User reviews

From the shtetl to the suburbs, the forces that run our lives are a mystery to us. We think we understand some of these laws, and try to live our lives according to them, but we are just barking up the wrong tree. Because sometime at some point, as the "serious man "finds out, life is going to kick our ass. Religions don't understand anything anymore than our hero of the film does. We are all just guessing. That's what this movie is about. It's pretty brilliant, acerbic, and downright cynical. A dybbuk could appear at your door anyday of the week, or a car crash could end you, or you could get diagnosed with cancer, or a tornado could come and sweep you away. There are laws that determine these things, but they are beyond our comprehension. And the things we choose to worry about are inconsequential. Life is capricious and will end you when it feels like it. Don't even try to figure out and religions don't understand it anymore than anyone else.

I can see why many people would dismiss this. Like the reviewer who watched "52 minutes" and turned it off because none of the characters were likable so it would be a waste of time to continue.

Those who expect life to be a series of plausible outcomes, logically following some kind of cause and effect order are always disappointed by honest works of art, not to mention life itself. One of the very themes of this film are those kinds of people and their need to cling to some sort of tradition, structure, and belief in order to deny their fear.

Another theme was perspective and perception. That what may seem mundane and meaningless may be filled with the most profound meaning and that which we place so much value in may be worth absolutely nothing.

"Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you."

If you can enjoy a movie that leaves you with questions as much as one that attempts to provide answers then I highly recommend a viewing.

Let me say up front that most fans of the Coen brothers' early films might be disappointed if they're expecting "Fargo", "The Big Lebowski" or even "O Brother". Unlike those movies, here we don't have a lot of plot, comedy or action. The message of the film is very challenging, and it requires a lot of thought to figure out what they're saying.

I'd say this movie is for fans of the recent American films "Synecdoche NY", "Doubt", and the recent Japanese films "Departures", "Yureru" and of course the classics by Kurosawa like "Rashomon". What I'm saying is that this is a film that tackles philosophical questions of perception, faith, and in particular, uncertainty.

If you've had some physics, you're in for a real treat because much of the theme centers around Schrödinger's "Uncertainty Principle", briefly touched upon in the Coens' excellent 2001 film "The Man Who Wasn't There". Here they give us a more powerful dose. If you've never heard of this principle, don't worry, you can look it up on Wikipedia or you can accept my synopsis of it, which I'll warn you might be flawed because I ain't no physicist:

The Uncertainty Principle (or "Schrödinger's Cat") proves mathematically that certain events are unknowable. It proposes the idea of a cat that might be alive or dead, but we cannot know without looking inside the cage. At the same time, the minute we look inside the cage, the cat will be killed by a toxic gas. The bottom line: we can't know the answer. Ever.

From there, the movie explores how different people react when confronted with the unknown. Some form prejudices. Some fall back on faith. Some become faithLESS. And some just don't care.

This is a beautifully crafted film that shows us the nature of human beings in that respect. No, there's not really a story. But it does even better than that: it challenges our minds to see elements of our own lives within the life of this ordinary schmuck. I am truly amazed at the Coens' accomplishment, and I hope they continue in this direction in the future, though I'm sure it may hurt their mainstream appeal.

If you see this film & like it, I think you'll really enjoy the other films I've listed as well as the Hungarian masterpiece "Werckmeister Harmonies", anything by Wim Wenders ("The End of Violence" touches on the same Uncertainty Principle) and Orson Welles' "The Trial".

My wife and I saw the film last Friday. We talked about it for an hour over dinner and again in the evening. The more we discussed it the better we liked it.

It helps to be familiar with the paradox of Schrodinger's cat, a staple of quantum physics, which can be found on Wikipedia, before you go see this film. You might also want to understand the quantum concept of duality.

The entire movie examines Gopnick and his world==and to a lesser extent that of his teenage son--in light of these aspects of quantum mechanics. I could not find a single scene that did not address uncertainty and/or duality. The attempt to discern traditional religious meaning in this world is humorous in itself. The opening presents the paradox and is crucial to the rest of the film.

