One of my all-time favorite opening scenes. Coming from a Jewish family raised on Yiddish, this scene is familiar to my culture, serious, and philosophical all in one! That look on Finkel's face as the door opens. He looks like man possessed. I agree with the other commenter that a whole movie based on the characters in this opening scene would be pretty awesome.
Book of Job In the Old Testament When Satan tell God (more or less) Job loves you because you blessed him...what happens when you take everything from him? Can he stand up and be a man and not lose Faith. Sometimes God breaks you down to build you up... And sometimes you gotta pay for Santana's Abraxas!...
When I first saw A Serious Man, I had to check the film twice to make sure it was the right one. This opening sequence seems like a really good horror flick. I know the Coen brothers put this in to fool the audience into thinking it was relevant to the story, when the moral of the film was: there is no answer to why things happen. It is random, out of your control. They based it on the Book of Jobs.
I would not say the moral there is no answer to why things happen. Rather, in searching for a greater meaning, the characters ignore the reality that's staring them in the face. IMHO
I don't think it's about lack of meaning. I think it's about the impossibility of KNOWING while on this side of the veil, and the effort to try and embrace the mystery.
I think the opening scene was meant to convey some kind of family curse behind what happens to the main character. Some kind of Yiddish Kharma idea? I'm talking about the Coen Bros. intentions.
Based off his demeanor at the door I believe the old man is a dybbuk. Most folk lore stories involve a being like that only having power after specifically being invited inside someone’s home. The old man seems reserved when he first stands in the doorway and only speaks once invited in.
Why do nerds fixate on the absolutely least important shit? You, you specifically, are the reason why they had to have Heather in SH3 basically stare at the camera and explicitly state for the idiots in the audience that the fucking obnoxious minutiae of the cult in Silent Hill don’t fucking matter and fixating on them like an autistic weirdo is missing the point of the entire story. There is very deliberately no way of knowing whether he was a dybbuk or not and *it does not matter* because it’s the uncertainty that is the fucking point. The point of the entire god damned movie is *uncertainty.* Look at the husband, he just sits there in indecision. If he believed his wife he’d join her in killing an evil spirit. If he didn’t, he’d tell her to go get the fuckin soup. Instead, he dooms himself through his inaction and uncertainties. This is a parable for the life of Larry, who’s uncertainties doom him, and which come not from without but within. It’s pointless to blame God or Evil, because evil’s gonna happen and it sure as shit doesn’t take God or a fucking dybbuk to bring someone weak to their own ruin. Having any belief that he is or is not a dybbuk is literally antithetical to the entire point of the film, congratulations
@@orbitalbutt6757 Ah, anti-intellectualism. If you're constantly troubled by others' tendency to overthink things, is it at least possible that the problem is your tendency to underthink things? Does your mom know you've be hurling insults as intense as "nerd"? Are you a child? Are we in an 80s teen movie? Use grown-up words, because no adult takes being called a nerd seriously, and no one would use it except as a joke to refer to themselves. Why do anti-intellectuals act like this? Take a minute to think through what you're saying to its logical conclusion. Let's say that you're right about the message: what on god's green earth does that have to do with films in general (implied by your statement about fixating on the least important shit) or fucking Silent Hill 3? The fact that you believe there's a message, as in it doesn't matter, can only be arrived at through interpretation. That a scene or entire movie is open to interpretation _IS an interpretation._ OP is providing theirs and trying to back it up with evidence. Some films you would be right, while in others, including other films by the Coen brothers, you would need to pay attention to what you call "the least important shit" to arrive at the correct interpretation. One size doesn't fit all and the fact that you believe it does -- and that your method of film interpretation is hilariously based on a video game -- backs up my guess that you're probably under 16 years old or so. Which, unlike "nerd," does likely impinge on your ability to understand the film. What do you think people learn in film school? Whether you believe it's a waste of time, filmmakers definitely do take the time to think everything through. There's a current in our culture full of anti-intellectuals that get upset anytime someone else takes the time to dissect a film or work of art and uses an insult like "nerd," which most "nerds" don't find insulting. It's generally seen as an indication the accuser is self-conscious of their own intellect or that their meathead friends will find out about their waifu or that they're into Japanese horror games. People like you are a blight on film criticism. It's the difference between those that think Cinema Sins counts as criticism and those that know a "theme" isn't the song that plays during the credits.
@@orbitalbutt6757 Hey, I honestly respect that instead of rejecting the anti-intellectual label, you owned it and doubled-down by complaining about how much of a chore reading is. As for you being "happy for me" or some such bullshit, I do appreciate your concern, truly, but it's really not deserved since, as far I can recall, nothing happened to me to warrant it. I was actually just defending @C Scar. Not because I agree with his interpretation (I don't), but because he's just another commenter enjoying discussing the scene whom you felt the need to insult by pushing your own lazy-ass, cookie-cutter interpretation.
This scene reflects the theme of the movie. Is the old man dybuk or not, it doesn't matter, what matters is every single event that follows. The wife suspects the old man was a dybuk, the old man gave an logical explanation, the woman stabs the old man, the old laughs at her, reassuring the wife's concern, but right after, the blood starts to soak through the old man's shirt, again, we are doubting the woman's action, and so and so, back and forth, the uncertainty changes to certain and back and forth, as is life in essence.
The Uncertainty Principle - it proves we can't ever really know what's going on. "And even though you can't figure anything out, you'll still be responsible for it on the mid-term!" It doesn't matter how rational you are, when you are present with a strange situation, sometimes you won't get rational answers and all facts straight and science won't do the job. You have to be A Serious Man and act according to your principles. Dora did. She firmly believed he was a dybbuk and stabbed him. She followed her principles even though she couldn't at all be that certain. Larry didn't. Larry couldn't connect the dots to figure out her wife and Sy Ableman's affair. He didn't challenge the decision to leave his own house to go live in the Jolly Roger. He couldn't figure out his son was doing weed. "He didn't do anything" about it. Even though Dora's action was unrational, she took a side. She closed her eyes and did it according to her principles. Larry couldn't decide if he was right or wrong and fix his issue with the neighbour or with the asian parent. When faced with the uncertainty about the asian student bribery, he let the circumstances change his mind. Was he a serious man? In my opinion, this scene is really an introduction to the movie. Acting through uncertainty. "Hashem doesn't owes us the answer, the obligation is the other way around. You must give the answers to your life, even when you are not sure.
