Recently I found myself watching the 2009 Coen brothers movie A Serious Man and thought it to be an interesting movie. The meaning or interpretations of it vary endlessly. And surely my recent statement about artists being the least likely to understand the meaning of their work (if it would have any) could still hold true. I rather doubt the Coen brothers had anything else in mind than to subvert the need for meaning and explanations with this movie beyond mapping their own background (the Jew as archetypal unbeliever?) apart from implying a seeming mystery entering or leaving at times beyond comprehension, in a way that would make people wonder if there's any real mystery at all - and how the answer might really not matter that much in the end.
But notwithstanding there are more levels the movie seems to work pretty well at, as reflection on the ancient story of Job, about life and death (and all hanging in between wondering if they're alive or if god exists, which is the same question), as well as the nature of Jewish life and tradition. Some even see the movie as misogynistic or even antisemitic by showing female and Jewish characteristics in a consistent stereotypical and 'stark' light. Others more familiar with typical Jewish culture might point out it's rather standard humor for Jews (not unlike for example the very popular series of Larry David called Curb your Enthusiasm).
It's an unusual movie in form and development, with exaggerated, somewhat "detached" characters for sure as in almost every Coen movie but if you can rent it or find a good copy online (there are some good ones there if you're familiar with that route), it might be worth a try, if you like the language of movies of course and prefer to ponder about what it is you're looking at.
A serious Man
-
Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Re: A serious Man
I haven't seen it, I'll have to download it and watch it before I can comment.
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: A serious Man
But you did comment just to announce you had nothing to comment, feeling chatty? I'll hold my breath until you return then :-)
-
Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Re: A serious Man
lol...
Just looking for that special connection Diebert...you know you're my guy right?
Just looking for that special connection Diebert...you know you're my guy right?
-
Alex T. Jacob
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am
Re: A serious Man
Just 'found yourself' watching it, hmmm? Peeking through the neighbor's blinds on the fire-escape? ;-)
Couple of things. Categorically, there are three 'realms' of screenplay/movies: Arch-plot, Mini-plot and Anti-plot. Arch-plot (archetypcal plot) is pretty standard story and plot, basically all stories from all times that you can name, including the Bibilcal stories.
"Classical design means a story built around an active protagonist who struggles against primarily external forces of antagonism to pursue his desire, through continuous time, within a consistenct and causally connected fictional reality, to a closed ending of absolute, irreversable change". (Robert McKee)
The story of Job would certainly fit into that classical mold. Indeed, no other story frame or outcome would have been conceivable until modern times when things were self-consciously over-turned.
Mini-plot is a deliberate reduction of and self-conscious subversion of Arch-plot. It is a sort of distorted mirror held up in the face of Arch-plot. The 'primary forces' the protagonist struggles against go inward, or too the struggle is spread out and shared by multiple persons (Through a Glass Darkly, Paris, Texas, The Accidental Tourist). It is Arch-plot in structure but shrunken or reduced or spread-out in a modern context. Nothing can ever get 'wrapped up' as in Arch-plot. It is closer to modern perception perhaps.
The Anti-plot---and I suspect this Coen film places itself in that category (from the trailer)---is a deliberate jab at Arch-plot, in this case a kind of black humor. The making fun of cultural traditions, etc. Turning things on their heads. But it could only exist and have relevance in a relational sense. It depends on the Arch-plot both as a story that exists and as a way of organizing perception about the world.
No one really sees the world in that way since we all pretty much organize our perception about our own lives in accord with Arch-plot 'rules'. But, from the look of it, it can be a fun and humorous experience (8-1/2, Wayne's World, That Obscure Object of Desire) to turn all the cliches of Arch-plot on their head.
It all appeals of course to a certain kind of person, in a certain kind of philosophical 'impass', with a quite specific aesthetic. I haven't seen this film but I have seen others of the Coen's. The truth of the matter is that there is really nothing to discuss about them. They are utterly 'unreal' and nearly completely arbitrary and sensationalistic.
The artist exhales---chaos, quirkiness---and breathes in---box-office receipts (!)
Seventh Seal: Final Scene
Couple of things. Categorically, there are three 'realms' of screenplay/movies: Arch-plot, Mini-plot and Anti-plot. Arch-plot (archetypcal plot) is pretty standard story and plot, basically all stories from all times that you can name, including the Bibilcal stories.
