it

definitely better than TMWWT

"cast, as I said, was terrible"

I liked the cast generally. Sco-Jo was miscast though.

I love Hudsucker, actually.

The Man Who Wasn't There had a terrible cast? I'm not crazy about the flick (it's def. better than, say, Lady Killers), but the cast looks pretty good on paper to me ... I need to watch it again, though, wasn't sure whether the ending was brilliant or terrrrrrible.

Totally forgot about the Lady Killers. That movie is total garbage.

the Clooney/Zeta Jones divorce lawyer one is also really bad. Not a fan of Burn After Reading either

Also Intolerable Cruelty, sigh. Lot of lame Coen bros movies.

I am a fan of Burn After Reading just for J K Simmons scenes. Those are so good they almost redeem the rest of it.

the weirdest thing to me about A Serious Man was how under the radar it seemed - distro was totally shitty, was gone from the theaters in a couple weeks, never saw much press for it, etc.

intolerable cruelty and burn after reading are both hella enjoyable

Burn After Reading's pretty easily my favorite since Lebowski if not Fargo

Loved Serious Man (finally saw it a couple weeks ago). Was refreshing not to have a bunch of big name actors in it after the overload of Burn After Reading.
I am a fan of Burn After Reading just for J K Simmons scenes
Yes -- I lol just thinking about them ...

I am a fan of Burn After Reading just for J K Simmons scenes.

Also, the David Rasche scenes - though I may be getting those mixed up with "In the Loop".

I watched A Serious Man last week and it mainly left me cold. If I'd have grown up with this sort of Jewish culture I may have loved it, though. Some good moments (loved the tenure guy leaning on the door each time, Sy Ableman in general) but found it kind of unsatisfying.

No he's the one who Simmons is talking to.

He's not funny in In The Loop at all.

"If I'd have grown up with this sort of Jewish culture I may have loved it, though."

Yeah I def think this helps.

i grew up a lutheran in a small dutch calvinist town in iowa and i thought it was one of the most brilliant things they've ever done.

i do live in the twin cities tho. i was just in SLP this past weekend!

He's not funny in In The Loop at all.

I thought he was good in "In The Loop" - though maybe I imagined it. Seeing him in anything usually brings a smile to my face - probably because of watching "Sledge Hammer!" too much in my formative years. Sort of like my reaction to Bruce Campbell.

I didn't think any of the Americans in In The Loop were funny so maybe it's me.

creepy aide had some decent lols imo

oh god, when i made my post upthread i forgot that the following shitty coen brothers movies exist

burn after reading
intolerable cruelty
ladykillers

"creepy aide had some decent lols imo"

The racquetball guy? He had a moment or two.

Ladykillers is the only one I thought was truly shitty.

Intolerable Cruelty was brutally bad.

yeah it was pretty bad, but maybe Clooney was OK in it? I don't know, I don't remember it all that well.

yeah I almost walked out on that one (xpost)

the weirdest thing to me about A Serious Man was how under the radar it seemed

wasn't it nominated for Best Picture though?!

everything between fargo and no country was pretty awful iirc

just remembered the scene that made me lol harder than the goy's teeth - when he's explaining the math behind Schrodinger's Cat and it pans back to this whole huge wall of chalkboard filled with equations

and THAT is why we can NEVER be sure about ANYTHING!

A Serious Man, for as much as I loved it, was even bleaker than No Country

really similar theological territory imo. chigurh = god, kinda

similar theological territory = god hates us

idk, No Country feels godless. Chigurh is this capricious figure of fate. I actually think it works reading No Country in light of like The Searchers, or Liberty Valance, where society is built on violence and myth, and where our fathers are somewhere in the future keeping the fire for us. (Except unlike Searchers or Liberty Valance, No Country also takes place in the presence -- the violence isn't historical but contemporary. Society hasn't fully mythologized it, so it continues to erupt at the borders of civilization.) A Serious Man is a world where God exists, and leaves messages on the inside of teeth, but they mean nothing and ethics are precise and legalistic -- missteps mean that your entire world will be destroyed. I can't help but feel more hopeful about the world where I can hunt around for meaning, even if its buried in ritualized violence, than the world where God wants to punish and destroy all of us for stepping out of line.

