LOS ANGELES New York Israel Italy Chicago New Jersey Philly London San Fran

Hollywood Jew

Email | Print | Text - Text +

October 5, 2009 | 9:07 am

Coen Bros ‘A Serious Man’: seriously skeptical of faith

Posted by Danielle Berrin

Photo

The word on the new film, “A Serious Man,” directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (aka “the Coen brothers”) is that it is, well, ‘seriously’ Jewish.

Writing from the recent Toronto International Film Festival, Vanity Fair contributor Michael Hogan called the film “seriously awesome”; but not without a caveat on its Jewish themes: “I’m not usually a fan of things that are super Jewish,” he writes. “Jewish I like,” he admits, but, “all that Fiddler on the Roof crap?” No thanks.

Also at Toronto, Sharon Waxman interviewed the Coens for her Web site, The Wrap, and asked them if they thought the public would see the film as “too Jewish.” Joel was apparently un-amused by the question and simply rubbed his eyes. Ethan gave it a bored stab, ignoring its substance: “If we were going to make it at a budget that was not crazy, it wouldn’t be.”

“The vein of fatalistic, skeptical humor that runs through so many of [the Coens’] movies,” writes A.O. Scott in his New York Times review of the film, “has frequently had a Jewish inflection, both cultural and metaphysical. Here, that inheritance, glancingly present in movies like ‘Barton Fink’ and ‘The Big Lebowski,’ is, so to speak, the whole megillah.”

While ‘A Serious Man’ refrains from the kind of sappy, overindulgent Jewish shtick that makes “Fiddler on the Roof” so beloved by many Jews (and probably intensely nauseating for just as many non-Jews), it still remains deeply entrenched in a Jewish milieu.

Rumored to be based on the biblical story of Job, ‘Serious’ tells the story of Larry Gopnik, a Jewish physics professor with a sweet-natured soul to whom bad things happen for no apparent reason. Gopnik lives a conventional yet depressing life among a Midwestern Jewish community that begins to fall apart when his domineering wife decides to leave him for a widower, a foreign-exchange student attempts to blackmail him for a passing grade, and the tenure board informs him that they have received unflattering letters about him, just as they are about to decide on his professorial future. Gopnik is also father to two self-involved teenages who largely ignore him and brother to a maudlin gambling addict who is threatened with arrest. When Gopnik is about to reach a breaking point, it is suggested to him that he go and see “the rabbi.” Gopnik then visits three rabbis, all of whom are either blithering caricatures, unavailable, or without real wisdom. None of them have an answer for Gopnik, which says something about the Coens’ attitude towards religion in general; it is unabashedly skeptical.

As Hogan notes, “All religion can tell him is that it’s God’s will. But is that really true? Why would God want to punish him this way? It’s impossible to say.” Hogan admires the film as “an extremely hard-headed meditation on love, faith, and destiny”—indeed, it is one without answers or rationale or even hope for divine redemption. That bad things happen in life is inexplicable and unavoidable, say the Coens, and religious faith is no real recourse for a man in need.

“What he encounters,” writes A.O. Scott, “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.” One of the biggest laugh lines in the film—that is oft repeated—is the expression of puzzlement that ensues when Gopnik’s wife insists on a “get”—a religious divorce document —“a what?” several characters reply, incredulously. The film is funniest when mocking many of the cultural norms experience by American Jews: boredom at services, ineffectual Hebrew schools and a near crippling fear of ascending the bimah for a B’nai Mitzvah (in the movie, Gopnik’s son nurses his anxiety with a drug induced haze).

The Coens may not have had the most enriching experience of Judaism—or religion—growing up as they did in a largely Jewish Minneapolis suburb in the 1960s, but the impact of their Jewish upbringing is evident. Secular, cultural Judaism is the lens through which they view the world, with all its bizarre and humorous idiosyncrasies, but alas, it is ultimately, a mostly empty enterprise. Are the Coens using the film to make a case for atheism? Scott wonders, “Are the Coens mocking God, playing God or taking his side in a rigged cosmic game?”

