Home » Articles » Film » Films Reviews »  The Humor in Gloom
Wednesday, September 30,2009

The Humor in Gloom

The Coen Brothers clarify their Jewishness—without guilt

By Armond White
. . . . . . .

 

A Serious Man

Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen

Runtime: 105 min.

Homicide (DVD)

Directed by David Mamet

 

"We're Jews. We have that well of tradition to draw on,” Larry Gopnik’s cousin consoles him in A Serious Man. Larry (Michael Stuhlbarg), a Minnesota physics teacher, endures a progression of miseries in the Coen Brothers’ ironic new comedy. Disaster affects Larry’s sense of identity as teacher, husband, father, brother, tribesman. A student blackmails him, his wife asks for a divorce, his Wasp neighbor unnerves him, plus other travails. His cousin’s advice inspires a helpless shrug, an accommodation to suffering that characterizes a particular vision of the world. Yet the film itself is so sharp-witted that every irony makes life vivid rather than despairing. Any critic’s suggestion that a film as lovingly, emotionally precise as A Serious Man typifies Jewish self-hatred is ridiculous.

Larry seeks answers about his life from three rabbis and these sessions give A Serious Man the structure of a vaudeville routine or a legendary ethnic joke.That’s also the Coens’ well of tradition—unsentimentalized.

The Coens admit their own Jewishness the way their best recent films (The Man Who Wasn’t There,The Ladykillers,The Big Lebowski) admit Americanness: with genuine feeling for the complexities, abundance and absurd conventions that give us our identity. More than social satirists, the Coens’ extraordinary film craft (cinematography by Roger Deakins, sound design by Skip Lievsay) gift wraps their genuine soulfulness. Once again, their heartfelt plot makes adventure of a character’s ethical struggle: Larry’s attempt to appease his troubled conscience. It recalls The Man Who Wasn’t There’s post-existential genius—to find humor (sanity) inside gloom.

Each rabbi session frustrates Larry (one tea-dunking sage drones, “Something like this, it’s never a good time.”), but he’s also brought deeper inside the tradition he inherited—which is the Coens’ way of clarifying both Jewishness and Americanness.

Starting with a 10-minute Yiddish prologue set in fin de siècle Poland (it’s the most audacious movie prologue since Wes Anderson’s Hotel Chevalier intro to The Darjeeling Limited), the Coens saturate viewers in cultural memory. It’s like a parody of Fiddler on the Roof, embracing ethnic superstition and critiquing it simultaneously.The same double vision occurs when the film flashes forward to Larry’s 1967 setting where the Coens lay out the paradox of pop revolution (The Jefferson Airplane blaring through the earphone of a transistor radio) alongside Larry’s modest portion of the American dream (the straitened luxe of middle-class suburbia).

Contrasting Larry’s physics theorems with Hebrew letters on a blackboard and Larry’s medical exam with his son’s Hebrew lessons, condenses Jewish social transition more cleverly than the mysticism of Darren Aronofsky’s overbearing Pi.The first English dialogue heard characterizes this ethnic-immigrant progress in the language of professionalism—a detail as telling as any conceived by Bernard Malamud, Bruce Jay Friedman, Saul Bellow or Philip Roth. The major difference from those literary Jewish popular artists is that the Coens’ selfconsciousness is guiltless.

Even their Rashi quotation (“Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you”) contains such a sense of irony that it applies to the range of American experience.

Consider that the film’s most symbolic image (Larry fixing the TV antenna on his roof) recalls Warren Beatty tending his rooftop weather vane in the Wasp conscience comedy Town and Country.

By situating Larry in a world of Jewish extremes (the needy brother, the solicitous head of his tenure committee, a rabbi decoding Jefferson Airplane as proverb or the overly intimate Sy Ableman whose selfrighteousness gives the film its title), the Coens “accept the mystery.”They creditably ponder what’s left of faith in secular Jewish life. “How does God speak to us?” is Larry’s basic query. A rabbi’s regret—“I, too, have forgotten how to see Him in the world”—speaks to the absurdity Larry cannot comprehend. (It could also have been the moral of the Coens’ brilliant, cosmic Burn After Reading.)

A Serious Man opens concurrently with the Criterion DVD release of David Mamet’s 1991 film Homicide. It’s an instructive coincidence given the brazenness of the Coens producing what may be the most overtly Jewish movie ever made by a modern Hollywood studio and Mamet’s quasi-cop movie which primarily examines the issue of Jewish guilt—it’s Mamet’s bid to be a serious man of Jewish cinema. Through Bobby Gold (Joe Mantegna), a homicide detective who stumbles upon an American underground running guns to Israel, Mamet internalizes the Jewish persecution complex as a sense of masculine (existential) failure. It’s not a progressive view, plus it’s humorless. But when it pre miered at the 1991 New York Film Festival, Homicide was taken very seriously even though Mamet’s plot had recklessly mishmashed contemporary urban tensions between Jews and Blacks. (Homicide is a pale variation on his excellent play Edmond.) Mamet’s key trope, “It never stops/Against the Jews,” typifies an essentially political paranoia that has recently been refined and complicated in Munich; paranoia that the Coens now transcend.

