Category Archives: Jews

Eight Nights of Hanukkah, Eight Nights of Movies: Night #6

Leave a reply

A Night at the Opera


As today is Christmas, I almost considered making this a cheat day and recommending multiple Christmas classics. However, “A Christmas Story” runs for 24 hours straight, and almost everyone has seen “Elf” at this point. Instead, I decided to dig back really far and pull out a Marx Brothers classic from 1935.

Any Marx Brothers movie could have made this spot, but “A Night at the Opera” manages to stand out. “Duck Soup” could have made for the mirror scene alone and “A Day at the Races” for the scene in which they try and be doctors. However, nothing beats “A Night at the Opera” in both its wit and its slapstick. The four Jewish brothers from New York City got their start in vaudeville before hitting the big screen and bringing their crazed theatrical antics along with them. Comedy would never be the same.

The end of the silent era allowed comedians to make movies that portrayed humor not just through bodily movements but also through dialogue. The Marx Brothers were masters at wordplay, and Groucho was truly Hollywood’s first smart ass. The scene in which Groucho and Chico start tearing up the parts of a contract they don’t agree with (“there ain’t no sainty clause!”) is masterful at both types of comedy.

Of course, the highlight of this movie is a miracle of slapstick: the stateroom scene. Characters keep piling and piling on into a tiny room as they keep ordering more and more hard boiled eggs, until someone opens a door and everyone falls out. It is not necessarily the part where everyone falls out that is so funny, but the ensuing madness, and the question of how many people can possibly fit into this room before the inevitable collapse. Sometimes, it is the telling of a joke, and not the eventual punchline, that can be funniest.

“A Night at the Opera” is a comedy that is truly timeless. To entertain people for over seven decades for is a rare gift that only the greatest of comedies can provide. Here is something that both you and your grandparents can laugh at together.

Eight Nights of Hanukkah, Eight Nights of Movies: Night #4

Leave a reply
A Serious Man

This is a ser- I’m a ser- I’m, uh, I’ve tried to be a serious man, you know? Tried to do right, be a member of the community, raise the- Danny, Sarah, they both go to school, Hebrew school, a good breakfast…


“A Serious Man” begins with the blast of Jefferson Airplane’s “Somebody to Love,” linking the past to the present, and drowning out a dull Hebrew school lesson. In this day and age, what does it mean for a Jewish man to be a serious man? If you are looking for a movie that is both religiously faithful and an existential mind trip for the halfway point of Hanukkah, then look no further. This is the first and probably the last movie you’ll ever see that’s based on both the Talmud and Schrodinger’s Cat.

Who else could have made a movie like this than Joel and Ethan Coen. It is based partly on their own childhood growing up in a Jewish family in a mostly Jewish suburb of Minneapolis, and the rest is a lot of things that could have happened, but probably didn’t. “A Serious Man” begins with a short parable that takes place in a shtetl. It might explain every one of the following events we see, or none of them. Maybe it is what the Coen Brothers say it is: their attempt to create their own Jewish fable. The rest of the movie focuses on Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a father who goes through a crisis of faith after his wife leaves him and he begins to lose his children to the 60s. No one, not even a string of rabbis, can provide him with guidance.

“A Serious Man” is funny not in a haha kind of way, but more in the kind of way that if you watch it multiple times, the ultimate mind f**k of it all is kind of hilarious. This is the Thinking Man Jew’s kind of movie. And that is not to say that anyone can’t like this movie. However, some people might not appreciate “The Goy’s Teeth” quite as much. For those who are passionate people watchers, especially of the Jewish kind, this movie gives a prototype of every Jew you can think of. Some will find stereotypes, others will find hilarious objects of affection.

“A Serious Man” definitely will not inspire as much joy and laughter after a candle lighting as say, a Woody Allen or a Marx Brothers movie, but it will definitely inspire fervent debate and conversation. If you are really curious about what that cut to black at the end means, I only have so many answers. Instead, I would refresh on your Bar Mitzvah torah portions. And then pick up some physics textbooks. Philosophy might work, too.

If this movie makes you crave for from the Coen Brothers tonight, I would check out “The Big Lebowski” immediately afterwards. It’s a great movie but that’s just like, my opinion, man. 

Eight Nights of Hanukkah, Eight Nights of Movies: Night #3

Leave a reply

Radio Days


“Annie Hall.” “Manhattan.” “Hannah and Her Sisters.” I could have gone with any of these timeless Woody Allen classics, so why did I choose “Radio Days”? It wasn’t an attempt to be original (“Annie Hall” is an easy choice, but it is a deserving one at that), but rather that “Radio Days” may just be the ultimate Jewish family comedy, and both a heartwarming and heartbreaking nostalgia trip.

