Guest Blogger Review by Leah GarrettDavid Denby of the New Yorker, in one of the few really negative reviews of the Coen Brothers' A Serious Man said it well: the great Yiddish writer Isaac Bashevis Singer “would have been disgusted” by the behavior of the main character, Lawrence Gopnik, the whining schmuck who acquiesces in all situations, never stands up for himself, is tricked, beaten, refuses the come ons from his next door neighbor (very un-Singer) and is the eternal victim. Gopnik is the caricature of the quietly suffering Jewish loser who becomes a human punching bag. Rather than imbuing Gopnik with the traits standard in Yiddish and Jewish American writing from Sholem Aleichem to the brothers Singer - ironic humor, sarcasm, the ability to laugh at oneself and others - Gopnik is a sad sack with no redeeming qualities. He doesn’t crack wise, he doesn’t speak truth to power, he doesn’t go down zinging. He just goes down.
...
In a way A Serious Man telegraphs its intent in the first segment of the film set in the shtetl. This scene is entirely in Yiddish and the English subtitles miss half of what is actually being said. Likewise A Serious Man spectacularly misses the whole point of Yiddish literature (and Yiddish cinema) which is that, yeah, life is going to get you in the end but the way to cheat Death is to make a gag about his scythe and viciously mock his choice of cloak.
...
The film is set in suburban Minnesota in the late 60’s when the Coen brothers were growing up there. True this isn’t New York or Chicago but Jewish Minneapolis isn’t that different from the North American hubs of Jewish culture; the Coens’ representation of Jewish American suburbia, however, is the polar opposite of Woody Allen's or Mel Brooks’ world where the machers who annoy the hell out of you get eviscerated by superior wit. The Coens' universe is a morose, dreary, and paranoid landscape, without intellectualism or wit. We know the Coens have read Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler but have they dipped into, say, Philip Roth? The textured, dark hilarity of Roth’s Jewish suburbs is nowhere to be seen in their oddly bland film.
...
In a way Gopnik is actually more akin to "The Wandering Jew" a Christian trope whose task it is to eternally suffer until redemption or death arrives to lift him from this vale of tears. Gopnik is very different from the standard schlemiels of Jewish culture, from Tevye the Dairyman to Larry David, who are afflicted by small and large hardships, but who survive and in fact thrive by mocking themselves and their predicament. Gopnik just sulks around, moaning tediously, reel after reel as his job implodes, his wife leaves him, his children rebel and his health declines. No wonder he, and the movie, have appealed so strongly to a broad range of primarily non Jewish critics: Gopnik is a perfect Wandering Jew or Job or Jesus figure who takes on all the sins of mankind, suffering without question and who, through this misery, supposedly purges and purifies others.
...
Reworking the Job story in a modern context has been done several times before but nowhere better than in I. L. Peretz’s 1894 iconic Yiddish masterpiece “Bontshe Shvayg” [Bontshe the Silent]. Bontshe is a shtetl version of Lawrence Gopnik who responds with silence to the torrents of abuse he faces thoughout his life. Of course, because this is a Yiddish story, it ends with Bontshe going to heaven and being mocked mercilessly for his passivity by a prosecuting angel who cracks wise at Bontshe’s expense. When Bontshe is asked what he would like in recompense for all his suffering he blows it yet again by humbly asking for a “bagel with some butter” which is met with by howls of laughter. Peretz’s hugely popular and important short story was clearly challenging the misuse of the Job trope in Jewish life and showing that there is nothing worthy to be found in passivity and that all it really does is make the sufferer into a pathetic schmuck. It is both troubling and tedious to see the Coen brothers turn the clock back to a hackneyed Jewish caricature that went out of date more than a century ago. IB Singer might indeed have been disgusted by this film but more likely he would have fallen asleep first.
46 comments:
Maybe I'm missing something here (I'm such a goy), but it seems this review criticizes the Coens for using a caricature when she'd prefer them to use a stereotype.
Nice one, Adrian.