This is basically a short film in and of itself. Something you might see at the shortcut festival. And the plot is very reminiscent of Nikolai Gogol, especially his collection of folk tales Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka.
The Rabbi is a Dybbuk. He entered the house without kissing the Mezuzah. You do not enter a house directly without kissing the Mezuzah and saying Shalom.
a very good point...but there is some ambiguity retained there: the camera angle shifts and leaves potential temporal and spatial gaps...he might have done it just before the camera turns to him or in between the camera pointing to the outside and inside...we will never know indeed
In the movie theatre I absolutely lost it when the wife closed the door, thus ending the scene, and the entire public was just sitting there in stunned silence, wondering: "what the hell had we just seen"? :D
The silent pause when the husband realises his wife might be right that the old man died, followed by the knock on the door... totally masterful, honestly one of the creepiest moments I've ever seen in film.
wow, pretty crazy how you can understand nearly everything as a German speaker! Much more than in certain german dialects... Really makes you think where the boundary to dialect and language is.
@@jimarri Yiddish is much older than Standard German although both are based on High German. In the case of Yiddish it was Medieval High German and began in the 12th Century in the Rhineland region of West Germany.
He also disappeared after turning left out the door. You can see the window curtain partially pulled back so when he turns and walks behind the wall you don't see him pass by in the window.
This was precisely my thought, but I suspect that the Coen bros also included this scene to convey the themes of ambiguity & uncertainty in the rest of the movie.
No it isn’t. The literal point of the entire movie is uncertainty. Look at the husband, he just sits there in indecision. If he believed his wife he’d join her in killing an evil spirit. If he didn’t, he’d tell her to go get the fuckin soup. Instead, he dooms himself through his inaction and uncertainties. This is a parable for the life of Larry, who’s uncertainties doom him, and which come not from without but within. It’s pointless to blame God or Evil, because evil’s gonna happen and it sure as shit doesn’t take God to bring someone weak to their own ruin.
The movie is about the cat. The cat is both alive and dead until you open the box and look at it. The rabbi here is both a man and dybbuk until she stabs him, and we still never know which he is even when he leaves. Accept the mystery, the Korean dad says. Larry Gropnik says over and over again in the film that he didn’t DO anything. His life is the box that hasn’t been opened yet, he doesn’t choose to act on anything in his life. His medical condition also hasn’t been opened yet, until he chooses to accept the bribe. That’s when the uncertain becomes certain. His first choice is the wrong one, and he’s judged by god. The tornado at the end is the wrath of god.
The meaning of the scene is this: the old man is not a dybbuk but the wife superstitiously kills him on hearsay however, the evil of it is allowed in the universe because of the uncertainty. The message being that no one can stop evil one way or the other as it operates from what is unknown and there is always an unknown.
The Uncertainty Principle - it proves we can't ever really know what's going on. "And even though you can't figure anything out, you'll still be responsible for it on the mid-term!" It doesn't matter how rational you are, when you are present with a strange situation, sometimes you won't get rational answers and all facts straight and science won't do the job. You have to be A Serious Man and act according to your principles. Dora did. She firmly believed he was a dybbuk and stabbed him. She followed her principles even though she couldn't at all be that certain. Larry didn't. Larry couldn't connect the dots to figure out her wife and Sy Ableman's affair. He didn't challenge the decision to leave his own house to go live in the Jolly Roger. He couldn't figure out his son was doing weed. "He didn't do anything" about it. Even though Dora's action was unrational, she took a side. She closed her eyes and did it according to her principles. Larry couldn't decide if he was right or wrong and fix his issue with the neighbour or with the asian parent. When faced with the uncertainty about the asian student bribery, he let the circumstances change his mind. Was he a serious man? In my opinion, this scene is really an introduction to the movie. Acting through uncertainty. "Hashem doesn't owes us the answer, the obligation is the other way around". You must give the answers to your life, even when you are not sure. Not only that, but having peace after you decided, just like Dora did.
And, of course, the Schrodinger's Cat and having to act with two different possible realities at the same time, also sums everything, like an icing on the cake.
Michael Stuhlbarg as Lawrence "Larry" Gopnik from Seven Psychopaths from script "I stabbed a guy in this ear once. Right in his fucking ear." It is same icepick in Serious Man which they used Doppelganger icepick tool :) A Serious man is all movie about hearing, mishearing ear anatomy, tornado shape "ear" logarithmic curve ending of movie etc.
He may be a Dybuk bevause later in the movie you see paintings of the Rabbis on the wall and this guy is one of them - so, is he still wandering earth as the undead?
Richard Kind who's in the movie said he doesn't have a clue what this opening has to do with the movie... But he thinks the Coens tried writing a Yiddish movie.... they only got as far as one scene and they abandoned it.... but they liked the scene so they included it in A Serious Man just cuz. 😄
I've thought about this scene for a long time, but I still don't understand it. Was the old man a dybbyk or not? What relationship does it have to the movie? The Coen Brothers have said it doesn't mean anything at all, but I'm sure they're teasing the viewer.
They're totally teasing. Both this scene and the plot of the movie at large are about uncertainty. If the old man's a dybbuk, then the woman has just done a very good thing to drive him away. If he's just a man, then she's murdered him. This uncertainty comes back throughout the film. Should Professor Gopnik take the bribe money, or not? The rival for his wife's affection, Sy, has completely won her over when he's arbitrarily killed in a car accident. At the end, what is the doctor's news, and does the professor's son make it into the tornado shelter in time? The film doesn't tell us on purpose: we don't know what the future will hold, just as only morning will reveal whether Ana is a murderer. The movie is an existential look at how we simply don't know which ones are the paths to good fortune or to ruin, or even whether to be elated about an apparent victory or depressed after a defeat. We don't, and will never, know for sure!
The Coen bros doesn´t think up scenes to give meaning, they think them up to be well-made and interesting in terms of filmmaking. This scene is special in the way its shot, the sound editing and is very well-written considering the obscure scenario. They say it doesn´t have meaning in the movie because they don´t directly intend it to. That being said, i like the idea that the old man is indeed a dybbuk, and that the scene shows how god can send mysterious things your way to test the ethical ways of your life. Maybe a Dybbuk is haunting Larry in the rest of the film, hence the bad things in his life. There are a lot of characters who could be possesed and seems to have an indirect intend to do Larry bad, like Sy or Arthur.