i don't know if dude really steps out of line... that would imply he knew where the line was.

in ASM if there is a line it is hermetic, secret, ineffable.

kafka-esque is thrown around so willy-nilly it doesnt really mean anything any more but the three rabbis really reminded me of the castle. the closer you try and get to god, the further away he recedes.

yeah what does he do wrong, exactly? and his son, who is a fuckup and gets high before his bar mitzvah, gets everything he wants (sure a tornado comes after him, but hey, what are you gonna do)

both films are set in scary universes, it's just that in No Country For Old Men the inescapable force is death personified, and in ASM it's an incomprehensible, distant God

"what did he do wrong" is really his central dilemma

I was thinking more near the end where his accepting the bribe brings the tornado and the medical news. But you're right, throughout most of the film it's very Job-like. He's being tested, not punished. (Of course, what kind of asshole God would put you through misery just to test you.)

lol yeah once he takes the money, vengeance is instant. before that it's more like just a slow grind of bad news.

even the taking the money could be a red herring... it's all inscrutable

that too

it can be read both ways, Coens are clearly leaving it ambiguous

You're all wrong--it's cause he fucked w/Columbia House!

j/k of course. I do love that scene though.

there is a moment where the Coen's suggest something very conservative, tho -- in the scene at the Bar Mitzvah, participating in their tradition and religious is clearly very moving to both parents, and its really the father's sole moment of grace throughout the film. the mother is moved to apologize, he sheps nachus from his son, etc. which is why i think it's a great film to read against American Pastoral -- the Coens are making an argument about what it means to be an alienated Jew in America.

The specific congregation at B'nai Emet (filming site, also Coen family temple I think) is conservative.

That's the end of town with the eruv, too.

I meant conservative in a reserved sense, and not in terms of the Conservative movement. Just that it's a very pro-tradition, pro-family message; that when they are in this ritual sanctuary, their alienation is alleviated.

see honestly all this interpretation makes me want to see it less. i prefer movies that you don't need to interpret. like rocky. or last year at marienbad.

i suggest you either see it or don't see it!!

Yeah, that. Go have a picnic at hanging rock for all I care.

when they are in this ritual sanctuary, their alienation is alleviated.

I felt like the point of the later scenes -- the parents' pride at the mitzvah, the assurance of tenure, etc. -- were there to set up the ending. Like, you can feel as good about yourself as you like, but you're still going to die. Perhaps sooner rather than later.

This is a nasty existential monster of a movie. It's one of my favorite movies of the last five years, easily.

And it's not about being Jewish, ppl. It's about being SERIOUS, do u see?

And it's not about being Jewish, ppl. It's about being SERIOUS, do u see?

stupid google chrome grumble grumble

[LINK REMOVED]

no1 is mentioning important thing: this film is hell of funny

kenan, i see

oh hey i helpfully posted a link to a rapidshare rar of a fillipino documentary!

Salamat, HM. Much appreciated.

I always thought there was an inherent 'shit's about to get real' vibe with this film, purely because it seems to be set in May 1967.

Of course, what kind of asshole God would put you through misery just to test you.

Heh, some of us didn't even realise there was an optout on this until puberty iirc.

Readers of myths (ie. most of us before the age of 10) know that the average deity fucks with humans, for fun. And?

other deities don't count, they're all literary/imaginary iirc.

One of the beautiful things about growing up in this town, with no prevailing religious viewpoint to hinder us, was realizing that no culture is without its creation story, and all are equally speculative, particularly the 'world in six days' version.

"I read the book of Job last night -- I don't think God comes out well in it. " - Virginia Woolf

not a doc but a pretty good film that one

what kind of asshole God would put you through misery just to test you.

Ladies and gentlemen, theology in a nutshell.

Has anyone actually read the book of Job? I highly recommend it. Like anyone who has read it, I was baffled and confused and have had hours-long conversations about it.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Job-Chapter-1/

A quick abstract:

Job: "Why?"
God: "You ask too many questions."

Meanwhile God and Satan have a side bet going about whether the poor bastard will crack. It's like they're treating his soul as a financial derivative. They're BOTH assholes.

Satan an asshole? Revelations this is not

Satan's an asshole, but God is positively chummy with him here. "Say there, Satan. Check out this righteousness! This Job guy is solid, solid as a rock." Satan: "Care to make it interesting?"