Unlike the local review for the film which described this as a "typical Coen Brothers film" and "weird" and "no closure at the end", I found this film to be quite literal and true to the principles of uncertainty and duality. The two major characters both find closure, and in retrospect, there is clearly a beginning, middle and end to the story the brothers wanted to tell.

But the movie continues after the closure, just as life continues on a daily basis, setting up another expectation of continual uncertainty.

Not being Jewish, I no doubt missed some of the double entendre and humor in the tradition. I would have liked to understand the Hebrew passage of the bar mitzvah ceremony, for example, and how it relates to the core theme of the film. But the movie is universal in its appeal, if you understand the basic concept of quantum mechanics upon which the film is based.

I rate this as one of their best films due to its intellectual foundation. Much more important to me than No Country.

It's 1967 Bloomington, Minnesota. Larry Gopnik is a meek physics professor. His kids are annoying brats. His brother Arthur (Richard Kind) is an unwelcome house guest. His wife Judith wants a divorce. His student is constantly pestering him.

The Coen brothers are skilled filmmakers. But not everything they do is always to my taste. And this movie doesn't speak to me. I'm not Jewish. I don't understand this character. I wonder if we're suppose to laugh at the guy. I'm certain not going to laugh with him. His patheticness is incredibly tiring. It's a dark comedy with few laughs. Mostly it left me scratching my head. I found watching this a rather frustrating experience as he is assailed on all sides. Everybody has a sad sheen of annoyed anger. It is beautifully shot, and expertly filmed. I just don't get this guy.

Only the Coen bros. could think of something as marvelous as taking the opening lyrics of "Somebody to Love" by Jefferson Airplane and turning them into a Jewish proverb. Somehow, after an hour and a half of pure mishegas from the perspective of a real schlemiel, those lyrics sounded just right coming from Rabbi Marshak. A Serious Man was most notably a surprise dark horse nomination for Best Picture in 2009. In most award-seasons, A Serious Man is the kind of film that you'd wish was nominated in every category.

It's a humble project for the Coens, but don't ever underestimate what they can do. A Serious Man is a serious picture that makes you laugh and squirm at the misfortune of Larry Gopnik. An average mid-western Jewish man searching for reason in a time where there is none. Tested is he to make peace with HaShem when all around him is moral decay and temptation. The Coens strength is in their characters, which in this film are as rich as they've ever been. I was fascinated by Arthur Gopnik, a borderline autistic man who discovers a map of the universe while tending to his sebaceous cyst. Perhaps my favorite character was Sy Ableman, a self proclaimed "serious man" from the community who Larry's wife is cheating on him with. His purposely affected anglo-saxon accent nearly killed me. It's the littlest eccentricities of people that the Coens always explore and exploit and it's eternally delightful.

There are two ways to watch this movie: One, taken at face value as a slice of life movie presented in the typically painful dark comic stylings of the Cohen Brothers. In which case, the writing, acting, story line (and lack of deus ex machina there in) about a put upon drudge in 1960's suburban Minnesota will not disappoint. Trust me. Go on. Enjoy. Or, 'B', informed by the many breakdowns and analysis provided by the internets in which case you may find yourself going "Oy Vey!". The first way, at face value, is how I like to watch movies. It is, in my humble opinion, art in it's purest form. I like a good denouement phase as will as the next guy but when you have to have someone else explain it in order to appreciate it, it morphs into something else. Having said that, I was intrigued enough by what I watched the first time to watch it again informed by the cheat sheets on quantum physics, the uncertainty principle, Werber Hiesenberg, and the super-posiition. This latter perspective did provide some resolution and undoubtedly enough impressive fodder for my next cocktail party but it also left me in the "super-position" of unfixed propability and unable therefore to identify the movie as being 'good' or 'bad'. Ha! See what I did there?

