I think other people described Sy as a serious man, and at one point the main character said to either his lawyer or one of the rabbis that he tried to be a serious man.
minlow - so you’re saying that until he changed the grade, he was staving off disaster? I find that curious, because I didn’t see how he was really acting heroic or anything before then. Instead, it seemed he was trying to hide from all of these problems, or hoping someone else would take care of them.
What little thought I’ve given to the story of Job, I’ve always thought it one of the goofier stories in the bible, and not indicative of any kind of God I would care to believe in.
So what was going on with the son? They spent an awful lot of time on him, his pot, and his $20. And why, how, and what was the point of the rabbi quoting Airplane back at him at the end?
Thanks for the thoughts. Not making me like the movie any more, but makes me understand it a little more. I don’t mind movies/books/art that makes me think - but I’m not a big fan of art that I need to read a guidebook to figure out what the hell I just experienced.
To me this film was almost entirely about physics, mostly the uncertainty principle. Even though there was a bit of guy gets punished by God thing going on, I do not think it was an adaptation of the book of Job.
Spoilers.
The film seemed to be filled with moments of uncertainty, where all outcomes are valid until an action was taken to find out. I’m thinking of the opening scene, his lawn, his cancer, the bribe, and others that I cannot presently remember. The student’s line, “Embrace the mystery” suggesting the money in the envelope could be and could not be a bribe sums up my interpretation of the movie. I also read entanglement into the movie, where an action taken in one place has effects in another (the car accident).
I do not think the lead was particularly reverent. I think his rejection of the abraxis (I think that was it. It has been a while. I took abraxis as a cross) album was also his rejection of God. He was simply being a serious man, doing what he thought was right in life. However, the universe does not care what you think is right, only what you do.
I’m going to take a stab at this, if I might, with an understanding that I’m only conjecturing.
The rabbi quoted back the song he had been listening to on his radio. And then handed him back the radio. He got it back after he had successfully done his part at the bar mitzvah, in spite of being stoned.
To me, it was that the truth the Rabbi was imparting did not come from the ancient texts, but from the world around him.
Plus there is a little bit about how the sins of the fathers are passed on to the sons, isn’t there?
Larry changes the grade, the storm comes and he finds out he’s probably got some disease. His son’s teacher can’t find the key to open the cellar - his son can’t get to safety and is going to die.
Plus, I think it’s interesting that both times the son tries to pay back his dope dealer (with the money he stole from his sister who stole it from his father - so really the money he stole from his father) something bad happens. First on a smale scale his radio gets confiscated with the money, and he therefore has to run home every day to avoid getting beat up.
Then he tries again to pay back the bully/dealer in class, and it’s announced that there is a storm coming and they have to evacuate.
Then he tries a 3rd time to pay back the bully/dealer only to look up and finally see the storm coming straight at them.
In some ways, I also think it’s interesting how the son calls at the most stressful times to talk about how he can’t get the tv reception to come in. It’s like he’s so oblivious to anything outside of F-troop that he has no concept of what he’s father’s going through. And by the time he realizes that he’s in trouble - it’s too late.
I missed the edit window - but I wanted to add the following about the Rabbi quoting Airplane:
When the director/writer repeats lyrics, it probably means something - don’t you think? “When the truth is found to be lies and all the joy within you dies, don’t you want somebody to love? don’t you need somebody to love?”
Isn’t that exactly what happened to his dad? He thought his wife loved him, his kids were happy, his tenure was secure, his life was good. Then he found out it was all lies. And the joy within him (what little he had) died and he ended up trying to hook up with the next door neighbor so he could have somebody to love.
I agree about the Airplane lyrics, they were a perfect fit for the film.
Nice posts melodyharmonius, minlokwat, kingbighair! I have a hard time talking about this film. I love it so much but I’m tragically inarticulate about it, so I love reading intelligent posts here and in Chefguy’s thread.
Some people will never like the film, but others will, if they give it more than one chance, find that it grows on them. That’s a hallmark of a Coen film. Multiple viewings always benefit both the film and the viewer. It took me about 3 viewings of The Big Lebowski to realize how genius it was (pause to congratulate the Dude for winning an Oscar).
I get that the lyrics were relevant, but what I’m asking is how would the rabbi have ever even heard those lyrics? It isn’t as tho the son had a tape player. When the rabbi stuck the plug in his ear, it is a likely bet that something other than Airplane was on the radio.
So that is one of the things that bothered me. Folk have posted intelligently about the degree of irrationality that they are willing to accept in a movie. And this movie impressed me as not adhering to those rules. When they wanted one sort of reaction, they presented things very realistically. But then if they wanted to make a point - or just be downright silly, they’d do whatever the hell they wanted. Impressed me as very manipulative.