Someone needs to write a Guys and Dolls with these protagonists tbh

Trying to make "Job" rhyme with "Paul Revere" -- not happening

You're being tested

Maybe something about boils? I dunno. What rhymes with "ash heap"?

in the scene at the Bar Mitzvah, participating in their tradition and religious is clearly very moving to both parents, and its really the father's sole moment of grace throughout the film. the mother is moved to apologize, he sheps nachus from his son, etc. which is why i think it's a great film to read against American Pastoral -- the Coens are making an argument about what it means to be an alienated Jew in America

yes. they make this case throughout the film, e.g., larry's strained relationship with his next-door neighbor.

OTOH Mr. Huntin' Fishin' and son were the only goyim in the film.

I'm still gonna say that all of this is about the frame, not the picture. You may as well gossip about Larry after Synagogue as question this movie's motives re: Jewishness.

If God doen't put you through some misery, free will don't mean shit

keep going, dudes, now i'll never see this fucking movie.

idk mane it's not like marienbad hasn't generated reams of not dissimilar commentary

It's a good movie, amateurist. It's funny, too. See it.

idk mane it's not like marienbad hasn't generated reams of not dissimilar commentary
― Greatest contributor: (history mayne), Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:09 AM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark

http://www.flashpointsocialmedia.com/Area51/Orion/Images/o_rly.jpg

http://www.flashpointsocialmedia.com/Area51/Orion/Images/o_rly.jpg

No results found for "marienbad lolcat".

what are you talking? ya rly: ppl tried to interpret "marienbad", often getting into arcane areas of debate!

this film is funnier than "marienbad"

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/31/128752451232976705.jpg

Your internet meme knowledge is looking out of touch there, brah. Just sayin'.

everyone be quiet or amateurist will never see this :(

Satan's an asshole, but God is positively chummy with him here. "Say there, Satan. Check out this righteousness! This Job guy is solid, solid as a rock." Satan: "Care to make it interesting?"

feel compelled to note that "the adversary" that appears in the Old Testament is almost entirely different in nature and character from that of Satan in the New Testament

transition from old testament to new proved a difficult time for both sides, to be fair.

The New Testament is more about being cool to each other. The Old Testament is more about reminding you whose house you live in. I mean, very generally speaking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bcj14h3jco

"You are one pussy hair away from eternal hellfire, my friend."

shakey otm; satan in job isn't a seducer or tormentor, he basically a prosecutor who challenges god that job's piety is just the result of his material comfort.

devil's advocate iirc

when god finally arrives at the end of job, in the form of an enormous tornado, he doesn't explain or justify himself and at first job is kinda distrustful and grills him but then realizes who he's talking to and grovels. coen bros leaving the ending open as such is a bit disappointing, passing up the opportunity for some interesting commentary and instead just further affirming the job parallel, but is v much characteristic of their style.

wow never occurred to me before, but the tornado at the end of ASM is a really obvious reference isn't it

satan in job isn't a seducer or tormentor, he basically a prosecutor who challenges god that job's piety is just the result of his material comfort.

Even more specifically, though, he challenges God's ego. "This most pious of men only worships you because you protect him and give him such great wealth and comfort. " Which is a bit of a chicken-egg question already. Would God be so nice to him if he weren't so gosh darn worshipful? Anyway, God accepts what is basically a dare. Or a bet. The whole transaction is really schoolyard-level.

Which is only part of what makes God's three chapter long tirade, which is supposedly serving as some kind of answer to Job's simple question of "why?", completely baffling. God says, "You are so incredibly insignificant, you're less to me than a toenail clipping. You have no right to ask me any questions, ever."

I can hang with that explanation, tbh. That's kind of how I think of God, if you can call anything God. He's too big to be asked for explanations. His status of "beyond us" is kind of part of the whole God deal, and it's not just a matter of rank. We can't know what God really is, because we're simply not there.

If that's true, though, then why bother with Satan at all? To prove a point? To whom? Why ask for worship at all, if it obviously doesn't matter? God in the book of Job -- and arguably the entire Bible -- is both an arrogant creature with an ego that needs to be satisfied, and a transcendent force that is beyond comprehension altogether. "I will protect you from harm, as long as you acknowledge that I am EVERYTHING, even the things that bring you harm." Come again, Yahweh? You sound like an abusive husband.

