New Coen Bros, A Serious Man

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

NICE trailer.

Eazy, Thursday, 30 July 2009 17:31 (1 year ago) Permalink

Middling trailer, looks to have about the same heft as Burn After Reading (which I enjoyed).

chap, Thursday, 30 July 2009 17:37 (1 year ago) Permalink

I am so fucking excited about this film. Everything I've heard - including waaay advance stuff from friends who went to see them talk about it at temple - suggests retro Jewish Fargo. Was filmed in the Twin Cities in places designed to evoke St Louis Park, MN in 1967. Over on the Gentile side of town my parents would have been busy making me at the time.

clear chanel (suzy), Thursday, 30 July 2009 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink

Will definitely watch.

Mornington Crescent (Ed), Thursday, 30 July 2009 17:47 (1 year ago) Permalink

great trailer

Highly trained BBQ chef (rockapads), Thursday, 30 July 2009 17:48 (1 year ago) Permalink

I'm in Suzy's hometown pride boat, but this looks MUCH better than early descriptions indicated.

sir-mounter (Eric H.), Thursday, 30 July 2009 17:49 (1 year ago) Permalink

I was born in St Louis Park in 1970, so the retro part's exciting to me.

Eazy, Thursday, 30 July 2009 17:50 (1 year ago) Permalink

where is a serious man, who really aims movie?

Ømår Littel (Jordan), Thursday, 30 July 2009 18:02 (1 year ago) Permalink

i will see this

there is no there there (elmo argonaut), Thursday, 30 July 2009 18:04 (1 year ago) Permalink

this looks pretty great and i have no idea what sort of film it will be

omar little, Thursday, 30 July 2009 18:07 (1 year ago) Permalink

Seems like of like Revolutionary Road + Philip Roth.

Eazy, Thursday, 30 July 2009 18:12 (1 year ago) Permalink

this looks pretty great and i have no idea what sort of film it will be

otm, being waiting for months for the trailer to come out. Having seen it I'm no wiser as to what the film will be like. In terms of sound design I can't remember a more complete trailer, really stoked for it now after seeing it.

DJ Angoreinhardt (Billy Dods), Thursday, 30 July 2009 18:36 (1 year ago) Permalink

Dr. Morbius what are ur thoughts :)

generic xanax order cialis buy viagra cheap tramadol (Dr. Phil), Thursday, 30 July 2009 20:21 (1 year ago) Permalink

omar little, Thursday, 30 July 2009 20:23 (1 year ago) Permalink

So, the Coens will have now set a film in every decade from the 1920s through the present, except for the '70s.

Stop wishing death on people just for the cool thread titles (Myonga Vön Bontee), Thursday, 30 July 2009 21:20 (1 year ago) Permalink

I'm too lazy to do it, but can someone list them in chronological order of when they're set?

http://tinyurl.com/mnd3bd (Pleasant Plains), Thursday, 30 July 2009 21:23 (1 year ago) Permalink

They're like the August Wilson of film.

jaymc, Thursday, 30 July 2009 21:24 (1 year ago) Permalink

No Country is set in the late 1970s, I believe.

Eazy, Thursday, 30 July 2009 21:31 (1 year ago) Permalink

20s: Miller's Crossing
30s: O Brother Where Art Thou?
40s: Barton Fink (1941), The Man Who Wasn't There (1949)
50s: The Hudsucker Proxy
60s: A Serious Man
80s: No Country for Old Men (1980), Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Fargo (1987)
90s: The Big Lebowski
00s: Intolerable Cruelty, Ladykillers, Burn After Reading

jaymc, Thursday, 30 July 2009 21:32 (1 year ago) Permalink

(Assuming that Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski, Intolerable Cruelty, Ladykillers, and Burn After Reading are "contemporary.")

jaymc, Thursday, 30 July 2009 21:33 (1 year ago) Permalink

Lebowski is set at the start of the first Gulf War but not quite "contemporary" to the time it was produced

there is no there there (elmo argonaut), Thursday, 30 July 2009 21:37 (1 year ago) Permalink

for a second, when I first glanced at this title, I thought it was Tom Ford's forthcoming directorial debut A Single Man.

sir-mounter (Eric H.), Thursday, 30 July 2009 21:37 (1 year ago) Permalink

xp Oh right. Still their only film set in the '90s, oddly.

jaymc, Thursday, 30 July 2009 21:39 (1 year ago) Permalink

awesome trailer. i'm totally down with trailers that pique interest without giving away much of the movie

congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 30 July 2009 21:46 (1 year ago) Permalink

Really wish more movie trailers had some measure of thought put into them like this one.

