03 October 2009 @ 11:03 pm
Nota bene  






If you have not done so already, for heaven's sake go see the new Coen Bros movie as soon as time allows.  My time is short at the moment for discussion, and I don't want to spoil any of this altogether astonishing movie, which I believe is the Coens best, which is saying a lot.  In a time when American film seems to be getting worse and worse, the Coens keep getting better and better.  This is their most fully realized, most deeply felt, most openly profound, most deeply mysterious movie.

Analysis of this complex screenplay will have to wait for the DVD release, but I welcome readers to discuss the movie under the fold.  There will be, no doubt, spoilers within, so those who haven't seen it should probably not venture beyond the link.free stats



 
 
 
( Read 21 commentsLeave a comment )
o-R-o-C-C, people: 101 covermoroccomole on October 5th, 2009 06:07 am (UTC)
Definitely one of my favorite Coen movies, and I'm only sporadically a fan of their work. I look forward to hearing your interpretation of the prologue and what it has to do with the rest of the film.
Todd Alcotttoddalcott on October 5th, 2009 06:24 am (UTC)
Well, it all keeps coming back to Schrodinger's cat. The wife is positive that the old man is dead, the observable evidence proves that he's alive. He can't be both, and there is the mystery. It's as though each scene is a microcosm of the whole movie: there is what the "rational" -- or "serious" -- mind can observe, and then there are things that fall outside of that. And how does "a serious man" react to things that are irrational?
(Anonymous) on October 7th, 2009 12:49 am (UTC)
Dybbuk
Also, as he leaves, he's both a Dybbuk (Jewish reanimated corpse) and not a Dybbuk. But either way he's brought a curse upon the house, as the wife fears, because they've either been visited by a zombie (v. bad luck) or the wife has just killed a nice old man. Either way, not so good. But as he leaves, as Todd says, it's both...
Todd Alcotttoddalcott on October 7th, 2009 11:05 pm (UTC)
Re: Dybbuk
The role is actually credited as: "Dybbuk?"
(Anonymous) on October 14th, 2009 06:15 am (UTC)
Re: Dybbuk
pardon my error. mea culpa.