The Old Testament was written by abusive husbands. There, that's my contribution to the field of theology for the day.

tornado = smoke monster

Job is a really, really freaking old text. There are parts of it in the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Like, I don't think we need to speculate about whether God exists or not to appreciate that humanity has always understood what it's like for our lives to be taken out of our hands, for bad things to happen to us, for punishment to seem swift and merciless. The people/person writing Job wasn't worried about reconciling how a good God could let such awful things befall his people. He was writing about how humble we are before the capricious and confusing world. I really dig that particular text, actually. (Satan in this era is presumably a monolatristic figure -- the text likely predates monotheism, and its point seems to be that God is the only important God and all others Gods are nuisances/powerless.)

Your internet meme knowledge is looking out of touch there, brah. Just sayin'.

― Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:43 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark

http://istanbul.tc/mahir/mahir/

The people/person writing Job wasn't worried about reconciling how a good God could let such awful things befall his people. He was writing about how humble we are before the capricious and confusing world. I really dig that particular text, actually.

OTM. I didn't mean to imply that I don't like the book of Job. It may be my favorite book of the Bible, actually. Paul wrote some damn nice letters, but Job is bottomless. Those three chapters where God goes on and on (and on) about how awesome he is are a bit dickish if you assume a single sentient voice saying such things, but that's not what the writer(s) are getting at. If you read it as coming from the fictionally personified voice of the force that makes absolutely everything happen, they are fantastic and genuinely humbling verses.

Watching this right now after seeing the trailer yesterday. Wow. Pretty dry and darkly funny! I love the cinematography as well.

MegaLOLz @ the altered state bar mitzvah

OMG the rabbi quoting Jefferson Airplane

yes it is awesome

got this for my bday

so great

How could the Coens mistake "Abraxas" and "Cosmo's Factory" for '67 releases?? Oy.

ugh this movie is RUINED

well at least we know the answer as to why "true grit" is gonna get shut out of oscar nominations

they deserve it tbh

1967 my ass

Srsly, I mean...to space on the release date of one record, by one year - that'd be feasible. But TWO? Each with a 3-year discrepancy? Amidst all the elaborate period detail elsewhere in the film? That's gotta be some kinda Coens joke, right?

maybe the joke was "let's annoy anyone who'd care"

Next you're going to tell me Hitler didn't get shot in the face a hundred times.

OK, just re-watched and found this interesting! Dig these two exchanges:

Larry: Esther is barely cold!
Judith:Esther died three years ago.

and later...

Larry's lawyer: Esther is barely cold!
Larry: She passed three years ago.

Has Larry Gropnik become unstuck in time, Billy Pilgrim-style, existing in 1967 while the rest of the world is in 1970, and vv? I hope a third viewing will reveal more...

that's definitely it, u should run with that

I think i may revisit this movie soon. Are there any other recent Coen bros movies that are on this level or better?

intolerable cruelty

really? I missed that one on the basis that it sounded like marking a slide into shite, but maybe it looks good compared to the disappointments that followed.

no it's bad

rong!

It's got its moments (hilarious courtroom dialogue)

I think this is up there with No Country for best thing they've done this decade.

yes

Loved this movie, but after absolutely hating both this and No Country, I don't think I will ever convince my wife to watch another Coen brothers movie ever again.

divorce tbh

Hey, that Esther/three years thing is mirrored in the Eastern European prologue - three years is the length of time the wife insists that Traitle Groshkover has been dead, just before he shows up. Intriguing...

This movie is SO much better than True Grit!

Also better than the Ladykillers!

http://yabm.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/the-mentaculus1.png

the mentaculus

<3 this film

I saw French Hasidim on the train today - complete with tefillin and very shiny black bondagey things one dude was winding around his arms.

the sincerest form...

did n e one try to decipher the mentaculus screencaps?

I saw French Hasidim on the train today - complete with tefillin and very shiny black bondagey things one dude was winding around his arms.

