I imagine that many Americans skipped right over the Coen Brothers’ 2009 film “A Serious Man” for many reasons — not the least of which is that the title does not exactly suggest a holiday tent-pole extravaganza.  It also probably didn’t help that the film centers entirely on Jewish characters set in a Jewish community in a small American town.  Sure, there are a few million Jews here in the U.S., but I’m not telling stories out of school by mentioning there are a hundred thirty million (or more?) folks who identify themselves as Christian.

The great thing is that we can learn much from those of other faiths without sacrificing our own beliefs and, hence, the value of “A Serious Man.” The film is about faith.  It doesn’t matter how you cloak that faith in religious terms.  The Coens have made a film that speaks universally to all faiths, and even to atheists. So while it happens to be set in a Jewish world, every single thing that happens could just as easily have happened to Christians or Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus.

And that is why you should see it. No matter what branch of faith you reside in, you will find plenty to identify with in this wonderful, dark, insightful, and thought-provoking movie.

There are spoilers ahead, but for now I’ll speak in generalities and a few specifics that do not impact the viewing experience and let you know about the big spoilers.

(more…)

When we go to a movie, we know we’re watching entertainment, but are we watching art?  Big Hollywood readers should take a look at Abraham Kaplan’s 1966 essay, “The Aesthetics of Popular Art” if they are interested in a set of criteria that distinguishes popular art from what some might call “high art.”

Kaplan’s essay is too detailed to summarize here, but there are a few criteria that crystallize exactly why most films don’t resonate with audiences.  So if you’ve ever wondered why it is that a movie just didn’t do it for you, even if it was entertaining, this may help explain it.

By the way, Kaplan is quick to point out that this is not an exercise in snobbery.  “Popular art” does not necessarily mean “bad art,” and “high art” doesn’t have to be boring and pretentious.

Shape vs. Form

When we watch a movie, we are usually focused on the movie itself, and not on our experience of the movie.  We are interested in outcomes as opposed to the unfolding of events.  We are engaged by curiosity, but not by suspense.  It’s like looking at a sketch of Michelangelo’s David as opposed to beholding the sculpture in all its glory.  We have traced a shape but not experienced a form.  In other words, we don’t have to do any work as a viewer.  It’s all predigested.

Think about the difference between Little Miss Sunshine and Mulholland Dr. I enjoyed the former, curious about how it would end, and let it happen to me.  With the latter, the experience of the mystery unfolding is itself the purpose of the film.  I was engaged entirely by suspense.  We impose ourselves and our perception onto Mulholland Dr., whereas we merely recognize and acknowledge Little Miss Sunshine. (more…)

The real fun of the Oscars isn’t the cut-throat competition for the little gold naked man but guessing who will make the biggest idiot of himself. 

The Academy Awards show has a fine tradition of pampered celebrities popping off with something stupid when they hit the stage.  It must be something about TV cameras and the opportunity to make damn fools of themselves before tens of millions of people around the world that the Hollywoodoids find irresistible.  Notice how you never hear any fallout from the “technical awards” ceremony?  You know, the non televised ceremony recognizing the boring technological stuff that actually makes movies possible that is usually held at the Beverly Hills Elks Lodge with hosts Steve Guttenberg, Charo and/or one of the lesser Sweathogs.

Some of the past magic moments are legendary.  Remember back in 1993, when Tim Robbins and his then-gal pal, tranny vomit insanity enthusiast Susan Sarandon, harangued the crowd about the detention of Haitian refugees?  Of course, right after that these stars led the way by opening up the grounds of their mansion to these huddled Haitian masses.

Roberto Benigni engaged in memorably tiresome antics after winning “Best Foreign Language Film of 1997” for the Worst Film of All Time, the insanely appalling Life Is Beautiful.  Life has certainly aged well, and Benigni’s shtick has only gotten fresher, contributing to the runaway freight train of success that his career has become since then. (more…)

Here are capsule reviews of films that have already been covered pretty well here at BH or that just kind of faded away in theatres. That’s not a judgment of how good and bad they are, but all things considered, a full blown review seems unnecessary.

Nine:

Be Italian!

What say we don’t.

Set in go-go Rome circa 1965, director Rob Marshall (the wildly over-praised Oscar-winning “Chicago”) does a solid job of (intentionally) recreating a time and place straight out of Fellini’s “8 ½.”  And that’s about all he’s got going for him … other than the rare musical that would’ve benefited from the removal of the musical numbers. The songs are dreadful, and other than to prove Kate Hudson’s not her mother, serve no purpose above clunky, tuneless exposition.

Daniel Day-Lewis preserves his dignity as Guido the Film Director who’s without a script or even an idea for one as all the expensive people and pieces are put into place to start shooting in just a few days.  He’s conflicted, you see… Torn between his wife (Marion “The Truther” Cotillard), his mistress (Penelope Cruz), and his muse (Nicole Kidman) … not to mention the advice he receives from his confidant (Judi Dench) and mother (a completely wasted Sophia Loren).  And in there somewhere is NFL-owner Fergie, typecast as – well, that’s mean – as the Ideal Woman who stirred Guido’s loins as a young man.   (more…)