Laughing with the Devil: a review of “A Serious Man”
Humor is a funny thing. A comedian tells two jokes; he invests each with all his skill, experience, and timing. One gets a laugh, the other falls flat. Why?
Joel and Ethan Coen have been telling us jokes cinematically for years, and I’ve laughed at them all from "Fargo" to "O Brother, Where art Thou?" But their latest attempt—"A Serious Man"—fell flat with me, and I’ve been wondering why. It’s a typical Coen brothers film with great camera work, crisp editing, and extraordinary casting. All the elements of good humor are there, so why am I not laughing?
In "A Serious Man" we meet Larry Gopnik, physics professor at a small college in the mid-west in 1967. (With a nod towards Garrison Keillor the Coens once referred to their film as “Jews on the Prairie”.) Everyone wants something from Larry that he/she has no right to. A student wants a passing grade in physics, which he is willing to pay good money for. His daughter wants a nose job. His son wants pot and rock and roll. One neighbor has laid claim to some of his yard; another wants him to join her for sex and pot. The tenure committee at his college passive-aggressively passes on ominous rumor after rumor about his standing, all the while assuring him that all is well. Worst of all, his wife wants a new man, not a younger, handsomer man, but Sy Ableman, a sort of old, fat Jewish Dr. Phil, who ironically is the only person in the film referred to as “a serious man.”
"A Serious Man" is loosely based on the book of Job, but instead of three friends, Larry seeks advice from three rabbis: Rabbi Scott offers him a monologue about seeing God in a parking lot; Rabbi Nachtner, a story about a dentist who finds the words “Help me” engraved in Hebrew on the back of a patient’s lower incisors. Rabbi Marshak quotes Jefferson Airplane’s Grace Slick: “When the truth is found to be lies, and all the joy within you dies.”
But Larry doesn’t want somebody to love; he wants somebody to explain to him what “Hashem” – God — is trying to tell him in this. And here’s the joke: you see, as a physics prof, Larry knows that on a quantum level the world doesn’t make sense.
“The Uncertainty Principle. It proves we can’t ever really know… what’s going on, so it shouldn’t bother you not being able to figure anything out. Although you will be responsible for this on the mid-term.”
So why insist religiously, philosophically, that it should?
That’s the Coens’ joke, and well-told as it is, I still find it hard to laugh with them, and I think I know why.
A century ago, the bane of G.K. Chesterton’s existence were slipshod typesetters who inadvertently turned the word “cosmic” in his essays into “comic.” Eventually he came to see the humor in the error:
“Whatever is cosmic is comic…Unless a thing is dignified, it cannot be undignified. Why is it funny that a man should sit down suddenly in the street? There is only one possible or intelligent reason: that man is the image of God. It is not funny that anything else should fall down; only that a man should fall down. No one sees anything funny in a tree falling down. No one sees a delicate absurdity in a stone falling down. No man stops in the road and roars with laughter at the sight of the snow coming down. The fall of thunderbolts is treated with some gravity. The fall of roofs and high buildings is taken seriously. It is only when a man tumbles down that we laugh. Why do we laugh? Because it is a grave religious matter: it is the Fall of Man. Only man can be absurd: for only man can be dignified.”
Larry Gopnik is the most existentially feckless character since Hamlet. He gives in where he should stand up, smiles where he should scream. Stripped of any shred of dignity, he just isn’t very funny. Feel free to laugh at him, if you wish, but remember if you do, the joke is on you.
Very thoughtful insights, Greg. But your thesis seems to work from the notion that the Coens intended this film to be an outright comedy — or that it only works as a film if it’s found to be funny. I do not agree. While I laughed a handful of times, for the most part, I sat silently, contemplating (with occasional awe) the film’s meditation on life and religion. With an odd mix of subtlety and excess, the story conveys the pathos, fear and confusion that is life without God.
And, just like life, amidst the tragedy, there is beauty. The complex (yet simple) story (again, those crazy contradictory Coens), the unanswered questions, the frustration, fear, and hopelessness Larry encounters are presented through gorgeous compositions of light and color. This artistry is certainly aided by the work of cinematographer Roger Deakins – who also shot many other (Coen and non-Coen) classics. Each frame of the film is carefully composed, striking in its construction.
The Coens seem to be working from a definitive stance that religion and God lead to nothing but confusion and fear. Their God, if they have one, is the cinema. And more often than not, their films speak to lovers of film more than lovers of life. But there’s something about that love of film that also embraces the human experience with a striking honesty.
All that to say, “A Serious Man” left me with a lot of chew on and was (I believe) one of the best films released this past year.
Merry Christmas,
Toddy
So someone out there really is reading this stuff! How wonderful! And what a delight to hear from you, Toddy. I see you’ve survived the first semester as Professor Burton after all.
Yes, I have been laboring under the impression that the Coens meant for us to laugh at their film, but my opinion is hardly unique in this regard. I can’t think of a single review that I’ve read that doesn’t classify the film as a “black comedy” or something like it. If it’s not meant to be funny, then it certainly deserves a different assessment than I’ve given it. Still I think it’ll take some doing to convince me that this is meant to be a non-comic statement about the absurdity of life apart from God.Indeed, I think that, given the chaos and suffering in the world, what the Coens consider to be absurd is the very idea that God exists. It’s classic problem-of-evil reasoning, very similar to the kind of statement Woody Allen has been making for so long.
Nonetheless, I by no means meant to dismiss the film as a film. Quite the contrary, the Coens have made yet another work of art that I intend to show and discuss with students as soon as its available on DVD. It stands out as one of the very few discussion-worthy films of 2009. (A very short list, unfortunately.) But is it worth a laugh?
I don’t think so. Indeed, the idea that we can laugh away the absurdity of existence is a fairly dangerous idea. When it leads to passivity in the face of questions or troubles, it becomes downright destructive of life, truth, and faith. Laugh if you will, but remember: if the Coens are right, the joke is on you.
Merry Christmas to you, too, dear friend.
Greg
I tried to put a comment on earlier but it didn’t take.
I just got to see the film for the first time tonight and from what little that I know about the Coen Brothers, their view of God seems to be that they think it is either absurd that He exists or that if He does exist, He just enjoys messing with us which I think is where their comic takes on their films come from.
I do think that this is a comedy to the Coens b/c of their world and God view but what I’ve always enjoyed about their films is that they make me delve deeper into my thoughts and reactions to their films. I did find myself laughing at points in the film and about instantaneously finding myself stopping and asking myself why I was reacting the way I did.
I appreciate the Coen Brothers’ films in that they do make you think a little deeper and are very thought and discussion provoking and I appreciate your thoughts on this film thus far. It would be interesting to hear more about your thoughts on this film.
Oliver