"Classical design means a story built around an active protagonist who struggles against primarily external forces of antagonism to pursue his desire, through continuous time, within a consistenct and causally connected fictional reality, to a closed ending of absolute, irreversable change". (Robert McKee)
The story of Job would certainly fit into that classical mold. Indeed, no other story frame or outcome would have been conceivable until modern times when things were self-consciously over-turned.
Mini-plot is a deliberate reduction of and self-conscious subversion of Arch-plot. It is a sort of distorted mirror held up in the face of Arch-plot. The 'primary forces' the protagonist struggles against go inward, or too the struggle is spread out and shared by multiple persons (Through a Glass Darkly, Paris, Texas, The Accidental Tourist). It is Arch-plot in structure but shrunken or reduced or spread-out in a modern context. Nothing can ever get 'wrapped up' as in Arch-plot. It is closer to modern perception perhaps.
The Anti-plot---and I suspect this Coen film places itself in that category (from the trailer)---is a deliberate jab at Arch-plot, in this case a kind of black humor. The making fun of cultural traditions, etc. Turning things on their heads. But it could only exist and have relevance in a relational sense. It depends on the Arch-plot both as a story that exists and as a way of organizing perception about the world.
No one really sees the world in that way since we all pretty much organize our perception about our own lives in accord with Arch-plot 'rules'. But, from the look of it, it can be a fun and humorous experience (8-1/2, Wayne's World, That Obscure Object of Desire) to turn all the cliches of Arch-plot on their head.
It all appeals of course to a certain kind of person, in a certain kind of philosophical 'impass', with a quite specific aesthetic. I haven't seen this film but I have seen others of the Coen's. The truth of the matter is that there is really nothing to discuss about them. They are utterly 'unreal' and nearly completely arbitrary and sensationalistic.
The artist exhales---chaos, quirkiness---and breathes in---box-office receipts (!)
Seventh Seal: Final Scene
I can't go on. I'll go on.
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: A serious Man
No Alex, you're an unbelievable dim-witted Idiot who just doesn't get the clue from whatever was shown at all.Alex T. Jacob wrote:J I haven't seen this film but I have seen others of the Coen's. The truth of the matter is that there is really nothing to discuss about them. They are utterly 'unreal' and nearly completely arbitrary and sensationalistic.
First you are commenting on a movie you didn't see. Pretty lame as most reviewers admit it's not the usual Coen shtick.
Then you are dumbly repeating as well as mostly ignoring the very point I tried to make, which is that yes, from a boring predictable mind-numbing, reflexive perspective the Coen brothers probably meant it to be unreal and arbitrary but I beg to differ because I watched it and maintain the position that artists and most of their audience have no clue anyway: they cannot - forbidden by cherubim with flaming swords.
Capiche, my neurotic little fiend?
-
Alex T. Jacob
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am
Re: A serious Man
Try to get a grip on yourself Diebert. The real thing to be examined here is contempt. If you can get through this I think you will have made a really BIG step forward. I am also a little bit worried about you looking for---and finding!---'meaning' in places no one intended it to be. Isn't THAT 'neurotic'? ;-)
Where we can start is here: "Robert C. Solomon places contempt on the same continuum as resentment and anger, and he argues that the differences between the three emotions are that resentment is directed toward a higher status individual; anger is directed toward an equal status individual; and contempt is directed toward a lower status individual [italics mine]. Contempt is often brought about by a combination of anger and disgust [italics mine]."
I have often had the feeling that you consider yourself to be a 'higher status individual', indeed one of the forum 'nobles', the Fourth Genius as I have said, and you see me on a lower level. Is this accurate or would you describe it differently? From my side, this is what I noticed in our off-forum communication: your belief that you are 'superior', 'more advanced', etc. Is your recent outburst---perhaps---an open manifestation of this? Can you see why I feel it is a good area for us to focus on right now? Really make an effort to 'get to the bottom of it'?
Finally, that Phew! has been a big question mark for me.
And lets keep movie narratives right at the fore as we go along. Eat drink man woman
Where we can start is here: "Robert C. Solomon places contempt on the same continuum as resentment and anger, and he argues that the differences between the three emotions are that resentment is directed toward a higher status individual; anger is directed toward an equal status individual; and contempt is directed toward a lower status individual [italics mine]. Contempt is often brought about by a combination of anger and disgust [italics mine]."
I have often had the feeling that you consider yourself to be a 'higher status individual', indeed one of the forum 'nobles', the Fourth Genius as I have said, and you see me on a lower level. Is this accurate or would you describe it differently? From my side, this is what I noticed in our off-forum communication: your belief that you are 'superior', 'more advanced', etc. Is your recent outburst---perhaps---an open manifestation of this? Can you see why I feel it is a good area for us to focus on right now? Really make an effort to 'get to the bottom of it'?
Finally, that Phew! has been a big question mark for me.
And lets keep movie narratives right at the fore as we go along. Eat drink man woman
I can't go on. I'll go on.
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: A serious Man
But Alex, what makes you think you have the capacity to distinguish between malice or sting coming from a good or a bad place? It's after all the same overflowing heart which underpins forms of love as well as hate, the good Samaritan as well as the criminal. Perhaps your senses and antennas are not as well developed as you think. To be honest, compared to a couple of other regulars here you appear rather numb to me, handicapped, disconnected from seeing the deeper layers and rivers feeding behavior, as well as rather gross in your humor and handling of discussions. It's mostly your cleverness and book-knowledge that makes you interesting to spar with at times, or perhaps the gift to occasionally summarize pretty damn well other people's thoughts. But it must be said: you're a surprisingly nice guy overall, one who just misses the point remarkably often. Don't make too much of it though, all these mean people full of contempt for you! It must be that lingering Jewish self-hate thing...
-
Alex T. Jacob
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am
Re: A serious Man
Gee willikers, Diebert. You really come down on me with both feet...
You are a cruel mistress!
Just as a funny exercize, I suggest donning a very aristocratic but exaggerated British accent and slowly and scathingly enunciating the content of your post, just as if you were a member of a condescending private club. Try it here:
"But Alex, what makes you think you have the capacity to distinguish between malice or sting coming from a good or a bad place? It's after all the same overflowing heart which underpins forms of love as well as hate, the good Samaritan as well as the criminal".
Makes you sound like a pretentious snot, doesn't it? ʘ‿ʘ
Still, I would say that it is within just such a multi-layered exposition, replete with back-handed praise and such a fine sauce for the benelolent condemnation, that we approach this core of contempt that I am speaking about. Isn't it exactly an attempt to occupy an upper place from which you sneeringly look down on another? Isn't that really the very definition of contempt?
The thing that for me is interesting about this, is that it is this core attitude that informs the prototypical GF position. (These sound like statements but, as always, they are really questions.) It is a sort of acute arrogance that has grand assumptions about itself, that struts and swaggers, and yet when you actually get inside of it, there is really not a great deal there. It is just boyish or adolescent contempt. It's funny: the girls can't ever quite pull it off, it is very much a boy thing. The whole nexus of anger-resentment-contempt cannot really be a position of strength and certainly not of wisdom. It's a stool that only gets you up so high.
Contempt has automatically limited itself to a fairly standard group of reactions, hasn't it? It can't do much else but to stay within that reaction. I have a feeling that this may be one of the principal weaknesses not just of your attitude---as an artificial construct within which you get to act a superior role (it is an attractive role I assume)---but one that informs the sort of 'hidden attitudes' of the GF-religion.
The thing that we might be able to focus on, to broaden this and keep it also tied to story and film, is the notion of the 'controlling idea'. In a story there is one, basic determining idea that runs through the whole thing. It can usually be defined in one sentence. Take a typical crime story: It is either 'crime pays' (injustice triumphs) or 'crime doesn't pay' (justice triumphs) with the added possibility that it sort of does and sort of doesn't, which is probably more 'realistic'.
See, I think there is a core 'story' or narrative that functions in the GF viewstructure, and it can be isolated. I think this basic controlling idea can be found to operate in your general attitude (since the topic here is 'Diebert and contempt'), as well as in others. It is the one sort of irreducible theme/idea that informs much of what you say and do. This is a rather complex story so I am not exactly sure what that irreducible 'controlling idea' is, but I think that as we go along we will---together---be able to discover it.
Now, I'm not endorsing it, but in Groundhog Day the 'controlling idea' is: "Happiness fills our life when we learn to love unconditionally".