Set during the 1930s and 40s, “Radio Days” is told in a series of vignettes that all connect back to the audio device that once ruled the world. Allen himself is never present onscreen, although he is the story’s narrator. A very young Seth Green is Allen’s stand-in onscreen under the name Joe. Joe obsesses over the radio so much that it starts to concern everyone in his family, especially his father (Michael Tucker). Joe is the youngest in a loud and rowdy household that includes an aunt and uncle and grandparents, as well as a family of Communists that live next door. His Uncle Abe (Josh Mostel, perhaps better known as Principal Anderson in “Billy Madison”) brings home a huge bag of fish everyday and eats them. Raw.

 Allen so lively brings about an era in which imagination was king. It’s funny to hear Joe’s parents complain that he’s rotting his brain away by sitting in front of the radio all day, and think that parents said the exact same thing about television decades later.

“Radio Days” is as much about the stars of radio as it is about the listeners. One in particular is Sally White (Mia Farrow) who has a difficult time making it as first, as listeners couldn’t see beautiful face but could hear her voice, which sounds exactly like Lina Lamont’s fingernails-on-a-chalkboard voice in “Singin’ in the Rain.” Luckily, one of these two people was actually able to make it.

Joe’s family, who spends all their time in Rockaway, and the radio stars, who spend all of their time at fancy parties, never come together. However, the idea Allen wants to bring about is that the radio brought these stars, these stories, into Joe’s living room, and they never left. That is the beauty of radio, of television, and of film: they make the unreal become a very real part of our lives. In that sense, Joe’s family came to life for me and almost felt like my own. However, arguments, while frequent for us, never amount to debating whether or not the Atlantic is a greater ocean than the Pacific.

While the movie’s end is sad in one sense, as the stars of radio realize they will not shine forever, it is also optimistic in that sense. When one star flickers and dims, another one shines, and a new opportunity comes about. Celebrities might not be famous forever, but the art they create makes them immortal.

“Radio Days” is that lasting artifact of Allen’s self-deprecating humor and a prime example of why the king of neuroticism can never be dethroned. While it is funny, it is also so realistic. If you’ve ever had more family members piled into your house than you can count, and you remember it as a terrifying yet hilarious experience, then you should pile every single one of those family members back together in one room and watch “Radio Days.”

Eight Nights of Hanukkah, Eight Nights of Movies: Night #2

Leave a reply

Eight Nights of Hanukkah, Eight Nights of Movies is a new series in which for each night of Hanukkah I will recommend a new movie to watch. Each movie might have been made by a prominent Jewish filmmaker, or embodies a prominent part of Jewish culture. Because I missed the first night, as I was embarking on a great Florida migration, I will recommend two for the second night.


Inglourious Basterds 


Here is a movie that needs no introduction, as I can barely go a day (or a blog post) without talking about it. With “Inglourious Basterds,” Quentin Tarantino earned the title of Honorary Jew for fulfilling any little Jewish boy’s childhood fantasy of getting vengeance on the Nazis. But it is not just a violent, one-dimensional revenge fantasy but rather a morality tale that dares us to ask whether or not our enemies can actually be human. This might be the only movie of its kind that will actually make you feel like a more enlightened human being. The movie also includes moments of gripping suspense and utterly insane hilarity. Despite the newfound enlightenment you may have found, it will not stop you from standing up and cheering after the movie’s history-bending twist (most people probably know what it is at this point but if not, I will spare the spoiler). No movie will make you feel prouder to light the menorah tonight.

Leaves of Grass


I didn’t really think “Leaves of Grass” was as brilliant as some believed (Ebert called it a “masterpiece”). It is flawed and its narrative probably made more sense in novel form, but it is certainly “whacky” and inventive enough for me to recommend to the more adventurous cinephile. Edward Norton is brilliant as always, this time giving two performances in one movie, one as a philosophy professor and the other as a drug dealer. Most shocking about “Leaves of Grass” is that it reveals that there is indeed a Jewish community in Tulsa, Oklahoma. That is, in case you were the kind of person who likes to track down Jews in random parts of America. It is partly based on writer-director Tim Blake Nelson’s life growing up in a Jewish family in Tulsa. “Leaves of Grass” is not just a crime-thriller-satire but an examination on Jewish identity. I can’t say I “get” the whole thing but if one of you does, please feel free to explain it to me.

