Mini-Review: A Serious Man (2009) **** 1/2
I don’t want to write too much about it because that always kills my urge to write an official review, but until I can get said review of A Serious Man written (still kind of mulling over its awesomeness), I wanted to get my 100% spoiler-free opinions on the record.
This film is almost sure to mystify those who are really only familiar with the last few films of Joel and Ethan Coen and it doesn’t have a Brad Pitt or a George Clooney for non-fans to hang on to. I’m not feeling it as an awards contender… screenplay maybe, but that’s it… though I have no way of knowing that and I don’t mean it as a criticism. This is just a film that is unique outside of the Coen universe, but completely at home within it.
This of course is a good thing.
It’s a lower key, more ruminative film than some of their more rambunctious outings. I want to call it a cross between Barton Fink and The Man Who Wasn’t There in terms of tone (and probably popular success as well) though there are many elements of many of their other films within. If the film has a flaw, it’s that it fits comfortably within the Coen wheelhouse. It’s full of Coenesque existentialist themes and ideas and even the overt Judaism which feels new is really no different than any of the cultural specificities of their other films. They’re not breaking new territory here, but it’s a culmination of some key Coenisms and it’s flawlessly delivered.
The dialogue is a sharp, deliberate and as clearly rendered as any Coen film, though it’s more naturalistic and less exaggerated. I don’t expect to see any “We’re sittin’ Shiva here, Danny” T-shirts any time soon, but stranger things have happened. The Carter Burwell score is suitably haunting and portentous, echoing some of his great work in Fargo – fitting with the Minnesota milieu and the put-upon husbands whose lives are crumbling as lead characters. The beautiful Roger Deakins photography also adds a nice element of cold mystery.
The whole cast is great as they always are in a Coen film, but lead Michael Stuhlbarg is a stand-out. As Larry Gopnik, the Jewish science professor trying to raise a family in the alien environment of suburban Minneapolis, Stuhlbarg takes the Coen stylization and makes it feel real. His line readings are unforced and natural and full of pathos. This might be one of the most unambiguously sympathetic Coen characters to come along outside of Carla Jean Moss.
I don’t want to say too much about the ending, but it’s what really sets the film apart. Just when the Coens convince you they’re going in a certain direction and wrapping things up in a tidy little sentimental bow, they veer off unexpectedly but ogranically in a way that will either unsettle you or leave a cold, nihilistic smirk on your face…or both. Either way, as the credits roll, you know you’ve just watched a movie by Joel and Ethan Coen.
Filed under: Reviews
Tags: A Serious Man, Carter Burwell, Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, Michael Stuhlbarg, Roger Deakins, The Coen Brothers
Great summation of your impressions! I was already sold on it, of course, but if I hadn’t been, I bet this would have sold me.
I still want to read a full LiC review.
I saw the movie last night as well Jennie, at midnight no less. It’s a masterpiece, and make strong claim to being the best Coens film.
Tor. Ture.
(I only read the first couple paragraphs of Craig’s thoughts and the two comments above. Sam threw considerable salt into my wounds.)
Wow Sam. Best one? Fantastic. I’m thrilled you liked it. I’m not sure how easily I could pick their best because it changes based on my mood, but this one is up there.
My only tiny beef is its sameness to their other films, yet even so I think they take earlier ideas to new levels here.
I saw this film today and really really liked it. Quite impressed with how seamless the writing is, not to mention the subtle cinematographic touches and fine acting.
I’d be pleased to see Michael Stuhlbarg nominated — don’t know how likely that is, though.
And Fyvus Finkel is a great veteran character actor.
Yeah, still brewing a review. Not easy for some reason.
Disappointed. As I mentioned on Chuck Bowen’s review, I found this to have great moments but locked in the Coen brothers spiteful superiority. If you’re the writers, it’s easy to call the shots from above and laugh at the misery.
