Review #1552: A Serious Man.
Cast:
Michael Stuhlbarg (Lawrence "Larry" Gopnik), Richard Kind (Arthur Gopnik), Fred Melamed (Sy Ableman), Sari Lennick (Judith Gopnik), Aaron Wolff (Danny Gopnik), Jessica McManus (Sarah Gopnik), Alan Mandell (Rabbi Marshak), Adam Arkin (Don Milgram), George Wyner (Rabbi Nachtner), and Amy Landecker (Mrs. Vivienne Samsky) Written, Produced, and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010), #765 - Fargo, #1063 - Blood Simple, and #1517 - The Big Lebowski)
Review:
"There were Jewish characters, but in regards to whether our background influences our film making who knows? We don't think about it. There's no doubt that our Jewish heritage affects how we see things."
It all started out with an idea for a short. The Coens envisioned a short film that would be about a conversation between a kid has with an elder rabbi that they described as a sort of "mysterious figure" after his bar mitzvah. Naturally this would spiral into Some of the characters present in the film had inspiration from people the Coens knew growing up in Minnesota (such as with Melamed's character), with this taking place in 1967 (being shot in Bloomington but set in the Coens' birthplace of St. Louis Park) that reflect their upbringing in spirituality in study as children (Ethan once described wanting to explore the "incongruity" of Jews living in the Midwest as its own "strange subculture" - interpret that however you will). This is their 14th feature film together, which like most of their previous work they also served as editor for in a decade that was their busiest and most prominent as directors/writers/editors/producers (seven in total, which ranged from crime drama to dark comedy).
Sometimes you just have a film where the amusement comes in wincing at what is going on, where certainties and perceptions are never what one might think are coming, particularly when needing answers that suit tradition. Sometimes it all comes down to having one bump in the road turning out to spiral into something way worse, as perspective gives way to irony. Paradox and ambiguity are at the forefront here in a film that reaches as darkly amusing at times, one that will likely benefit from a re-watch for those who find its mesh of fictional and autobiographical work to prove a useful fable that fits upon telling (supposedly helpful) fables of its own involving dybbuks and symbols, which go hand-in-hand with moments that range from attempts at avoid bribes/blackmail to strange neighbors. This was the first starring role in film for Stuhlbarg, who had been acting in the theater since 1992 and in minor film + TV roles since 1998. He does quite well with a role that almost seems to be an observer in his own story, capturing pathos with a well-infused sense of anguish and confusion that manages to reflect well for a viewer in what is found and not found with him to look upon without having to spelled out for us. He reflects the alienation and hollow charade that can come from the conflict of certainty versus mystery of life, one who has been described as fitting the mold of the Book of Job (a Hebrew Bible book on divine wisdom and suffering) that might as well fit into a parable for the times now, which he does with well reflection. Kind makes for an interesting creature of habit in his time on screen, one that reflects his on-screen brother with careful and distinct sad quality. Melamed utilizes his time as a greatly captured creature of smug confidence, warm to the point of overheating that makes an amusing curiosity. Lennick fits the mold of no-nonsense interest that gravitates towards said serious folks with brazen confidence. Wolff and McManus do fine as the children of their own path of life and spirit, while Wyner provides the best laugh in the whole film in a scene near the end and Landecker does well in one elusive scene. The ending is as offbeat and elusive as the mysteries that came before it, which certainly will be interesting for those who find it worthwhile to fit its revolving message of mystery without needing a direct answer (or for others something of a cypher). It is a peculiar movie, fitting best for those with prior experience with the films of the Coen brothers or for those who like something with its own way of telling a story about mystery and certainty that work itself just well enough for satisfaction in the long run.
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
