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.

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.

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.

***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).

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…

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.

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 only read the first couple paragraphs of Craig’s thoughts and the two comments above. Sam threw considerable salt into my wounds.)

I still want to read a full LiC review.