♪Then put your little hand in mine
There ain't no hill or mountain we can't climb♪
What if you just woke up one day, and everything was different?
You are a cruel mistress!
Just as a funny exercize, I suggest donning a very aristocratic but exaggerated British accent and slowly and scathingly enunciating the content of your post, just as if you were a member of a condescending private club. Try it here:
"But Alex, what makes you think you have the capacity to distinguish between malice or sting coming from a good or a bad place? It's after all the same overflowing heart which underpins forms of love as well as hate, the good Samaritan as well as the criminal".
Makes you sound like a pretentious snot, doesn't it? ʘ‿ʘ
Still, I would say that it is within just such a multi-layered exposition, replete with back-handed praise and such a fine sauce for the benelolent condemnation, that we approach this core of contempt that I am speaking about. Isn't it exactly an attempt to occupy an upper place from which you sneeringly look down on another? Isn't that really the very definition of contempt?
The thing that for me is interesting about this, is that it is this core attitude that informs the prototypical GF position. (These sound like statements but, as always, they are really questions.) It is a sort of acute arrogance that has grand assumptions about itself, that struts and swaggers, and yet when you actually get inside of it, there is really not a great deal there. It is just boyish or adolescent contempt. It's funny: the girls can't ever quite pull it off, it is very much a boy thing. The whole nexus of anger-resentment-contempt cannot really be a position of strength and certainly not of wisdom. It's a stool that only gets you up so high.
Contempt has automatically limited itself to a fairly standard group of reactions, hasn't it? It can't do much else but to stay within that reaction. I have a feeling that this may be one of the principal weaknesses not just of your attitude---as an artificial construct within which you get to act a superior role (it is an attractive role I assume)---but one that informs the sort of 'hidden attitudes' of the GF-religion.
The thing that we might be able to focus on, to broaden this and keep it also tied to story and film, is the notion of the 'controlling idea'. In a story there is one, basic determining idea that runs through the whole thing. It can usually be defined in one sentence. Take a typical crime story: It is either 'crime pays' (injustice triumphs) or 'crime doesn't pay' (justice triumphs) with the added possibility that it sort of does and sort of doesn't, which is probably more 'realistic'.
See, I think there is a core 'story' or narrative that functions in the GF viewstructure, and it can be isolated. I think this basic controlling idea can be found to operate in your general attitude (since the topic here is 'Diebert and contempt'), as well as in others. It is the one sort of irreducible theme/idea that informs much of what you say and do. This is a rather complex story so I am not exactly sure what that irreducible 'controlling idea' is, but I think that as we go along we will---together---be able to discover it.
Now, I'm not endorsing it, but in Groundhog Day the 'controlling idea' is: "Happiness fills our life when we learn to love unconditionally".
♪Then put your little hand in mine
There ain't no hill or mountain we can't climb♪
What if you just woke up one day, and everything was different?
I can't go on. I'll go on.
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: A serious Man
Your continuous obsession with the "GF position", your entering and leaving with multiple accounts, all these verbose statements which are increasingly amounting to nothing but self-congratulating wankery - it can only aggravate some o-so-comically packaged serious mental condition which cannot be really healthy for you, nor for the forum which already is on the brink of consisting entirely out of nonsense. Although some might argue it always has been on that brink. Why the supposedly compassionate moderators are letting you self-destruct like this, I do wonder.Alex T. Jacob wrote:...... the prototypical GF position....
And your serious mental disposition could be best described as, like your Dutch hate-hero with zero intellectual credit and many subterranean axes to grind: a classic identity alienation.
-
Alex T. Jacob
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am
Re: A serious Man
1) My whole purpose has been to come to terms with the 'GF position'. That is the whole reason why I signed on here and why I participated.
2) Whether I have one, two or ten accounts makes no difference at all. Everyone knows who I am. This is a red-herring on your part.
3) What is 'verbose' in one moment, for you, is 'like steel' in another: you like it when people write in pro of your positions or understanding (or is it aesthetic?) but you get...contemptuous...when those perspectives are not shared.
4) What is wankery for one is not for another. As far as I know I think my mind is relatively stable.
5) I am not responsible for the lack of participation by others or the inferior quality of other people's posts, Diebert. I am completely happy with what I contribute. The two main areas we are going to explore on this thread (contempt and story-line and how that functions in the 'prototypical GF viewstructure') are good topics of conversation.
6) Whether it has been on the brink forever or never is really of no concern to me. If you think it is on the brink, improve it. That's about all I can say to you, man. Be the change you want to see in the world. =^_^=
7) Me, self-destruct? Not even in the slightest. My commitment to myself is and always has been: maximize gains. You want to cast me in a certain light Diebert because of your anger and contempt. Keep the focus on yourself and do some honest work here.
8) My Dutch hero? I only have one! Wilders is defining a position in Dutch culture and within a broader European context. I find his ideas rather radical but they are not without (some) merit.
The value in these exchanges is to reveal, to bring out, how contempt functions, how it gets a grip on someone, how it controls them, without their being able to see. I see 'all this' as very relevant. And that is of course why I remain focused on this project of discovery.
Am I wrong or does this statement have some poignancy?
"Contempt has automatically limited itself to a fairly standard group of reactions, hasn't it? It can't do much else but to stay within that reaction. I have a feeling that this may be one of the principal weaknesses not just of your attitude---as an artificial construct within which you get to act a superior role (it is an attractive role I assume)---but one that informs the sort of 'hidden attitudes' of the GF-religion."
2) Whether I have one, two or ten accounts makes no difference at all. Everyone knows who I am. This is a red-herring on your part.
3) What is 'verbose' in one moment, for you, is 'like steel' in another: you like it when people write in pro of your positions or understanding (or is it aesthetic?) but you get...contemptuous...when those perspectives are not shared.
4) What is wankery for one is not for another. As far as I know I think my mind is relatively stable.
5) I am not responsible for the lack of participation by others or the inferior quality of other people's posts, Diebert. I am completely happy with what I contribute. The two main areas we are going to explore on this thread (contempt and story-line and how that functions in the 'prototypical GF viewstructure') are good topics of conversation.
6) Whether it has been on the brink forever or never is really of no concern to me. If you think it is on the brink, improve it. That's about all I can say to you, man. Be the change you want to see in the world. =^_^=
7) Me, self-destruct? Not even in the slightest. My commitment to myself is and always has been: maximize gains. You want to cast me in a certain light Diebert because of your anger and contempt. Keep the focus on yourself and do some honest work here.
8) My Dutch hero? I only have one! Wilders is defining a position in Dutch culture and within a broader European context. I find his ideas rather radical but they are not without (some) merit.
The value in these exchanges is to reveal, to bring out, how contempt functions, how it gets a grip on someone, how it controls them, without their being able to see. I see 'all this' as very relevant. And that is of course why I remain focused on this project of discovery.
Am I wrong or does this statement have some poignancy?
"Contempt has automatically limited itself to a fairly standard group of reactions, hasn't it? It can't do much else but to stay within that reaction. I have a feeling that this may be one of the principal weaknesses not just of your attitude---as an artificial construct within which you get to act a superior role (it is an attractive role I assume)---but one that informs the sort of 'hidden attitudes' of the GF-religion."
I can't go on. I'll go on.
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: A serious Man
In the end you're just derailing a thread I started to discuss a movie in, which you interrupted without even having a clue about the subject since you didn't watch it at all.
Why not start your own topics about "contempt"?
But I know, you might not get the interaction you desire there. You have somehow to circle around these big "positions" of others to come "to terms" with. Or even small positions on a freaking movie! You make it the reason of your participation here. You're so busy with resolving your own issues through the few elements you found at this forum you see as having potential. But it's this self-centeredness which lies at the core of your issues. That's why it becomes all so hollow, like a stage performance exclusively for yourself.
And now you're here circling around in this movie topic in the section for worldly topics, creating even another separate topic on my native country's internal politics. Any idea how bizarre that looks? That's why I sincerely think you're losing it and my reactions are more stemming from concern than anything else, concern on how unhealthy it all seems. Is it such a bad thing to scold and warn you off?
Back off man, you're just not sincere enough overall. All the best, nevertheless.
Why not start your own topics about "contempt"?
But I know, you might not get the interaction you desire there. You have somehow to circle around these big "positions" of others to come "to terms" with. Or even small positions on a freaking movie! You make it the reason of your participation here. You're so busy with resolving your own issues through the few elements you found at this forum you see as having potential. But it's this self-centeredness which lies at the core of your issues. That's why it becomes all so hollow, like a stage performance exclusively for yourself.
