Negli anni 60 Larry Gopnik, un professore di fisica, è coinvolto in una serie di vicende tragicomiche che lo vedono al centro di situazioni sempre più disperate.Negli anni 60 Larry Gopnik, un professore di fisica, è coinvolto in una serie di vicende tragicomiche che lo vedono al centro di situazioni sempre più disperate.Negli anni 60 Larry Gopnik, un professore di fisica, è coinvolto in una serie di vicende tragicomiche che lo vedono al centro di situazioni sempre più disperate.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Candidato a 2 Oscar
- 17 vittorie e 80 candidature totali
Recensioni in evidenza
The most entertainment that I got was watching Larry, played by Michael Stulbarg, go through a lot of mishaps and unfortunate events. I wondered what will happen to him and if things will work out for him in the end. At the same time though, I do have to admit that the overall plot is rather weak. There is literally something that happens at the beginning of the movie that has no meaning whatsoever. It was interesting to watch, but none of what was shown connected to the whole film. You have a very simple story, but how it was paced and how it went from one scene to another worked at times, but didn't with others.
I know the theme revolving around this story, but the pacing was slow at times and there were moments where nothing happened, in which I couldn't help but find myself a little bored. The main character lacks any backbone to stand up, so when you see him get pushed around, it might annoy some people. However, I did like how it ended as it's an ending that only the Coen Brothers can think of.
The main standout of the film was Michael Stulbarg as he provided the humor with great reactions and as some may find him annoying, he is able to make the character sympathetic enough to the point that you wish that the guy would catch a break. I did like the rest of the cast and thought they were just fine. They all did what was necessary and were able to provide the humor without any trouble. No matter if the film is bad, you can always expect the Coen Brothers to give a top quality looking film and this did exactly that. The cinematography is great, along with the way the scene was shot. It is a given and they put a lot of working constructing the shot. With that said, I cannot recommend people to watch this film immediately, unless you are a fan of the Coens.
I'd say this movie is for fans of the recent American films "Synecdoche NY", "Doubt", and the recent Japanese films "Departures", "Yureru" and of course the classics by Kurosawa like "Rashomon". What I'm saying is that this is a film that tackles philosophical questions of perception, faith, and in particular, uncertainty.
If you've had some physics, you're in for a real treat because much of the theme centers around Schrödinger's "Uncertainty Principle", briefly touched upon in the Coens' excellent 2001 film "The Man Who Wasn't There". Here they give us a more powerful dose. If you've never heard of this principle, don't worry, you can look it up on Wikipedia or you can accept my synopsis of it, which I'll warn you might be flawed because I ain't no physicist:
The Uncertainty Principle (or "Schrödinger's Cat") proves mathematically that certain events are unknowable. It proposes the idea of a cat that might be alive or dead, but we cannot know without looking inside the cage. At the same time, the minute we look inside the cage, the cat will be killed by a toxic gas. The bottom line: we can't know the answer. Ever.
From there, the movie explores how different people react when confronted with the unknown. Some form prejudices. Some fall back on faith. Some become faithLESS. And some just don't care.
This is a beautifully crafted film that shows us the nature of human beings in that respect. No, there's not really a story. But it does even better than that: it challenges our minds to see elements of our own lives within the life of this ordinary schmuck. I am truly amazed at the Coens' accomplishment, and I hope they continue in this direction in the future, though I'm sure it may hurt their mainstream appeal.
If you see this film & like it, I think you'll really enjoy the other films I've listed as well as the Hungarian masterpiece "Werckmeister Harmonies", anything by Wim Wenders ("The End of Violence" touches on the same Uncertainty Principle) and Orson Welles' "The Trial".
It helps to be familiar with the paradox of Schrodinger's cat, a staple of quantum physics, which can be found on Wikipedia, before you go see this film. You might also want to understand the quantum concept of duality.
The entire movie examines Gopnick and his world==and to a lesser extent that of his teenage son--in light of these aspects of quantum mechanics. I could not find a single scene that did not address uncertainty and/or duality. The attempt to discern traditional religious meaning in this world is humorous in itself. The opening presents the paradox and is crucial to the rest of the film.
Unlike the local review for the film which described this as a "typical Coen Brothers film" and "weird" and "no closure at the end", I found this film to be quite literal and true to the principles of uncertainty and duality. The two major characters both find closure, and in retrospect, there is clearly a beginning, middle and end to the story the brothers wanted to tell.
But the movie continues after the closure, just as life continues on a daily basis, setting up another expectation of continual uncertainty.
Not being Jewish, I no doubt missed some of the double entendre and humor in the tradition. I would have liked to understand the Hebrew passage of the bar mitzvah ceremony, for example, and how it relates to the core theme of the film. But the movie is universal in its appeal, if you understand the basic concept of quantum mechanics upon which the film is based.
I rate this as one of their best films due to its intellectual foundation. Much more important to me than No Country.
Those who expect life to be a series of plausible outcomes, logically following some kind of cause and effect order are always disappointed by honest works of art, not to mention life itself. One of the very themes of this film are those kinds of people and their need to cling to some sort of tradition, structure, and belief in order to deny their fear.