CurseCreep The Coen brothers, like David Lynch and PT Anderson, like to claim that their movies don't have thematic meaning. The fact is that if an author or director says anything about the _meaning_ of his/her creative work, then that is set in stone forever, and the intellectual "life" of the work is stifled. A viewer is better off not knowing what they're supposed to be looking out for, that mindset detracts from the surprise and enjoyment of seeing it for yourself. But it does not follow that these guys do not have thematic concerns built into their movies. All of the Coen Bros movies certainly do, including A Serious Man.
The movie is on cable again, and I watched it again this holiday season. I majored in literature, and the person who says the whole movie is totally ambiguous is correct. (English majors and film majors like that kind of thing.) Each time I see the movie I notice something different in it, as with any good work of art. This time I focused on the quote by Rashi at the beginning: "Except with simplicity everything that happens to you." That ties in with the uncertainty in the film. Most of the characters, and most thinking human beings, have trouble doing that (acceptance is a kind of zen attitude or Stoic attitude even though it is a quote from a rabbi). We have a need to understand things, to create meaning, to see events as bad or good, to make connections that perhaps aren't there in reality. And that does make life more difficult, that does make most of us unhappy. (After the dentist was arrested by the goy's teeth and consumed with questions, he eventually just goes back to living, the rabbi informs us.) I'm not saying the Coen brothers are endorsing the saying of Rashi as a key to the film. They purposely make everything ambiguous because they like playing around with classical Hollywood cinema and its emphasis on causal plot connections. Also, there is something in literature called the intentional fallacy. It doesn't matter what the authors intended; once something is published; we are all equal interpreters of a work of art. What you see in the film, what "connections" you make says more about you at the particular time you re viewing it, than it does about the film, and it will change with time because the film is ambiguous and not classical Hollywood cinema. This is, in fact true with everything written; it is just made more obvious by modern and post-modern film and literature. "Accept the mystery."
I want to add: Another interesting work that has the same kid of ambiguity is the short story by Nabokov "Symbols and Signs." You can read it on-line. People over read it or read into it when it first came out in 1958.
A being does you a kindness, do one for it in turn but refuse to repay its kindness with evil. There are things in this world we may never understand evildoers would not do mitzvahs. Why risk offending an angel of the lord?
It's an excellent scene. It has a little error, though. At 3:35 the man mentions Lvov. That city was then part of Austro-Hungarian empire. Jews and Germans call it "Lemberg," so this is what he probably would've called it. Or he could've called it "Lvuv" or "Lviv," as local Poles or Ukrainians call it. "Lvov" is a Russian pronunciation, and there weren't many Russians there at the time.
Holyshitmotherfucker DAMN. I've watched this scene dozens of times and still get a chill down my spine when he starts laughing after GETTING AN ICEPICK IN THE FUCKING CHEST. The most creepy-yet-funny seven minutes in film history.
She's inside her house at nightfall so isn't going to cover up? I think only the most incredibly devout orthos would done a hair covering at that hour inside for an unexpected visitor?
i have a dybbuk and this scares me because what if i'm talking to people who aren't there and i think they're real but they're not? freaks me out. i pray one day i'm rid of this evil.
My understanding is that a dybbuk is not an evil spirit, but a spirit that assumes the body of a dead person. Why they roam is not fully understood by humans.
I'm having a lot of fun reading all the comments "explaining" the deep philosophical and religious meaning of this scene... when the Coen brothers have already explained this "legend" is fake, they just made it as a joke for the movie. It doesn't mean anything, it's absurd and pointless.
'A correct pronunciation in Hebrew' has less than nothing to do with the correct pronunciation in Yiddish. Hebrew is the source of the word, but the word is no longer Hebrew here -- it's Yiddish. The source of the word "marriage" is French -- but the word is now English. Should it be pronounced in English as it is in French? Should "kindergarten" be pronounced in English as it is in German? Etc. Besides, the Hebrew you are thinking of is modern Israeli Hebrew, which is a very different thing from the older Hebrew which is a root language for Yiddish. In older, more authentic Hebrew -- Ashkenazic Hebrew, for example, or Yemenite Hebrew, which is the oldest of all spoken versions of the language -- words are emphasized on the first syllable, not the last. Israeli Hebrew is a modern simplification of the language, with fewer sounds, and a heavy Arabic influence. Its success is incredible -- an ancient language was r'e-jiggered' for modern use, and it worked -- but it would not at all be "absolutely correct" in a shtetl environment. The opposite is correct.
While very entertaining with good scary effects, Orthodox men with beards don't shave and flirt with women, plus women/men don't touch one another. Just saying.
She touched him because he is a dybbuk and he made those comments towards her for the same reason, in fact, he did not kiss the mezuzeh nor did he leave any fingerprints when he left.
What I don't understand is: after Velvel's wife knives the Dibbuk b'lev - why does he not pull out an envelope of folding USD bills an say - "ok .. lets do that again but without the knife. ?" Seriousne.. it appears to be about the curse on Gopnik , as per comments below. ie. the dead Dybbuk was never found but Gopnik carries the Guilt . The acting is brillig, even if the German is bit corrupted for my Ear.
It's pretty obvious that he could also be a dybbuk. The husband was surprised that there was anyone around to help him so late and in such cold weather, let alone a weak, elderly man. If you were old, in the 19th century, and contracted typhus (60% mortality pre-antibiotics), and later met someone who told you they had heard you died, it might make you chuckle. This guy laughed as if it was the most preposterous thing he had ever heard. And then he laughed even more when he was stabbed in the chest, before getting up and walking away. The scene is intentionally ambiguous.
No it isn’t for fuck’s sake. The literal point of the entire movie is uncertainty. Look at the husband, he just sits there in indecision. If he believed his wife he’d join her in killing an evil spirit. If he didn’t, he’d tell her to go get the fuckin soup. Instead, he dooms himself through his inaction and uncertainties. This is a parable for the life of Larry, who’s uncertainties doom him, and which come not from without but within. It’s pointless to blame God or Evil, because evil’s gonna happen and it sure as shit doesn’t take God OR the devil to bring someone weak to their own ruin.