When it comes to movies I'm always out of step and usually wrong. I never 'got' the Coen brothers, they always seemed like smug city-slickers making fun of people not as smart as they are.
And their fans who lectured me were often people who never read books but considered themselves intellectuals.
But I'm just bitter because I think John Sayles should be the great indie-American filmmaker and these Hollywood insiders pretending to be rebels get all the money to make whatever movies they want and Sayles has to re-write Hollywood crap to put together not-quite-enough money to make his movies.
And I think Sam Raimi was the real genius behind Raising Arizona.
I must say it's nice to finally hear the other adult voice of this household. It must be very lively around the dinner table.
I can't say whether I would have picked up on any of your points just going into this blind, but they seem apt. I just don't really understand why the Coens would be so tone deaf to their own cultural heritage. Which makes me wonder if its generational and if they are in some sense trying to flee all the older artists and writers you cited.
I'm not a huge Coen Brothers fan, anyway, though I did like Raising Arizona, but John may have explained that mystery.
Leah:
Thanks for the post.
Such a shame – I had high hopes for A Serious Man. The Coen brothers have had some stinkers (Intolerable Cruelty, Burn After Reading, but also winners (O Brother, The Big Lebowski, Fargo, and their crowning masterpiece Raising Arizona. I’m sure I’ll see A Serious Man anyway because I just can’t stay away from Coen brother movies, but I'm glad to read your review and get your insight before seeing it.
John:
I won’t lecture you about the Coens – they’re definitely not for everybody. I promise I do read lots and lots of books but I don’t consider myself an intellectual(far from it). However, I wasn’t aware that John Sayles was a part of Raising Arizona. How was he involved? (I'm also a big fan of John Sayles, by the way.)
Holden, it was Sam Raimi involved with Raising Arizona. He's credited as the 2nd unit director, I think, and when the movie came out there was a lot of talk of the camera moves he designed.
I have come to accept that I'm as wrong about the Coen's as I am about Scorsese. I think it's because I don't like their style. I like writing where the author is invisible and I like movies where the director is invisible and I find these guys draw an awful lot of attention to the filmmaking involved.
But clearly, as I completely missed this wasn't Adrian posting, the problem is I don't pay attention well enough.
Thanks, John.
Obviously, I'm the one who doesn't pay attention well enough, given my John Sayles/Sam Raimi mix-up. DOI!
Dana
I'm not one to speak for the missus (I've learned that lesson) but I think she's just leary of the Coens resurrecting a worn out trope that has long since been replaced by more nuanced characters in even comic Jewish literature and certainly in the broader arena.
John
I havent seen A Serious Man or Burn After Reading. (The only two Coen Brothers films I havent seen.) But I think their first six films hold up very well (well maybe not Hudsucker Proxy)
Seana
Well I cant really comment because I havent seen the film. I thought the trailer looked funny (the bit with the rabbi thinking) but Leah reckons anything that was remotely funny was in the trailer.
Holden
I'm with you, certainly on the early Coens.
Blood Simple, Millers Xing, Raising Arizona, Barton Fink, Fargo, TBL...
but then they lose me. I wasnt a fan of O Brother or Intolerable Cruelty or The Ladykillers or even No Country...
Adrian,
Not speaking for the missus is an excellent policy. I just wish it hadn't taken me three tries to learn it.
I see your point. I grew up in a white bread Catholic/Protestant community, some some of that predated me.
And I liked BURN AFTER READING.
Dana
I just jumped over to Rotten Tomatoes. First of all 14% for Valentine's Day? Wow what a stinker. Love Actually lite (and I hated Love Actually). But secondly 77% for Burn After Reading so some people did like it. Although I think the Coens later films have been generally overpraised.
Burn After Reading wasn’t horrible but it was a letdown for me after all the hype and not in the same class as The Big Lebowski, Barton Fink, Miller’s Crossing, and some of the other Coen brother movies -- IMHO.
Really enjoyed your wife's review, Adrian.