Despite Mamet’s serious calculations, it’s important to recognize that the Coens surpass ethnic limitations by the wit of their unabashed ethnic identification—and there are few such examples in current Hollywood. (Tarantino’s specious anti- Nazism as Jewish pride in Inglourious Basterds doesn’t count.) A Serious Man rejects the bland Jewishness of Judd Apatow films; it’s similar to the black filmmakers’ project in Next Day Air, in which social stereotypes get burlesqued, yet are used to reveal an essentially moral exercise.

Integrity shows in the clean, airy light the Coens cast on Larry’s confused world and the parochialism they chide at the end of a wild tangent about “the goy’s mouth.” The Coens’ inimitable ability to portray the delusions of modern sophisticates shows definitively when a sexy neighbor asks Larry, “Do you take advantage of the new freedoms?”Their post-coital, marijuana high is accompanied by the sound of a phonograph needle stuck in a groove. It’s the Coens proving that the groove of identity politics can also be a rut—yet they remain unstuck.

 

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Posted at 10/24/2009 
 
While you have tons of people who hate your reviews, I am starting to understand that your tastes are just different than the likes of others and you aren't a troll by any means. Your review for A Serious Man made me want to like it more than I did but I guess I could rewatch it sometime soon. Are you doing a top 10 films of the decade list soon? I am interested to know what is on your list other than George Washington.

 

Posted at 10/20/2009 
 
Hey Esoteric, the names may be obscure to a simpleton like yourself, but even W knew what I was talking about. You have provided ZERO INSIGHT by simply reiterating my posts and laying your judgment. Please do us all a favor and never watch another frame of film for the rest of your existence. Thanks.

 

Posted at 10/19/2009 
 
Interested in the NEW book by Armond White? It's called, "KEEP MOVING: The Michael Jackson Chronicles" and it's a collection of essays on the subject of King Of Pop, MICHAEL JACKSON. Written over the course of 25 years, the essays focus on the songs and music videos after the Thriller album. If you are interested in more information, google the title OR visit the blog www.resistanceworks.blogspot.com

 

Posted at 10/18/2009 
 
All anonymous has done in this thread is drop random obscure names, scream a lot about how Tarantino is god and wet himself from excitement. And he has also been audacious enough to compare Crash to Death Proof, and attack talented filmmakers like the Coens and David Cronenberg. All three of which, are much more talented than Tarantino. And I LIKE Tarantino. But face it, Tarantino makes glorified trash cinema. Pretty sure he admits it himself. He's too big a fan of pulp not to.

 

Posted at 10/15/2009 
 
KYA
Let me add my two cents. I like the films from both Tarantino and the Coen Brothers, but I lean towards the Coens. The Big Lebowski is an excellent comedy- It is a confirmed cult classic. It has a goofy but dry humor that is an acquired taste, and in some parts it's plain weird. No Country for Old Men is a masterpiece, in that it is a morality tale that speaks of people's greed and capacity to commit violence. Fargo of course, is a interesting film with a dark sense of humor. I haven't liked all Coen films, but they keep things interesting. Tarantino is likable, and he writes clever dialogue, but I think of him as less cinematic than the Coens. Many of his films are "too talky" for their own good. Pulp Fiction was the only film where all the dialogue works, otherwise the words don't feel right in the characters' mouths in the other films. Another problem I have with Tarantino is the explicit violence and gore in many of his films. It is distasteful. I know, the Coens have violent scenes in many of their films, but Tarantino seems to really revel in the gore and torture sometimes, almost to the point of sadism. Even Wes Craven had to walk out of a screening of Reservoir Dogs because he couldn't handle the cop being tortured. I think that Pulp Fiction is Tarantino's best movie, but the rest are flawed movies with good parts. Inglorious Basterds was only half good, but it was funny and suspenseful in parts. It's definately not a good date movie. The Coens have made 3 great films, and Tarantino one. I think Tarantino should write a play one of these days. I think that would be an art format more suited to his style. I think the Coens and Tarantino generally like people, and think of the characters they create as babies, but they are still created to move the stories along in any way they see fit. Stories have to have tension, you know? So characters die, and characters get hurt. Many of the films from the creators can be seen as morality tales, if one has the right perspective. Because of Kill Bill, I know now not to do a half-*ssed job on killing a highly- trained female assassin. My favorite movie to this day is Star Wars. Take that as you will.

 

Posted at 10/17/2009 
Wow.......I should have stopped reading your drivel after starting with "let me add my two cents," but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, it became unbearable after I reached your classification of whether Inglourious Basterds was a date movie. You are hopeless when it comes to any legitimate forms of film criticism. Stop watching films immediately and promise you will never write or utter another dreaded word about cinema, please, do us all a favor and go to a date movie and continue your typical date rape you heathen.

 

 
 


  • Fri
    11
  • Sat
    12
  • Sun
    13
  • Mon
    14
  • Tue
    15
  • Wed
    16
  • Thu
    17

Search in Events

Sign up for the NYPress
e-newsletter for weekly updates
and exciting event info:





Join us on Facebook Follow Us
on Twitter








 User Profile (click to open)



New_York_300_60.gif

 
 
Close
Close