And now you're here circling around in this movie topic in the section for worldly topics, creating even another separate topic on my native country's internal politics. Any idea how bizarre that looks? That's why I sincerely think you're losing it and my reactions are more stemming from concern than anything else, concern on how unhealthy it all seems. Is it such a bad thing to scold and warn you off?
Back off man, you're just not sincere enough overall. All the best, nevertheless.
-
Alex T. Jacob
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am
Re: A serious Man
Relax, Diebert. I get the impression you are having a tough week or something.
I have been discussing Geert Wilders on another discussion groups and it ties in with recent anti-immigration activism here in USA. My interest in him goes back many months.
I will admit that, just a little bit, it is fun to watch your convulsions...
If you were being baited by a LuNaTiC, isn't the best medicine silence?
I have been discussing Geert Wilders on another discussion groups and it ties in with recent anti-immigration activism here in USA. My interest in him goes back many months.
I will admit that, just a little bit, it is fun to watch your convulsions...
If you were being baited by a LuNaTiC, isn't the best medicine silence?
I can't go on. I'll go on.
-
Carmel
Re: A serious Man
Diebert:
And surely my recent statement about artists being the least likely to understand the meaning of their work (if it would have any) could still hold true.
Carmel:
I'm not convinced that's true with regard to the Coen brothers...
Diebert:
I rather doubt the Coen brothers had anything else in mind than to subvert the need for meaning and explanations with this movie beyond mapping their own background (the Jew as archetypal unbeliever?) apart from implying a seeming mystery entering or leaving at times beyond comprehension, in a way that would make people wonder if there's any real mystery at all - and how the answer might really not matter that much in the end.
Carmel:
Absurdism-"efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning in the universe will ultimately fail(and hence are absurd), because no such meaning exists, at least in the relation to the individual." (wiki)
What you are describing here is a good general description of the philosophy of Absurdism. The Coen brothers are Absurdists, in both the philosophical sense and the more mundane use of the word.
I haven't seen "A Serious Man" yet, but have seen five of their movies and Absurdism is a prevalent core throughout most of their works. I suspect that the seeming arbitrariness of their films is intentional.
From Fargo:
Marge Gunderson: "There's more to life than a little money, ya know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are. And it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it."
At the moment that she utters the last line, she's deep in thought, baffled, as though she's no longer questioning the criminal, but the whole of humanity, life itself.
Diebert:
Some even see the movie as misogynistic or even antisemitic by showing female and Jewish characteristics in a consistent stereotypical and 'stark' light. Others more familiar with typical Jewish culture might point out it's rather standard humor for Jews (not unlike for example the very popular series of Larry David called Curb your Enthusiasm).
Carmel:
I get the sense that the Coens are alternately fascinated and repulsed by their fellow humans, but above all they are amused by them, hence the almost cartoonish quality of their characters. Their characters are so individualistic, with such specific traits, that I'm not inclined to see them as a prototype for a larger group of people. They are utterly themselves and that is all. :) ...Could that be the case in this movie?
Diebert:
It's an unusual movie in form and development, with exaggerated, somewhat "detached" characters for sure as in almost every Coen movie
Carmel:
yes, that's what I like about their movies. This detachment lends perspective to their movies, it allows for a more interactive process between the artist and the viewer...or it's just amusing, depending on one's perspective, but isn't that true of all art. It seems to me that when we analyze art, we inherently kill its essence, something is always lost in the translation.
---
Alex,
This quote's for you based on your "inhales quirkiness and chaos...exhales box office receipts"
From Raising Arizona:
H.I.: It's a crazy world. Someone oughta sell tickets.
Glen: Sure, I'd buy one.
-
Incidentally, Ethan Coen has a philosophy degree from Princeton University. Savvy bastard! :)
And surely my recent statement about artists being the least likely to understand the meaning of their work (if it would have any) could still hold true.
Carmel:
I'm not convinced that's true with regard to the Coen brothers...
Diebert:
I rather doubt the Coen brothers had anything else in mind than to subvert the need for meaning and explanations with this movie beyond mapping their own background (the Jew as archetypal unbeliever?) apart from implying a seeming mystery entering or leaving at times beyond comprehension, in a way that would make people wonder if there's any real mystery at all - and how the answer might really not matter that much in the end.
