"Please, I need help"

(Warning: plot spoilers)

“Well shit, man. I guess that’s why they call it a ‘way-homer’…because you only get it on the way home.” I always think of this Coen brothers’ line from their second directorial effort, Raising Arizona, whenever I’ve just watched another one of their movies for the first time. I’ve continued this trend after watching their latest film, A Serious Man, starring Michael Stuhlberg (Body of Lies) as Larry Gopnik, a down-on-his-luck assistant physics professor who desperately seeks answers to life's questions as his world begins to crumble.

The story, set in a 1960’s suburban Minneapolis Jewish community, follows Gopnik as he faces unethical students, a possible denial of tenure, a surprising divorce, a bigoted neighbor, and an eccentric live-in brother—all as he’s tried to live the life of a decent man and an upstanding husband, father and brother. Since it’s a movie, the audience, along with Gopnik assumes that solutions will be found for his mounting problems. To me the movie is a more serious version of Burn After Reading, consisting of a series of wacky subplots which do ultimately propel the main arc of the plot (Gopnik’s troubles).

I’m going to deviate from my normal routine of writing for this particular post. I felt a sense of enlightenment while writing my initial review before I decided to scrap it. I knew that I wasn’t confident in my interpretation, but I still tried to present myself as if I knew what I was talking about. I’ll now describe to readers my thought process when writing a review for a movie that takes me longer to interpret.

When exiting the theater after watching A Serious Man, I wondered what the Coen brothers wanted me to grasp from their film. I remember hearing some teenager chide his friend for not understanding the plot. “Dude, how could you not get it? I understood everything that was going on. It was all connected,” he said. I remember sneering at the kid for a second because I sure as hell didn’t get it. In my cynicism I assumed that he was only pretending to understand the movie, because how could anyone know more than the Movie Guy? After coming back down to Earth and getting into the driver seat of my car, I thought of key quotes and scenes I wrote in my notepad: “receive with simplicity,” mounting troubles, graphic dreams representing closure. I realized that the main character, Gopnik, accomplished nothing and solved none of his problems during the movie, but I also realized that there were a number of other scenes that went right over my head.

After I started writing my review I knew I wasn’t completely confident in my interpretation. Obviously, the Coen brothers wanted audiences to understand that bad things happen sometimes, and there won’t always be an answer or remedy available. What else could I say? Sure, I could summarize some other plot points or scenes that I liked, but I felt I’d be masking the fact that I didn't fully understand how audiences should interpret it. I decided to research the film and read some other reviews to see what I may have missed. I usually wait to do such research after I’ve written my review because I don’t want to be influenced in any way before I express my view.

After researching, I found that all of the allusions the Coen brothers present within their movie are biblical. According to the Internet Movie Database, “Larry is a Job like figure – a good man to whom many bad things happen with no explanation…his son Danny’s looking at the tornado coming recalls God speaking to Job from out of the whirlwind that He will not explain why these bad things have happened to him.” While I’ve read all of the New Testament, I’m only on Numbers in the Old Testament, so that’s why I was unable to make the connection. Most of the reviews I read made the connection.

One quick note for those who may not be aware. There are no original ideas in screenplays—they’re all combinations of cribbed ideas/stories/news from around the world. Most can be traced back to the Bible (i.e. Donnie Darko, The Matrix, etc.)

Anyway, for me, even though I enjoyed A Serious Man, I think it'll grow on me even more after I watch it again. I’m looking forward to catching all the little things I missed my first time watching it.

My point to all of this is that I’ve come to appreciate movie critics more since I’ve delved into the review process myself. They constantly make sound, insightful interpretations after watching a movie only once. It usually takes me a couple of viewings to catch key points I may have missed.

I could take more time to elaborate on how each character is more of a caricature, or discuss the over-the-top performances by some of the actors (shout out to George Clooney’s best friend, Richard Kind, who plays Gopnik’s socially awkward brother), but I really don’t feel like it. The movie is worth seeing, so go check it out. Even though there aren't as many laugh-out-loud moments as other Coen brothers films, I still rank it near the top of their body of work.

Rating: 7 out of 10











Up next - The Men Who Stare At Goats