Topic: A Serious Man [Coens] (Read 6562 times)

knives · « **on:** 12 Oct 2009, 09:17 »

This was great, easily their best thing since The Man Who Wasn't There. I have a few small quibbles, but they're mostly limited to 'not the same punch as Barton Fink'. Amazingly powerful ending though. Very funny too in a dry sort of way.

Bastardous Bassist · « **Reply #1 on:** 12 Oct 2009, 14:09 »

Man, I've heard this movie is essentially, "lol, Jews!" I was hoping it would be funny.

WriterofAllWrongs · « **Reply #2 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 11:26 »

This movie isn't coming within 100 miles of me.

fuck you alabama

knives · « **Reply #3 on:** 15 Oct 2009, 23:05 »

Quote from: Bastardous Bassist on 12 Oct 2009, 14:09

Man, I've heard this movie is essentially, "lol, Jews!" I was hoping it would be funny.

Not really, at least not any more than your average Seinfeld episode. It focuses more on the humour inherent in trying to be a respected member of society, in being a serious man.

Inlander · « **Reply #4 on:** 21 Nov 2009, 19:54 »

I saw this movie a couple of days ago. One of their best movies in ages, in my opinion. (I didn't like Burn After Reading and while I enjoyed No Country For Old Men I didn't get everything out of it that I felt I should have, given the hype.) If you have any interest in the Coen brothers you should definitely see this movie. A warning, the ending is very abrupt - but it's also perfectly in keeping with everything that's gone before it in the movie. The way the Coens manage to get constant laughs just out of the way they frame the action and position their actors is amazing, even when nothing's being said, is amazing, and the film's simultaneously surprisingly moving and constantly undercutting itself whenever it feels like it might be starting to stray into sentimentality (which isn't very often).

A constant refrain in the reviews I've read has been to mention the Book of Job, and that seems pretty accurate - the Coens have basically made a comedy inspired the Book of Job.

elizaknowswhatshesfor · « **Reply #5 on:** 27 Jan 2010, 16:43 »

I'm glad someone else picked up on that. I also thought the direction and soundtrack were, just, well, quite something else. To manage to have a "Stoned Teenager" scene still fit in & not veer into obviousness or trite Harold & Kumar type portrayals really impressed me.

I watched this in a month of watching so many other great films & it still stands up as one of my favourite films of last year.

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #6 on:** 27 Jan 2010, 17:05 »

goddamnit, I still need to see this. Thanks for reminding me.

Johnny C · « **Reply #7 on:** 16 Feb 2010, 23:43 »

What Harry said. Also - this is a very good-looking film. It looks nice on my TV.

Inlander · « **Reply #8 on:** 17 Feb 2010, 05:39 »

What a coincidence! I saw this again on Monday because my local cinema has brought it back for an "encore season" after the Oscars announcement.

I stand by everything I said before. I also forgot how fucking heart-breaking that scene between Richard Kind and Michael Stuhlbarg by the motel pool at night was.

How awesome would it be if this won Best Picture?

elizaknowswhatshesfor · « **Reply #9 on:** 17 Feb 2010, 06:59 »

I'm so glad other people are appreciate the beauty of this film, I've heard so many "It's not like the big Lebowski" remarks it makes me want to complete reassess the people I spend my time around!

Johnny C · « **Reply #10 on:** 17 Feb 2010, 07:49 »

It would be excellent if this won Best Picture - it's an unconventional period piece, it's a contemporary reworking of a Biblical tale, and it's extremely idiosyncratic.

sean · « **Reply #11 on:** 17 Feb 2010, 12:42 »

im looking at the best picture nominations for this year, this movie actually looks like it has a chance. theres a lot of unusual choices (would not of expected district 9 or inglorious basterds to be nominated. and why is avatar nominated what the hell). im gonna try to watch it this weekend to see how it is.

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #12 on:** 17 Feb 2010, 14:37 »

oh man, I'm so glad this thread popped up. I literally just watched this last night. It was pretty great.

