Sep 13 2009 02:49 PM ET

Toronto: 'A Serious Man' is, believe it or not, a personal film by the Coen brothers

a_serious_man_lJoel and Ethan Coen aren’t usually accused, even by their most ardent devotees, of making intensely personal films (unless, of course, you count their technique as personal, or their attitude). What’s more, in a quarter of a century of moviemaking, the Coens have never dealt deeply and explicitly with their Jewish heritage. (Not that there’s anything wrong with not dealing with it.) And that makes A Serious Man, their remarkable new film, something of a landmark in the Coen universe. It’s set in 1967 in an unnamed, amusingly flat and nondescript Midwestern city (very much, the Coens claim, like the Minnesota town in which they grew up), and it’s about a fractious, scrambling, and deeply anxious Jewish family, in particular the perpetually rattled physics-professor father, Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), who is doing everything he can to be a mensch, but whose life is coming apart at the badly tailored seams. He’s a bespectacled, clean-cut Tevye with the spilkes spilling out of him, only in this case there’s a faulty TV antenna rather than a fiddler on the roof.

tiff_iconA Serious Man has a spectacular opening. There’s a prologue — a made-up Yiddish folk tale about an unhappy shtetl couple who meet a dybbuk (a malevolent spirit) — and then, to the building, surging beat of the Jefferson Airplane’s “Somebody to Love,” the camera moves through a mysterious tunnel and fastens, in disorienting close-up, on a hard white plastic object, moving down a wire to reveal…a transistor radio, which 12-year-old Danny (Aaron Wolff) is listening to, with his primitive ’60s earphone, in Hebrew school. The contrast between the song, heard almost from the inside out, and the setting is so incongruous that it’s profound: This, the Coens are telling us, is the double world of the film — the sensual romantic dreams that come at you from the outside (“Don’t you want somebody to love?”), and the slightly airless, still ritualized, scrappily communal, quaintly rule-bound existence of middle-class American Jewish life in 1967.

It’s no great surprise that the Coens, working with affectionate mockery, depict this world of cinder-block synagogue banality in as archly exotic terms as they did the loopy Scandinavian-American winterscape of Fargo. The bar mitzvah study albums, the grotty low-ceilinged tract homes dotted with tchotchkes, the sad-sack mishegoss uncle (Richard Kind) who loafs on the couch (and is filling a notebook with a brilliant/crazy physics manifesto that explains the universe), the nerdy Jewish kids on the school bus who turn talking “tough” into a kind of Talmudic exercise: It’s all presented with the deadpan clarity of sociological science fiction.

Yet the Coens, you must understand, aren’t merely subjecting their ethnic heritage to another one of their formalist gimcrack exercises. This nebbishy late-’60s world is as authentic, in its way, as the early-’60s urban/suburban enclaves of Mad Men, and there’s a very grand joke at the heart of A Serious Man. It’s that the middle-class Jews of the postwar era felt that they had finally achieved assimilation, yet in their habits and conversation, their hilariously unwieldy last names (which the Coens use as wicked punchlines), and their compulsion to view the consumerist America they’d adopted as a place that didn’t fully make sense, they were a profoundly discombobulated tribe, assimilated everywhere but in their heads.

Larry’s life, for instance, has become a series of catastrophes. His wife, Judith (Sari Lennick), wants to leave him for a hucksterish local widower named Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed); Danny, on the eve of his bar mitzvah, is an intellectual dropout interested in nothing but his radio and F-Troop; and Larry’s upcoming tenure hearing looks shaky, in part because of an anonymous letter-writing campaign branding him a pervert. Plus, a failing Korean grad student offers him a bribe, which is really a threat. One after another, Larry consults the local rabbis, who are really just shopping-mall shrinks in prayer shawls, and who have no actual advice for him (or, better yet, they have parables that explain everything…and nothing).

The driving question of A Serious Man is this: Are the “problems” that define Larry’s existence somehow karmic creations of his own inability to deal with them? His community, his culture, keeps asking him to grin and bear it, to accept his fate with a shrug. Yet the grim comedy of Larry’s life is that he’s doing just what the Talmud taught, trying to be a serious man, whereas everyone around him seems much happier by giving up on all that and reducing loyalty to their Jewish heritage to a kind of cultural version of obsessive-compulsive disorder. A Serious Man isn’t perfect — I’m still grappling with the powerfully offbeat ending — and with its celebrity-free ethnic cast I’m not sure if it’s in the position to do even a quarter of the Coens’ usual box office. But it’s an audaciously funny, original, and resonant movie in which the Coens spring the neat trick of finally showing you a bit of who they are, or at least where they came from.