― tl;dr swinton (suzy), Tuesday, December 14, 2010 6:06 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

those are tefillin!

haha "bondagey"

I had some of those once. I wonder where they are now?

did u check ur arm

why don't YOU check my arm for me

or something

LOL seriously, I did not know the shiny shiny black patent leather straps were attached to the black box thing I associate with tefillin!

This movie is SO much better than True Grit!

This post made me lmao.

Of course you're right. True Grit was fun. This is one of their very best movies.

I re-watched Miller's Crossing this week, too, and was amazed at how much I loved it ten years ago, or even five. It's thematically empty, and isn't funny. The damn thing doesn't even have any quotable dialogue.

I also re-watched The Big Lebowski, and decided that thematically, that's the movie that most closely resembles A Serious Man. They're both about how we deal with what we don't see coming. Life gives you lemons, it just does. Larry is a nervous mess about it, and often not even in a way that's practical. And then there's The Dude.

"what's the rhumpus", "see where the twist flops", "put one in the brain" etc etc. Haven't seen it in years but pretty sure Miller's Crossing has quotable dialogue!

geez Miller's Crossing is ALL quotable dialogue, the movie is non-stop rat-a-tat yammering of one liners

A French friend of mine mentioned he had trouble understanding the film although he generally likes the Coen Bros. I said something like "well it's a very specific film in a way -- it's about a particular kind of Judaism at a particular time in a particular kind of American suburb." Then I couldn't really decide if this was right -- is it a film that doesn't translate well for these reasons? Is it a film that requires too much knowing?

during the part that was like three minutes of riding back to town to get this snake bite taken care of i was totally lost in trying to remember whether this would be a gr8 movie for a little girl to watch or if you are even allowed to show kids movies where people get shot or what

snake bite?

True Grit

oh boy

This is on HBO OnDemand atm...I think I need to see this.

yes, yes you do.

"well it's a very specific film in a way -- it's about a particular kind of Judaism at a particular time in a particular kind of American suburb."

fwiw I am not even a little bit Jewish but I had no problem relating to this movie at all.

i sort of see this as a 'summer' version of a series in which fargo was 'winter'

^^^Good call.

i think this movie plays around with an understanding of life as an endless joke w/o punchline, and slides around between saying this is how coens understand movies/storytelling, or how they understand life itself (how god understands storytelling, eg), or how they think that particular kind of Judaism understands those things. i dunno.

its really linked most in my head w/ no country because of the really overt theological stuff going on

otm

i mean i think it uses a very specific place & time to say some pretty universal things ... job's story is p universal

maybe it's also something that relates to a general kind of american suburban moderate religiousness more than Judaism per se.

I mean I agree about the universal elements, but maybe there were just too many cultural references and jokes that my friend was confused by.

But how did the story of the ghost guy at the start tie into all that? Or is it just another shaggy dog story, like the tooth guy, or all of (Jewish) life?

it's a collection of incomplete stories, only vaguely linked imo.

somewhere i had read that this movie was about their dad, and watched the movie thinking everything was a stylized anecdote from the coens' childhood.

the whole setup with the dybbuk seems to be about the power of belief: because the husband believes the visitor is a dybbuk, he is forced to act in a certain way. he may be wrong, in which case he is a killer, but it's better for him to believe he's correct –– in which case he's a hero.

the husband doesn't kill the dybbuk

oh, the wife. whatever. i haven't seen the movie since opening weekend.

is it a dybbuk?

(do you see)

it's the same joke with the bribe that isn't a bribe and his faculty buddy who isn't a buddy -- people maintaining social fictions to screw him over while making him look like the bad guy in the exchange. maybe it's the dad who is the dybbuk? (who got screwed over similarly)

sorry that was a very L O S T speculation.

I am watching this right now <3

I love this. GREAT.