When the Rabbi says "Her legs are stout and her cheeks are pink!" does anyone else think that was put in just to offend the audience? I mean it's kind of a reminder of both paternalistic culture that we see as dehumanizing to women, and differing standards of beauty that can also be discomforting. Except the film isn't meant as some sort of feminist critique of the patriarchy or an exploration of beauty and sexuality. So it's like it's in there just because it's offensive and kind of creepy. Did anyone else get this interpretation? My stepdad said "The Cohen Brothers are good at showing human beings at their most disgusting."
I know. I'm just pointing out that it's not necessarily relevant to the scene, and it seems like the Coen Brothers put this in there as just part of a sort of reminder of how terrible people are. I share their misanthropic streak, so I approve.
If you would be invited into a house and meet the wife for the first time it seems normal to make a compliment. And in that world/society back then, this was a nice compliment. Of course I would be spooked if someone said it to me nowadays, but I don't think it was meant to be offensive to us viewers. That thought didn't even occur to me if I'm honest.
First of all, you misspelled "rabbi". Second of all, he's not a rabbi -- "reb" means "mister", not "rabbi". And finally, that comment of yours smells a lot like antisemitism...
He doesn't kiss the mezuzah when he enters the room, he has to be invited in, he leaves no foot prints in the snow when he leaves. Dybbuk
Very good observations.
Few do, it's polite to wait, a light fall on compacted snow often leaves negligible prints. Kindly old man
And he declines offered sustinance also, another sign it was unearthly / demonic.
One of my all-time favorite opening scenes. Coming from a Jewish family raised on Yiddish, this scene is familiar to my culture, serious, and philosophical all in one! That look on Finkel's face as the door opens. He looks like man possessed. I agree with the other commenter that a whole movie based on the characters in this opening scene would be pretty awesome.
BrainPolice5 voos macht zich?
It's called "A Serious Man" by the Coen Bros. Keep in mind that the whole movie is not like this, just the opening 20 minutes or so.
ver vaist?
Book of Job
In the Old Testament
When Satan tell God (more or less)
Job loves you because you blessed him...what happens when you take everything from him? Can he stand up and be a man and not lose Faith. Sometimes God breaks you down to build you up...
And sometimes you gotta pay for
Santana's Abraxas!...
could you understand it without reading the subtitles? nee, du dreck meschuggenah!
One of the best masterfully done opening scenes of a movie ever. Watch and learn.
It was alright. Seen better.
@Randy White baby driver
masterfully? please tell me why
@@atillacnar5785 You wouldn't understand.
@@TheWelchProductions lol explain
When I first saw A Serious Man, I had to check the film twice to make sure it was the right one. This opening sequence seems like a really good horror flick. I know the Coen brothers put this in to fool the audience into thinking it was relevant to the story, when the moral of the film was: there is no answer to why things happen. It is random, out of your control. They based it on the Book of Jobs.
Steve Jobs?
I would not say the moral there is no answer to why things happen. Rather, in searching for a greater meaning, the characters ignore the reality that's staring them in the face. IMHO
Same!!
@Username you’re a qabbalist
I don't think it's about lack of meaning. I think it's about the impossibility of KNOWING while on this side of the veil, and the effort to try and embrace the mystery.
I wish the CoenBros would make a full fledged film about this family from opening scene.
I-hate-Google better than whole movie
I think the opening scene was meant to convey some kind of family curse behind what happens to the main character.
Some kind of Yiddish Kharma idea?
I'm talking about the Coen Bros. intentions.
That would be amazing!!
I’ve always thought this as well
That would be a great story.
Based off his demeanor at the door I believe the old man is a dybbuk. Most folk lore stories involve a being like that only having power after specifically being invited inside someone’s home. The old man seems reserved when he first stands in the doorway and only speaks once invited in.
Why do nerds fixate on the absolutely least important shit? You, you specifically, are the reason why they had to have Heather in SH3 basically stare at the camera and explicitly state for the idiots in the audience that the fucking obnoxious minutiae of the cult in Silent Hill don’t fucking matter and fixating on them like an autistic weirdo is missing the point of the entire story.
There is very deliberately no way of knowing whether he was a dybbuk or not and *it does not matter* because it’s the uncertainty that is the fucking point.
The point of the entire god damned movie is *uncertainty.* Look at the husband, he just sits there in indecision. If he believed his wife he’d join her in killing an evil spirit. If he didn’t, he’d tell her to go get the fuckin soup. Instead, he dooms himself through his inaction and uncertainties.
This is a parable for the life of Larry, who’s uncertainties doom him, and which come not from without but within. It’s pointless to blame God or Evil, because evil’s gonna happen and it sure as shit doesn’t take God or a fucking dybbuk to bring someone weak to their own ruin.
Having any belief that he is or is not a dybbuk is literally antithetical to the entire point of the film, congratulations
@@orbitalbutt6757 Ah, anti-intellectualism. If you're constantly troubled by others' tendency to overthink things, is it at least possible that the problem is your tendency to underthink things? Does your mom know you've be hurling insults as intense as "nerd"? Are you a child? Are we in an 80s teen movie? Use grown-up words, because no adult takes being called a nerd seriously, and no one would use it except as a joke to refer to themselves. Why do anti-intellectuals act like this? Take a minute to think through what you're saying to its logical conclusion. Let's say that you're right about the message: what on god's green earth does that have to do with films in general (implied by your statement about fixating on the least important shit) or fucking Silent Hill 3? The fact that you believe there's a message, as in it doesn't matter, can only be arrived at through interpretation. That a scene or entire movie is open to interpretation _IS an interpretation._ OP is providing theirs and trying to back it up with evidence. Some films you would be right, while in others, including other films by the Coen brothers, you would need to pay attention to what you call "the least important shit" to arrive at the correct interpretation. One size doesn't fit all and the fact that you believe it does -- and that your method of film interpretation is hilariously based on a video game -- backs up my guess that you're probably under 16 years old or so. Which, unlike "nerd," does likely impinge on your ability to understand the film.
What do you think people learn in film school? Whether you believe it's a waste of time, filmmakers definitely do take the time to think everything through. There's a current in our culture full of anti-intellectuals that get upset anytime someone else takes the time to dissect a film or work of art and uses an insult like "nerd," which most "nerds" don't find insulting. It's generally seen as an indication the accuser is self-conscious of their own intellect or that their meathead friends will find out about their waifu or that they're into Japanese horror games. People like you are a blight on film criticism. It's the difference between those that think Cinema Sins counts as criticism and those that know a "theme" isn't the song that plays during the credits.
@@Len124 not fucking reading all that but I’m happy for you though or sorry that happened
@@orbitalbutt6757 Hey, I honestly respect that instead of rejecting the anti-intellectual label, you owned it and doubled-down by complaining about how much of a chore reading is. As for you being "happy for me" or some such bullshit, I do appreciate your concern, truly, but it's really not deserved since, as far I can recall, nothing happened to me to warrant it. I was actually just defending @C Scar. Not because I agree with his interpretation (I don't), but because he's just another commenter enjoying discussing the scene whom you felt the need to insult by pushing your own lazy-ass, cookie-cutter interpretation.
While I suppose it's ambigious, based on the rest of the film I think the point is that her superstition clouded her judgement and she killed a man.
This scene reflects the theme of the movie. Is the old man dybuk or not, it doesn't matter, what matters is every single event that follows. The wife suspects the old man was a dybuk, the old man gave an logical explanation, the woman stabs the old man, the old laughs at her, reassuring the wife's concern, but right after, the blood starts to soak through the old man's shirt, again, we are doubting the woman's action, and so and so, back and forth, the uncertainty changes to certain and back and forth, as is life in essence.
@@mateoyavorsky7646 :....and were complicit in the extermination of their own people....always the victim...and blame others.
The point of Cohen brother is “not so fast!” to imagine you understand god because as usual the message is disturbingly confuse
He leaves no footprints. He is a dybik.
The Uncertainty Principle - it proves we can't ever really know what's going on.
"And even though you can't figure anything out, you'll still be responsible for it on the mid-term!"
It doesn't matter how rational you are, when you are present with a strange situation, sometimes you won't get rational answers and all facts straight and science won't do the job. You have to be A Serious Man and act according to your principles.
Dora did. She firmly believed he was a dybbuk and stabbed him. She followed her principles even though she couldn't at all be that certain. Larry didn't. Larry couldn't connect the dots to figure out her wife and Sy Ableman's affair. He didn't challenge the decision to leave his own house to go live in the Jolly Roger. He couldn't figure out his son was doing weed. "He didn't do anything" about it.
Even though Dora's action was unrational, she took a side. She closed her eyes and did it according to her principles. Larry couldn't decide if he was right or wrong and fix his issue with the neighbour or with the asian parent. When faced with the uncertainty about the asian student bribery, he let the circumstances change his mind. Was he a serious man?
In my opinion, this scene is really an introduction to the movie. Acting through uncertainty. "Hashem doesn't owes us the answer, the obligation is the other way around. You must give the answers to your life, even when you are not sure.
Ten thumbs up, which is probably more than I have.
This is basically a short film in and of itself. Something you might see at the shortcut festival. And the plot is very reminiscent of Nikolai Gogol, especially his collection of folk tales Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka.
The Rabbi is a Dybbuk. He entered the house without kissing the Mezuzah. You do not enter a house directly without kissing the Mezuzah and saying Shalom.
a very good point...but there is some ambiguity retained there: the camera angle shifts and leaves potential temporal and spatial gaps...he might have done it just before the camera turns to him or in between the camera pointing to the outside and inside...we will never know indeed
Interesting observation!
That's why Larry and his family were CURSED throughout the whole movie because of the incident with the dybbuk.
חוץ אױב מ׳װאָלט געװען אַ דיביק
That 'Shalom' thing is nonsense. And yes, you're supposed to kiss the mezuza on entering a room, but it's not that big a deal.
I watched this a hundred times over the years. Great scene and great movie.
In the movie theatre I absolutely lost it when the wife closed the door, thus ending the scene, and the entire public was just sitting there in stunned silence, wondering: "what the hell had we just seen"? :D
This Movie is an amazing work of art! There is so much I don't know about anything and the authenticity of this movie intrigues and inspires.
I was born there, somewhere between Lublin and Lwow
"How much?"
"15 groshen"
*momentary disgusted face*
Husband just survived a breakdown in a winter night, saved only by a miracle-like helper. Wife frowns upon his lack of salesman skill.
For a bit of trivia: the couple in the opening scene are actually husband & wife COMICS! Allen Lewis Rickman and Yelena Shmulenson.
I saw them together in The Essence: A Yiddish Theater Dim Sum, and it was fantastic!
@@rosemarycat5 Where are they based?
@@transcendcapitalism NY-NJ area, but I think their touring has gone on pause since the pandemic
@@rosemarycat5 Thank you!
The silent pause when the husband realises his wife might be right that the old man died, followed by the knock on the door... totally masterful, honestly one of the creepiest moments I've ever seen in film.
This was the best part of the entire movie.
I liked the ending as well
Idk I liked the dentist part too
Agreed. It’s the scene that nails the anxious and comedic tone the best.
Richard Kind, and the role he played, reminded me of a couple of schizophrenic mystics I used to know. The part was beautiful and beautifully played.
wow, pretty crazy how you can understand nearly everything as a German speaker! Much more than in certain german dialects... Really makes you think where the boundary to dialect and language is.
Isn't Yiddish half German - or even moreso?
@@jimarri Yiddish is much older than Standard German although both are based on High German. In the case of Yiddish it was Medieval High German and began in the 12th Century in the Rhineland region of West Germany.
Groschen makes me think they are somewhere in Moravia or Bohemia. That's close to Germany.
@@OrwellianNarrator He mentions Lublin. Isn't that Poland (at least today).
@@Lagolop It is, which was never a part of the Holy Roman Empire (to my knowledge).
The Coens are in a different league altogether. They will be remembered as the greatest filmmakers of our times.
I mean, they're GREAT, but I woulnd't say they're the greatest.
@@SmileyySmiley YOU wouldn't.
Their story telling is maybe the best, yes.
This movie is a comedic masterpiece.
He leaves no footprints in the snow at the end.
Ahhhhh good one!
He also disappeared after turning left out the door. You can see the window curtain partially pulled back so when he turns and walks behind the wall you don't see him pass by in the window.
@@EricGray-zr2esgood point. However, that glass is pretty frosted over. Still...I think you're right.
Love it, it's so funny, and it helps me back my Yiddish
"What a wife you have!"
The rabbi doesn't leave any footsteps in the snow
Because it's carpet.
@@pinecone9045 Because "Dybbuk?"
@@pinecone9045proximate vs ultimate explanations, be careful!
@@LaFaveBros Plastic is never ultimate
@@pinecone9045 Dang, a year later. Not to add to the discourse, just to get the final word in. I commend that.
Good-bye, Fyvush!
A fantastic short film in its own right. But what does it have to do with the rest of the film? Ah, the mystery.
Accept the mystery.
The meaning is obvious, they are ascendants of the star of the film. This situation cursed them.
This was precisely my thought,
but I suspect that the Coen bros also included this scene to convey the themes of ambiguity & uncertainty in the rest of the movie.
No it isn’t. The literal point of the entire movie is uncertainty. Look at the husband, he just sits there in indecision. If he believed his wife he’d join her in killing an evil spirit. If he didn’t, he’d tell her to go get the fuckin soup. Instead, he dooms himself through his inaction and uncertainties. This is a parable for the life of Larry, who’s uncertainties doom him, and which come not from without but within. It’s pointless to blame God or Evil, because evil’s gonna happen and it sure as shit doesn’t take God to bring someone weak to their own ruin.
3:19 No soup for you!
The movie is about the cat. The cat is both alive and dead until you open the box and look at it. The rabbi here is both a man and dybbuk until she stabs him, and we still never know which he is even when he leaves. Accept the mystery, the Korean dad says. Larry Gropnik says over and over again in the film that he didn’t DO anything. His life is the box that hasn’t been opened yet, he doesn’t choose to act on anything in his life. His medical condition also hasn’t been opened yet, until he chooses to accept the bribe. That’s when the uncertain becomes certain. His first choice is the wrong one, and he’s judged by god. The tornado at the end is the wrath of god.
Wonderful scene.
Wasn't it something out of Faust about how the unconscious world always makes you second guess yourself?
have you come for answers? hahhaha you won't get them!!😄😄😄
hi
Hiiiii
angel delgado she cursed their descendants. Not hard to get!
The meaning of the scene is this: the old man is not a dybbuk but the wife superstitiously kills him on hearsay however, the evil of it is allowed in the universe because of the uncertainty. The message being that no one can stop evil one way or the other as it operates from what is unknown and there is always an unknown.
the Uncertainty Principle!
Incorrect.
@@cscar1385 how do you even know?
What a great strange scene!!
The Uncertainty Principle - it proves we can't ever really know what's going on.
"And even though you can't figure anything out, you'll still be responsible for it on the mid-term!"
It doesn't matter how rational you are, when you are present with a strange situation, sometimes you won't get rational answers and all facts straight and science won't do the job. You have to be A Serious Man and act according to your principles.
Dora did. She firmly believed he was a dybbuk and stabbed him. She followed her principles even though she couldn't at all be that certain. Larry didn't. Larry couldn't connect the dots to figure out her wife and Sy Ableman's affair. He didn't challenge the decision to leave his own house to go live in the Jolly Roger. He couldn't figure out his son was doing weed. "He didn't do anything" about it.
Even though Dora's action was unrational, she took a side. She closed her eyes and did it according to her principles. Larry couldn't decide if he was right or wrong and fix his issue with the neighbour or with the asian parent. When faced with the uncertainty about the asian student bribery, he let the circumstances change his mind. Was he a serious man?
In my opinion, this scene is really an introduction to the movie. Acting through uncertainty. "Hashem doesn't owes us the answer, the obligation is the other way around". You must give the answers to your life, even when you are not sure.
Not only that, but having peace after you decided, just like Dora did.
And, of course, the Schrodinger's Cat and having to act with two different possible realities at the same time, also sums everything, like an icing on the cake.
When the truth is found to be lies....
“I know when I’m not wanted”
Such great actors, both of them!
Three of them?
A Gitten Shabbes? Shabbes? For the love of HaShem! How could you expect such a thing from a dibbuk?!
I love when the brother complains, "ashem hasn't done SHIT for me!"
@@bgray625 have you asked Him though? He ain’t gon give u anything until you believe and ask
A gitten Shabbos gut Yom Tov is slang. She wasn't saying git Shabbos to him.
Love this scene.
Michael Stuhlbarg as Lawrence "Larry" Gopnik from Seven Psychopaths from script "I stabbed a guy in this ear once. Right in his fucking ear."
It is same icepick in Serious Man which they used Doppelganger icepick tool :) A Serious man is all movie about hearing, mishearing ear anatomy, tornado shape "ear" logarithmic curve ending of movie etc.
I'm learning Yiddish and I was very happy to understand so much! Yiddish iz a gut loshn.
Voos ploppels dee?
That was brilliant!
what brilliant about it
He may be a Dybuk bevause later in the movie you see paintings of the Rabbis on the wall and this guy is one of them - so, is he still wandering earth as the undead?
You do a favor for someone, and THIS is what you get!?! Theme of the film.
So funny how close this Yiddish is to Dutch or German.
The wife asked Velvel to help her with the ice: he could've done just that and take the icepick away from her.
This reminds me of the sardonically irreverent play "Dybbuk Shmybbuk, I Said 'More Ham'".
I think this 6:55 is my favorite Coen Bros movie, which is saying something.
Wow!! This was good!
My fav movie
Richard Kind who's in the movie said he doesn't have a clue what this opening has to do with the movie...
But he thinks the Coens tried writing a Yiddish movie.... they only got as far as one scene and they abandoned it.... but they liked the scene so they included it in A Serious Man just cuz. 😄
Funny to watch as a german and understanding them most of the time :D
It's hard to hear because of music and other sounds. The film makers rely on the subtitles, not on spoken word.
I've thought about this scene for a long time, but I still don't understand it. Was the old man a dybbyk or not? What relationship does it have to the movie? The Coen Brothers have said it doesn't mean anything at all, but I'm sure they're teasing the viewer.