Bored to Death Gets Cancelled: Blame It On Brooklyn

Leave a reply
I guess three seasons is the charm. Today, HBO cancelled its smart and continually underrated comedy series “Bored to Death.” The announcement was not followed by outrage or backlash but simply, a series of copied press releases. 

  Unlike other shows that have struggled in the ratings in the past (“Arrested Development,” “30 Rock,” “Community”), “Bored to Death” never gained a loyal following. Viewers were few but those who watched it knew it was smarter and funnier than most of the shows they were used to. Unlike the other shows previously mentioned, “Bored to Death” has just as many, if not more, detractors as it has followers.

  One piece of criticism on the show that struck me most was a column publish for Entertainment Weekly’s website, in which writer Darren Franich said he felt exactly the feeling described by the title every time he watched an episode. Now there’s a joke even Jay Leno wouldn’t put into his opening monologue.

  What bothered me more than that joke was an accusation made by the author, which was repeated by many in the comments, that a show with a Brooklyn-centric appeal doesn’t belong on television. Why is it that the only base that writers, directors, and producers alike have to appeal to is “Middle America”? Maybe it is because Middle America is apparently into so-called mindless entertainment, and they makes up the majority of America. However, television has changed drastically in the past few years. Shows like “Breaking Bad” and “Boardwalk Empire” are more talked about than the “CSI” franchise, and while “Two and a Half Men” still dominates the ratings, a show with a twisted narrative like “How I Met Your Mother” can now occupy the classic sitcom format. Thanks to specialized cable networks, audiences have become more specialized than ever before, and niche shows can now survive and thrive alongside shows with mass appeal. 


 HBO is certainly justified in its cancellation, as the show never pulled in ratings, and it wrongfully never garnered a single Emmy nomination. But HBO is known for edgy programming, and it is a shame that they never gave “Bored to Death” the chance that it deserved. With a little bit of effort, this show could have had much wider appeal. So what if it takes place in Brooklyn? So what if a majority of its jokes center around Jewish neuroticism? “Curb Your Enthusiasm” targets basically the exact audience, and it has been running strong for eight seasons.

 “Bored to Death” is not just inhabited in the world of hipsters, but it is also an inside satire of sorts of that culture which anyone who has ever been to a big city or a modern college campus can appreciate.

 “Bored to Death” is also first and foremost a detective story, and each mystery is as surprising as it is entertaining. This show also pulls off the rare balancing act of having a season full of self-contained episodes that also fit in to a larger plot. Despite running on the exact same formula, each and every episode still feels refreshing and original. I would wager that a value of Middle America is familiarity, and any show with a consistent formula is usually able to build a loyal following. The Jews may run Hollywood (according to Professor Mel Gibson M.D.), but making them the center of any story will apparently make most of the country want to change the channel.

 “Bored to Death” did have some limitations in its stories, as it involves something of a literature and pop culture prowess to enjoy, but most of its humor was so madcap that anyone could have laughed at it. One of the gags that first got me into “Bored to Death” was in the second episode of the series when Ray (Zach Galifianakis) randomly falls on top of a baby stroller. In a later episode, he spills iced coffee all over another baby. Franich writes in his article that he thought the only growth that Danson’s George did was in the amount of pot smoking he does. First off, that element of the show has always been hilarious, as his habits once lead him to tamper a drug test by adding soap to a urine sample. But really, Danson grew into the character whether it was through his relationship to his daughter in the most recent season, or his brave decision to leave his job as magazine editor. Galifianakis was also more than just a prop for slapstick, and he showed more dramatic range in this role than he ever has during any other point in his career. 

  Thanks to Jonathan Ames, “Bored to Death” had some of the highest quality writing on television. Each season was better than the last. Some highlights have included a diner scene in season two that felt reminiscent of the finale of “Pulp Fiction” in the best way possible, and an episode where Jonathan (Jason Schwartzman), Ray, and George have a wild night in New Jersey that ends with them rear-ending a cop car. There was something habitually funny about the show’s writing and performances. Each of its three seasons were only eight episodes in length, or about one third shorter than the length of the average TV comedy series. The best part about this was that it allowed Ames to put an extra amount of focus and detail into every episode, as opposed to other shows where the writers have to create episodes like an assembly line. It is no wonder that each episode of “Bored to Death” felt like a serial in a larger novel series and not just a half hour television episode. 