Carmel:
Absurdism-"efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning in the universe will ultimately fail(and hence are absurd), because no such meaning exists, at least in the relation to the individual." (wiki)
What you are describing here is a good general description of the philosophy of Absurdism. The Coen brothers are Absurdists, in both the philosophical sense and the more mundane use of the word.
I haven't seen "A Serious Man" yet, but have seen five of their movies and Absurdism is a prevalent core throughout most of their works. I suspect that the seeming arbitrariness of their films is intentional.
From Fargo:
Marge Gunderson: "There's more to life than a little money, ya know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are. And it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it."
At the moment that she utters the last line, she's deep in thought, baffled, as though she's no longer questioning the criminal, but the whole of humanity, life itself.
Diebert:
Some even see the movie as misogynistic or even antisemitic by showing female and Jewish characteristics in a consistent stereotypical and 'stark' light. Others more familiar with typical Jewish culture might point out it's rather standard humor for Jews (not unlike for example the very popular series of Larry David called Curb your Enthusiasm).
Carmel:
I get the sense that the Coens are alternately fascinated and repulsed by their fellow humans, but above all they are amused by them, hence the almost cartoonish quality of their characters. Their characters are so individualistic, with such specific traits, that I'm not inclined to see them as a prototype for a larger group of people. They are utterly themselves and that is all. :) ...Could that be the case in this movie?
Diebert:
It's an unusual movie in form and development, with exaggerated, somewhat "detached" characters for sure as in almost every Coen movie
Carmel:
yes, that's what I like about their movies. This detachment lends perspective to their movies, it allows for a more interactive process between the artist and the viewer...or it's just amusing, depending on one's perspective, but isn't that true of all art. It seems to me that when we analyze art, we inherently kill its essence, something is always lost in the translation.
---
Alex,
This quote's for you based on your "inhales quirkiness and chaos...exhales box office receipts"
From Raising Arizona:
H.I.: It's a crazy world. Someone oughta sell tickets.
Glen: Sure, I'd buy one.
-
Incidentally, Ethan Coen has a philosophy degree from Princeton University. Savvy bastard! :)
-
Alex T. Jacob
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am
Re: A serious Man
It was:
"The artist exhales---chaos, quirkiness---and breathes in---box-office receipts (!)"
I was mimicking Diebert on another thread when he quoted Weininger who said that an artist simply exhales an assemblage of gathered content wheras 'a philosopher' breathes it all in anew and, one gathers, considers it all over again, remolds it into higher and better things.
The TB 'Genius' position can only see art (for example, the Novel) as an exercize in 'aesthetics'. They have little else but 'contempt' for art (and no understanding at all).
But then they stay home and watch Coen brothers films through the neighbors curtains. Go figure...
"The artist exhales---chaos, quirkiness---and breathes in---box-office receipts (!)"
I was mimicking Diebert on another thread when he quoted Weininger who said that an artist simply exhales an assemblage of gathered content wheras 'a philosopher' breathes it all in anew and, one gathers, considers it all over again, remolds it into higher and better things.
The TB 'Genius' position can only see art (for example, the Novel) as an exercize in 'aesthetics'. They have little else but 'contempt' for art (and no understanding at all).
But then they stay home and watch Coen brothers films through the neighbors curtains. Go figure...
I can't go on. I'll go on.
-
Carmel
Re: A serious Man
[quote="Alex T. Jacob"]It was:
"The artist exhales---chaos, quirkiness---and breathes in---box-office receipts (!)"
Carmel:
It was that! Sorry, Alex.
Alex:
I was mimicking Diebert on another thread when he quoted Weininger who said that an artist simply exhales an assemblage of gathered content wheras 'a philosopher' breathes it all in anew and, one gathers, considers it all over again, remolds it into higher and better things.
Carmel:
I know what you were doing;) Incidentally, not that his opinion matters, but Weininger doesn't exclude the artist from "Genius". He only excludes women, Jews, the "Negroes"... and facepainters(U.S. football).
Alex:
The TB 'Genius' position can only see art (for example, the Novel) as an exercize in 'aesthetics'. They have little else but 'contempt' for art (and no understanding at all).