My thought on dybbuk was the way belief tempers/changes reality. Wife is okay with maybe killing the dybbuk bc in her mind he's a dybbuk, but husband is like holy shit you just maybe killed a guy. Without the belief, its harder to rationalize what is happening. But in the bulk of the film, rationalizing, or that deep connection to their faith takes over so much of the mundane that it makes life almost more absurd than it already is. The poor guy is all "Halp I don't know what happening"...and all the advice he gets is "Yes, we don't know what is happening"

That Marshak scene was worth the whole movie for that payoff. "...and Jorma?...meh, who cares"

I think I've gotten to the point where I can call this my favorite coen bros movie

this and fargo and lebowski are the three masterpieces to me. ranking shifts.

and yeah, the dybbuk connects to the rest of the movie in that it both is and isn't a dybbuk (it doesn't bleed for a while, then starts), like the bribe that isn't a bribe, the friend that isn't a friend, the assimilated american jews who aren't assimilated, and schroedinger's cat. movie has this really lovely constantly twinned structure, right down to the twin punchlines of "the goy's teeth" (which is prob the best five minutes these guys have ever done) -- one line broadminded and spiritual, the other petty and tribal. the wise man who isn't wise.

this is the algebra error i was talking about upthread

<p>^2 - <p>^2 = 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTiEXMUVxyg&NR=1

this has been bothering me for months. i should go see my rabbi about it.

Ask a Rabbi

this and fargo and lebowski are the three masterpieces to me. ranking shifts.

― difficult listening hour, Friday, January 7, 2011 9:25 PM (1 month ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

and yeah, the dybbuk connects to the rest of the movie in that it both is and isn't a dybbuk (it doesn't bleed for a while, then starts), like the bribe that isn't a bribe, the friend that isn't a friend, the assimilated american jews who aren't assimilated, and schroedinger's cat. movie has this really lovely constantly twinned structure, right down to the twin punchlines of "the goy's teeth" (which is prob the best five minutes these guys have ever done) -- one line broadminded and spiritual, the other petty and tribal. the wise man who isn't wise.

― difficult listening hour, Friday, January 7, 2011 9:40 PM (1 month ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^otm this movie is so amazing

I finally saw this. Pretty good. It was affecting for me but I've been more prone to emotional stuff lately.
The ending was slightly a cop out. "We don't need any bigger conclusions because this is a slice of life.. and the ending works"

I think the ending is more like: life is about making sense of the unknown, only to be faced with a much larger, new, swirling unknown.

You are vastly underestimating the ending. Vastly.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

something like that.. also the quiet before the storm in a spiral already out of control

but I think most slice of life things are cop outs. i finally saw driving miss daisy a year ago and I got to the end and was like "that's it?".

that is a challop falling in an empty forest

no you're an empty forest

http://www.cardmine.co.uk/list26/a261272.jpg

I'm trying to think of any other trailer that uses looping in this way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FYtprwg1As

the ending was not just a random cutoff point, it's the most appropriate -- maybe the only -- ending i can imagine for this movie.

don't think this was meant to be a 'slice of life' film, either.

It is a slice of life regardless of what it was actually meant to be - the movie can be multiple things. The ending was good and appropriate but it was still a cut off. And I'm gonna feel that all resolution-less, cut off endings are cop outs regardless of the film

What sort of ending would you have preferred?

this just plainly is not a "slice of life" story. it's a moral parable about fate.

Xp

Well, without giving too much thought to your question, I don't think I would change the ending much if at all; I would have written a movie that would of allowed for a more conclusive ending in the first place. My problem with unresolved, cut out endings is simply because they leave everything hanging and it's like an 'ahhh man' moment right there at the end - not the best note to end on. I don't have a problem with sad endings though

Xp

Who says that a slice of life can't contain parables about fate or vice versa?

It should have ended with him receiving Led Zeppelin III from the Columbia record club.

i think the ending is pretty conclusive! pretty hard not to figure out what happened next, considering it's where the entire story seemed headed all along.

I hope their next film is more in this vein than True Grit, although True Grit was fine!

What has their worst movie been? I'd guess either Ladykillers or Burn After Reading. I really, really, didn't like Burn After Reading.

Hudsucker Proxy or Ladykiller.s

Burn After Reading is completely redeem by JK Simmons and Sledge Hammer's two conversations.

ladykillers

nah hudsucker proxy was gr8 xpost

I'm sure I've skipped their worst movie. The one that does the least for me that I've seen is probably The Man Who Wasn't There.

The Man Who Wasn't There is brilliant! As is A Serious Man, but in a slightly different way.

Yeah, it's a "least best" situation there. Not a "worst." The ones I've skipped are Hudsucker, Intolerable and Ladykillers, and I don't doubt those three are all worse.

intolerable cruelty is brilliant, great execution of a fairly lightweight concept