***

If you see one austerely hopeless and depressing movie this year about a father and son wandering through a junk-strewn post-apocalyptic wilderness as they struggle to fight off demons of fear, madness, and starvation, not to mention roving bands of cannibalistic killers, then by all means make that movie The Road. When the release date of this adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s celebrated novel was postponed from the end of last year to the end of this year, it was only human to wonder if there was something wrong with the film. But The Road, much as I ended up having mixed feelings about it after it screened here in Toronto, is on some level a dedicated and accomplished movie.

Viggo Mortensen, caked in grime, plays the father with a fierce physicality and tremulous inner woundedness, and visually The Road is one of the most spookily convincing, least  ”movieish” visions of a nuclear-wasteland future I’ve ever seen. (It’s never made explicit that there was a nuclear war, but given the ashy deadness of everything on screen, that’s certainly what it looks like.) The wreckage and twisted clutter, some of it quite spectacular, never seems like it was planted there by a set designer; it’s an organic part of the landscape. This debris has integrity, almost the way that the ruined city of Full Metal Jacket did.

Yet The Road, for all its creepy desolation, remains a curiously unmoving experience — or maybe not so curious, given that not all that much really happens in it. In the novel, McCarthy played off post-apocalyptic Hollywood thrillers, but he omitted the action, making the material interior and refined. It was still like seeing a movie on the page, though. Whereas done as a movie, The Road is like a zombie thriller made with a murky veneer of art-film “taste.” The darkest note in the story — it’s what no sci-fi blockbuster would dare include — is the Mortensen character’s despairing realization that he must be prepared at any moment to fire a bullet into his beloved son, should they be captured, since the bandits who roam the land would rape and kill the boy if he didn’t. That’s a haunting thing to live with, but it’s not enough to make The Road fully dramatic. I’m not sure if delaying this film’s release for a year really helped its cause. There’s enough darkness in the land right now as it is to make sitting through a movie like The Road just feel like one more very heavy burden.

Comments (11 total) Add your comment
  • J.

    I can’t wait to see both. I’m intrigued by the Coen Brothers’ movie. I read The Road awhile back–been waiting a year for this one.

  • Sir Andrew

    I’m sorry, a celebrity-free ethnic cast translates to limited box office? I believe that most people go to see movies for interesting stories rather than stars. Now, the trailer for A Serious Man doesn’t even show an explicit conflict (even though it is kind of cool), and if anything, that kind of publicity is what may bring the box office tally of A Serious Man down.

  • Lee

    Who wants to see a depressing movie during a depressing time? They were right to postpone The Road. Actually, I’m surprised that they even made it. I predict it’ll bomb at the box office.

  • cc

    “I believe that most people go to movies for interesting stories rather than stars.”

    You are wrong in your belief. I mean, you’re way way off. But it’s nice to see the American public’s brain power overestimated once in a while.

    But there are exceptions. Once in a while a “Slumdog Millionaire” does come around.

    • Sir Andrew

      America isn’t the only place where box office makes a difference. I think we can use generalize grosses to audiences all over the world.
      But, come on. After all, what do you go to see movies for? Let’s go through the top movies this year, and explore the effect of star power:
      Transformers and Harry Potter are both sequels, so we’ll take a look at their predecessors. Megan Fox was a nobody when the first one came out, and Shia LaBeouf had… Disturbia and Even Stevens. I say it was the movie that made them into stars. And I wouldn’t doubt that most of the masses that went to see Harry Potter didn’t even know who most of the British actors were, especially not the leading kids.
      The Hangover: no well-known stars.
      Up: I think the last relevant movie Ed Asner was in was Elf.
      Star Trek: Actually, I still don’t know the names of any actors in that movie.
      And how about all those horror movies that consistently do well? They typically aren’t full of celebrities.
      There of course, have been plenty of high profile movies with star names that were a bit luke-warm at the box office. Land of the Lost (Will Ferrell), Funny People (Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen), Duplicity (Julia Roberts, Clive Owen), Bruno (Sacha Baron Cohen.
      One could argue, well, they did okay. Sure, but they delivered below expectations.
      And a person could also say that these movies were populated with stars who were popular a while ago, but have since trailed off a bit. Well, then, tell me, who are the stars now (including teenagers that star in sequels is cheating)?

      • esteban

        Yes, a lot of people who went to see Harry Potter – do know the character’s names. Are you basing your knowledge on elderly widows or knowledgeable teenager fans of HP- (> 70%).
        And as for Star Trek- everybody knows their names- unless you live in a six-sided room in a castle with no TV.