   I know out there somewhere, there is a compassionate cult of “Bored to Death” fans who have yet to come together and express their outrage. This Hipster Noir of a comedy will eventually earn its place among the pantheon of great shows that were cancelled too early. Until that day comes, I say #OccupyBoredtoDeath all the way.  

Movie Review: Midnight in Paris

Leave a reply

“Midnight in Paris,” Woody Allen’s fantastic new film, begins with an overly long, yet beautifully crafted montage of Paris. The introduction gives off the impression that Allen doesn’t even want to make a movie, he just wants to sit back and see what the streets of Paris have to offer. And that is exactly what he does.

For over a decade, the Woody Allen we once knew has seemed pretty lost. He tried to find himself by leaving New York and exploring Europe. Even with the successes that has brought (“Match Point,” “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”), he just hasn’t been able to equal the success of his early days. However, “Midnight in Paris” shows that everyone’s favorite neurotic Jew has not only rediscovered his voice, but figured out how to turn it into perfect comedic cinema.
“Midnight in Paris” details hack screenwriter Gil (Owen Wilson) and his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams) as they venture through Paris. While Inez focuses on their wedding and future, Gil focuses on his first novel, and his dream of living in Paris in the 1920s. While trying to find inspiration for his work, Gil finds something totally unexpected in Paris after midnight. What he finds is a mystery that would feel almost like a crime to reveal.
I wouldn’t call “Midnight in Paris” Allen’s big comeback, because he’s had so many comebacks over the years. When you make as many films as he does, there are bound to be misses. Yet, this is his first film in a long time that feels informative, free, and most importantly, fun. Sometimes, you don’t have to sell your soul and buy a ticket for “Fast Five” in order to have fun at the movies.
“Midnight in Paris” is a mixture of everything Allen is great at. In the film, he is given a chance to mock the pretentious intellectuals of the world as he slips subtle literary references into the story. Its combined slapstick and whimsical tone made me think of “Sleeper.” Its light and fast mood also evoked the great comedies of the era Gil wished he could have lived in.
Wilson, meanwhile, is the best Allen reincarnation there could possibly be. He perfectly takes on Allen’s wisecracking, neurotic New Yorker-type personality. He delivers every line with the right amount of anxiety. The rest of the ensemble is utilized well. It would be easy for someone who is writing about themselves to only focus on the character based off of themselves, yet Allen never forgets that there are many people involved in Gil’s life. Most notably is Michael Sheen as the way-too-sophisticated-for-his-own-good Paul and Kurt Fuller as Gil’s always furious father-in-law. McAdams is also an always enjoyable screen presence even when she’s being a cold and unsupportive girlfriend.
Oh yeah, and that writing. Comedy is one of the most intelligent forms of writing, yet few ever do it right. Only Allen can be so funny and so observant. After all, the greatest observations about life are the funniest ones.
Whether he be in New York, London, Barcelona, or Paris, setting is an essential part of every Allen story. Even with such strong characters, location is always key to the story. It usually sets the mood, whether that be uptight, mysterious, or free-spirited. In “Midnight in Paris,” Paris might as well be the center of the entire universe. It exudes both light and life, it is the center of creation. Just as he knows his beloved New York so much, Allen acts as if he’d lived in Paris for centuries, nailing the culture down right.
As I continue to write this review, I am debating going deeper into the plot. It would be great for further discussion, yet I feel like I’d be ruining something. In a world where it’s usually movies never keep their best parts unspoiled, “Midnight in Paris” offers plenty of surprises that are best to see for yourself. In one short film, the excitement of many years of culture, the beauty of a city, and the over-analyzing complexities of being a writer are captured. Most importantly, this film is just so full of joy. It is the very reason why escapism was created. And that is why it is my favorite film so far this year.

Last Post About the Oscars: They Suck (This Year)

Leave a reply

Oh, Academy. You could provide us with some amazing set pieces but this year, you couldn’t give us a great show. Too much nostalgia can’t cover a lack of charm. Not to mention, some undeserving winners.