They're totally teasing. Both this scene and the plot of the movie at large are about uncertainty. If the old man's a dybbuk, then the woman has just done a very good thing to drive him away. If he's just a man, then she's murdered him. This uncertainty comes back throughout the film. Should Professor Gopnik take the bribe money, or not? The rival for his wife's affection, Sy, has completely won her over when he's arbitrarily killed in a car accident. At the end, what is the doctor's news, and does the professor's son make it into the tornado shelter in time? The film doesn't tell us on purpose: we don't know what the future will hold, just as only morning will reveal whether Ana is a murderer. The movie is an existential look at how we simply don't know which ones are the paths to good fortune or to ruin, or even whether to be elated about an apparent victory or depressed after a defeat. We don't, and will never, know for sure!
The Coen bros doesn´t think up scenes to give meaning, they think them up to be well-made and interesting in terms of filmmaking. This scene is special in the way its shot, the sound editing and is very well-written considering the obscure scenario. They say it doesn´t have meaning in the movie because they don´t directly intend it to.
That being said, i like the idea that the old man is indeed a dybbuk, and that the scene shows how god can send mysterious things your way to test the ethical ways of your life.
Maybe a Dybbuk is haunting Larry in the rest of the film, hence the bad things in his life. There are a lot of characters who could be possesed and seems to have an indirect intend to do Larry bad, like Sy or Arthur.
CurseCreep The Coen brothers, like David Lynch and PT Anderson, like to claim that their movies don't have thematic meaning. The fact is that if an author or director says anything about the _meaning_ of his/her creative work, then that is set in stone forever, and the intellectual "life" of the work is stifled. A viewer is better off not knowing what they're supposed to be looking out for, that mindset detracts from the surprise and enjoyment of seeing it for yourself.
But it does not follow that these guys do not have thematic concerns built into their movies. All of the Coen Bros movies certainly do, including A Serious Man.
The movie is on cable again, and I watched it again this holiday season. I majored in literature, and the person who says the whole movie is totally ambiguous is correct. (English majors and film majors like that kind of thing.) Each time I see the movie I notice something different in it, as with any good work of art. This time I focused on the quote by Rashi at the beginning: "Except with simplicity everything that happens to you." That ties in with the uncertainty in the film. Most of the characters, and most thinking human beings, have trouble doing that (acceptance is a kind of zen attitude or Stoic attitude even though it is a quote from a rabbi). We have a need to understand things, to create meaning, to see events as bad or good, to make connections that perhaps aren't there in reality. And that does make life more difficult, that does make most of us unhappy. (After the dentist was arrested by the goy's teeth and consumed with questions, he eventually just goes back to living, the rabbi informs us.) I'm not saying the Coen brothers are endorsing the saying of Rashi as a key to the film. They purposely make everything ambiguous because they like playing around with classical Hollywood cinema and its emphasis on causal plot connections. Also, there is something in literature called the intentional fallacy. It doesn't matter what the authors intended; once something is published; we are all equal interpreters of a work of art. What you see in the film, what "connections" you make says more about you at the particular time you re viewing it, than it does about the film, and it will change with time because the film is ambiguous and not classical Hollywood cinema. This is, in fact true with everything written; it is just made more obvious by modern and post-modern film and literature. "Accept the mystery."
I want to add: Another interesting work that has the same kid of ambiguity is the short story by Nabokov "Symbols and Signs." You can read it on-line. People over read it or read into it when it first came out in 1958.
Sounds so much like German or Dutch.
I’m not jewish nor American yet this movie is stuck with me
I wonder why they translated Gemara into Mishna.
Same question hahaha. Was so weird read it.
i was wondering what movie this was, it switched up after this scene.. thought it was gonna be a horror
A being does you a kindness, do one for it in turn but refuse to repay its kindness with evil. There are things in this world we may never understand evildoers would not do mitzvahs. Why risk offending an angel of the lord?
I just started watching the movie and I did not expect to see that. I was confused as to what the hell happened
5:08 if he wasn't a dybbuk before, now surely is one...
It's an excellent scene.
It has a little error, though. At 3:35 the man mentions Lvov. That city was then part of Austro-Hungarian empire. Jews and Germans call it "Lemberg," so this is what he probably would've called it. Or he could've called it "Lvuv" or "Lviv," as local Poles or Ukrainians call it. "Lvov" is a Russian pronunciation, and there weren't many Russians there at the time.
What a fahrbissena punim on that wife!
How is anyone arguing over whether he is a dybbuk?
The wife stabbed him and he laughed and then walked out!! Like what do we think, he is fine??
is that Saroman played by red Groshkover?
IS HE A DYBBUK? IM NOT SURE - JUST SURE THAT HE FELT SEHR SCWACH BY THE END
So what happened to Pesel's uncle?
❤️❤️❤️❤️
THIS IS SO MUCH BETTER THAT ANY HOLLYWOOD TRASH!!!
This looks so awesome 😍
Movie name
What la gauge is it? Sometimes sounds German, am I wrong?
Its Yiddish. And yeah it sounds very similar to German to me too
@@Daiin0 Yiddish is about 70% (old) German with some Hebrew and Slavic words mixed in.
Holyshitmotherfucker DAMN.
I've watched this scene dozens of times and still get a chill down my spine when he starts laughing after GETTING AN ICEPICK IN THE FUCKING CHEST.
The most creepy-yet-funny seven minutes in film history.
This is the best scene of the movie
Kollam
Why is her hair uncovered?
She's inside her house at nightfall so isn't going to cover up? I think only the most incredibly devout orthos would done a hair covering at that hour inside for an unexpected visitor?
@LandersWorkshop no. A man who isn't her husband, her hair is erva. It's not a question, it's very basic halacha.
@@user-zv9um9pb6w Ahhh, but it isn't a man but a demon/spirit so technically not a man, so she's good. :D
i have a dybbuk and this scares me because what if i'm talking to people who aren't there and i think they're real but they're not? freaks me out. i pray one day i'm rid of this evil.
My understanding is that a dybbuk is not an evil spirit, but a spirit that assumes the body of a dead person. Why they roam is not fully understood by humans.
Aren't they supposed to be sinful / malevolent spirits though?
the Yiddish language sounds amazing
Much is lost in translation, there's a lot of natural poetry in the expressions.
Just sounds like German
Jedediah Isle
So was a he demon or was the wife just crazy ？
That's for you to decide.😂
Who's "the Evil One" in Judaism? I thought there was no such thing.
There is, especially in Eastern European Jewish folklore
This would be somewhere in Ukraine, I'm guessing?
Eastern Europe: Poland, Galicia, Lithuania, Belarus, Russia or Ukraine
No it's in Krakow,Poland.
@@realname6781 good point. I missed that.
Traite groskevor iz toyt!
Translates to traite groskevor is dead
Sounds awfully similar to English
קען ער האָבן אַ בריליאַנט גאַניידן
Wtf did I just watch
I'm having a lot of fun reading all the comments "explaining" the deep philosophical and religious meaning of this scene... when the Coen brothers have already explained this "legend" is fake, they just made it as a joke for the movie. It doesn't mean anything, it's absurd and pointless.
The point is Fyvush Finkel pronounce “Dybbuk “ absolutely correct and with accent on last syllable as is pronounced in Hebrew.
'A correct pronunciation in Hebrew' has less than nothing to do with the correct pronunciation in Yiddish. Hebrew is the source of the word, but the word is no longer Hebrew here -- it's Yiddish. The source of the word "marriage" is French -- but the word is now English. Should it be pronounced in English as it is in French? Should "kindergarten" be pronounced in English as it is in German? Etc.
Besides, the Hebrew you are thinking of is modern Israeli Hebrew, which is a very different thing from the older Hebrew which is a root language for Yiddish. In older, more authentic Hebrew -- Ashkenazic Hebrew, for example, or Yemenite Hebrew, which is the oldest of all spoken versions of the language -- words are emphasized on the first syllable, not the last.
Israeli Hebrew is a modern simplification of the language, with fewer sounds, and a heavy Arabic influence. Its success is incredible -- an ancient language was r'e-jiggered' for modern use, and it worked -- but it would not at all be "absolutely correct" in a shtetl environment. The opposite is correct.
While very entertaining with good scary effects, Orthodox men with beards don't shave and flirt with women, plus women/men don't touch one another. Just saying.
#1 they do shave
#2 he wasn't "flirting"
#3 she didn't "touch" him; she stabbed him with an ice pick ..... just saying.
She touched him because he is a dybbuk and he made those comments towards her for the same reason, in fact, he did not kiss the mezuzeh nor did he leave any fingerprints when he left.
Scene explained:
It is a Hasidic tale. Told by two idiots, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
What I don't understand is: after Velvel's wife knives the Dibbuk b'lev - why does he not pull out an envelope of folding USD bills an say - "ok .. lets do that again but without the knife. ?" Seriousne.. it appears to be about the curse on Gopnik , as per comments below. ie. the dead Dybbuk was never found but Gopnik carries the Guilt . The acting is brillig, even if the German is bit corrupted for my Ear.
@@ethanadamrose580 Ich macht eine Witz. (past tense , however that goes)
@@F_Tim1961 Ich hob gemacht
I'm pretty sure it's Yiddish they are speaking which has German and Polish mixed in.
@@Retro-Future-Land Yiddish is basically a medieval German, mixed with Hebrew and Slavic (Russian, Polish, etc) words.
Yeshua...
the Coen bros.
i mean sisters,
umm,
the Coen things.
yes.
They're both male
Were you were thinking of the Wachowskis? lol
@@hondadrvr3 How do you know? "@HIMcules2112" might identify as "Coen things", and it is their goddam right to do so.
Is pretty obvious that Traitle Groshkover is a normal man, and Dora murdered him.
It's pretty obvious that he could also be a dybbuk. The husband was surprised that there was anyone around to help him so late and in such cold weather, let alone a weak, elderly man. If you were old, in the 19th century, and contracted typhus (60% mortality pre-antibiotics), and later met someone who told you they had heard you died, it might make you chuckle. This guy laughed as if it was the most preposterous thing he had ever heard. And then he laughed even more when he was stabbed in the chest, before getting up and walking away. The scene is intentionally ambiguous.
@@nkt1 It leaves you wondering if he was a dybbuk that got purged, or that a superstitious woman just knifed a man who is a bit touched in the head.
No it isn’t for fuck’s sake. The literal point of the entire movie is uncertainty. Look at the husband, he just sits there in indecision. If he believed his wife he’d join her in killing an evil spirit. If he didn’t, he’d tell her to go get the fuckin soup. Instead, he dooms himself through his inaction and uncertainties.
This is a parable for the life of Larry, who’s uncertainties doom him, and which come not from without but within. It’s pointless to blame God or Evil, because evil’s gonna happen and it sure as shit doesn’t take God OR the devil to bring someone weak to their own ruin.
Yes, that is why he, like us mere mortals, dropped dead after a few seconds. And then he left footprints in the snow, too.
When the Rabbi says "Her legs are stout and her cheeks are pink!" does anyone else think that was put in just to offend the audience? I mean it's kind of a reminder of both paternalistic culture that we see as dehumanizing to women, and differing standards of beauty that can also be discomforting. Except the film isn't meant as some sort of feminist critique of the patriarchy or an exploration of beauty and sexuality. So it's like it's in there just because it's offensive and kind of creepy.
Did anyone else get this interpretation?
My stepdad said "The Cohen Brothers are good at showing human beings at their most disgusting."
It means she seems healthy and will be a good child bearer. Back in the day, a woman was only as good as her uterus. Sad but true.
I know. I'm just pointing out that it's not necessarily relevant to the scene, and it seems like the Coen Brothers put this in there as just part of a sort of reminder of how terrible people are. I share their misanthropic streak, so I approve.
If you would be invited into a house and meet the wife for the first time it seems normal to make a compliment. And in that world/society back then, this was a nice compliment.
Of course I would be spooked if someone said it to me nowadays, but I don't think it was meant to be offensive to us viewers. That thought didn't even occur to me if I'm honest.
@@kmatthews1867 Agreed. And maybe her housekeeping skills. I'm happy I was raised in a society that gave me more choices than that.
Try NOT to observe through the filter of Marxism.
This is a representation of what sort of hold a Rabi has over a Jew.
Infinite Wisdom Religious jew
First of all, you misspelled "rabbi". Second of all, he's not a rabbi -- "reb" means "mister", not "rabbi".
And finally, that comment of yours smells a lot like antisemitism...
No it isn’t you weird idiot
@@lekmirn.hintern8132 Who cares
You're a total imbeci1e
Enter the Khazar…………" …. You knew I was a SNAKE when you let me in...".
You're a mor0n