Telephone thing, Thursday, 30 July 2009 21:49 (1 year ago) Permalink

Revised:

1929: Miller's Crossing
1937: O Brother Where Art Thou?
1941: Barton Fink
1949: The Man Who Wasn't There
1958: The Hudsucker Proxy
1967: A Serious Man
1980: No Country for Old Men
1984*: Blood Simple
1986*: Raising Arizona
1987: Fargo
1991: The Big Lebowski
2002*: Intolerable Cruelty
2003*: The Ladykillers
2007*: Burn After Reading

*shooting date

jaymc, Thursday, 30 July 2009 21:49 (1 year ago) Permalink

They've never made a film where the action leaves the US.

chap, Thursday, 30 July 2009 22:59 (1 year ago) Permalink

Oh, except for a brief sojourn across the Mexican border in No Country.

chap, Thursday, 30 July 2009 22:59 (1 year ago) Permalink

These are the dudes responsible for the trailer, they've done some good stuff over the last while
http://www.markwoollen.com/

Number None, Thursday, 30 July 2009 23:06 (1 year ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

Who knew Hobermann had gender reassignment and a name-change to Ella Taylor?

edward everett horton hears a who (suzy), Friday, 2 October 2009 09:13 (11 months ago) Permalink

a serious woman

Zeno, Saturday, 3 October 2009 17:18 (11 months ago) Permalink

the film is somewhere in between "great" (in parts) to mediocre/embarrassing (in other parts).

the last 30 minutes or so of the film (esp. the bar mitzvah scene) are truely great: only then did The Coen brothers took the film seriously and thoghtfully as they didnt for (most of) the rest of the movie, which is a not-so-much-inspiring take on judaism as philosophy and culture.
the comedy is vulgar on those parts because it was done while the directors didnt take their "job" seriously, and as a result - the characters,the story, the jokes are shallow, and some people would say even anti-semite (as they did).
at least they did made the effort to make the movie into something profound - a piece of art - at the last part,saving it from being their worst movie into being somewhere in the middle between their best and their worst to date.

still - some good sequences there too - the one where Gopnick is fixing the antenna on the roof is brilliant,for example.

Zeno, Sunday, 4 October 2009 22:22 (10 months ago) Permalink

frank grimes: the movie

i loved this

peter falk's panther burns (schlump), Saturday, 10 October 2009 01:12 (10 months ago) Permalink

peter falk's panther burns (schlump), Saturday, 10 October 2009 01:15 (10 months ago) Permalink

oops on me for attributing VV review.

Anyway, this is one of their best (like, top 4) and I'd declare it my favorite along with Raising Arizona if there wasn't some slippage into actual cruelty, as opposed to a study of gracelessness under pressure. All the roles are astoundingly well cast. And yeah, it's the most aerious American film about Judaism I can recall since Mazursky's Enemies. Key ambiguous line: "I didn't do anything."

Also, I know the guy who plays the shtetl husband in the prologue (he also did the Yiddish translation). We're in the same vintage film-comedy film buff circle.

Your Favorite Saturday Night Thing (Dr Morbius), Friday, 16 October 2009 19:03 (10 months ago) Permalink

^"misattributing"

"serious"

Your Favorite Saturday Night Thing (Dr Morbius), Friday, 16 October 2009 19:05 (10 months ago) Permalink

Morbs, I did not get to see ASM while home but you might wanna take a look at this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100804786.html

Yo! GOP Raps (suzy), Saturday, 17 October 2009 00:38 (10 months ago) Permalink

M. Grissom/DeShields (jaymc), Sunday, 18 October 2009 18:12 (10 months ago) Permalink

Dybbuk, Schmybbuk: I Said "More Ham"

M. Grissom/DeShields (jaymc), Sunday, 18 October 2009 18:18 (10 months ago) Permalink

Some of the weakest sequences here are, predictably, pot-related

Your Favorite Saturday Night Thing (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 18 October 2009 18:21 (10 months ago) Permalink

I loved this! I agree about the pot sequences though.

Simon H., Sunday, 18 October 2009 18:40 (10 months ago) Permalink

come on, "do you take advantage of the new freedoms?" is a brilliant scene

banned, on the run (s1ocki), Monday, 19 October 2009 03:03 (10 months ago) Permalink

this movie is amazing. and speaks to my n american jewish upbringing with alarming specificity.

banned, on the run (s1ocki), Monday, 19 October 2009 03:04 (10 months ago) Permalink

I just found out from my dad that Amy Landecker, who plays Mrs. Samsky, is my aunt Paula's stepdaughter and that, according to a Chicago Tribune interview, she modeled her performance after my aunt. o_O

M. Grissom/DeShields (jaymc), Monday, 19 October 2009 03:11 (10 months ago) Permalink

I loved loved loved this.

Movie's only weakness was that despite Sy Ableman's character being amusing as all get out I found it somewhat difficult to believe that Gopnik's wife would actually fall for someone that thoroughly unexciting (not to mention so completely unctuous.) But that minor stretch of credulity aside, it was pitch perfect.

Alex in SF, Monday, 19 October 2009 16:42 (10 months ago) Permalink

Ableman does come off as unctuous, but I can also see how his touchy-feeliness could represent an attractive alternative to Larry's essential conservativism.

M. Grissom/DeShields (jaymc), Monday, 19 October 2009 16:51 (10 months ago) Permalink

I couldn't quite see it, but it's a minor complaint cuz Ableman's character is so hilariously funny that I was able to overlook it.

Alex in SF, Monday, 19 October 2009 16:55 (10 months ago) Permalink

The bar mitzvah sequence definitely belongs on my list of favorite drug freak-out sequences ever.

Alex in SF, Monday, 19 October 2009 16:57 (10 months ago) Permalink

anyone know if / when this will get nationwide release? or will i have to wait until it comes to the arthouse cinemas here?

elmo leonard (elmo argonaut), Monday, 19 October 2009 16:58 (10 months ago) Permalink

stupid google chrome grumble grumble

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 07:30 (3 months ago) Permalink

[LINK REMOVED]

no1 is mentioning important thing: this film is hell of funny

Greatest contributor: (history mayne), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 08:22 (3 months ago) Permalink

kenan, i see

J0rdan S., Tuesday, 11 May 2010 08:23 (3 months ago) Permalink

oh hey i helpfully posted a link to a rapidshare rar of a fillipino documentary!

Greatest contributor: (history mayne), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 08:30 (3 months ago) Permalink

Salamat, HM. Much appreciated.

I always thought there was an inherent 'shit's about to get real' vibe with this film, purely because it seems to be set in May 1967.

sharia twain (suzy), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 08:34 (3 months ago) Permalink

Of course, what kind of asshole God would put you through misery just to test you.

Heh, some of us didn't even realise there was an optout on this until puberty iirc.

Black IP's (darraghmac), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 08:55 (3 months ago) Permalink

Readers of myths (ie. most of us before the age of 10) know that the average deity fucks with humans, for fun. And?

sharia twain (suzy), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 09:03 (3 months ago) Permalink

other deities don't count, they're all literary/imaginary iirc.

Black IP's (darraghmac), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 09:04 (3 months ago) Permalink

One of the beautiful things about growing up in this town, with no prevailing religious viewpoint to hinder us, was realizing that no culture is without its creation story, and all are equally speculative, particularly the 'world in six days' version.

sharia twain (suzy), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 09:08 (3 months ago) Permalink

"I read the book of Job last night -- I don't think God comes out well in it. " - Virginia Woolf

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 09:25 (3 months ago) Permalink

not a doc but a pretty good film that one

moullet, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 09:28 (3 months ago) Permalink

what kind of asshole God would put you through misery just to test you.

Ladies and gentlemen, theology in a nutshell.