Well, they’re certainly working out some serious Jewish angst - Hollywood style.

4 Comments — Leave your comment

Share this post: del.icio.us Favicondel.icio.us Digg FaviconDigg Facebook FaviconFacebook Google FaviconGoogle Reddit FaviconReddit StumbleUpon FaviconStumbleUpon Technorati FaviconTechnorati YahooMyWeb FaviconYahooMyWeb

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Yo Danielle,

The Coen Brothers are a breath of fresh air in a world of gaseous Talmudic Judaism.


Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth
Folio 54a

that one in sleep cannot acquire his sister-in-law!1   But when accidental insertion occurred?2   Surely Rabbah stated: One who fell from a roof and his fall resulted in accidental insertion, is liable to pay an indemnity,3   for four things,4   and if the woman was his sister-in-law no kinyan is thereby constituted!5   — It is6   when, for instance, his intention was intercourse with his wife and7   his sister-in-law seized him and he cohabited with her.


How is one to understand, ‘Both under compulsion’, taught at the School of R. Hiyya? — When, for instance, his intention was intercourse with his wife and idolaters seized him,8   brought him and her9   into close contact and he cohabited with her. Whence these words?10 — From what our Rabbis taught: Her husband’s brother shall go in unto her11 is a commandment.12 Another interpretation: Her husband’s brother shall go in unto her whether in error or in presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will.13 But, surely, deduction has already been made from this text that it14 is a commandment!15 — That it14 is a commandment16 may be inferred from And if the man like not17 which implies that if he likes he contracts the levirate marriage;16 so that the other text11 may serve the purpose of deducing,18 ‘whether in error or in presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will’.19


Another [Baraitha] taught: Her husband’s brother shall go in unto her,11 in the natural way; and take her,11 even though in an unnatural way;20 and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto21 her,11 only the cohabitation consummates her marriage, but neither money22 nor deed22 can consummate her marriage; and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her,11 even against her will.23


The Master said:24 ‘Another interpretation: Her husband’s brother shall go in unto her whether in error etc.’ But, surely, deduction has been made from this text11 that it25 must be in the natural way! — This may be deduced from To raise up unto his brother a name,17 [i.e.,] only where a name is raised up;26 so that the other text11 may be employed for the deduction,27 ‘whether in error or in presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will.‘28
[To turn to] the main text. ‘Rab Judah ruled that one in sleep cannot acquire his sister-in-law, for Scripture stated, Her husband’s brother shall go in unto her,29 only when the cohabitation was intentional’.30 But, surely, it was taught: Whether he was awake or asleep! — Read: Whether she was awake or asleep. But, surely, it was taught: Whether he was awake or asleep; or whether she was awake or asleep! — This statement refers to one who was in a state of drowsiness. What state of drowsiness is hereby to be understood? R. Ashi replied: When a man is half asleep and half awake31 as, for instance, when he answers on being addressed but is unable to give any sensible reply, and when he is reminded of anything he can recall it.


[To turn to] the main text. Rabbah stated: One who fell from a roof, and his fall resulted in accidental insertion, is liable to pay an indemnity for four things, and if the woman was his sister-in-law no kinyan is thereby constituted. [He must pay her for] bodily injury, for pain inflicted, for enforced unemployment, and for medical expenses; but he is not liable to indemnify her for indignity, for a Master said, ‘One is not liable to pay any indemnity for indignity unless it was intentionally caused’.32
Raba said: If a levir’s intention was to shoot33 against a wall and he accidentally shot at his sister-in-law, no kinyan is thereby constituted;34 if he intended, however, to shoot at a beast and he accidentally shot at his sister-in-law, kinyan is thereby constituted, since some sort of intercourse had been intended.


WHETHER HE PASSED ONLY THE FIRST … STAGE. ‘Ulla stated: Whence is it proved that the first stage of contact is pentateuchally forbidden?35 — It is said, And if a man shall lie with a menstruant woman,36 and shall uncover her nakedness, he hath made naked her fountain37 it is deduced from this text that the first stage of contact38 is pentateuchally forbidden. Thus the case of a menstruant has been arrived at; whence that of other forbidden unions?39 And were you to suggest that [their case] might be inferred from that of the menstruant, [it might be retorted] the menstruant is different since she causes the defilement of the man who cohabited with her.40 — Rather the deduction39 is made from ‘a brother’s wife’ concerning whom it is written, And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, she is a menstruant.41 Now is a brother’s wife always menstruant?42 But [the meaning is] ‘like a menstruant as with a menstruant the first stage constitutes the offence, so does the first stage constitute an offence with a brother’s wife. But a brother’s wife [it may be objected] is different since it is in his43 power to increase the number, for should he wish, he could go on betrothing as many as a thousand!44 — The deduction45 is rather made from the ‘father’s sister’ and ‘the mother’s sister’. For it is written in Scriptures And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister, for he hath made naked his near kin.46 But it may be objected that a father’s sister and a mother’s sister come under a different category, since the prohibition in their case is natural.47 — If it45 cannot be deduced from one category48 then let it49 be deduced from the two categories.50 From which51 however shall deduction be made? Were it made from a brother’s wife52 and a father’s sister53 and a mother’s sister,53 [it might be objected that] those stand in a different category, since the prohibition of these is due to relationship!54 — Deduction is rather made55 from the menstruant56 and a father’s sister and a mother’s sister. Those however [it may be objected] are in a different category since the prohibition is natural!57 — The deduction55 is rather made from the menstruant and a brother’s wife; since no58 objection can be raised [against the two].59


R. Aha son of R. Ika demurred: A menstruant and a brother’s wife are different,60 since marriage with them cannot be permitted during the lifetime of the man who caused their prohibition! Would you, then, apply [their restrictions] to a married woman who might be permitted to marry even during the lifetime of the man who caused her prohibition?61


Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabina: Are a menstruant and a brother’s wife forbidden to marry only during the lifetime of the man who caused their prohibition but permitted after that?62 With a menstruant, surely,
1.  An unconscious act having no legal validity.
2.  When in a state of erection the levir fell from a raised bench upon his sister-in-law who happened to be below (v. Rashi).
3.  To the woman with whom the accidental contact had taken place.
4.  Bodily injury, pain, medical expenses and unemployment during illness. The damages or indemnity must be paid even if the injury was inflicted accidentally or under compulsion (v. B.K. 85b). An indemnity for the indignity caused by the injury is payable only when the act was wilful. V. infra.
5.  By the accidental contact. She does not thereby become his lawful wife.
6.  Intercourse under compulsion is possible.
7.  While he was in the state of erection.
8.  While he was in the state of erection.
9.  His sister-in-law’.
10.  The statement in the first clause of our Mishnah.
11.  Deut. XXV, 5.
12.  Halizah is a substitute only, and preference must always be given to levirate marriage.
13.  Whatever the circumstances the kinyan is valid.
14.  The levirate marriage. v. supra note 5.
15.  How then may a second deduction be made from the same text?
16.  V. supra note 5.
17.  Deut. XXV, 7.
18.  Lit., ‘comes’.
19.  Whatever the circumstances the kinyan is valid.
20.  Whatever the nature of the intercourse the sister-in-law is thereby acquired by the levir as his lawful wife.
21.  v. Emden, a.l. and cf. M.T.
22.  Whereby kinyan of betrothal is usually executed.
23.  V. Kid. 14a.
24.  So BaH a.l. Cur. edd. omit.
25.  The cohabitation.
26.  From unnatural intercourse there is no issue and no name, of course, can be raised.
27.  Lit., ‘comes’.
28.  Whatever the circumstances the kinyan is valid.
29.  Deut. XXV, 5.
30.  Emphasis on ‘shall go in’.
31.  Lit., ‘asleep and not asleep, awake and not awake’.
32.  Which was not the case here.
33.  A euphemism.
34.  The act of the intercourse having been accidental and unintentional.
35.  In the case of forbidden unions.
36.  [H], rendered by E.V. ibid., having her sickness.
37.  Lev. XX, 18.
38.  [H] (first stage) is of the same rt. as [H] he hath made naked (ibid.).
39.  That with the other relatives also, or with any woman one is forbidden to marry, the first stage constitutes the offence.
40.  He, like herself, remains levitically unclean for seven days (v. Lev. XV, 24). As the restrictions of the menstruant are more rigid in respect of the defilement of the man they may also be more rigid in respect of the first stage of contact. What proofs however, is this that prohibition of the first stage of contact extends to other forbidden unions?
41.  Lev. XX, 21. [H] E.V., it is impurity.
42.  Surely not. Why then was she so described?
43.  The brother’s.
44.  The number of relatives forbidden through marriage may be indefinitely increased. Hence only such relatives (e.g., a father’s wife, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law) may be inferred from a brother’s wife who also is a relative forbidden through marriage. What proof, however, does this provide that restrictions applicable to these are also applicable to relatives forbidden from birth (e.g, a mother, sister, daughter) whose number it is not in one’s power to increase?
45.  v. supra note 3.
46.  Lev. XX, 19.
47.  I.e., they are relatives forbidden from birth. What proof, however, does this supply in the case of relatives by marriage? (Cf. supra p. 359, n. 8).
48.  Either from that of relatives from birth or from that of relatives by marriage.
49.  Cur. edd. insert in square brackets ‘one’.
50.  Any objection that might be raised against the one could not possibly apply to the other. (Cf. p. 359, nn. 8 and 11).
51.  Particular case or cases in the categories mentioned.
52.  A relative by marriage.
53.  A relative from birth.
54.  No proof would consequently be available that the same restriction is applicable to intercourse, for instance, with any married woman who is neither a relative from birth nor by marriage.
55.  V. supra p. 359, n. 3.
56.  Who may be a stranger.
57.  It is not due to any human act.
58.  Lit., ‘for what’.
59.  A brother’s wife is a relative forbidden through marriage and consequently the second objection (v. supra p. 359. n. 1) cannot be advanced; while the first objection (v. supra p. 359, n. 8) and the third objection (v. supra n. 7) cannot be raised in view of the law of the menstruant.
60.  From the other women one is forbidden to marry.
61.  I.e., her husband, if he divorced her.
62.  When the man died.

HHAT WAS THE BROTHER-IN-LAW DOING ON THE ROOF WITH HIS “WEAPON” OUT?

WAS HE ANOTHER “FIDDLER ON THE ROOF”?

Comment by Gerald Goldberg on 10/10/09 at 7:41 am

Just what we need when the whole world would like to, once again, see the Jews and Israel disappear from the earth - another mockery of a culture that has endured more than 5,000 years, outliving many others that have died along the way.  Thanks for the review - you just saved me the price of an admission ticket.  I have not seen “Barton Fink” or “The Big Lebowski” films, so cannot comment.  I do think, however, that with the review of this movie, the Coen brothers are not exactly self-hating Jews, i.e. Noam Chomsky and now Ahmadinijad!!!, but they are not comfortable being Jews.  Too bad for them, they don’t know what they are missing.  But then, Jews who are ignorant of their history and what the Jews have contributed to the world in literature, science, medicine, and in recent years technology from Israel, would likely mock what they don’t appreciate in their heritage.

Comment by Natalie Roberts on 10/10/09 at 8:31 am

Yo Natalie,

The WHOLE WORLD never wanted to see the Jews & Israel disappear from the world. But there was a time in TORAH when GOD wanted them to DISAPPEAR:


EXODUS 32:1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what is become of him.

EX 32:2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.

EX 32:3 And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.

EX 32:4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

EX 32:5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD.

EX 32:6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.

EX 32:7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou brought out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:

EX 32:8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be your gods, O Israel, which have brought you up out of the land of Egypt.

EX 32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff-necked people:

EX 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of you a great nation.

 

EX 32:11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?

EX 32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.