      • Sir Andrew

        Whoa, hey, I happen to be 16 now, so I was, what, 8 when Harry Potter came out? I think I could have been counted as part of that movie’s core demographic. And I can say, from personal experience, that I had no idea who Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, or Robbie Coltrane were. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it was Emma Watson’s and Rupert Grint’s first movie and Daniel Radcliffe was in one or two things prior to The Sorcerer’s stone (I just looked it up — two things).
        And as for Star Trek – I’m looking it up right now – Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto. Little did I know. And I had no idea Nero was Eric Bana.
        And yes, I’m sure people who went to see these movies knew the characters’ names (perhaps even elderly widows all over the world, whom, after reading your comment, may very well be deeply offended), but we’re debating the effect stars have on box office takes, not characters. In fact, that more or less proves my point.
        And I’d like to apologize to Mr. Gleiberman for filling up the comments section with off-topic conversation. But at least it was a tangent to your post, not completely unrelated.

  • Seriously

    I saw this movie yesterday at TIFF. It is certainly off-beat and a serious work that makes other black comedies look positively light. The movie evokes laughs from a different place than most – from a profound discomfort watching people twist themselves this way and that to fit in, whether situationally, socially or religiously. A great piece of work that will have you thinking long afterwards, even if you are a goy

  • cc

    I can tell you’re 16. Only a 16 year old would use a single year of movies to draw upon as your example, when there’s a hundred years of movie history to draw upon. I mean, for decades the motion picture industry had something called the “star system.”

    But anyway, my point wasn’t that people go to the movies for the stars. It’s that people go to the movies for interesting stories above and beyond the stars. Not one of the movies you cited (with the possible exception of Harry Potter) did the people go them to see an interesting story. That’s a laugh. They went for special effects, crude laughs and familiar characters. It was the name of Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling, Kirk and Spock that drew the audiences. THOSE are the stars. It’s called brand loyalty, and that’s why people went.
    Not because of interesting stories.
    You could have made your point by producing a few titles of independent films or adult dramas with stars that did make money. There are a few, but the fact is there are many, many good films with interesting stories that don’t break through to a wider audience. But you didn’t even name the few that did. Still, you’re 16 so I can’t expect you to know everything. Or much, for that matter.

  • Sir Andrew

    I almost feel that bringing previous decades’ movies would be irrelevant, seeing as my point was about the grosses of movies in the present day.
    Also, I don’t even know what point you’re arguing anymore.
    To quote you, “But anyway, my point wasn’t that people go to the movies for the stars. It’s that people go to the movies for interesting stories above and beyond the stars.” What does that even mean? If it means what I think it means, which is, story is more important than stars, and that’s what people go to the movies for, than we are on the same side of this argument.
    “You could have made your point by producing a few titles of independent films or adult dramas with stars that did make money.” No I couldn’t. If I had done that, it would have shown that the presence of a star is the only thing that gives films notoriety.
    How about some independent films without stars that grossed well…
    Pan’s Labyrinth – domestic gross: $37 million; worldwide gross: $83 million
    March of the Penguins – domestic: $77 million; worldwide: $127 million
    The Blair Witch Project – domestic: $140 million; worldwide: $248 million
    I say that people didn’t go to Harry Potter and Star Trek for special effects, but for the promise of a story involving magic and outer space. And an audience will never laugh at a film if it is not emotionally invested in the characters (this investment, of course, comes from a story that demonstrates a character’s qualities).
    And don’t tell me characters are all that matter. Narratives are, most simply put, characters DOING SOMETHING. If the marketing campaign for Star Trek was, “charismatic Captain Kirk and intellectual Spock, characters that everybody likes, discuss the weather and occasionally tell dirty jokes as CG spaceships explode in the foreground,” would anyone show up? I don’t think so. What makes the involvement of Kirk, Spock, Harry Potter, and J.K. Rowling a sure bet in terms of high grosses is that we relate these names to stories we love.
    And what proof is there that the lack of overtly successful independent films is due not to lack of stars, but to a modest amount of marketing? No matter how good a story is, if people don’t know it exists, they’re not going to see it. To site the only example that you gave, Slumdog Millionaire, what brought it into the mainstream was winning multiple Oscars, including Best Picture (now there’s a good marketing strategy).
    And my purpose in stating my age was to let anyone know to take my comment with a certain grain of salt, not to give some know-it-all ageist cynic a chance to declare his or her superiority.
    Sorry, that was mean, but I felt it had to be said.

    • Donnie

      I have to say, Sir Andrew seems like a pretty awesome and well informed 16 year old. I would argue that only a tiny handful of stars have any power over the domestic box office these days, though many help sell a movie in foreign territories. I think Americans make most of their moviegoing decisions based on brand familiarity (Harry Potter, Star Trek, etc), marketing (the more the better), and word of mouth. Unfortunately, I don’t think they pay much attention to critical reviews or the talent involved behind the scenes, which is the only possible way to explain how the Transformers films made any money.

Add your comment
The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.

Advertisement

Find Movies and Showtimes

Powered by MovieTickets.com

Choose Your Movie

All movies

TV Recaps

Powered by WordPress.com VIP