I can’t be too angry about some of the winners tonight; I knew already that there was no way that “Black Swan” could trump “The King’s Speech.” But really, David Fincher still remains Oscarless? Worst of all, was the loss of “Exit Through the Gift Shop.” I have a feeling that the Academy was too afraid of the chaos Banksy would’ve caused if he won. But now, we will never know what could’ve happened. I bet Banksy wouldn’t have revealed his true identity, but whatever he would’ve planned would have probably made the entire show. And it also would’ve been much more entertaining than once again, having to hear someone yell about bankers being criminals. Seriously Hollywood, thanks for telling me something I haven’t heard a million times in the past three years.
While James Franco and Anne Hathaway are always entertaining and pretty to look at, for some reason, their chemistry just didn’t seem to work. I think it was less a reflection on their work and more a reflection on poor writing. Although, Franco didn’t seem totally there. Though, I would say they had a few enjoyable planned sketches. However, their onstage chemistry just did not cut it.
The highlights of the show were the small, spontaneous moments. One of them was Melissa Leo dropping the f-bomb, apparently the first time in Oscar history. The other great spontaneous moment was Kirk Douglas’s prolonged stay on stage. It might have to do with the fact that the man is almost 100 years old and he suffered a stroke, but there was something ridiculously endearing about it. He seemed more enthusiastic to be there than anyone else. He basically had to be dragged off the stage. Kirk Douglas, please come back to the Oscars anytime you’d like.
Perhaps the funniest planned moment of the night was the auto-tuned music video. It seemed a little more like something that would be on the MTV Movie Awards rather than the Academy Awards, but it was executed in such a way that it came off as actually funny rather than just trying to appeal to a younger audience.
There was truly one thing though that made the Oscars slightly more bearable this year, and it’s a little more serious. It was those montages. Now, usually the overlong tributes drive me crazy (and yes, some of them were still very unnecessary this year). This year though, some of them were constructed in a truly amazing way. The final montage of the Best Picture winners is probably the best the Academy has ever done. Setting the final speech of “The King’s Speech” to perfectly match up with clips from every Best Picture nominee was truly extraordinary. The montage was a reminder of the magic that forms when a truly great piece of filmmaking is assembled.
Even though I disagreed with the big winner this year, the montage reminded me why these movies were especially selected as Best Picture nominees: they each displayed something unique, uplifting, or maddening that could be found nowhere else in cinema this year. As Spielberg put it, the winner could go along with movies like “On the Waterfront” and the losers will go along with movies like “The Grapes of Wrath.” Neither seem like bad places to be.
Find the complete list of winners here.
Note: I just had to make Luke Matheny the main picture for this article. That is probably the best Jewfro in Hollywood.

Also, I unfortunately can’t post that great montage. And I also can’t find the Kirk Douglas clip. Thanks a lot, US copyright laws…

Oscars ’09: The Snubs

Leave a reply

Melanie Laurent (Inglourious Basterds)- In a film powered by raw, unforgiving violence, Laurent was the true heart of “Basterds.” Her emotional performance as a Jew hiding in Nazi-Occupied France truly brought sympathy for this lady vengeance. By the end, when she’s become nothing but a hovering, etherial cloud of smoke, her human presence is never gone. No, it’ll live on in “Too Good for the Oscars” immortality.

Michael Stuhlbarg (A Serious Man)- If voters were actually paying attention, Stuhlbarg would be the frontrunner for Best Actor. Of course, they weren’t, because his brilliant performance was layered in deep, hilarious subtlety. For example, look closely as he waddles down his roof like a chicken as he spies on the woman of his dreams. The Coen Brothers couldn’t have found a more perfect man to portray awkward, Jewish angst.
(500) Days of Summer- How could one of the most inventive comedies in years be totally snubbed, not even scoring in the Best Original Screenplay category? You know you’ve got a special romantic comedy when it seems easier to compare it to “Memento” than “It’s Complicated.”
Peter Capaldi (In the Loop)- Here is a man who deserves to be one of the most famous actors in the world. Capaldi let comedic sparks fly high with the handling of his character’s incessant cursing. While his character is far from a joyous one, he doesn’t seem to curse out of anger, but rather out of involuntary obligation. His impeccable line delivery helped make this dark comedy as dark and funny as a dark comedy can be.
Lance Acord (Where the Wild Things Are)- Technical work saves a tepid screenplay. Acord’s cinematography, deeply observing the beauty of nature, becomes a story of its own. It’s one of those films where you could turn down the volume, and just enjoy the incredible imagery.
Other Glaring Snubs: Matt Damon (The Informant!), Fantastic Mr. Fox (Best Adapted Screenplay), Brad Pitt (Inglourious Basterds), Neil Blompkamp (District 9), Alfred Molina (An Education), “Stu’s Song” (The Hangover)

