Review – A Serious Man

I don’t know how to review A Serious Man without sounding like a complete arse bag (probably) so I’m just going to sink my teeth in and assume that if you are reading this then you listen to the show, know what I usually sound like, and that I’m less an arse-bag and more an arse-hole; I think there is a difference.

Also, I think I am addicted to using brackets so what follows is a concerted effort to reduce the usage of my favouritest form of punctuation.

3 things off the bat:

  1. As far as I am aware A Serious Man is one of the most positively reviewed films of the year. All the journals, magazines, videos and newspapers I have read have given the film many compliments and praised it as another Coen classic.
  2. Most ‘Joe-Public’ (affectionate term) people I have spoken to about this film have not enjoyed it, OR have thought it was ok, but not great.
  3. This second point does not surprise me and whilst I can appreciate why JP may have reservations about the quality of A Serious Man, I am afraid they are completely wrong.

Let me be clear. I loved this film. LO-VE-D. If you allow it to be, A Serious Man is one of the funniest, exciting and inventive films of the year. It is fantastic from “parable-Beginning” to “beginning-of-the-End”. The mostly unknown cast are pitch perfect. The cinematography is flawless. 60’s suburbia has never looked so full of life.

At just under 2 hours long the film flies by as Larry Gopnik (Michal Stuhlbarg) struggles to make sense of all the ills facing him at home and at work. He seeks counsel from a series of Rabbi on why God is doing this to him, but is unable to decipher their tenuous metaphors and anecdotes into meaningful religious sermon. Life carries on apace for Larry, and as things go from bad to badder he  realises that maybe there is no divine plan, until a final scene revelation makes clear to all that just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse…

On the face of it the Coen Brother’s film is nothing more than a collection of trivial instances revolving around one man that seeks to remind us how little control we actually have in this world. Viewers may pass such events off as trivial and ordinary. Indeed, sections of A Serious Man might fit nicely into a melodrama like Revolutionary Road. But this is not melodrama. The film is shot and scored as if it were a high-concept thriller or even action movie. Scenes cut suddenly to black as they end; booming crescendos introduce us to each new section of the film; dream sequences are unveiled through emphatic high-concept twists; two characters meet separate automobile related fates at the same time in a scene constructed not unlike those at the end of a Saw movie (although obviously to a far higher quality of direction and editing).

A Serious Man is shot like one of those serious films in which the protagonist wears a stern face for the entire time, because the world is coming to an end or there is a bad guy that needs thwarting or organisation that needs brining down. The comedy comes from using this style of film making for a story in which the protagonist hasn’t quite figured out who the bad guy is yet, or even if there is a bad guy, and so experiences each new event with a lost ‘why me’ expression on his face.

Larry is surrounded by a community of characters that come with little or no substance. They are caricatures; the disgruntled wife; the carefree hippie type; the troubled teen; the naive Rabbi in training; the foreign exchange student; the intense neighbour. But to criticise A Serious Man for having stereotypical supporting characters is to criticise every film that Joel and Ethan Coen have ever made. Burn After Reading, their most financially successful output for years, was little more than an ensemble of one-dimensional kooks, and yet received no major criticism from audiences because those characters were played by Hollywood’s highest-paid-handsomes! In creating a world full to bursting with various clones of other Jewish or Suburban films, the Coens are able to drop a more realistically nuanced creation such as Larry into the mix and subvert our expectations on what it is to live a normal life.

The Coens themselves have admitted to the hours of entertainment they found in making Larry’s life as miserable as possible. The success of this film comes down to its creator’s warped sense of humour. For this is a Coen film for Coen fans. Fans that know this creative duo do not make movies for anyone but themselves; for they are their own worst critics. It is a joy to see the product of a partnership at the top of their game. If they were ever to adapt the dictionary I have no doubt that they would find a way to make it funny, engrossing and truly unique.

My esteemed colleague Chris often remarks that a film is only as good as what is up on screen, and that it fails if one has to justify its greatness based on other elements, elements not available to every reader. This is partly true, and A Serious Man succeeds in this matter because it is genuinely encapsulating and entertaining. But what elevates it to ‘Film of Year’ status is recognising that you are in the presence of two masters of their trade, and that if you ‘get them’ and trust them, they will blow your mind with a simple tale of one man realising how futile it is trying to come to terms with it all. And maybe that’s the point.

The Coen Brothers know the answer; Life is life. Stop worrying about defining it and just have fun. Stop taking things so seriously. You’ll live longer.

Advertisements

2 Responses to Review – A Serious Man

  1. Rix says:

    First of all, even though I’ve told Mr. Wazza that I follow his cast ‘religiously’ but that I would never comment or send in an email, I think this post needs a reply. I went with Chris to watch the movie an he was not as enthusiastic about the movie as he makes out in this review (although I think me hating the movie made him like it more as the night went on). I am a member of Joe-Public and to me, it just seemed like a bunch of stuff happening. There were a few comical instances (Junior Rabbi comes to mind). I could not see the artistic side of the movie.
    Ok, most of what I said has already been covered by point 3 in your intro, but I have to ask you, if there are only a select few who understand (or think they understand, not pointing any fingers :p ) the film, can it/should it be movie of the year? If its not enjoyable for everyone, should it be held in such high regard? You said it yourself, the Coen brothers only make movies for themselves, which sounds a bit like a ‘dictatorship’ in movie industry, should the standards in which movies are judged be more of a democracy? Just a few questions that I put to you.

    • castalavista says:

      Good points Rix.
      I think you are holding yourself in too high a regard if you think my liking of a film is related to the reactions of others. I have been steadfast since seeing the film that I thought it was great. The only thing that has changed is that through conversation with you and others I have been able to articulate my reasons for liking it more fluently.
      You raise an interesting question though relating to how can it be so highly regarded if it is not as accessible to ‘the masses’. I don’t think it is relevant in this instance because I try to put forward in my review that I think there is enough in the film for it to be enjoyed by everyone. I was trying to point out that those who then watch it with added knowledge of ‘Coenography’ may find added entertainment from the film.
      And I’m not sure any allusions to a dictatorship in this instance hold much water either- especially given typical box office reciepts for a Coen brothers film. And at any rate, could the same not be said for the Spielbergs, Lucas’, Scorceses and Jacksons of this world who have as much stylistic signature and narrative control on their own films as the Coens might. The only difference is that they then shroud these signifiers underneath high-concept set-pieces and blockbuster cinema. I think you are only scrutinizing A Simple Man in this way because there was nothing else in the film to grab your attention. Which for my money makes it a braver piece for not trying to dilute it’s integrity.

      So Ner!

      Thanks for posting.x

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: