By Jeremy Martin

The Coen brothers made some of the best movies in recent memory – from “Blood Simple” and “Raising Arizona” in the 80s, to “Miller’s Crossing,” “The Big Lebowski,” and of course “Fargo” in the 90s. But with the possible exception of “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” their record in the 00s has been spotty at best.

Though 2007’s “No Country For Old Men” was a return to form and earned them Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director, it left many viewers scratching their heads and wondering if they missed something. Those same audience members will be downright befuddled after viewing the Coens’ latest, “A Serious Man.”

The film follows the unraveling life of an average, mid-Western family man named Larry Gopnick (played by newcomer – to the screen, anyway – Michael Stuhlbarg). Larry is a physics professor up for tenure when his world starts to get turned upside down. He fears a foreign exchange student is bribing him for a good grade and then later, anonymous letters start arriving to the tenure committee, slandering Larry’s good name and conduct.

Life at home isn’t much better. His wife suddenly decides to leave him for the self-righteous Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed), a recent widower. News that seems to have no effect on Larry’s two kids – they could care less. His daughter just wants a nose job and a bathroom to herself, and his son is more concerned with paying back his marijuana dealer than with studying for his own bar mitzvah. Things only get worse as Larry tries to deal with a menacing neighbor and caring for his unemployed and possibly criminal brother, Arthur (Richard Kind). Larry tries to take it all in stride, even as he is kicked out of his own home to make room for Sy. But eventually Larry begins to question God and what God wants from us, leading him on a series of visits to three different rabbis.

This downward spiral has some critics likening the film to the story of Job, and that makes sense, but not much else in the film does. The latter part of the film is broken into three parts based on the three rabbis that Larry goes to. But these visits leave Larry, and the audience, with only more questions. And the ending is just as sudden and even more oblique than the finale of “No Country For Old Men.”

As a point of disclosure, I feel I should point out that much of the film is concerned with the practices and principles of Judaism – a subject on which I am wholly ignorant. It would not surprise me in the least if this film made more sense and was more enjoyable to someone with a greater understanding of Jewish culture and history. For example, the movie starts with a prologue set in an earlier century and featuring Fyvush Finkel as a man who visits a peasant couple and may or may not be a ghost. I later learned that this is a Yiddish fold tale, a fact which, to be honest, still leaves its significance to the rest of the story completely beyond my grasp.

Though “A Serious Man” is generating some Oscar buzz, I’m afraid this is one that clearly falls into the category of appealing to critics and film elitists but completely misses the mark for the general viewing public (that said, a Best Actor nod for Michael Stuhlbarg would not be undeserved). I consider myself to be a viewer who rides the line between the two, so my dislike of this film is not without regard to either viewpoint. I have a special place in my heart for the Coen Brothers (“Barton Fink” in particular), but “A Simple Man” doesn’t feel like a film that was made for an audience – it feels like something the Coens made for their own amusement. Like an inside joke, you’re either in on it or you’re not.

ADDENDUM

In my earlier review of the Coen Brothers’ latest, “A Serious Man,” I mentioned that despite my lukewarm reaction, the film was garnering some Oscar buzz. So it will be interesting to see whether this momentum can be sustained after the film’s snubbing by the Hollywood Foreign Press. In last week’s Golden Globes nominations, “A Serious Man” was nowhere to be found.

Perhaps part of the problem is the film’s indifferent tone. Are we supposed to feel bad for the series of misfortunes that lead character Larry Gopnik must endure? Or are we simply supposed to laugh at the absurdities that life and/or God throw at us? It has actually hit me since my review that this is my main gripe with the film. From an awards standpoint, surely some of the appeal of the Globes is that awards are given for both dramatic films as well as comedy/musicals. But “A Serious Man” is neither. Or is it both?

The Golden Globes have been pretty kind to the Coens over the years, nominating them in the Screenplay, Director, and Picture categories for both “No Country For Old Men” (which won for Screenplay) and “Fargo” (as a Comedy/Musical, which I maintain is very debatable). They’ve even nominated the smaller “The Man Without A Face” in the Screenplay category and last year’s mediocre “Burn After Reading” in the Best Picture – Comedy/Musical.

All of which brings me to my next point – that another part of the appeal of the Golden Globes is as a precursor to the Oscars. The Coens are certainly a case in point. Both “Fargo” and “No Country For Old Men” went on to win nominations in the same categories at the Oscars. They won Screenplay for “Fargo” and Screenplay, Director, and Best Picture for “No Country.” So it would seem that “A Serious Man” will be shut out by the Academy as well.

None of this is surprising for such an odd, divisive film. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. For now, from this awards fan at least, the snubbing of “A Serious Man” isn’t such a bad thing.