The Top 10 Movies of 2009

3 Replies

In a recent tweet, Roger Ebert proclaimed 2009 as “one of those magic movie years like 1939 or 1976.” Some might say that’s a bold statement, but I say it’s not too far off. Of all the movie years this decade, 2009 ranks second only to 2007 (the year of “There Will Be Blood,” “No Country for Old Men,” “Michael Clayton,” “Knocked Up,” etc.).
Yes, there was much trash this year. From toy commercials like “Transformers 2″ and “G.I. Joe” to death porn like “The Final Destination” and the ugliness of “The Ugly Truth,” 2009 indeed showed just how low Hollywood was willing to go just to make a buck. But beyond much preposterousness, creativity abounded.
There was something many filmmakers this year, both mainstream and independent, showed that set 2009 apart: bravery. Filmmakers were so willing to be bold that the best films were beyond great. Some of the boldest moves included the changing of history, the willingness to not make simple conclusions, and an inclination to show that the world is unfair and sometimes, the hero just can’t win. Oh, and add some CGI blue cat monkey people to the mix.
This year gave us some amazing new talents (Marc Webb, Neil Blomkamp) and some old pros doing what they do best (Quentin Tarantino, The Coen Brothers, James Cameron).
2009 gave us an eclectic mix of Basterds and aliens and corporate a-holes. Here now, are the ten best films of the year 2009:
1. Inglourious Basterds- It’s been almost half a year since “Inglourious Basterds” came out, and I still can’t think of a better movie that has come out since. “Basterds” is a World War II movie that only Quentin Tarantino could ever pull off: philosophical, extremely violent, and funnier than you could ever imagine. Tarantino shows off a rare ability to make vast stretches of dialogue as exciting as epic battle sequences. Brad Pitt, Eli Roth and Diane Kruger give career best performances while Melanie Laurent proves herself as a worthy leading woman. The real scene stealer, though, is Christoph Waltz, who portrays a Nazi as calm and casual as he is sadistic. In the end, “Basterds” amazes me in its audacity to both change history and turn such serious subject matter into a fun B-movie. This is a medium for Tarantino to show us both his love of movies and the insane universe in which he inhabits. It’s a universe that, in a perfect world, would truly exist. Read Review
2. A Serious Man- Some films just grow on you. “A Serious Man” is one of them. “A Serious Man” is both the most mature and the meanest film Joel & Ethan Coen have made to date. It tells the story of the suffering but well intentioned patriarch of a 1960s middle class Jewish family. “A Serious Man” is the most personal film of the Coen Brothers’ career and it shows in the perfection of every little detail of the era and culture. Michael Stuhlbarg is perfect in the role of Larry Gopnik, flawlessly portraying the character’s flawed nature and vulnerability to an almost hilarious effect. The Coen Brothers have created a film that offers no easy conclusions and will keep you talking and talking about it. It will one day be looked as the quintessential film about the Jewish American experience. Read Review ; Extra Analysis
3. Up in the Air- “Up in the Air” is one of those rare films that strikes the perfect balance between comedy and tragedy. Jason Reitman managed to create a film about a man so far disconnected from other human beings that is both relevant social commentary and a future classic. “Up in the Air” shows the downside of a corporate life, and that even though flying solo can satisfy some people, nothing compares to the feeling of being (and remaining) connected to others. Read Review
up_in_the_air_1.jpg image by The_Playlist
4. (500) Days of Summer- Far and away the best romantic comedy to come out in years. “(500) Days of Summer” is a standout in its genre for its willingness to bend the rules and be unpredictable. It’s not necessarily a love story, but a story about love between Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer (Zooey Deschanel). It’s told completely out of order because whichever way the story is told, this relationship will inevitably head toward disaster. “(500) Days of Summer” scores on creativity and on having the best use of a Hall & Oates song you’ll ever see. Read Review; Extra Analysis

