10 Comments

1. Kerry Olitzky  •  Nov 3, 2009 @5:53 am

   It is a terrific period piece and a lousy movie. But everyone certainly is talking about it. Gd help us if any of the current rabbinate looks like that rather accurate portrayal of the rabbis of the period being portrayed in the film. And no, it does not help the cause.

2. Rabbi Hayim Herring  •  Nov 3, 2009 @9:59 pm

   On the other hand….I can remember rabbis who appeared to be like Rabbi Nachtner from my own teenage years. And, let’s be honest–there are still some rabbis who have not replenished their own spiritual, educational and emotional wells. Nachtner is a warning about what can happen to rabbis when there is no ongoing professional growth.

3. Rabbi Julie Hilton Danan  •  Nov 5, 2009 @11:31 am

   Just seeing the trailer and website for this movie left me thinking, “Oy vey, more cheap pot shots at rabbis and Judaism from disaffected Hollywood Jews who hated Hebrew School 40 years ago.” But I was jealous of the old world rabbi whose secretary shoos off the protagonist with the phrase, “The rabbi is thinking.” I wish that my “thinking time” was so staunchly protected, but that’s not the reality for most hard-working congregational rabbis.

4. Michelle Pearlman  •  Nov 6, 2009 @5:08 am

   I thought the movie was not pleasant but thought provoking. For me it was a statement about how personal connection is often lost in religion. People often expect Judaism (and their rabbi) to have answers. What I saw in the main character was a man who was completely disconnected from his kids, wife, family, sense of joy, and yes Judaism. The only one moment of pure human connection was when the old rabbi returned the radio to the young boy. In that moment of shared wisdom, story, and experience (Don’t you want somebody to love?) there was a real spark for me. Spread that spark and you spread healing and deep meaning. Without that spark, rabbis are stuck talking about the theology of the parking lot, resulting in a Judaism that is understandably irrelevant.

5. amy small  •  Nov 6, 2009 @9:35 am

   I felt sick at the end of the movie — for it’s meshuganeh but sadly-too-reality-based mocking portrayal of rabbis and American Judaism and American Jews. I was finally released from my downcast mood of feeling yucky about it when I had the chance to sit with some Jewish studies professors who enjoyed the irony and wit of this film’s self deprecating humor. OK, the Coen’s gave us a chance to laugh at ourselves. But really, the films painful stereotypes reminded me of how much tikkun and healing we need to do as rabbis. And what about the dybbuk? Still pondering that part….

6. Jordan Goodman  •  Nov 6, 2009 @4:17 pm

   Shalom All,

   Bill Hybels founding and senior pastor of Willow Creek Community Church (a megachurch near Chicago) writes in his book Axioms, “A very wise man once told me that tucked deep inside every critic’s attack is usually at least a tiny kernel of truth. And rather than reflexively lashing back at the critic, he advised I should spend my energy finding out what it is.”

   Biv’racha,
   Jordan

7. Bernie Goldblatt  •  Nov 17, 2009 @7:33 pm

   The Coen Brothers grew up at Adath Jeshurun and their father and sister are still members. I had coffee with their sister (who I know) who is always portrayed in the their movies with devastating disrespect. The Coen Brothers (or the Coen “Brother” as she calls them) have no connection to Judaism and no knowledge of it other than some not so fond recollections from their long ago youth. In fact, in their personal lives they are pretty much self-hating Jews with no use for anything Jewish. I must also say that I do find many of their films to be excellent cinema. I think they missed the boat here because none of their characters was three dimensional or sympathetic in any real sense. This was a satire of Jews and Rabbis not made from the inside with any love attached to the scathing critique which would give it any balance. It felt to me like an exercise in mockery — which was at times very funny — but there was no balance and no redemption for any of the characters. You can’t show even the smallest amount of love for characters who are total strangers to you no matter how much you pretend to know them.

8. Rabbi Paul Kipnes  •  Nov 28, 2009 @7:25 am

   I find that a good movie makes me think – about life, about myself. We have all met rabbis (as well as doctors, real estate agents, therapists) who are detached, unapproachable, head in the clouds, bored or boring. I appreciated the movie in part because – like a good teaching of the Besht – it forced me to turn inward and consider: when I have been detached, unapproachable, head in the clouds, bored or boring. Like a mirror held in front of my face, the movie insisted a become self-reflective.

9. Larry Kaufman  •  Dec 6, 2009 @8:21 pm

   Everyone is worried about the portrayal of the platitudinous rabbis, and no one talks about the scenes in Hebrew class. As a synagogue-involved lay person, I have rarely heard a complaint about the quality of pastoral counseling, but have certainly heard people talking about how much they hated Hebrew school — and experiences like those shown in the firm, if they had any basis in reality, would explain why. I enjoyed the study of Hebrew enough that I stuck with it through my freshman year in college — but I also know that the three schools I attended were special.

   But I do remember hearing Rabbi Eugene Borowitz talking 35 years ago about Philip Roth’s excoriation as an anti-semite when he should have been recognized as a modern-day prophet. Jordan Goodman’s quote above from Pastor Hybels is a good guide to where this conversation should be going.

10. Tamar Frankiel, Ph.D.  •  Dec 24, 2009 @8:50 pm

    I’m beginning to wonder if I’m the only person who didn’t take this movie personally! I guess, not being a rabbi, I’m a little protected from that, but I do teach and am an administrator at a rabbinical school (Academy for Jewish Religion California), so I have an investment in the public perception of rabbis. And, of course, of Jews generally.
    First of all, EVERYBODY gets poked at in the film, from the moose hunter to the dental patient to the “love triangle.” I actually felt a little more uncomfortable about the portrayal of the “goys.”
    Second, it’s so obviously a takeoff on Job, and the rabbis are Job’s “comforters.” In the 20th century, the comforters have to be clergymen or therapists, and in the 1960s Midwest, no one went to therapists (I’m from Ohio). Well, I guess the comforters could have been well-meaning neighbors, store clerks, or gas station attendants, but that would be less interesting.
    Third, this movie is certainly NOT lousy. It should be re-watched by everyone as a brilliant Midrash on Job. It’s full of biblical symbolism (Jacob’s ladder, David & Batsheva, two brothers). And modern symbolism from the obvious takeoff on Mrs. Robinson and secrets of Kabbalah to the more subtle allusions to “A Beautiful Mind.” I’ve seen it twice and could see it again.
    Part of the problem was that the press treated it as the Coen brothers’ “personal” movie. Maybe those of you who live in the area and know the family see things in the film that others don’t. But it’s not a reality show, and it’s just too bad that there has been so little discussion of theology & philosophy, which is what it – like most good midrash – is about.

1 Trackback

• Nov 5, 2009: CO-STAR Blog » Blog Archive » Tools for Shuls blog – A Serious Man; Schools and Shuls

Leave a Reply