Maynard at the Movies
I have great respect for the artistic talent of the movie-making Coen brothers. Their latest film, currently in limited theatrical release, is “A Serious Man”.
The film observes an American Jewish community, focusing mainly on the trials and tribulations of one Larry Gopnik. Or then again, maybe it’s a movie about Schrödinger’s cat.
Sounds fascinating, eh? Would it be surprising if I were to report the film is rather mundane? And yet…
Did anyone see the Coen’s earlier “No Country for Old Men”? That was a superb movie. It took the heavy awards…Best Picture, Best Director, etc.
“No Country for Old Men” was both deep and accessible (meaning you could watch it and enjoy it without necessarily being a pseudointellectual elitist). Its villain was particularly compelling. There’s something fascinating about evil personified.
“A Serious Man” doesn’t have that sort of villain, and I guess that makes it less accessible. It won’t find the wide audience of “No Country”.
Both films are, in their way, seeking transcendence. “No Country” struggled with the question of evil in the world…so much evil, and it seems the evil grows stronger, while our best efforts to oppose it are pitifully inadequate. In “A Serious Man”, the adversary is less tangible. In that sense, it’s a frustrating movie. I’d rather watch a serial killer than wrestle with Larry Gopnik’s troubled marriage. Maybe that’s because Larry’s problems are too much like our own.
Did you ever want to cry out to God and beg for help? Did you do it? Did He answer you?
I’m having a psychic moment here. Your answers to the foregoing questions were: 1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) Maybe. (I’ve just impressed some of you with my keen insights, while convincing others I’m a moron. So be it.)
Anyway, I saw “A Serious Man”, and it wasn’t all that interesting, except that it left me furiously contemplating what I’d just seen and what it had said to me. And I’m still thinking about it, days later. And, together with whatever thoughts it puts in my mind, I’m feeling odd emotional rushes.
I have a rule about writing movie reviews. I avoid, as much as possible, speaking directly about the movie I’m reviewing. My purpose is to give you a basis to decide whether to see the show, since most films are not for everyone. My job is to get you to the theater if you need to be there, and to steer you away if you don’t. Beyond that, I’d be trespassing on the turf of the artist.
In sum, “A Serious Man” is not all that interesting, and it’s not for everybody, nor was it meant to be. But it’s there for those that seek it. This may possibly be the best film I’ve ever seen. Make of that what you will.
I too appreciate the talent of the Coen brothers. I love the majority of their movies. Remember they did Fargo. A lot of their movies have strange plots. The point is their movies have a plot. Unlike countless new movies put out these days. I thought “The Man Who Wasn’t There” was way more entertaining than “Millers Crossing”. Any movie produced or directed by the Coen brothers is worth checking out.
Interestingly (to me, anyway), “The Man Who Wasn’t There” also touched on the question of Schrödinger’s cat.
I’d be tempted to talk more about that cat. As a graduate of Starfleet Academy, I’m in a special position to discuss this twist on feline philosophy. But I think I’d lose my audience.
“Did you ever want to cry out to God and beg for help? Did you do it? Did He answer you?”
Particularly appropriate in this context, I believe it’s the Talmud that says God answers all prayers: sometimes, the answer is no.
The next Movie I watch will be “Gentlemen Bronco’s”. The question is will it be better than Nacho Libre?