Coupla more silly questions - why did the kid slip the sawbuck into the radio? I was trying to figure out how that played into his giving it to the dealre/bully.
And what was the point of having the property lawyer drop dead? Like so much of the movie, it just seemed absurd for the sake of absurdity. Which I guess I can understand, tho I don’t personally tend to care for such.
I’m a huge Coen brothers fan, and am always willing to give their work every benefit of the doubt. I thought A Serious Man was a collection of beautifully written and constructed scenes that never really hung together as a movie.
Much of the dialog was inspired, and some of the situations (especially the more mundane ones) just had so much poignancy. I loved his phone call to the record company, and his bewilderment about why they sent him Santana’s Abraxas.
Despite the excellent pieces, though, the movie as a whole never really grabbed me. I firmly believe that some movies reward second and third viewings, and it could be that watching this again would give me a new perspective on it, but for me a successful movie needs to make me WANT to watch it the second and third time, and i really don’t have that desire with A Serious Man.
I saw it and would like to see it again. It gave me a lot to think about–why Larry suffers so much for no discernible reason, why anyone suffers for that matter, and how no rabbi can provide the answers that Larry seeks. There is no happy ending, no resolution, no easy response. He does not know why these things keep happening to him.
I didn’t really see it as a comedy unless it could be called an exceptionally dark one. It’s about a man with an existential crisis that never ends.
I think if we view Gopnik as a modern-day Job --which is but one take-- then he fails his test by God by changing the grade.
Gopnik is given a number of tribulations and temptations and handles them, certainly not heroically but at least with honor. When he changes the grade with presumably the intention of pocketing the bribe, then he acts dishonarably and God declares he has failed the test (remember the phone call from the doctor occurss immediately after Gopnik changes the grade). Evidentally, Gopnik ain’t no Job.
As to seeking out assistance from the rabbis who provide counsel that is less than inspired, I figured this is what Gopnik is instructed to do as per his faith.
With Coen brother movies, I think they leave things deliberately open to multiple interpretations and have no intention of answering every question and tieing up every loose end. In some ways, that’s part of the appeal and is one component that separates good films from great.
Thank you. I think that very well sums up my impression. I actually enjoyed a number of the vignettes. Heck, even thought the opening tale wierdly curious. But then when nothing seemed to be going anywhere, and it just seemed like pointless absurdity piled upon pointless absurdity, it just impressed me as filmmakers who were overly pleased with themselves and just trying to be cute. (Waiting for someone to chime in “Pointless absurdity was the point!”)
I’m always surprised when people say they don’t understand the film. It seemed pretty straightforward to me. As noted upthread, Larry was tested and tested and tested – unfairly, but as Nachner says, it’s not God’s obligation to explain himself to Larry – and in the end, he fails the test. And if he’s lucky, the punishment for his failure is merely that he’s about to die of cancer, and not that Hashem takes his son.
Well, I could hypothesize why the kid put the sawbuck in the radio - but really, it was just a plot point to start the b-level controversy. If he hadn’t listened to the radio in class, his radio wouldn’t have been taken and the money wouldn’t be gone.
And having the property lawyer drop dead? Because the property lawyer knew all the research and thought he had figured it out, and the lawyer dropped dead. Which means a new lawyer would have to take the case, which means more billable hours and more money out of Larry’s pocket. And maybe the new guy wouldn’t catch/know the solution the property lawyer did.
Ok - so the kid is sitting in his desk during class. He’s obviously not paying attention. He sees the dealer in front of him and wants to pay up before he gets pummeled. Better to settle the debt in this environment than on the playground where he might still get razzed.
Passing the money has to be done discreetly - so he pulls the money out of his pants pocket (always awkward in those desk/chair contraptions) and is going to slide it to him but can’t get his attention.
Not wanting to put it back in his pocket but not wanting to lose it or have it seen by the teacher, he slides it in to the case where he can get to it easy if he can get the kids attention.
Also, remember, he stole it from his sister’s drawer. If she comes looking for it (which she did) the obvious place to look for it would be his pockets or his wallet or his dresser drawer. By sliding it in to the radio case, it’s a less likely place to be discovered.
Of course - as a school kid in the 60s who spent his share of time listening to his transistor radio and passing notes in class, I was pretty impressed at how stupid the kid was on both counts. And starting off with a pretty blatant display of stupidity is not a likely way for me to become invested in a character.
And starting off with a pretty blatant display of stupidity is not a likely way for me to become invested in a character.