5. The Hurt Locker- To date, most films about the Iraq War have tried and failed. That is, until “The Hurt Locker” came about, a film that connected quite simply because it offered a truthful, apolitical view of a war nobody quite understands. The film has an eerie documentary feel, and Kathryn Bigelow directs each action sequence with the utmost care and precision missing from most mainstream action films today. “The Hurt Locker” is not so much a film about Iraq, or a film about the hell of war, but rather about why men fight. Read Review
6. Precious- As so many before me have said, “Precious” tells the story of the girl you might walk by on the street and completely ignore. “Precious” is at times one of the toughest films to watch for its raw realism. However, sitting through it is almost a revelation for exactly that reason. Lee Daniels has created a film that will open your eyes to a world you knew existed, but like to pretend it didn’t. Amazingly, “Precious” also provides a bright ray of hope in such a dark world. Gabourey Sidibe gives a fine breakout performance as the titular lead. However, Mo’Nique truly steals the show as Precious’ abusive mother. She gives off the kind of brutal hatred that is at times too painful to watch, but too powerful to ever look away from.
GET ON THE BUS Gabourey Sidibe delivers a powerful performance in Precious Precious: Based on the Novel \'Push\' by Sapphire, Gabourey \'Gabby\' Sidibe
7. Fantastic Mr. Fox- What kind of world do we live in where a movie made for kids, but is even more suitable for adults, fairs so poorly at the box office? Forget ticket sales, “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is a marvel, and proof of Wes Anderson’s wide range in directing ability. Anderson opts for old fashion stop-capture animation which quite ironically, makes its animal characters seem even more human. “Fantastic Mr. Fox” shows Anderson as the master of mise-en-scene. While kids won’t get the deeply existential questions Mr. Fox poses, make no mistake, this is the perfect movie for every member of the family. Read Review
8. Avatar- James Cameron, the most ambitious director of this generation, created what is quite possibly the most ambitious sci-fi epic to date. What set this film apart is its landmark special effects and use of motion capture technology which turns the Na’vi into creatures with a tangible, human quality. But what amazes me most about “Avatar” is the new world Cameron created for it. Each detail of Pandora is so vividly realized that it might as well be a real place. This is the kind of imagination missing from blockbusters nowadays, and the reason why I hail “Avatar” the “Star Wars” of our time. Read Review
9. District 9- Watch out, because the moderate-sized country at the southernmost tip of Africa has just given birth to a new filmmaking force to be reckoned with. Neil Blomkamp’s film is a thrilling and sometimes even funny sci-fi mockumentary about aliens landing in Johannesburg, and then being segregated by frightened humans. It works as both social commentary and awesome sci-fi entertainment. This new classic boldly sets an anti-Apartheid theme in a country scarred by Apartheid and uses its aliens to convey the theme. While “Avatar” is the best sci-fi film of the year, “District 9″ is the most original. Read Review
10. The Hangover- I needed one legitimate comedy for my list. After much thinking, I decided I’d go with what was the most hilarious and surprising film of the year. “The Hangover” is a great comedy because nearly every line is funny. The characters are beyond funny, and are enhanced by the believable chemistry between the actors. What makes “The Hangover” worthy of the top 10 is how it manages to be both a gross-out comedy and a mystery at the same time. “The Hangover” at first seems like it’s going to be the typical bachelor party in Vegas flick, but in the end, it’s a perfectly tuned satire of the idea of Vegas and the reality of it. That and tigers. And babies in sunglasses. Read Review
Other Contenders: Up, Adventureland, Invictus, Bruno, Star Trek, I Love You, Man, Dare, We Live in Public
Worst Movie: The Final Destination (3D)
Still Need to See: In the Loop, An Education, Moon, The Blind Side, Paranormal Activity, Big Fan, A Single Man, Observe and Report
Most Underrated: Adventureland
Most Overrated: 2012
Biggest Disappointments: Public Enemies, Where the Wild Things Are