Another theme was perspective and perception. That what may seem mundane and meaningless may be filled with the most profound meaning and that which we place so much value in may be worth absolutely nothing.
"Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you."
If you can enjoy a movie that leaves you with questions as much as one that attempts to provide answers then I highly recommend a viewing.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe names of the characters who ride the school bus with Danny Gopnik are the names of children that the Coen brothers grew up with.
- BlooperIn the final scenes where Larry changes Clive's failing grade, you can clearly see the erasure marks of the new grade before he erases the old one. This could denote the film makers needing several takes to get the right shot. Yet, it could also have been chosen to be included on purpose to show that Larry struggled many times with the morality of passing Clive, going so far as to update his grade, but had changed his mind.
- Citazioni
Rabbi Nachtner: You know Lee Sussman.
Larry Gopnik: Doctor Sussman? I think I - yeah.
Rabbi Nachtner: Did he ever tell you about the goy's teeth?
Larry Gopnik: No... I- What goy?
Rabbi Nachtner: So... Lee is at work one day; you know he has the orthodontic practice there at Great Bear. He's making a plaster mold - it's for corrective bridge work - in the mouth of one of his patients, Russell Kraus. The mold dries and Lee is examining it one day before fabricating an appliance. He notices something unusual. There appears to be something engraved on the inside of the patient's lower incisors. He vav shin yud ayin nun yud. "Hwshy 'ny". "Help me, save me". This in a goy's mouth, Larry. He calls the goy back on the pretense of needing additional measurements for the appliance. "How are you? Noticed any other problems with your teeth?" No. There it is. "Hwshy 'ny". "Help me". Son of a gun. Sussman goes home. Can Sussman eat? Sussman can't eat. Can Sussman sleep? Sussman can't sleep. Sussman looks at the molds of his other patients, goy and Jew alike, seeking other messages. He finds none. He looks in his own mouth. Nothing. He looks in his wife's mouth. Nothing. But Sussman is an educated man. Not the world's greatest sage, maybe, no Rabbi Marshak, but he knows a thing or two from the Zohar and the Caballah. He knows that every Hebrew letter has its numeric equivalent. 8-4-5-4-4-7-3. Seven digits... a phone number, maybe? "Hello? Do you know a goy named Kraus, Russell Kraus?" Who? "Where have I called? The Red Owl in Bloomington. Thanks so much." He goes. It's a Red Owl. Groceries; what have you. Sussman goes home. What does it mean? He has to find out if he is ever to sleep again. He goes to see... the Rabbi Nachtner. He comes in, he sits right where you're sitting right now. "What does it mean, Rabbi? Is it a sign from Hashem, 'Help me'? I, Sussman, should be doing something to help this goy? Doing what? The teeth don't say. Or maybe I'm supposed to help people generally, lead a more righteous life? Is the answer in Caballah? In Torah? Or is there even a question? Tell me, Rabbi, what can such a sign mean?"
[pause as the Rabbi drinks his tea]
Larry Gopnik: So what did you tell him?
Rabbi Nachtner: Sussman?
Larry Gopnik: Yes!
Rabbi Nachtner: Is it... relevant?
Larry Gopnik: Well, isn't that why you're telling me?
Rabbi Nachtner: Okay. Nachtner says, look. The teeth, we don't know. A sign from Hashem? Don't know. Helping others... couldn't hurt.
Larry Gopnik: No! No, but... who put it there? Was it for him, Sussman, or for whoever found it, or for just, for, for...
Rabbi Nachtner: We can't know everything.
Larry Gopnik: It sounds like you don't know anything! Why even tell me the story?
Rabbi Nachtner: [chuckling] First I should tell you, then I shouldn't.
Larry Gopnik: What happened to Sussman?
Rabbi Nachtner: What would happen? Not much. He went back to work. For a while he checked every patient's teeth for new messages. He didn't find any. In time, he found he'd stopped checking. He returned to life. These questions that are bothering you, Larry - maybe they're like a toothache. We feel them for a while, then they go away.
Larry Gopnik: I don't want it to just go away! I want an answer!
Rabbi Nachtner: Sure! We all want the answer! But Hashem doesn't owe us the answer, Larry. Hashem doesn't owe us anything. The obligation runs the other way.
Larry Gopnik: Why does he make us feel the questions if he's not gonna give us any answers?
Rabbi Nachtner: He hasn't told me.
[Larry puts his face in his hands in despair]
Larry Gopnik: And... what happened to the goy?
Rabbi Nachtner: The goy? Who cares?
- Curiosità sui creditiAt the end of the credits is a line advising that "No Jews were harmed in the making of this motion picture."
- ConnessioniFeatured in The Rotten Tomatoes Show: Surrogates/Pandorum/Fame (2009)
- Colonne sonoreSomebody to Love
Written by Darby Slick
Performed by Jefferson Airplane
Courtesy of The RCA Records Label
By arrangement with Sony BMG Music Entertainment
I più visti
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- Un hombre serio
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Repubblica Ceca(scenes before opening credits)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 7.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 9.228.768 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 251.337 USD
- 4 ott 2009
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 31.431.652 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 46 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