This was one of the movies I watched that really opened my eyes to what film could be... not only does this film tell a hilarious story, it simultaneously conveys some of my own fears and doubts about the chaos and uncertainty of the universe around us in a way that is totally palatable. I saw this movie three times in theaters (it was free due to my employment at the theater, but still, that's a lot of time to spend with Larry Gopnik), and every time I was amazed by the new details I picked up... I also came to thoroughly enjoy watching the audience's reactions as the film came to a close, when, almost invariably, someone in the crowd would mutter disappointedly, "That was it?" while I sat there grinning ear to ear.

As much as I love the Coen Brothers, they do have movies that end up being a miss. Here is a movie that is heavily influenced by the Jewish culture, to the point that I know that the scene was intended to be funny, but I end up being confused and just didn't get it. This film felt like I was sitting in a bar talking to someone who is full of energy and charismatic, but only told in-jokes.

The most entertainment that I got was watching Larry, played by Michael Stulbarg, go through a lot of mishaps and unfortunate events. I wondered what will happen to him and if things will work out for him in the end. At the same time though, I do have to admit that the overall plot is rather weak. There is literally something that happens at the beginning of the movie that has no meaning whatsoever. It was interesting to watch, but none of what was shown connected to the whole film. You have a very simple story, but how it was paced and how it went from one scene to another worked at times, but didn't with others.

I know the theme revolving around this story, but the pacing was slow at times and there were moments where nothing happened, in which I couldn't help but find myself a little bored. The main character lacks any backbone to stand up, so when you see him get pushed around, it might annoy some people. However, I did like how it ended as it's an ending that only the Coen Brothers can think of.

The main standout of the film was Michael Stulbarg as he provided the humor with great reactions and as some may find him annoying, he is able to make the character sympathetic enough to the point that you wish that the guy would catch a break. I did like the rest of the cast and thought they were just fine. They all did what was necessary and were able to provide the humor without any trouble. No matter if the film is bad, you can always expect the Coen Brothers to give a top quality looking film and this did exactly that. The cinematography is great, along with the way the scene was shot. It is a given and they put a lot of working constructing the shot. With that said, I cannot recommend people to watch this film immediately, unless you are a fan of the Coens.

The Coen brothers have developed critical acclaim for making black comedies/awkward tragedies that depict small-time people getting in way over their heads, who for one reason or another are motivated to do things out of the ordinary because the natural order of the world and society has wronged them in some way.

"A Serious Man," however, is about a man who doesn't do anything, to whom bad/annoying things happen. This story of a confused suburban Jewish man in the '60s wrestling with life's meaning is therefore an important step in the evolution of the Coens' theme-driven film-making. Borrowing on an autobiographical context (Minnesota, Judaism, etc.) for the brothers, it moves on to greater cosmic questions but with the same quirky and ironic spirit that have garnered the Coens all their deserved attention over the last 20 years.

Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) is that one Coen brothers character in every movie -- you know, the innocent one who manages to suffer a seemingly unfair fate (think Steve Buscemi in "The Big Lebowski" or most recently Richard Jenkins' character in "Burn After Reading") -- only he gets to pilot this film. In that spirit, an unknown Stuhlbarg is cast in the lead (although he was clearly up for the challenge). Larry is a mild-mannered math professor with a family in an ideal suburban home only his wife wants a divorce and his kids are nightmarish. Little by little the annoyances of his life pile up from the foreign student trying to bribe him for a passing grade while simultaneously suing him for defamation to his socially immature brother (Richard Kind) who won't leave his house.

Larry seeks answers from the rabbis in his community to understand the mess his life has suddenly become. One rabbi tells him he needs a change of perspective, another tells him the story of "The Goy's Teeth," a hilarious bit about a dentist who tries desperately to make meaning of a Hebrew message engraved in a patient's teeth only to find he was better off not worrying about it. None of their advice seems to help at the time -- but it's dead on. The Goy's Teeth scene in particular is one of the brilliant moments where the Coen brothers let you know pretty clearly what their intentions are with the film while giving you something to laugh about. That's their strength and it's all over "Serious Man."