On A Second Viewing: A Serious Man

Leave a reply

Warning: May contain some brief, spoiler-ish details. Proceed with caution.
After I first saw “A Serious Man,” I knew I liked it. I mean, how could I not like a film by the Coen Brothers?
However, there were a few things still bothering me. Well, mainly, it was that ending. Abrupt endings can be annoying, but I never hate them. All they involve is mulling over, and extra viewings. This was the case for “A History of Violence” and “No Country for Old Men.” It was also the case for “A Serious Man.”
But let me backtrack, so you can see the ending for yourself. I’m going to backtrack all the way to the beginning, to the mystery of the dybbuk. The Coen Brothers have repeatedly said that this story has no meaning, but I believe that there is something in there. There are three possible theories to this scene:
1) The couple were Larry’s ancestors. Stabbing the dybbuk unleashed a centuries long family curse.
2) The man was not really a dybbuk. His unfortunate death mirrors Larry’s struggle of how bad things always seem to happen to those who just try and commit mitzvahs.
3) It’s both. Or neither.
It could be any of those answers. But the more I think about it, the more I believe it is the last one. That’s the one that breaks the lock, and provides that any answer be correct. In the end, the dybbuk walks out into the snow. The Coen Brothers never show us whether or not he died or just kept on into the night, getting ready to haunt more unsuspecting citizens. What this scene truly does is act as a mini movie in preparing us on what is to come. “A Serious Man” will not be like the typical film that provides you with answers. Here’s one where you’ll have to come up with the answers on your own. And it won’t be easy.
A technique the Coen Brothers use constantly throughout their films is repetition. One line repeated in this film is Larry’s insistence, “I haven’t done anything!” And this here, is the point of the film. Why is Larry suffering? True, he hasn’t done anything wrong, but he hasn’t done anything right.
One of the many things I got out of the film a second time around is just how deeply funny it is. The humor doesn’t always lie in one-liners, it lies mainly within the situations. There are many instances where you shouldn’t be laughing, but you do anyways. Will you feel bad for laughing at some of Larry’s ridiculous misfortunes? Then again, the film does tell us in the very first shot to take every minute with “utmost simplicity.”
In my first review, I gave praise to the film’s three leading men, Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind, and Fred Melamed, but not as much praise as they deserve. While Kind was cast as the annoying relative he always plays, he manages to still make him as atypical as possible. Meanwhile, Melamed seems like a lock for best supporting actor as Sy Ableman. He is (if I’m reading the film right) the serious man of the title. And he plays Sy that way, portraying him with utmost scrutiny. He commands every shot he is in, taking it over, moving around characters by his own wishes and just carrying this feeling that he knows everything.
Then of course, there’s the other Oscar lock, of Stuhlbarg as Larry Gopnick. This is Stuhlbarg’s first big leading role, but he takes it like a pro. In the scene where Larry’s wife discusses a divorce, his pitch goes up to a high, whiny voice; giving Larry an almost lovable childlike ignorance.
The Coen Brothers are famous for emphasizing their characters’ quirks. Stuhlbarg basically does that for them, as he gives Larry a sort of chicken walk, especially in the scene where he waddles across his look, getting a peak at the forbidden temptation that lies just over a small white picket fence.
While that serious man in the title could refer to either Sy or Larry, there is yet another important (soon to be) man in the mix: Danny Gopnick (Aaron Wolff). He lives a life opposite of his father, only caring about smoking joints and watching “F-Troop” rather than trying to be a mature, serious man. However, he, like every character, eventually faces just consequences for their poor actions.
A large controversy I’ve discussed with many people about this film is what kind of audience it was meant for. The idea that only a Jew could appreciate it is one I am beginning to find quite unfair. Just because I wasn’t raised Catholic, does that mean I can’t be stunned by the christening scene in “The Godfather?” Just because I’m not Italian, does that not mean I can’t be entertained by the wedding in “Goodfellas?” While maybe only those who were born Jewish will understand the anxiety of preparing to have a Bar Mitzvah, the Coen Brothers opened up a door to the Jewish culture. They are inviting you to stay and look around.
Now, there’s one point from my last review I’d like to correct. In my previous review, I seemed to stick to the theory that Larry’s story was a reflection of the story of Job. Well, it’s only half that. The other half is the possibility that Larry’s story reflects existentialism, rather than the existence of God. Larry’s miseries could be a test from God. Or they could just simply be life’s plan for him, and there’s nothing he can do about it (this scene reflects this idea).
Also in the mix, you could see Larry as a 1960s Jewish version of Hamlet; a man spending too much time overthinking life and trying to avoid a situation that simply cannot be avoided. He could even be a figure straight out of a Kafka* story: a good man who is so overburdened by a world that demands too much responsibility out of him.
It’s simply possible that “A Serious Man” is every single one of these ideas. Or none of them. This makes the film a sort of “choose your own adventure” like story but this time, you have to choose your own theme. The Coen Brothers have thus constructed the rare film that’s a totally different experience to each and every member. Yep, the way a film should be.
But maybe the Coen Brothers, who are the absolute masters of trickery, are just leading us into a giant trap. They awaited as critics and audience members alike overanalyzed every aspect of the film to death when they were missing the film’s real point: the danger of overanalysis. In the film, we learn in the end that the mystery of the goy’s teeth is solved once the dentist forgets about it. Perhaps Larry’s problems would have been nothing to him if he just, took a deep breath and forgot about them for a while.
So for now, I’m not going to fall for the trick. I leave the rest of the interpretations up to you.
*Tip for Aspiring Writers: A Kafka namedrop always makes you look smarter.
For further reference, here are a few great articles about the film:
I know I’ve written a lot here, but I still didn’t even get to touch on Larry’s neighbors, physics, respecting privacy, the wisdom of youth, and the film’s representation of connections within the Jewish community. Oh well, it doesn’t look like this is the last time you’ll be hearing about “A Serious Man.” Until then, I want you all to take a few minutes and enjoy one of the most meaningful parts of the film: the power of “Somebody to Love”: