Saw it, loved it, and thought it was an extraordinary, brave, confident and very sure-footed piece of film-making that only two very experienced film-makers could have even attempted, let alone pulled off so magnificently well.
Dark comedy, but far from pitch-black. And about ten times as good as Barton Fink.
Well, 20 times.
I’d put it in the upper half of all the Coen Bros. movies I’ve seen, which is most of them. Not something I’d go to expecting to roar with laughter every 5 minutes, but to enjoy the characters and the absurdities, as well as Deeper Meanings if one is into that.
And it’s still hardly playing in any theatres around here. I don’t suppose it would ever show up at the multiplex.
And the Coens have just won some kind of award for best screenplay for this.
My wife and I saw this a few weeks ago. There were four other people in the theater: two Jewish couples in their sixties. We all chatted a bit at the end of the film. I think that we all enjoyed the movie greatly, but at very different levels. For one thing, they were old enough to have lived through the film’s period as midwestern Jews, so they had the nostalgia aspect going for them.
I thought that the theme of the ‘why do bad things happen’ was very well handled in the movie. Not only does the main character get no satisfying answer to his questions, but things don’t go back to ‘normal’ at the end; or rather, they remain normal in that random bad stuff just keeps happening. He doesn’t get tenure, get his wife back, solve his brother’s problems, etc. His son doesn’t get his shit together, either. I found it quite satisfying.
On another note, in the sequence where he helps his brother escape by canoe, I cracked up at the scene where a section of road is shown, panning to a sign saying “CANADA ---->”. That section of road is in Interstate Park, on the Wisconsin side of the St. Croix River, about four miles from my wife’s childhood home. I’ve biked that stretch of road many times, and I recognized it immediately. I think that the canoeing scene was shot at the same park (I’ve canoed there) but I can’t be certain.
I saw it a few weeks ago and liked it. My friend, however, hated it and alluded that it was because it was a little too Jewish for her. Hmm.
When I saw it the theater was fairly packed (I think the movie was only showing on six theaters in the country at the time- if not for the Minnesota connection, it might not even have shown here), and there was a surprising amount of elderly people in the audience.
Can anyone tell me how the opening part relates to the rest of the movie? I really enjoyed it, but I don’t see the connection to anything else. Maybe that’s the point?
AFAIK there isn’t any consensus on what the Prologue has to do with the rest of the movie, and so far the Coens aren’t telling.
What I got from it was this: two of the movie’s main themes are (a) the universe is morally indifferent, i.e. bad things can happen to good people, often in a chaotic and unpredictable fashion, and (b) the universe is morally relative i.e. everything is a point of view, so an advantage for me is maybe a disadvantage for you.
[ SPOILERS BELOW! ]
In the Prologue, we see three characters play out these two themes in a short and beautifully photographed vignette. See it from the older man’s point of view: he does someone a kind favour, consequently gets invited in for some soup, and gets shot for no reason other than the wife’s irrational beliefs plus the fact that she mis-heard local gossip. See it from the husband’s point of view: he tries to show the old man his gratitude for his help, and unwittingly causes him to get shot, and he may even die from his wound. See it from the wife’s point of view: she has her nice cosy home and suddenly, through no fault of her own, it is invaded by an evil spirit and she must take drastic measures to protect herself and her husband.
He gets knifed, not shot.
Thanks An Gadai. My error.
Also, as the rabbi walks away from the house, he leaves no footprints in the snow. I think that kind of supports the wife’s version of events. I don’t know whether or not the rabbi knew that he was a dybbuk, though. He might not have realized it until she stabbed him.
This was my favorite movies of 2009. A real piece of art. Wise and funny.
The prologue was a short film of the movie’s theme: the complex interweaving of the rational and the mystic in all lives
I got that as well. I saw Larry as a beleaguered man who can’t fathom why so many things are going wrong, why there is so much against him, and he can’t get answers as to the meaning of it all, even to the ending, which remains unresolved as
a tornado bears down on the town and he is about to find out what is almost certainly bad news regarding his x-ray results.
I like the fact that the Coens would not tie it all up with some neat, tidy ending, where the big kid gets it, or the son gets revenge on his bullying sister, or the brother on the couch is recognized as a genius, etc. Nothing gets fixed, really, and that’s the frustrating thing not only for Larry but for just about all of us, though not to the same degree (I hope).
I also liked the intense attention to period detail.
It helps if you watch the Hebrew-to-English brief primer bonus feature on the DVD. The other making-of featurettes are interesting as well.
Actually, he gets ice-picked.
Actually, he does get tenure. Fat lot of good that’s going to do him since he obviously has a super-serious medical problem, which he might not have to worry about anyway, since a tornado’s heading his way.
My god I love this movie so much, even though I’m not Jewish and a lot of it is over my head. I’ve seen it 3 times in the theater so far, the last was just a few days ago when a local theater had the most wonderful triple-feature: Fantastic Mr. Fox, A Serious Man, and Fargo. I’m still giddy just thinking about it.
A Serious Man is one of those movies I just don’t want to talk about, which is why I haven’t participated in either thread. I love it and want to embrace it and never let go. I will say that watching it again after the Oscar nominations were released was so joyful. I kept giggling to myself at how amazing that such a bizarre, surreal, odd and wacky movie ever got nominated for BEST FREAKING PICTURE! I want to high-five and hug every member who voted for it that caused it to get on the ballot.
Ah you can get knifed with an ice-pick. 
I’m neither Jewish, nor American, but I didn’t think there was much that went over my head. I can’t understand Hebrew but I’m curious what you think went over your head.
The math. The Hebrew, though I quickly picked up what many of the words meant just from context, such as Goy, and the word for God, which I can’t remember at the moment. The Bar Mitzvah ceremony. The concept of a “Get” (sp?), though it seemed to be obscure to the Jewish characters too. Why Larry Gopnik would listen to that music he listened to, for pleasure. (snerk but of course I’d say the same thing if a character were to listen to Celine Dion or something equally horrific, and it was counterbalanced by plenty of Jefferson Airplane).
Damn, I love this movie. Michael Stuhlbarg should have been nominated for Best Actor. As with all Coen films, I love the look of all the people they choose to be in the film. I think my favorite is Rabbi Marshak’s secretary. “The Rabbi is busy…he’s thinking.” I also have a soft spot for the “Fucker” kid. Who knew profanity could sound so delightful coming from a kid?
What a little makeup and hair can do for a character!
Here’s Sari Lennick as Judith Gopnik.
Here’s a Sari Lennick promo shot. Another one. Sari at the premiere. Another premiere photo.
Wow.