It wasn't quite as "funny" as I was expecting it to be, but I still enjoyed it a great deal. It looks really cool sometimes, almost like CGI (particularly when he's smoking a joint with his hot and possibly blind[?] neighbor).

I was a little shocked when it ended. It made me think that maybe they came up with the most horrible, random, and depressing way to end a movie and then wrote the rest backwards from that point. I dunno.

Anyway, I thought it was awesome.

RallyMonkey · « **Reply #13 on:** 17 Feb 2010, 19:41 »

SWM, have you seen any other Coen comedies? The "abrupt, seemingly unfulfilling but after thinking it through all of those loose ends were tied up" ending is really common in their comedies, and quite a few of their serious films.

KvP · « **Reply #14 on:** 17 Feb 2010, 19:47 »

Quote from: sean on 17 Feb 2010, 12:42

im looking at the best picture nominations for this year, this movie actually looks like it has a chance. theres a lot of unusual choices (would not of expected district 9 or inglorious basterds to be nominated. and why is avatar nominated what the hell). im gonna try to watch it this weekend to see how it is.

Best Picture category's up to 10 choices now, not that it changes anything. Anyway, A Serious Man is an outside shot at best.

sean · « **Reply #15 on:** 17 Feb 2010, 21:06 »

what do you think would win though?

when i looked at the list i thought "oh huh, i would not of really of thought to nominate any of these films"

KvP · « **Reply #16 on:** 17 Feb 2010, 21:31 »

They could surprise us, but generally (and I think this has been gone over in another thread) there's a certain kind of politics that goes into the Oscars. If a movie is a lock for a certain category it will often be overlooked in other categories. It's a glorified trade show, more or less. Now that the Weinstein's don't have a lot of Oscar muscle anymore it tends to come down to what got all the critical praise, what was most popular, and what the Academy feels is most "relevant" (see: Crash) A Serious Man was pretty divisive. It got critical approval but not enthusiastic praise. It's a difficult movie to explain (damn near impossible to explain in a sentence, unlike, say, Avatar), it's straight-up deadpan comedy about a middle-aged Jewish guy in middle America, with no Names outside the director's chair. Whether or not it's any good is sort of beside the fact that no one has seen it and it is far and away the least sexy nominee.

Anyway, the dramatic narrative since the Golden Globes has been James Cameron vs. Kathryn Bigelow. Avatar stands to win because it was huge, but one should also consider that the whole reason they expanded the Best Picture list to 10 was because they felt their lack of consideration to big-tent pictures was turning people off. They might give it to Avatar because they didn't even put The Dark Knight in the running last year. Up in the Air could certainly make it, it was the odds-on favorite before the Golden Globes and it's an agreeable (if not all that great) movie.

Up is in the animation ghetto, I wouldn't expect it to win. Precious has a best supporting actress statue locked in, the director is being a dickhead in public (and he's not James Cameron), and like A Serious Man it is not sexy at all. An Education was very well-reviewed but nobody saw it, so it's The Reader of 2010. No love for genre pictures = no love for District 9, plus no stars in that film. Who knows what the fuck The Blind Side is doing there. Inglorious Basterds will probably net a Screenplay statue, plus that movie fucking sucked.

Inlander · « **Reply #17 on:** 17 Feb 2010, 21:42 »

