IMDB Plot Synopsis: A black comedy set in 1967 and centered on on Larry Gopnik, a Midwestern professor who watches his life unravel when his wife prepares to leave him because his inept brother won't move out of the house.
- Do people who write these synopses even see the movies first? Because Larry’s wife leaves him because she decides she’s in love with a widower in their community, not because Larry’s brother Arthur is overstaying his welcome. Anyway.
- As part of my ongoing feminist agenda, I spent this fine Sunday morning reading Schrödinger’s Rapist, which a friend had linked and which you should read just because it’s a pretty good article. The comments to the article revealed to me that the concept was based on Schrödinger’s cat, a term I’d never heard before having not progressed past introductory physics in high school. Imagine my joy when in Larry’s first scene he’s seen writing feverishly on the chalkboard in his classroom, eventually whirling around and triumphantly revealing to his unenthusiastic class the scientific proof that is best symbolized by Schrödinger’s cat. Could I have known this morning that this information would be useful later this afternoon? No, but it’s fun that it was.
- I’ve been trying to avoid reviews of this movie but I’ve still managed to stumble across some discussion about the opening scene of the 19th century Russian couple fighting about whether or not the husband ran into a rabbi the wife knows to have been dead for three years, because the scene seems disconnected from the rest of the film and people are hotly debating the connection. I’m happy to chalk it up to yet another Schrödinger’s cat scenario in a film rife with them, where the man in question is either still alive (as believed by the husband) or a dybbuk (as believed by the wife) — ultimately, as far as I can see, he’s both until the moment when the wife stabs him and only then (the “open the box” moment) can they determine with any certainty which he is. Of course, he doesn’t suffer any immediate ill effects and so they think he’s been proven to be a dybbuk, but of course after they state this aloud, he starts to bleed. As they discuss later in the movie, God seems to give them the opportunity to raise all sorts of questions but rarely provides answers; we don’t really find out if the guy is actually a dybbuk, but is that actually important? Hilariously, the character is called “Dybbuk?” in the credits.
- Also, I’m pretty sure I’ll be obsessed with Schrödinger’s cat for the foreseeable future. Watch out.
- There was a lot of good parallelism between subplots in the movie. I also liked Larry’s use of symbols to explain mathematical proofs in comparison to the various parables told by the three rabbis Larry visits to find some sort of explanation for the downward trajectory his life is taking. I love absurdist mental exercises that are meant to help people but often end up confusing them further. When Rabbi Marshak, the wisest and oldest of the rabbis Larry visits, started reciting the opening lines of Jefferson Airplane’s “Somebody to Love” as a philosophical query to Daniel after his Bar Mitzvah, I nearly died. I thought it was also nice that he clearly had gone beyond just listening to Danny’s confiscated transistor radio, that he had actively done some research on the band, when he started naming the members. Jorma whoever.
- I think the Dr. Sussman story might have been my favourite part of the movie, although admittedly I made up a subplot in which Russell Krauss was a Nazi way back in the day and that a Jewish dentist carved an enamel S.O.S. in the back of Krauss’ teeth in hopes that someone else might see the message and send assistance. Rabbi Nachtner, that’s what I got out of your story. Oops.
- I have developed an intense love for Michael Stuhlbarg, so it depressed me that there’s virtually no info on him on IMDB. Fail.
- I spent the whole movie thinking the guy who played Sy Abelman was Tim Curry.
- If Roger Deakins ever plans on being an organ donor, I would gladly be the recipient of his eyeballs. And his sense of aesthetic, but I imagine that would be slightly more difficult to transplant.
- The mail order record club that Larry’s son Danny belongs to must be really awesome because they were apparently able to send Santana’s Abraxas and Creedence Clearwater Revival’s Cosmo’s Factory to him even though those albums would not be released until 1970. Musical anachronisms bug the hell out of me, as I’m sure I’ve mentioned in the past.
- That said, I liked how much usage the movie got out of Jefferson Airplane’s Surrealistic Pillow beyond “Somebody to Love”.
- Set design! I want to live in a 1950s/60s house.
- What really tips me over the edge in favour of this movie is the overall tone. It’s that kind of descent into the pre-apocalypse that the trailer captured so well, so if you enjoyed the trailer you may enjoy this. Plus it’s got a lot of philosophical queries on life and morality and doesn’t melt my brain with stupidity.
- I love this poster:
I just love Larry’s Superman pose, only he’s only Superman of his suburban home and even then, despite his best efforts, his family run roughshod over him and he becomes increasingly morally impotent. I think it just sums him up pretty well.
You are hilarious! I just spent 3 hours of my work hours (yes, it wasn’t a productive day today) reading your comments/reviews. Unfuckingbelievable writing and you need a standing ovation…well, at least from me. For all your underserved empty comment boxes, pretend I added my ‘LOLs’ in them. Please keep doing what you do although I don’t necessarily agree with all.
Reply
I’m honoured I provided three hours of distraction at work! That’s a nice chunk of time.
Reply
Even though it wasn’t technically accurate, I have to say, the whole “I don’t want Santana’s Abraxas!” bit was possibly my favorite part of the whole thing. Every time he said it, I laughed, and I don’t think another title would have had the same effect.
The redesign looks really wonderful.
Reply
Re the apparent anachronism of Santana’s Abraxas and Creedence’s Cosmo’s Factory, I was complaining about it to a devoted film buff, and he insisted that the Coens would never have done that by mistake. Those albums are mentioned for a reason.
So we asked ourselves: what could the reason be? Well, think about the titles. The title of Santana’s Abraxas came from Herman Hesse’s Demian, a book that was very popular among counterculture types in the late ’60s/early ’70s. In the book, another character tells Demian about Abraxas, the god that contains both good and evil. In the film, Larry tells Dutton: “I don’t want Santana’s Abraxas!” But maybe the Coens are saying that Abraxas is coming whether Larry wants it or not.
As for the Creedence album, it’s more of a stretch, but take the title out of context and just look at the words by themselves: Cosmos. Factory. The cosmos may not make sense. It may just be a factory, churning out the lives of the people within it.
Interesting to think about anyway.
Reply