Carmel:
..but wouldn't you agree that art varies widely in its purposes and outcomes? On the lowest end, it's merely self indulgent emotional wallowing, catharsis. In the middle range, it can be aesthectically pleasing, persuasive, or simply entertaining, but on the highest end, art is revelatory, transcendent...genius. Artists who reach genius speak in a sort of philosophical shorthand, but this can only be experienced directly. The connection between the artist and the reader is immediate. All attempts to categorize, analyze it, fail. It's rather like the Tao in that way...or the feminine;)
Alex:
But then they stay home and watch Coen brothers films through the neighbors curtains. Go figure...
Carmel:
Yeah? ..and what's wrong with that? I watch all movies that way. :)
But, more seriously, Alex. I would appreciate if you didn't use my posts as an opportunity to take a jab at Diebert. Perhaps, you could stick to the subject of art/genius...or else speak to him directly?
"The artist exhales---chaos, quirkiness---and breathes in---box-office receipts (!)"
Carmel:
It was that! Sorry, Alex.
Alex:
I was mimicking Diebert on another thread when he quoted Weininger who said that an artist simply exhales an assemblage of gathered content wheras 'a philosopher' breathes it all in anew and, one gathers, considers it all over again, remolds it into higher and better things.
Carmel:
I know what you were doing;) Incidentally, not that his opinion matters, but Weininger doesn't exclude the artist from "Genius". He only excludes women, Jews, the "Negroes"... and facepainters(U.S. football).
Alex:
The TB 'Genius' position can only see art (for example, the Novel) as an exercize in 'aesthetics'. They have little else but 'contempt' for art (and no understanding at all).
Carmel:
..but wouldn't you agree that art varies widely in its purposes and outcomes? On the lowest end, it's merely self indulgent emotional wallowing, catharsis. In the middle range, it can be aesthectically pleasing, persuasive, or simply entertaining, but on the highest end, art is revelatory, transcendent...genius. Artists who reach genius speak in a sort of philosophical shorthand, but this can only be experienced directly. The connection between the artist and the reader is immediate. All attempts to categorize, analyze it, fail. It's rather like the Tao in that way...or the feminine;)
Alex:
But then they stay home and watch Coen brothers films through the neighbors curtains. Go figure...
Carmel:
Yeah? ..and what's wrong with that? I watch all movies that way. :)
But, more seriously, Alex. I would appreciate if you didn't use my posts as an opportunity to take a jab at Diebert. Perhaps, you could stick to the subject of art/genius...or else speak to him directly?
-
Alex T. Jacob
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am
Re: A serious Man
Carmel wrote: "But, more seriously, Alex. I would appreciate if you didn't use my posts as an opportunity to take a jab at Diebert. Perhaps, you could stick to the subject of art/genius...or else speak to him directly?"
Speak to Diebert...DIRECTLY? Oh God, just the thought of it makes me tremble! He's really been in a terrible mood lately and he's...he's...so forbidding. I assume it is an effeminate European reaction to my hyper-masculine American cocksuredness.
Speaking of Weininger, I have an original edition of Sex and Character right here on my desk.
The 'genius' (GF) reaction against art, I have determined, is actually something radically different from what it pretends to be. The core of the reaction is unconscious, not conscious, and so the 'genius' himself doesn't exactly know what he is reacting to. The 'genius' of GF is in fact an effeminate being! Some of these guys---and I know this for a fact---are really into Hello Kitty...
Look here: Effeminacy.
Okay: I promise you I will not piggy-back on your posts to needle the Dutchman... I hope you can forgive my opportunism...
Speak to Diebert...DIRECTLY? Oh God, just the thought of it makes me tremble! He's really been in a terrible mood lately and he's...he's...so forbidding. I assume it is an effeminate European reaction to my hyper-masculine American cocksuredness.
Speaking of Weininger, I have an original edition of Sex and Character right here on my desk.
The 'genius' (GF) reaction against art, I have determined, is actually something radically different from what it pretends to be. The core of the reaction is unconscious, not conscious, and so the 'genius' himself doesn't exactly know what he is reacting to. The 'genius' of GF is in fact an effeminate being! Some of these guys---and I know this for a fact---are really into Hello Kitty...
Look here: Effeminacy.
Okay: I promise you I will not piggy-back on your posts to needle the Dutchman... I hope you can forgive my opportunism...
I can't go on. I'll go on.