EX 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and said unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

EX 32:14 And the LORD relented of the evil which He thought to do unto His people.


Natalie, you seem to forget what the worship of THE GOLDEN CALF involved. You have to turn to AMOS 5:23-27 to see this:


AMOS 5:23 Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.

AMOS 5:24 But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

AMOS 5:25 Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?

 

AMOS 5:26 But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.

 

AMOS 5:27 Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts.


THE WORSHIP OF MOLOCH CONSISTED OF OFFERING HUMAN SACRIFICE. THE ISRAELITES OFFERED THEIR CHILDREN AS HUMAN SACRIFICES TO MOLOCH IN THE WILDERNESS. Have you ever wandered why they had to wander in the Wilderness for 40 YEARS? God waited until ALL the parents had DIED.
None of them saw the Promised Land.


Regarding the SUFFERING OF THE JEWS, please READ Deuteronomy chapters 27 & 28. Here you will read about the CONDITIONS GOD HAS LAID DOWN FOR THE JEWS REGARDING THE OCCUPATION OF THE PROMISED LAND. Jews have consistently failed to obey these CONDITIONS & were SCATTERED ALL OVER THE WORLD BY THE JUDGMENT OF GOD.

ISRAEL TODAY, IS NOT ADHERING TO THESE CONDITIONS & A TERRIBLE JUDGMENT IS COMING ON THEM. GOD HAS ALWAYS USED OTHER NATIONS TO PUNISH ISRAEL, WHEN IT HAS REFUSED
TO OBEY GOD. Please READ Ezekiel chapter 16. This is an allegory about ISRAEL. THIS IS WHAT GOD THINKS OF ISRAEL TODAY!

THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE: REPENT!!!


BUT BECAUSE OF ITS STIFFNECKEDNESS, IT WON’T!!
SO YOU WILL SEE, IN THE FUTURE, A TERRIBLE JUDGMENT COMING ON ISRAEL.


MATTHEW 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets, and stone them which are sent to you, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you would not let Me!

MATTHEW 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

MATTHEW 23:39 For I say to you, You shall not see Me again, untill you shall say, Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord.


Messiah, never wanted to see Israel SUFFER, but He was REJECTED by His own people & in 70 AD they were scattered all over the world. Godless Zionists have forced themselves back into Palestine, by their OWN STRENGTH & foolishly think its theirs. The LAND BELONGS TO GOD & WHOEVER HE GIVES IT TO. I AM NOT EXCUSING THE MUSLIM EXTREMISTS, BUT REMEMBER GOD HAS ALWAYS USED PEOPLES & NATIONS, WHO WERE VERY CRUEL, TO CHASTISE ISRAEL.


Natalie, PRAY FOR THE PEOPLE IN ISRAEL, AS I DO, THAT THEY MIGHT REPENT & CRY OUT TO GOD IN REPENTANCE. I would advice anyone you know to get out of there as soon as possible. One can see the STORM CLOUDS forming & one can see a NUCLEAR WAR coming.Read the Book of Revelation & you will see a PREVIEW of this terrible War.

Comment by Gerald Goldberg on 10/10/09 at 10:34 am

I totally agree with Natalie.  In retrospective, I did not enjoy the characters portrayed in the film.  I thought they were stereotypic of the schlmeil, the husband, the wife was a bore, the kids were impossible.  Though there were jokes and parts I liked, I thought the movie completely unappreciated its heritage.

Comment by Joanne Aloni on 10/25/09 at 12:15 pm

Post a Comment

Name:  
Email:  
URL:  

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

RSS


Blog Archive

Newspaper

Serving a community of 600,000, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angles is the largest Jewish weekly outside New York City. Our award-winning paper reaches over 150,000 educated, involved and affluent readers each week. Subscribe here.

© Copyright 2010 The Jewish Journal and JewishJournal.com
All rights reserved. JewishJournal.com is hosted by Nexcess.net. Homepage design by Koret Communications.
Widgets by Mijits. Site construction by Hop Studios.

counter fake hit page