Much like "Burn After Reading," this film is one that makes a thematic point out of the audience's attempt to squeeze meaning out of everything. By turning Larry into a Job-like figure to whom inexplicable misfortune happens, we're forced to put everything into perspective. When Kind's character, Arthur, has a tantrum in the middle of the night wondering why God has given him nothing and he points out that Larry has kids and a job, suddenly our perspective changes. Suddenly everything we thought mattered in this film and was of critical importance is really not such a big deal. Our desperate search for answers in both our lives and in this film, our tendency to over-analyze and derive reason from everything comes to a halt; the Coen bros. have worked their magic again.

"Serious Man" is one of their best in recent memory because it not only feels rooted and personal for them, but it moves toward a greater discussion of previously treaded upon themes and plots from their previous work. It is a challenging film and those who have struggled with the Coen brothers before will struggle again, but for the cerebral and intellectual moviegoer it's outstanding.

The truth is, we don't have all the answers to make sense of life's events (or a story's plot points) and neither do the Coen brothers. One insignificant character in the film who appears to have an answer to just one of Larry's myriad of minor problems dies instantly with hysterical irony. Don't go into "A Serious Man" looking for answers, go into it looking for a change of perspective. ~Steven C Visit my site at http://moviemusereviews.blogspot.com

A Serious Man, by the Coen Brothers, tells the story of a physics lecturer (Michael Stuhlbarg), Larry Goepnik, as each part of his life crumbles around him; making him question everything he once had faith in.

Once again Joel and Ethan delve into ancient texts to tell a modern parable about the disconnect between religion and science using the Book of Job as their mirror tale. Each tragedy shows us how Larry is torn between his profession and his heritage. Stuhlbarg's interpretation of this character is the strongest part of this film; little nuances of touching himself and, a definite sense of discomfort throughout made me empathise with Larry in every scene. Even the facial movements of Larry illustrates the strain being placed upon this man.

The dialogue in the film could be poetic at times, but there was a constant drive towards narrative, and it left me feeling removed from connecting with anyone but Larry. The scene where Larry is being told by his wife's lover that he has to move out felt comic but cold, and the majority of other scenes kept this tone. And since the plot was a bit episodic, this made the tragedies feel unreal and repetitive.

The Coen's direction also felt tired compared to their other films. Typical Coen brother tracking shots, their usual portrait shots, action shots contained to one characters reaction; nothing new. The care and inventiveness that I would usually expect wasn't there. I suppose it being the fourth film from the two in a three year period, they just didn't seem wholly engaged in it. One particular scene where they are tracking a shot down a hall to a crying woman as her crying gets louder, it didn't add any further character development and wasn't interesting but felt like a "Coen" shot.

Thematically the film was alright, and there are some interesting things that could be analysed, but it was was underwhelming and at times a bit vague in what they were actually trying to say. The ending of the film was indicative of this; 2 interwoven scenes concluding two plots, adding more tragedies to Larry's life but giving nothing to the audience except these tragedies and a feeling of resignation. Being this direct in the treatment of your subject can be dull, and I was left unsatisfied.

The phrase "dark comedy," which turns up in most descriptions of this movie, is an interesting one. It is technically accurate - the movie is deeply pessimistic and told in an exaggerated way through situations and characters that are exaggerated to the point of caricature. So you have to call it a black comedy, even though it's not actually funny.

Instead of being funny, the movie is mainly just depressing. The main character is a Jewish milquetoast who is battered by life on all sides and seems incapable of fighting back, responding to clear injustices not with outrage but with stammering confusion. You just want to yell, "man up!" But instead of manning up, he seeks help from a series of unhelpful rabbis.

The Coen Bros. clearly mean to say something with this movie, but I don't know what, and the non-ending leaves no clues behind. It is a movie that seems to consider all of life futile. I have mixed feelings about that message, but I would find it more tolerable in a comedy that was funny ha-ha rather than funny weird.

You may have to be a believer (Jewish or Christian) to like this film, although some secular (at least middle-aged midwestern) Jews and others may find it worthwhile for the period details. It is a modern version of the book of Job, which--of course you remember--contains a prologue in which God and Satan bet on whether Job will remain faithful and Satan then strikes down Job's flocks, children, and health; a series of speeches by three comforters with Job's responses; a speech by Elihu who is unhappy with the advice of the three comforters; the Lord himself answering Job directly out of the whirlwind ('who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?'); a final submissive speech by Job ('I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye see thee, wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes'); and an epilogue in which Job receives more flocks and children (...) than he had before.

The book and the film address what (Christian, at least) theologians call theodicy, or how bad things can happen in the world when God, who supposedly controls everything, is supposedly good. For nonbelievers (if you have any interest in the subject), the best way to think of this is perhaps to ask yourself whether the universe (the Creation) is on balance a good thing ('and God saw that it was good'). If so, then perhaps we somehow have an obligation to live moral lives and (as Jews and Christians think of it) to follow God's law. If not, then perhaps it's every man for himself and the Devil take the hindmost.

The Coens' answer, if I understand it correctly, comes out of the whirlwind at the end in the voice of Grace Slick. I personally prefer God's original response with its paean to astrophysics and evolutionary biology--'Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? ... Gave you wings and feathers unto the ostrich? Who leaves her eggs in the earth, and warms them in the dust, and forgets that the foot may crust them or that the wild best may break them...; because God has deprived her of wisdom, neither has he imparted to her understanding'--which essentially asserts that Creation is wonderful and a package deal. But the Coens' very different answer, while oddly Christian in emphasis, is fully consistent with both the 1960s zeitgeist and with the midwestern Jewish community that they have so meticulously recreated.

If you like this film, you really need to see it twice. But without giving anything away, if you see it once, be careful to pay attention to (i) the bribe that, like Schroedinger's cat, is alive and dead at the same time and (ii) the whirlwind at the end. This is a great film.

This movie is a wonderful assessment of the defunct quality of American Judaism in the current period, or the last half century. Larry Gopnik, for reasons I cannot see, seems inclined to want to understand his dilemmas and woes, as well as his successes, as the work of God, calling Him by the orthodox Jewish evasion Ha Shem (the Name). Trying to do this he encounters Jews, both rabbis and ordinary Jews, who give him Jewish answers to his questions, answers which have been unsatisfactory since the writing of the Book of Job many centuries ago. The rabbis are evasive, superficially knowledgeable, self-righteous, and in general ridiculous. The ending, which I will not reveal, is pure Coen Brothers: sardonic and outrageously true.

The Jews portrayed could be considered anti-semitic caricature: all have big noses, loud voices, unpleasant expressions, etc. But the Coen Bros. are Jewish and know the tribe pretty well. The only Jew in the whole movie who comes out looking good is the old bearded rabbi Marshak. The start of the movie, in some Galician shtetl, is funny but misleading. The Yiddish spoken there is the Galizianer type which is very different from the Yiddish of the much more educated Litvaks in pre-Hitler Europe. I doubt many who even know Yiddish would understand it, but there are subtitles.

In short not a happy movie but one which Jews need to take seriously lest they pretend their obsolete religion can have any relevance today. Christianity is just as irrelevant but in different ways.

So. I'm angry. After having purchased my tickets, and after sitting through this movie, am I better off? Did I enjoy it? Was it smart? Was it even the movie the trailer said it was?

No. No. No. And F no.

It was just so much mental masturbation. If the writer-producer-editor-directors are going to play with themselves this much, I think they owe me a handy too.

I am seriously worried about the Coen team that brought us such excellent films as Blood Simple, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, and No Country For Old Men. The recent Burn After Reading was just OK, and then this stinker is plain awful.

It amazes me that people get so hung up on searching for the symbolism in the movie, as if that is somehow important. It's completely irrelevant. The movie is what it is. You buy a ticket or get it on satellite or whatever, and you watch it. Either it was a dull waste of time like this one, or there is a cohesive thing that you feel you got your money's worth.

This thing didn't really tell me anything about the characters, which were mostly cardboard caricatures.

This thing didn't tell me anything about a plot, because there was no ending. All build-up and no payoff. (If films don't need endings, wouldn't it be cheaper to just cut 10 minutes off each film and con the viewers into thinking they saw the whole thing? You know this "no ending" thing is a cop-out).

This thing didn't reveal to me any particular insights into life. Sure, lots of people inject their own ideas into the film, but those are not FROM the film. Mostly it's a bunch of people who want to sound smart and hip and accepted, sucking up to the Coen machine.

Who cares? I paid $10, you jerks. You are not gods. I care, and you better believe I'm not paying $10 to see the next one.

Released in 2009 and written & directed by the Coen brothers, "A Serious Man" is a black comedy/drama/satire about a passive Minneapolis physics professor (Michael Stuhlbarg) in 1967 who faces a series of tragedies and desperately seeks the answers 'Why?' Sari Lennick plays his unfaithful wife and Fred Melamed (who looks like Francis Ford Coppola) her lover. Richard Kind appears as the eccentric (maybe genius) uncle while Aaron Wolff & Jessica McManus play the kids. Amy Landecker is on hand as a sexpot neighbor. Simon Helberg (from The Big Bang Theory) has a small role as an assistant rabbi.

There's a prologue that was shot in the Czech Republic which the Coens say has no link to the rest of the movie. Really? It struck me as rather tedious and, if it has no connection to the story, why is it there? Actually, I didn't find the entire first half of the film very entertaining and the protagonist's ultra-passivism started to become exasperating, but around the halfway point things began to click and I found myself consistently amused till the end.

Freely borrowing from the awesome book of Job, this movie will obviously play better to Jewish and Christian audiences; perhaps also other spiritual seekers. It addresses the deep questions of life and the inherent challenges of the human condition (trapped in a physical shell in a fallen world while yearning for the perfect and divine) with a good sense of satirical humor. The song "Somebody to Love" by Jefferson Airplane is a focal point and supposedly holds the non-answers:

"When the truth is found to be lies; And all the joy within you dies. Don't you want somebody to love? Don't you need somebody to love? Wouldn't you love somebody to love? You better find somebody to love."

There are anachronistic references to two albums: Santana's Abraxas and Creedence Clearwater Revival's Cosmo's Factory, which weren't released until 1970, three years after the events in the film.

The movie runs 106 minutes and was shot in the Minneapolis, Minnesota, area (e.g. the suburban scenes were filmed in Bloomington), including St. Louis Park, where I spent my childhood.

GRADE: B-

A Serious Man (2009)

Such a vivid recreation of late 1960s suburban America is a remarkable enough basis for a movie, making the real meat of the thing almost transcendent. A joy! I recognized everything here from my own childhood--everything except everything Jewish.

And that's the point, taken well. And made well, brilliant from start to finish. Very Coen Brothers--moving, sometimes disturbing, and sometimes very hilarious.

For insiders--American Jews--the references and send-ups will be moving and funny and familiar. For outsiders--goys--A Serious Man is an indoctrination, a can opener to an ethnic world with deep roots (Eastern European in this case), great integrity, and many internal (modern) conflicts.

The surrealism sprinkled throughout is just smart movie-making, keeping it from becoming a deep, ironic, and serious movie. It's a comedy with deeply serious undertones, not the other way around. Some of the acting is amazing, Michael Stuhlbarg playing the line between tragedy and farce in every scene, and the filming is expert without ever drawing attention to itself. The ending will leave many people talking and it isn't appropriate to do that here, except to say that in some ways it leaves you thinking so hard you may read more into the events than is really there.

Or not. Certainly the first scene, if it is some metaphor for all the follows, is both trenchant and disturbing, more Babel than Singer, but perhaps (perhaps) frightening in its misogyny. In fact, the whole movie has men who are wise, who laugh at their fate, who do good things, and women who, one way or another, stick the knife in you.

And who (or what) is the dybbuk here? Is this about the survival of some kind of Judaic history in contemporary America? Or is it larger, about the meaning of Judaism period, on a worldly level? Or larger still, is it simply a movie, like Do the Right Thing or My Big Fat Greek Wedding or any of thousands of others, about life, and love, and the struggling of one person against the woes of the world as he or she faces them, in their own context?

Or is it a comedy, a really funny comedy, making fun, having fun, and rising above the tawdry enough to remind everyone, Jewish or not, of the need we all have for community and connection and continuity.

Despite the inevitable hype that accompanies the media darlings that are the Coen brothers, A Serious Man was a serious let down. The laughs in this movie were at a minimum as too was any kind of interesting storyline. The film meanders along at a leisurely pace without ever getting going. It strikes me that the Coens are a little too aware of their own success at producing dark comedies. A Serious Man lacks any of the charm that made Fargo, The Big Lebowski, O' Brother Where Art Thou? or even (shamefully) Burn After Reading so absurdly humorous. It seems that the Oscar winning directors are riding their reputation a little too much in this movie and become a little too self-indulgent. Some very ordinary central performances and a quite frankly dull storyline ensure that it lacks any of the fascination and longing for a second take that usually resonates long after watching a Coen movie. A real disappointment.

I saw this movie at TIFF on Saturday. The Coens quietly (and I mean quietly - no-one could hear even their amplified voices) introduced the movie with reference to the actors present but not the movie, letting it speak for itself. And it did. In its own way. It is an off-beat (what else?) and serious work that radiates bleak despair while searching for a funny bone. In the process, the movie makes other black comedies look positively light and airy. The movie evokes laughs from a different place than most – from a profound discomfort watching people twist themselves this way and that to fit in and be regarded seriously, whether situationally, socially or religiously. A great piece of work that will have you thinking long afterwards, especially considering the odd and difficult-to-contextualize prologue and, um different, ending which bookend a remarkable work.

Understanding of a movie helps, but understanding everything in it is hardly essential, as my bout with this film says to me. I mean, of physics, I know not a whit; of Jewishness, not a whole lot more. But of humor, I like to partake, and this one had me guffawing in parts, thanks mainly to the simply written dialog written for the lead character, whose life is such a mess. Sure, there are obscurities here (among them what the hell Richard Kind and his character are supposed to ad), but the fact is that before one pities the lead character, who certainly is pitiful in so many ways, one has to laugh heartily at his circumstances. The tone of the movie is what gets to me the most. It is as though one is back in high school and getting a dodge-around-it answer to question rather important to a teen but zinging over a teacher's head. Michael Stuhlberg is brilliant as the lead character to whom tenure would be heaven in his physics-laden existence (think Eugene Levy's second coming). I don't believe in giving directors/writers carte blanch approval because of illustrious histories, but it would be difficult to argue much with the originality the Cohens often bring to the playhouse. I don't "get" everything they do, but almost all of it has a lasting effect on me.

I suppose the first thing that needs to be said is that I'm not Jewish and, as such, a lot of what was obviously a deeply personal movie went over my head, and I was left feeling like an outsider, almost a voyeur.

However, perhaps as a result of this I'm able to view the film more objectively. Visually, it is beautiful. There are so many perfectly framed scenes that even when the story seems to drag it keeps you captivated.

Having said that, for me, it did drag. The central figure was a neurotic, cerebral, awkward, middle aged Jewish man. Not entirely a cinematic first. Add to this the fact that he was possibly the most passive character in cinematic history - he literally made no decisions in the entire movie until the final scene. Instead he was drawn from one catastrophe to another, on the basis that he was a good, upstanding man surrounded by stronger people.

Normally in this situation we would see the character challenged and grow, but this is the Coen brothers, so it's not going to be that simple. Instead,,we are left to squirm at the relentless nature of the man's incessant failings - a frustrating experience, particularly if you're not privy to the Jewish humour that pervades this intimate film.

It seemed to me almost as if the Coen Brothers were seeing how far they can stretch their high profile. With No Country For Old Men they robbed us of the pivotal, climactic scene and I for one left feeling cheated. Here they simply don't introduce it at all. They break every story paradigm there is, as if to suggest that they are now so great they can present a piece that has no development, no conclusion, a prologue that seems to have no relevance to the main body of the work, and no redemptive quality to extract from any of the characters. A bit like real life I suppose. But who wants to see that on a forty foot screen?

I need to lay down.