Everyone loved Fargo, at least in these parts, but I think I am just not on the Coens wavelength. I don't usually find them funny,except for Raising Arizona, which is a problem.
John Sayles, on the other hand, well, I don't think I've seen a bad John Sayles movie yet. Some are admittedly a little tighter than others, but even in their meandering, they are always interesting. Usually depressing, but always interesting.
Thank you Leah and you too John. I've always though the Coen brothers were very smug and thought they were cooler than everybody else. As for the Jewish community here in the Twin cities it is strong and vibrant and Jewish as anywhere else. The Jewish guy that was the best man at my Episcopal wedding can say "yaaaaaa, you betcha eehhhh" as good as any Lutheran around doncha knoouu.
Speaking of Jewish characters, I recently read a good crime novel where one of the characters is an NYPD Chief of Detectives based on that real Chief of D's, Albert Seedman.
I think the Coens have, like Tarentino and Scorsese, reached that teflon plateau where they're pretty much immune to serious criticism. What started with serious critical acclaim gradually led to mainstream success. I feel like I've fallen out of step with these guys I loved so much when I was younger. I just saw Shutter Island and took a lot of crap from my pals when I said it just goes to prove Scorsese's still trying to reach for something that ain't there any more.
But man, they did some wonderful films. Maybe Michael Mann was right when he said directors are like heavyweight fighters - they only have X number of great fights in them before they punch themselves out.
Speaking of John Sayles, there's a pretty good blog covering the production of his next film,
http://johnsaylesbaryo.blogspot.com/
BTW, Leah, great read. Shove Adrian away from the keyboard more often!
Of course now I do have to amend my last comment and say that the Coen Brothers do at least try to tackle interesting subject matter that is not exactly Hollywood's first interest. I don't think Minnesota had been explored much in a major movie type of way before Fargo. And of course it certainly put Fargo on the map, though without really enlightening us substantially about it.
Seana, I think you mean North Dakota, not Minnesota?
Thanks Matt, that blog is very cool.
Also the interviews in the local newspaper with John Sayls and Chris Cooper (nice to see him still working with Sayles).
The interview with Sayles is a lot about how local crews and actors are involved in the production. If it's anythng like his other films it will probably take us pretty far ino te local culture. That was kind of a problem for me with Fargo which just didn't feel real at all, didn't feel like it had any depth.
Of course, it isn't good to read Sayles say he's written a new novel and can't find a publisher. His Cuban novel, Los Gusanos is terrific and Union Dues is good, too.
The movies are a funny business.
They did manage to get a good performance out of Nicolas Cage in RA which is more than anyone else has been able to do.
Holden, no, I meant that both Minnesota and Fargo, North Dakota had had their brief day in the sun.
It would be funny if Anonymouse in the last comment turned out to be Nicholas Cage.
If John Sayles can't even get another novel published, then the industry is in a sorrier state than even I thought. Sorry, guys.
Oops. I meant Anonymous, not Anonymouse. No slur intended.
Holden
I'll pass it on to my better half.
I was going to rent Burn After Reading on iTunes but its only available as a Buy and I dont want to do that.
John H
Yeah they paint it as a cultural desert. A cultural desert that somehow spawned them and Bob Dylan.
Seana
I didnt love Fargo as much as everyone else. The scene with the Asian American guy doesnt really work for me and I never understood why Gerry wouldnt just take the finders fee for the whole lots deal. Why did he want the cash SO badly?
Matt
What is it with Scorsese and Leonardo di Caprio? He has now made 4 very mediocre films with him. (Ok I havent seen Shutter Island but I can imagine). He's the anti muse. The anti De Niro who generates the opposite of chemistry.
John
Thats a terrifying prospect. John freakin Sayles has found a novel and he cant find a publisher?
Do you think he would be interested in joining an anarcho-syndicalist commune?
Anonymous
Ha! Yesterday I might have agreed with you but last night I just watched Bad Lieutenant and he was great in that.
(thanks Joe for sending me BL!)
Shutter Island was actually a fun book, but it is kind of a campy, over the top tribute to an old genre idea, and I'll be surprised if the movie retains that tone.