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 09:29 (3 months ago) Permalink

Has anyone actually read the book of Job? I highly recommend it. Like anyone who has read it, I was baffled and confused and have had hours-long conversations about it.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Job-Chapter-1/

A quick abstract:

Job: "Why?"
God: "You ask too many questions."

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 09:35 (3 months ago) Permalink

Meanwhile God and Satan have a side bet going about whether the poor bastard will crack. It's like they're treating his soul as a financial derivative. They're BOTH assholes.

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 09:39 (3 months ago) Permalink

Satan an asshole? Revelations this is not

Black IP's (darraghmac), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 09:41 (3 months ago) Permalink

Satan's an asshole, but God is positively chummy with him here. "Say there, Satan. Check out this righteousness! This Job guy is solid, solid as a rock." Satan: "Care to make it interesting?"

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 09:47 (3 months ago) Permalink

Someone needs to write a Guys and Dolls with these protagonists tbh

Black IP's (darraghmac), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 09:48 (3 months ago) Permalink

Trying to make "Job" rhyme with "Paul Revere" -- not happening

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 09:50 (3 months ago) Permalink

You're being tested

Black IP's (darraghmac), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 09:56 (3 months ago) Permalink

Maybe something about boils? I dunno. What rhymes with "ash heap"?

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 10:27 (3 months ago) Permalink

in the scene at the Bar Mitzvah, participating in their tradition and religious is clearly very moving to both parents, and its really the father's sole moment of grace throughout the film. the mother is moved to apologize, he sheps nachus from his son, etc. which is why i think it's a great film to read against American Pastoral -- the Coens are making an argument about what it means to be an alienated Jew in America

yes. they make this case throughout the film, e.g., larry's strained relationship with his next-door neighbor.

Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 11 May 2010 10:41 (3 months ago) Permalink

OTOH Mr. Huntin' Fishin' and son were the only goyim in the film.

sharia twain (suzy), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 10:44 (3 months ago) Permalink

I'm still gonna say that all of this is about the frame, not the picture. You may as well gossip about Larry after Synagogue as question this movie's motives re: Jewishness.

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 10:54 (3 months ago) Permalink

If God doen't put you through some misery, free will don't mean shit

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 11:39 (3 months ago) Permalink

keep going, dudes, now i'll never see this fucking movie.

by another name (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:05 (3 months ago) Permalink

idk mane it's not like marienbad hasn't generated reams of not dissimilar commentary

Greatest contributor: (history mayne), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:09 (3 months ago) Permalink

It's a good movie, amateurist. It's funny, too. See it.

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:24 (3 months ago) Permalink

idk mane it's not like marienbad hasn't generated reams of not dissimilar commentary
― Greatest contributor: (history mayne), Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:09 AM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark

http://www.flashpointsocialmedia.com/Area51/Orion/Images/o_rly.jpg

by another name (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:27 (3 months ago) Permalink

by another name (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:27 (3 months ago) Permalink

No results found for "marienbad lolcat".

by another name (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:28 (3 months ago) Permalink

what are you talking? ya rly: ppl tried to interpret "marienbad", often getting into arcane areas of debate!

Greatest contributor: (history mayne), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:30 (3 months ago) Permalink

this film is funnier than "marienbad"

Greatest contributor: (history mayne), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:30 (3 months ago) Permalink

by another name (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:34 (3 months ago) Permalink

Your internet meme knowledge is looking out of touch there, brah. Just sayin'.

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:43 (3 months ago) Permalink

everyone be quiet or amateurist will never see this :(

sir gaga (s1ocki), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:50 (3 months ago) Permalink

Satan's an asshole, but God is positively chummy with him here. "Say there, Satan. Check out this righteousness! This Job guy is solid, solid as a rock." Satan: "Care to make it interesting?"

feel compelled to note that "the adversary" that appears in the Old Testament is almost entirely different in nature and character from that of Satan in the New Testament

the sound of a norwegian guy being wrong (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 15:51 (3 months ago) Permalink

transition from old testament to new proved a difficult time for both sides, to be fair.

Black IP's (darraghmac), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 15:57 (3 months ago) Permalink

The New Testament is more about being cool to each other. The Old Testament is more about reminding you whose house you live in. I mean, very generally speaking.

