- Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly
"Defiantly Original!"
- Thelma Adams, US Weekly
These are the two critic blurbs on my new copy of Joel and Ethan Coens' "A Serious Man", one of the two or three best movies of last year, which I finally managed to sit down and watch again after seeing it in theaters several months ago.
I don't know. Maybe it's the exclamation points, almost certainly provided by the package distributor (As they always are - Critics don't use exclamation points), and suggesting some kind of superficial, giddy fanboy hyperbole that so thoroughly mis-characterizes the Coens' achievement. "Funny" and "Original"? Is that all there is to "A Serious Man"? Every comedy is "Funny". I know this because the critic blurbs told me so. Do critics think "A Serious Man" is merely "funny", or do the distributors only want us to think so? Why did critics regard as merely funny(!) a film I approach with quiet reverie? Are they not seeing everything there is to see, or am I seeing something that isn't there?
I've read a few reviews for the film, and the focus is generally on the comedy, though some of the wiser ones (noted below) are keen to bind it to the tragedy. Even those who've recognized its cosmic overtones are sure to mention that it's funny(!) before they mention that it's tragic, horrifying, or, dare I say, profound - the kind of claims that are better served with a subtler period. "A Serious Man" is a tragedy inflected with humor, not the other way around. Most critics, it seems, fell for the guise.
"What [Larry Gopnick] encounters, apart from haunting music and drab suburban sacred architecture, is silence, nonsense and — from that metaphysical zone beyond the screen, where the rest of us sit and watch — laughter." (A.O. Scott)
"Is it a comedy? A tragedy? It’s right on the border, a broad Jewish joke that morphs into a jeremiad, a tale of woe that keeps you wondering if the punch line, when it comes, will make you laugh or want to kill yourself, or both." (David Edelstein)
“'A Serious Man' is a tart, brilliantly acted fable of life’s little cosmic difficulties, a Coen brothers comedy with a darker philosophical outlook than “No Country for Old Men” but with a script rich in verbal wit". (Michael Phillips)
"But shouldering a weight of woes worthy of Job is Danny's father, Larry (Michael Stuhlbarg), and the trials he must suffer are relentless enough to -- in a buoyant, comical way -- call into question the meaning of life and the nature of God's intentions for his chosen ones." (Todd McCarthy)
These are all claims I, for the most part, agree with, though for me, the fact that "A Serious Man" is funny seems unimportant. Yes it is, but that only compliments the underlying seriousness. The critics above seem burdened to mention the humor, even to center on it. For them it appears a distraction, as though they were somehow surprised that the Brothers Coen had made a dark comedy.
Maybe I'm alone, but I did not find the ending to "A Serious Man" the least bit funny, nor do I feel that it was intended to be. I find it devastating, well served by the irony of the Coens' humor thats real meaning, up to that point, had eluded us, but that was now embodied by the revival of that damned Jefferson Airplane song, driving home the nature of the folly, twisting one last time the emotional knife. Strange how the answers elude us until it's too late for them to matter. The Jefferson Airplane lyrics, the advice of the Rabbis, the words of advice Larry provided his brother, in dream and in wakefulness, that would have been so beneficially self-applied. That all of these moments are initially played as dark comedy make them, for me anyway, decidedly sad in retrospect. Looking back, I wonder how I laughed, but watching it again, that's exactly what I did.
Note: Many of these sentiments are reflected in Jim Emerson's review, which is the most comprehensive and understanding of all the reviews I've read on the film.
I've read a few reviews for the film, and the focus is generally on the comedy, though some of the wiser ones (noted below) are keen to bind it to the tragedy. Even those who've recognized its cosmic overtones are sure to mention that it's funny(!) before they mention that it's tragic, horrifying, or, dare I say, profound - the kind of claims that are better served with a subtler period. "A Serious Man" is a tragedy inflected with humor, not the other way around. Most critics, it seems, fell for the guise.
"What [Larry Gopnick] encounters, apart from haunting music and drab suburban sacred architecture, is silence, nonsense and — from that metaphysical zone beyond the screen, where the rest of us sit and watch — laughter." (A.O. Scott)
"Is it a comedy? A tragedy? It’s right on the border, a broad Jewish joke that morphs into a jeremiad, a tale of woe that keeps you wondering if the punch line, when it comes, will make you laugh or want to kill yourself, or both." (David Edelstein)
“'A Serious Man' is a tart, brilliantly acted fable of life’s little cosmic difficulties, a Coen brothers comedy with a darker philosophical outlook than “No Country for Old Men” but with a script rich in verbal wit". (Michael Phillips)
"But shouldering a weight of woes worthy of Job is Danny's father, Larry (Michael Stuhlbarg), and the trials he must suffer are relentless enough to -- in a buoyant, comical way -- call into question the meaning of life and the nature of God's intentions for his chosen ones." (Todd McCarthy)
These are all claims I, for the most part, agree with, though for me, the fact that "A Serious Man" is funny seems unimportant. Yes it is, but that only compliments the underlying seriousness. The critics above seem burdened to mention the humor, even to center on it. For them it appears a distraction, as though they were somehow surprised that the Brothers Coen had made a dark comedy.
Maybe I'm alone, but I did not find the ending to "A Serious Man" the least bit funny, nor do I feel that it was intended to be. I find it devastating, well served by the irony of the Coens' humor thats real meaning, up to that point, had eluded us, but that was now embodied by the revival of that damned Jefferson Airplane song, driving home the nature of the folly, twisting one last time the emotional knife. Strange how the answers elude us until it's too late for them to matter. The Jefferson Airplane lyrics, the advice of the Rabbis, the words of advice Larry provided his brother, in dream and in wakefulness, that would have been so beneficially self-applied. That all of these moments are initially played as dark comedy make them, for me anyway, decidedly sad in retrospect. Looking back, I wonder how I laughed, but watching it again, that's exactly what I did.
Note: Many of these sentiments are reflected in Jim Emerson's review, which is the most comprehensive and understanding of all the reviews I've read on the film.
Unfortunately, the quick "critigasms" (as I like to call them) can only afford to try to tap into whatever basic emotion they think is most relevant, and most likely to get people to watch the movie. If you know it's "from the writer-directors of So-and-So or Such-and-Such," was that movie more funny, or more serious? Taking the most recent two Coen movies into consideration, is it more like No Country or more like Burn After Reading? I'd like to think it's more like No Country, because I liked No Country and did not like Burn After Reading, but it's probably closer in its spirit of absurdism to Burn After Reading, which is supposed to be "funny" as much as it's supposed to be anything.
ReplyDeleteI agree, though, it's an oversimplification of a complicated film that I would like to see again.