A Serious Man (Ethan Coen & Joel Coen)

The Red Right Hand www.theredrighthand.co.uk

A SERIOUS MAN
I Need Help

Director
Ethan Coen
Joel Coen

Starring
Michael Stuhlbarg
Richard Kind
Fred Melamed
Sari Lennick

I love the Coen brothers, they are one of my favourite directorial collaborative teams. That fact alone should make this review biased, it should imply that my thoughts and comments will largely stem from my appreciation for their back catalogue. Thankfully, I'm not that kind of critic. I have no intention to compare this release with its predecessors or with movies that bare little resemblance to this feature. Instead, I will rate it as a stand alone piece - a regular requirement when analysing Coen films.

Many reviewers claim this movie is set in 1967. I have no idea where that notion comes from as there is almost nothing to imply this. However, going on the musical releases suggested throughout the film, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's based in 1970 -- or something close to that. Either way, the plot doesn't start in 1970 but in a shtetl several decades ago. A man comes home and tells his wife of an old man who helped him by the side of the road. When he identifies the individual, his wife berates him for inviting a dybbuk into their home. The stranger arrives and sits himself by the fire. The room is instantly divided as the husband tries to reason with his wife, who adamantly accuses the old man of being possessed. In the heat of their debate, the lady leans in and stabs the old man with an ice pick. The elderly gentleman laughs, begins to bleed and takes his leave, traipsing off into the wintry night. Then we're treated to a minimalist credit sequence. The central plot follows Larry Gopnik [Stuhlbarg], an American physics teacher with unruly children, an unhappy wife [Lennick] looking for a divorce, an almost unwelcome and seemingly permanent houseguest in the form of his brother [Kind] and the daily pressures of his job. In an attempt to make sense of it all, Larry seeks both legal and religious counsel and briefly flirts with the notions of adultery, drug use and abandoning his responsibilities; all the while arguing, "I haven't done anything, why is this happening to me!?" So, with such a brief plot description, why is this movie so astoundingly impressive? Because like every other Coen release, on the surface it appears little more than a slowly unfolding story with little event or consequence, yet the subtext layered within is immensely expansive. Religion (namely Judaism) is at the very core of this film. By that I don't mean the religious observances or meeting with Rabbis but instead the concepts that are littered throughout the story. Larry is very much a Job like character - being put through various trails and tribulations that test his moral fibre.

**Spoilers follow**
And now, I will explain the ending... because no one is going to get it and everyone will complain. As the film draws to a close, Larry has found a small amount of calm in his life and things appear to be going his way (the same could be said for his son, Danny [Aaron Wolff], who has been avoiding a bully he owes money to and desperately attempting to retrieve a transistor radio that has been confiscated from him). Sitting in his office, he receives news that he has been granted tenure (given a permanent contract) and congratulations on his son's bar mitzvah. Opening some of his mail, he comes across a bill for legal services of $3,000. Earlier in the story, one of Larry's students offers him a bribe of several thousand dollars for a passing grade; a point of fact which Larry has stalwartly refused. As he's contemplating the bill before him (the essential 'price of happiness') he rubs out the F grade and replaces it with a C. The second he does this, the phone rings and his doctor conveys that he needs to see him immediately regarding x-rays. At the same time, Danny has been warned by the Rabbi to be a good boy, returning his radio to him. Sitting in class, listening to the radio again, the teacher informs the students that a tornado is approaching and they are to get into the basement as soon as possible. Standing outside, Danny looks to square away his debt with the bully only to witness the tornado a few hundred yards away. Then the film ends. See? Infuriating. So, to explain. About midway through the story, Larry goes to see Rabbi Nachtner [George Wyner] who tells a story of a dentist who makes a mould for a goy (a non-Jewish person) and discovers a message in Hebrew. Convinced this is a sign from God, he cannot sleep, eat or work properly. Unable to find a reason for it he consults the Rabbi. The Rabbi tells him, "Is it a sign from God? I don't know. Is it intended for you or for the person whose mouth it is in? I don't know. Should I act kinder to others because it's what God might want? Couldn't hurt." Unsatisfied with this, Larry asks, "What happened to the Goy?" The Rabbi seems confused and replies, "Who cares?" The reason the ending is abrupt is because we don't need to know the ending; the tale of the dentist making the mould ends with the dentist at peace because he understands he is not required to know, just as we don't need to see the exact fate of Larry or his son. The trick is to see the beauty in everyday life and not worry about asking questions and constantly seeking answers -- in Larry's own words, "The Uncertainty Principle - it proves we can't ever really know what's going on. So it shouldn't bother you."

**Another paragraph of explanatory spoilers**
And now I will explain the beginning... for the same reason I explained the ending. Alright, this is less an explanation of the opening short and more a clarification of why it has been included and how it links up (and enhances) the finale. In order to fully explain this, I have to go over a few things. Thing number one: Larry refuses a Santana album named Abraxas, stating "I didn't order Abraxas, I don't want Abraxas and I won't listen to Abraxas!" Abraxas is an ancient name for God the creator of all things. This is Larry rejecting the will of God and the word of God. Thing number two: Schrodinger's cat is a paradoxical experiment that suggests that if you stick various elements into a box, such as radioactive material, a hammer, a beaker of acid and a cat you would expect to find one of two things after an hour. Either the radioactive material activates a mechanism that drops the hammer, that shatters the beaker that dissolves the cat or it has yet to happen. The point of the experiment is to illustrate the uncertainty of those about to open the box. Meaning, before you look in the box, the cat is both alive and dead. It's a great deal more complicated than that but that's the base of it. Ok, how does this relate to the opening? In the opening short, the husband and wife represent logic and faith. The wife views the stranger with contempt, resolute in her belief that this man is dead and his corpse must be possessed by an evil spirit. The husband believes the stranger to be little more than a kind old man and the whole 'death' business to be a miscommunication somewhere along the way. Going back to Schrodinger's cat theory, if the animal is dead, did it die because you opened the box? In the same sense, the question is not so much whether the man was a dybbuk or not, more was he always a man or did the dybbuk within him die when he was stabbed. Uncertainty is produced when the old man laughs heartily. At this stage, the blood is not present and like Schrodinger, the audience do not know whether this man is just that or in fact a supernatural apparition. Granted, he bleeds and we have a small sense of closure but then he walks off into the night. So the box is closed once again and we're still unsure. Secondly, we need to address Larry's quest for answers, both as a physicist and a man of faith. Larry has been continually tested and tempted and so far not given in; he has stuck by his brother, resisted the temptation to sleep with his neighbour's wife and refused to accept the bribe from a disgruntled student. The second he gives in, he receives a telephone call from his doctor; so by the end of the film you can either choose to see the events as punishment from God (the wife's stance) or random chance (the husband's opinion). Either way, we as a species will never know because it's not our place to know; to understand this truth is to be enlightened.

So, it's not a very accessible release; who cares? Riddled with an inherent understanding of physics combined with Jewish traditions and quirks, the closed-minded and intellectually limp are going to be instantly put off. Granted, the film is more than sound, technically speaking: the visual cinematography and structural editing is all exceptionally engrossing; the musical score is an incredibly simplistic melody, laced with a haunting sense of forlorn and the script is dark but still funny and engaging - but the real problems stem from the unanswered questions and the Coens' reasons for including certain elements. In truth, this film is more than a black comedy about a Jewish family; it's a story about man's unquenchable thirst for knowledge and answers and ultimately, how futile that is. When you understand this, the film becomes less like a narrative tale and more a fable and that is why I bumped this film from an 8 to a 9/10.

Release Date:
20th November 2009

The Scene To Look Out For:
Before I get on to my favourite scene, I just want to quickly highlight this films' trailer which doesn't reveal a great deal but was one of the most engrossing and entertaining film advertisements of the year. Throughout the movie, Larry is taunted by various dream sequences; my favourite of which was his answer to get rid of both his brother and the money in the best possible way. Driving to a picturesque lake, Larry shows his brother to a boat, hands him the envelope of money and points him toward Canada. All of a sudden, Arthur is shot dead. Larry turns to the bushes to see his neighbour in hunting gear who shouts, "There's another Jew, son!" It was an amusing sequence but more importantly it starts the process of thinking that the envelope itself acts like Schrodinger's box - you thought you'd escaped the physics lesson! Aha! Fools! If we exchange the items in the box for evidence of God and the concept of curiosity with temptation, we are left with a device that can confirm or deny if God does or does not exist. By giving in to temptation, Larry discovers that answer but at what cost?

Notable Characters:
The almost unknown Michael Stuhlbarg is simply mesmerising as a weak, meagre reflection of mankind at his most pathetic. As he states, he's not a bad man, he doesn't deserve all this punishment but the way he is portrayed, you're almost amused at the continuation of his suffering. Then there's Sy Ableman [Melamed], the man Larry's wife is intent on marrying after she successfully divorces him. He commands the scenes he's in with a unsettlingly calm performance before escalating to a rather powerful outburst.

Highlighted Quote:
"Receive with simplicity everything which happens to you"

In A Few Words:
"As with most Coen releases this film certainly isn't for everyone but as an intellectual analysis of the human condition and our desperate search for a place in this world it is truly astounding"

Total Score:

9/10

Matthew Stogdon