An education

Last night I saw "An Education". It was quite an education for me to watch the film. It delivered a story that avoided almost all cliches that must have been tempting for the director. This was a story that has been previously told--A relationship between an adolescent girl and her lover--a rogue of 30 something. What is it that keeps the film fresh? For one thing, the girl is not so naive as we would think. Although she has some difficulty in escaping without a pregnancy , her awareness of who he is and what he is "up to" is not lost to her. He is dishonest in as many ways as possible. He cheats on his wife and his work is absolutely dishonest. (If we could even call what he does work) Peter Saarsgard plays the seducer and he is so committed to the idea of seduction that it becomes his main MO. He seduces the girls entire family; Mom, Dad, the whole package. This helps the viewer watch the film with interest. This is not a story about lured sex between a minor and her lover. It is a seduction match. It takes some of the moral sting out of the story. The acting by the entire ensemble is brilliant. Alfred Molina as the family father is totally believable as a lower middle class man who will to anything for a larger status including selling his daughter. He is so good that you are left to wonder who is the real villain here? The seducer or the seduced? Saarsgard, for his part, is so low key that that he just creeps up on you and is constantly surprising the viewer with his ability to get the family to go along with whatever he wishes. The female members of the cast do very well with their parts. The girl is suitably coy and bright and possesses the hubris of an adolescent. The mother has little to say; but she does not have to say much given the position of wives in the early sixties. Emma Thompson has a small cameo role here and does fine with it.

I went to the film with a friend. She came up with a very interesting question. Why is David (Saarsgard) Jewish? That would make for an interesting discussion.

A Serious Man

A retired rabbi asked me what I thought of the Coen brothers recent movie and I said that I loved it. He did not. He hated it! He explained that he found the main character despicable. This, in fact, was what I loved about the film. I too found the protagonist to be despicable. What is enticing about the film is that Larry's character raises a central question for Jews. What is a man worth? Jewish teaching tells us that we are to lead our lives practicing compassion and doing mitzvot. For example we are taught to be hospitable. This idea--hospitality--is a central component of the Jewish faith from Abraham on. This in no way implies that we should only live our lives for others. On the contrary we need to stand up for ourselves when a wrong is committed and be strong in our commercial, family, and spiritual pursuits. As humans, we should try to be strong and unafraid when challenges present themselves. As Nelson Mendela said (Not a Jew but who wouldn't want him to be a part of their tribe?) we are all children of God and we should not act in a way that makes us small. It does not serve the world. Further he goes on to say," There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you"...

In this film what did Larry stand for? What kind of life did he lead? In my view he stood for nothing. He repeated over and over, "But I haven't done anything" Right, he did not do anything at all. He was a nebbish. To be a nebbish is to lead a life that has no meaning. He allowed himself to lead a life and be pushed around by others His wife and Cy just assumed, quite correctly, that Larry would do as he was asked to do. OY! HIs treatment of others (with the noted exception of his brother) was really not any better. For example there is the conundrum raised by the Korean student. What should Larry do about him and his grade?
Instead of trying to work with the student to raise his grade Larry summarily dismissed the situation without one iota of understanding or compassion. Larry referenced the rules and simply dismissed his student. This gave us some humorous scenes to watch but it did not raise the moral level of our protagonist. Which is the greater wrong--to try and change the situation by working with the student or by failing him because he did not understand the math?

What do we make of people like Larry? What questions do we raise about ourselves? How do lead our own lives? There is a kind of character comparison between our own protagonist and Joseph K. in Kafka's book, "The Trial" Joseph K. lead the same kind of uninvoled life as Larry did. Instead of living in a suburban ticky-tacky house, K. worked as a bureaucrat. He also led an unexamined and selfish and compartmentalized life. He did not care about others unless they could help him out of his dilemma. Both Larry and Joseph K. create their own sad and hopeless lives and invite others to trample on them. They lead meaningless lives. Is this not a sin?