A Serious Man: Questions For Further Study

623edb761795fa57_a-serious-man1. What is that quote at the start of the film? From a non-Jewish source? How does it shed light on the Jewish world of the film? Specifically, how does it relate to the theology of the first rabbi?

2. How does the Dybbuk story relate to the rest of the film?

3. What is the signifcance of the story of the goy’s teeth? Do you have anything written on the inside of your teeth?

4. Gopnik is dismissive of the stories / fables used to illustrate the principles of physics which he teaches. He claims not to understand the stories, but to put all his faith in the mathematics. How does this relate to the mysterious fables related in the film: the dybbuk, the goy’s teeth?

5. What’s the difference between Gopnik’s blackboards full of formulae, which don’t seem to help him much, and Uncle Arthur’s notebook full of formulae, which seem to get him in serious trouble? Did anybody else think of A Beautiful Mind?

6. Do the three rabbis correspond to Job’s comforters?

7. What is the Grace Slick quote? What is its function: to undermine the rabbi as a source of wisdom, or to affirm something about popular culture? How does it relate to the warm affirmations of the son’s bar mitzvah, which are oblivious to the son’s actual state of mind? Is all that stuff cynical? Is the film cynical? Is Solomon cynical?

8. What was that science fiction TV show, with the brain in the vat?

9. Think about the recurring phrase “a serious man.”

10. What is the significance of the simultaneity of the two car accidents?

11. Why do critics say there’s no God in this film apart from the film-makers, and they are a cruel God? Is the God of the film cruel? Is He any different than the God of biblical wisdom literature? What does Robert K. Johnston think?

12. One rabbi contrasts a Jewish notion of the afterlife – “Abraham’s bosom” – with the Christian idea of heaven, which he compares to Canada (thereby showing great wisdom). Gopnik sends Uncle Arthur to Canada in a canoe. Or tries to. Significance?

13. If Canada is heaven, is North Dakota hell, Vanity Fair, the place of temptation and damnation? Isn’t Fargo in North Dakota? What would Marge Gunderson say about this?

14. Did this film make anybody else think of Crimes and Misdemeanors?

15. If you had a neighbour’s wife like Mrs. Samsky, would you covet her? Would you be more or less inclined to adjust the TV antenna whenever your son complained about poor reception? Did you like F Troop when you were a kid? I did.

TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY AFTER VIEWING THE FILM

16. Think about the variations on the phrase “I didn’t do anything.” A protestation of Gopnik’s innocence: “I don’t deserve this, I didn’t do anything wrong”? A perhaps unconsious confession of sins of omission? How does this assertion relate to Gopnik’s dreams? Is he a good man for not having actually had sex with his neighbour’s wife, though clearly he was tempted? Is he a bad man for not having actually taken his brother to Canada, sending him off with an envelope of cash? How good are we for not doing the wrong we dream of doing? How bad are we for not doing the good we dream of doing?

17. What’s the difference between using the bribe money to bless his brother, or using it to pay his legal bills? Does the apparent choice to do the latter somehow lead to the bad things that happen to this “good” man? Or is it foolish to look for cause and effect in this? Does this relate to Gopnik’s lectures on uncertainty, etc?

18. How does the tornado relate to the flood at the end of O Brother, Where Art Thou? Both seem “acts of God”, the latter clearly an affirmation of the validity of faith (as represented by the blind prophet) and a refutation of the “wisdom of men” (as embodied by Everett), the former seemingly a reversal of the apparent restoration of divine blessings which would more closely parallel the resolution of the biblical Job story.

  • http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/ Peter T Chattaway

    Re: question #1, I believe the opening quote was from Maimonides, a very influential 12th-century Jewish rabbi and philosopher who helped make Aristotle popular in the west; the 13th-century Catholic saint Thomas Aquinas was one of the people influenced by his work.

  • http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/ Peter T Chattaway

    Whoops, the quote was actually from Rashi, an 11th-century rabbi “famed as the author of the first comprehensive commentary on the Talmud, as well as a comprehensive commentary on the Tanakh”, according to Wikipedia. I knew it was ONE of those medieval rabbis I heard about in university 15 years ago. :)

  • Pingback: Soul Food Unintentional Film Festival: Vancouver BC, Nov 24-30 | Filmwell

  • elissaF

    What was the Torah passage that Danny read?

  • Ron Reed

    Look what I found!

    “A Serious Man opens with a quote allegedly from Rashi. Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you. I mentioned to the brothers that while Rashi was a prolific commentator on Talmud and Tanach, he is not exactly a figure oft quoted. They – perhaps knowing their bluff had been called – laughed. I asked where they pulled the line from. ‘I honestly don’t remember,’ Joel curiously admitted.”

    Thats from bangitout (address below), where Jordan Hiller is working through a list of “25 Essential Jewish Films” – with the Coen’s latest already cracking the line-up at #9, “one of the Jewiest Movies of the year…if not all time…” Think I feel another “Au hasard” piece coming on…

    Ron

    http://www.bangitout.com/articles/viewarticle.php?a=2901

  • http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/ Peter T Chattaway

    So the opening Rashi quote in A Serious Man is bogus, just like the opening title card in Fargo that says the movie is based on a true story?

  • Lawrence R. Hamilton

    The quote from Rashi is authentic. As was previously mentioned, Rashi was a medieval French rabbi who wrote comprehensive commentaries on both the Bible and the Talmud. The epigraph quoted at the beginning of A Serious Man is a direct quote from Rashi – an excerpt from his commentary on Deuteronomy 18:13. The Hebrew word that is translated as “simplicity” (t’mimut) is a notoriously difficult word to translate and interpret; it connects with the word tamim in the underlying passage from Deuteronomy, which is likewise difficult to translate and interpret. In other words, just like the film.

  • Chase Souders

    I watched an interview with the Coens and they said that the story in the beginning of the film does not pertain to the rest of the story at all. They just though it was a good fable to set the tone for the rest of the film.

  • Phelan T. Burns

    So the word “simplicity” is DIFFICULT to translate…. another divine daichotomy brought to you by: God

  • http://www.soulfoodmovies.blogspot.com/ Ron Reed

    …and the Coen brothers. (The Koan brothers? Father, forgive me…)

  • Greg

    The story in the beginning is most certainly related to the rest of the film. The Coen Bros. are notorious for being misleading in interviews.

  • Jogi

    You may find this helpful to understand it.. Good Interpretation

    http://theamericanscene.com/2009/10/09/Some+Thoughts+on+A+Serious+Man

  • Wesbyw

    Ha! Goneril, with a white beard! They flattered
    me like a dog; and told me I had white hairs in my
    beard ere the black ones were there. To say ‘ay’
    and ‘no’ to every thing that I said!–’Ay’ and ‘no’
    too was no good divinity. When the rain came to
    wet me once, and the wind to make me chatter; when
    the thunder would not peace at my bidding; there I
    found ‘em, there I smelt ‘em out. Go to, they are
    not men o’ their words: they told me I was every
    thing; ’tis a lie, I am not ague-proof.