There are terrible TV ad style scenes and humor, like the kids reaction to the death of the wife’s new beau, and pointless digressions gussied up with profundity. The movie is hardly subtle and neither are the performances, tho I liked David Arkin the best for some reason.
Overall, it’s a classier Todd Solondoz movie. Oh well. At least I have NO COUNTRY to savor for awhile…
Finally saw this last night.
***SPOILERS***
I’m still unsure how much I liked the movie. It is a very entertaining and well crafted film across all departments, and displays tremendous wit and intelligence. Yet for a film so crammed with intriguing existential questions it ultimately seemed more interested in the asking, and representing the state such questions can create in an individual who believes in a faith, rather than in the outcome. Obvious points of comparison for me were Barton Fink and Kafka, with a little After Hours resonance. What I took as the film’s answer to Larry Gopnik’s what-does-it-all-mean dilemma in the face of a succession of personal catastrophes is that there is no point even seeking answers of this type because what will be will be and that isn’t necessarily going to result in a happy ending. I can’t deny the truth of the answer but it seems kind of obvious to me as an atheist inclined to existentialism. Rather than this answer being what the film was designed to underscore it seemed like it was more interested in creating/capturing a psychological state of existential anxiety. Instead of that Barton Fink feeling, we had that Larry Gopnik feeling. It did this well, but the notion of capturing a state worked better for me with regards to writer’s block. Among the things I particularly liked in the film were the central character’s performance, the Coenesque casting, the score, cinematography/art direction, the use of the prologue as a device for raising one kind of question about what was happening to Larry (and a possible answer), the dentist story told by the rabbi, and the question mark as to whether most of what was happening was fate/random outcome or a product of Larry’s lack of personal volition/under-assertiveness and passivity/living in his own head personality (resulting in his inability to recognize how his action/inaction eventually created some of the crises) or a combination of the two (most likely).
I’ve been waiting a long time, sartre, for your response to this film, and I can’t say I’m surprised to see you have some reservations.
In a way I think the Coens are doing sort of a Woody Allen-type thing in asking questions without providing answers. Thing is, though, as this is a semi-autobiographical film, I think the Coens are presenting the juxtaposition of their evolution into existentialism with a Jewish background that contains elements of predestination or a “what’s the use” state of affairs.
Personally, I think they’re in a transition that began with NCfOM and are kind of cleaning out the shed in the back yard.
Those are interesting thoughts about the Coens being in artistic transition and cleaning out, Pierre. I admired much about the film and was very much entertained by it. But for me, and I know many disagree, it didn’t quite up add to the sum of its parts. Still, the Coens remain formidable filmmakers and I’m really looking forward to True Grit.
Lots of people were cool on A Serious Man, but for me it gets better with each viewing.
The existential aspect is just the top of the iceberg here. It’s the obvious part floating above the surface, but the film runs much much deeper than that. Even the surface part is interesting though in that it’s the first time they’ve so directly turned their attitudes about life on the very way they themselves were raised. The philosophy isn’t new to me, but its focus is.
I enjoyed the black humor they derived from the different ways we try to make meaning in a meaningless existence, whether it’s religion or science. The sense that we complicate things even worse than they already are.
But again, this is just another layer of dozens in this film. Each individual layer may be simple and obvious, but they had up to a whole that is totally unique both in the Coen canon and in general.
Plus, it’s just funny which is more than you can say about 90% of the so-called comedies that come out in a given year.
I agree it was funnier than most so called comedies. I should emphasize again that I liked the film, just somewhat less than you Craig.
Pity you never got round to writing a longer review Craig where you unpacked your analysis of the film more. I thought there were plenty of engaging ideas in the film but where they took us was missing snap or depth for me. They didn’t quite make “the different ways we try to make meaning in a meaningless existence, whether it’s religion or science” resonant enough or give it more intellectual punch. But I’m gald they’re exploring these themes and bringing so much wonderful craft and humor to doing so and that it worked so brilliantly for you.