Oh--Wikipedia has it that the finder's fee would not have been enough to get Gerry out of debt. Personally, I don't remember the details well enough to know if that's the case.
For me, I think Coen Brothers, I think Barton Fink: Judy Davis explaining how to write a wrestling movie to John Turturro, or John Goodman charging down a burning hotel hallway with a shotgun, screaming, "I'll show you the life of the mind." Yeah, I can see them as elitist scum if I put on my Palin pumps, but didn't she also admit to at least knowing that the word "satire" exists? (Gor only knows what she thinks it means.) The point: I see the Coens as satirists, patricians of pastiche, but savvy at it, the way Steely Dan was.
And Babel kicks Singer's ass.
David Corbett
David
How you can you not like Barton Fink? John Goodman's pus filled ear alone is worth the price of admission and throw in Tony Shaloub's neurotic director...
I think the first half dozen Coen Brothers films are an amazing legacy.
BTW we moved to Australia so lunch is going to have to wait.
When Barton Fink came out I enjoyed it. I was an English major at the time and I liked how the whole movie was actually a story that took place in his head, how he never left New York at all and all the ways that was said.
After a while it became a little too precious, though, a little too much like someone had written the term paper first and then the script.
And yes, Adrian, I would imagine if there was an anarcho-syndicalist publisher that's the kind of place Sayles would take his novel.
But maybe it's in Spanish. He said doing the research for Los Gusanos was time consuming but went a lot faster after he learned Spanish.
an email question for me. favourite coen brothers. I think I've done this before but oh well...
1. Raising Arizona
2. TBL
3. Millers Xing
4. Barton Fink
5. Blood Simple
6. Fargo
7. No Country
havent seen or didnt like the rest
I'm on record as saying that O, Brother ... may be the most overrated movies of my time.
P.S. In "Tevye the Dairyman to Larry David, who are inflicted by small and large hardships ... "
I think the reviewer meant "afflicted by ..."
Peter
I will change it and take full responsibility for the copy editing or lack thereof. Which reminds me do Canadians say honored or honoured, colors, colours etc. ? Australia has a confusing mix of British and N American spellings.
Canadians traditionally use the British spellings. I'm not sure what they do these days. Ask McFetridge.
================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com/
I grew up in Virginia, USA we had a lot of Us sneaking in behind the Os. Neither was marked wrong but it has caused me some ridicule now that I live in Minnesota.
Interesting the ou's occurred in Virginia especially if their occurrence is especially pronounced in the Tidewater area, since that was among the earliest areas of English settlement. I wonder if the same occurred in the old Massachusetts Bay Colony.
================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com/
Peter, John
My spell check always tells me that THEATRE is wrong but I see it spelled that everywhere in the US. Theater is definitely NOT standard.
And that Fleetwood Mac album that is called Rumors in the US and Rumours in the UK I have seen spelled both ways in Rolling Stone sometimes in the same article.
Not standard where you come from, mate-- er, bub.
================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com/
Your blog is really excellent. It inspires the readers...
Leah -
Great review. I haven't seen the film yet, but oddly enough, your scathing indictment of it actually makes me want to check it out. I guess in a sort of "look at the terrible accident on the side of the road" way.
I'm willing to forgive the Coens for Ladykillers and some of their lesser fare because I'm convinced Miller's Crossing is one of the greatest movies of all time.
Brian
I agree except for two things: I've never understood why he kills bernie at the end. yes it makes sense from a filmmaker's perspective but not in terms of the story.
Also Mink's body in the woods dressed like Bernie was way too convenient.
A guy named Adrian McKinty is telling the Coens what's what about Jews? All right. Yes, Larry's a schmuck, but he exists in a schmuckified era. Exhibit A, Rabbi #2. And Gopnick exists in Singer's fictions, he just doesn't star.
Amy
No a Professor of Yiddish literature called Leah is telling the Coens whats what. The clue was right there in the title of the blog post.
Post a Comment