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 16:23 (3 months ago) Permalink

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 16:23 (3 months ago) Permalink

"You are one pussy hair away from eternal hellfire, my friend."

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 16:25 (3 months ago) Permalink

shakey otm; satan in job isn't a seducer or tormentor, he basically a prosecutor who challenges god that job's piety is just the result of his material comfort.

elmo leonard (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 16:56 (3 months ago) Permalink

devil's advocate iirc

sir gaga (s1ocki), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 16:58 (3 months ago) Permalink

when god finally arrives at the end of job, in the form of an enormous tornado, he doesn't explain or justify himself and at first job is kinda distrustful and grills him but then realizes who he's talking to and grovels. coen bros leaving the ending open as such is a bit disappointing, passing up the opportunity for some interesting commentary and instead just further affirming the job parallel, but is v much characteristic of their style.

samosa gibreel, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 17:09 (3 months ago) Permalink

wow never occurred to me before, but the tornado at the end of ASM is a really obvious reference isn't it

the sound of a norwegian guy being wrong (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 17:19 (3 months ago) Permalink

satan in job isn't a seducer or tormentor, he basically a prosecutor who challenges god that job's piety is just the result of his material comfort.

Even more specifically, though, he challenges God's ego. "This most pious of men only worships you because you protect him and give him such great wealth and comfort. " Which is a bit of a chicken-egg question already. Would God be so nice to him if he weren't so gosh darn worshipful? Anyway, God accepts what is basically a dare. Or a bet. The whole transaction is really schoolyard-level.

Which is only part of what makes God's three chapter long tirade, which is supposedly serving as some kind of answer to Job's simple question of "why?", completely baffling. God says, "You are so incredibly insignificant, you're less to me than a toenail clipping. You have no right to ask me any questions, ever."

I can hang with that explanation, tbh. That's kind of how I think of God, if you can call anything God. He's too big to be asked for explanations. His status of "beyond us" is kind of part of the whole God deal, and it's not just a matter of rank. We can't know what God really is, because we're simply not there.

If that's true, though, then why bother with Satan at all? To prove a point? To whom? Why ask for worship at all, if it obviously doesn't matter? God in the book of Job -- and arguably the entire Bible -- is both an arrogant creature with an ego that needs to be satisfied, and a transcendent force that is beyond comprehension altogether. "I will protect you from harm, as long as you acknowledge that I am EVERYTHING, even the things that bring you harm." Come again, Yahweh? You sound like an abusive husband.

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 17:27 (3 months ago) Permalink

The Old Testament was written by abusive husbands. There, that's my contribution to the field of theology for the day.

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 17:39 (3 months ago) Permalink

tornado = smoke monster

Not the real Village People, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 17:39 (3 months ago) Permalink

Job is a really, really freaking old text. There are parts of it in the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Like, I don't think we need to speculate about whether God exists or not to appreciate that humanity has always understood what it's like for our lives to be taken out of our hands, for bad things to happen to us, for punishment to seem swift and merciless. The people/person writing Job wasn't worried about reconciling how a good God could let such awful things befall his people. He was writing about how humble we are before the capricious and confusing world. I really dig that particular text, actually. (Satan in this era is presumably a monolatristic figure -- the text likely predates monotheism, and its point seems to be that God is the only important God and all others Gods are nuisances/powerless.)

Mordy, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 18:07 (3 months ago) Permalink

Your internet meme knowledge is looking out of touch there, brah. Just sayin'.

― Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:43 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark

http://istanbul.tc/mahir/mahir/

by another name (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 19:41 (3 months ago) Permalink

The people/person writing Job wasn't worried about reconciling how a good God could let such awful things befall his people. He was writing about how humble we are before the capricious and confusing world. I really dig that particular text, actually.

OTM. I didn't mean to imply that I don't like the book of Job. It may be my favorite book of the Bible, actually. Paul wrote some damn nice letters, but Job is bottomless. Those three chapters where God goes on and on (and on) about how awesome he is are a bit dickish if you assume a single sentient voice saying such things, but that's not what the writer(s) are getting at. If you read it as coming from the fictionally personified voice of the force that makes absolutely everything happen, they are fantastic and genuinely humbling verses.

Pazuzu's petals (kenan), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 20:53 (3 months ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.