From my long observation of the craven mediocracy that is the Academy Awards, I'd say Avatar is the safest bet for Best Picture. It overcomes its genre handicap (science fiction! The horror!) by being a Big Vision picture; although for that same reason it could very well get bumped for Best Picture but pick up Best Director. The Blind Side hasn't opened in Australia yet so I don't really know anything about it, but judging by the trailer it's apparently about a poor, stupid black kid being taken under the wing of an affluent middle-class white family, and that's just the kind of cringe-inducing self-congratulation that's tailor made for Academy voters (witness Crash winning Best Picture over Brokeback Mountain). Up could easily win Best Picture because, apart from being a genuinely good film (if not a great one), it was universally adored and it represents the irresistable (to an Academy voter) combination of safe bet (everyone loves it so no-one will criticise it winning) with a thin veneer of risk-taking (oh my god, an animation as Best Picture! Astonishing!). District 9 is merely making up the numbers to make it look like the Oscars are way hipper and edgier than they actually are; ditto Inglourious Basterds and Up in the Air; An Education is a token gesture to the English but will ultimately be seen as too English and too "small" to win Best Picture; likewise Precious, only substitute urban black people for the English. A Serious Man is only there for the edge, too, and because it's a relatively safe choice seeing as how the Coens won with No Country for Old Men; if they hadn't won that then A Serious Man wouldn't be anywhere to be seen at these Oscars. The Hurt Locker only just opened today in Australia so I haven't seen it, but it looks to be a "feel bad" film and they just don't win the Oscars.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #18 on:** 17 Feb 2010, 23:34 »

Quote from: Inlander on 17 Feb 2010, 21:42

Up in the Air could easily win Best Picture because, apart from being a genuinely good film (if not a great one), it was universally adored and it represents the irresistable (to an Academy voter) combination of safe bet (everyone loves it so no-one will criticise it winning) with a thin veneer of risk-taking (oh my god, an animation as Best Picture! Astonishing!).

I'm sure this is just the result of a typo but it's still bending my brain.

Also hey Up was fucking amazing and I've seen it like three/four times and have literally bawled my eyes out every time (no mean feat for a film to get me to do it at all, let alone on repeat viewings where I know what is coming). I'd honestly rate it as better than Wall-E if only because Wall-E really flags for me once they hit the spaceship when compared to the frankly revelatory first act whereas Up has it's not-as-interesting-points but then for only brief periods.

Also also dude paragraph breaks.

Inlander · « **Reply #19 on:** 17 Feb 2010, 23:56 »

Up for me really suffered from the same thing that so soured the end of Shrek: the almost casual way in which the main villain is killed. It's an uplifting story about love and friendship and adventure and about how if you're a bad guy then you've forfeited your right to life.

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #20 on:** 18 Feb 2010, 10:15 »

Up is the animated one, right? I saw it once and it was just about the saddest thing I've ever seen. Won't be watching it again. (not to say that it wasn't awesome, I'm just.....I'm just a wimp)

Up In The Air, however, was not really sad and was actually really good so.....yeah. I don't really follow academy awards (besides from you guys) so I don't really care that much.

Quote from: RallyMonkey on 17 Feb 2010, 19:41

SWM, have you seen any other Coen comedies? The "abrupt, seemingly unfulfilling but after thinking it through all of those loose ends were tied up" ending is really common in their comedies, and quite a few of their serious films.

Yes. I even own most of them. I didn't say it was bad, just that it was a little more abrupt and "wtf" than usual. I thought it was awesome, and it really did seem like they wrote it backwards, which sounds like fun in my head.

Buttfranklin · « **Reply #21 on:** 19 Feb 2010, 00:02 »

Great movie. About the only movie the Coens have made that I couldn't get into was The Hudsucker Proxy, but even that was a pretty decent movie.

Every once in a while it's good to see a movie where the emphasis is not on the plot, like this one. The entire movie is really about the emotional payoff at the end, and it definitely leaves a real impression. More so than any fancy workings of dialogue and plotting could work. The Coens understand that a good story doesn't necessarily need a plot, just characters people can identify with in situations people can empathize with and if you write it right then the emotions come naturally. I have to say I was positively glued to the screen (something I can't say about Hudsucker.) It was a little confusing for me at first because the movie kept throwing things that could turn into plot lines and drama but ended up not, even though it was still important to understanding what happens later. (Script writing 101: nothing unnecessary, at all, ever). Halfway through was when I realized, "it's not about the plot, it's about this guy's life right now, and the people in his life."

Quote

It would be excellent if this won Best Picture - it's an unconventional period piece, it's a contemporary reworking of a Biblical tale, and it's extremely idiosyncratic.

Putting it that way puts me to sleep. =/

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: A Serious Man [Coens] (Read 6562 times)