Who did a better adaptation of The Book Of Job?

>Tree of Life is pretensious
don't ever reply to me again, f.am

reminder that a serious man is the most anti-semitic film of all time

god youre a pleb

Sean Penn is Brad Pitt's son in that movie

>Not understanding The Book Of Job

that's Drive though

Why do you film plebs always have the urge to express your opinions? The Coen brothers have created some of the most formally masterful films of the last 30 years.

I don't know A Serious Man, but Tree of Life is a textbook example of midcult.

>midcult
Does this apply to Tarkovsky?

Yes but Tree of Life isn't solely a Job adaptation. I simply can't see that. Pitt loses one (1) of two (2) kids. That's it. And we never know how Pitt ends up in his old age.

That's not a Job adaptation, almost more of a prodigal son retelling but still not quite.

the coen brothers

This . Best film of the last 10 years

Ahem...

Amen

Tree of Life > Leviathan = Hard to be a God > that Cohen flick

>no adam's apples

okay goy

No

The didn't exactly make goys look good either. The treatment of goys was more mocking than morally condemning than it was with jews, but that seems to be the position the coen brothers were more suited to make.
It's pretty misanthropic in general, but that's offset by some of their other movies.

>men walking around in mud for three hours for no apparent reason

Are all Russian movies like this. Stalker is basically the same movie but with more postcard-y photography

Thirded

wait how is drive anti semitic

>he doesn't understand the jewish tradition of self-deprecating humor
i enjoyed it. if it had been made by anyone but the coens, yea, i'd agree with you.

k-word, and ron perlman's character and actions in the film

>>he doesn't understand the jewish tradition of self-deprecating humor

The film makes a number of statements, all of them anti-Jewish:
1) the Jewish religion is a false religion which can offer not only no consolation for suffering, but no explanation for the most important events in a man’s life, in particular, the presence of evil;
2) all rabbis are clueless, fatuous fools;
3) all Jews are repulsive. The film goes out of its way to make Jews—from Larry’s brother Arthur, who spends the entire film draining his sebaceous cyst, to Larry’s family, which engages in high-decibel soup slurping with a Menorah in the background—seem as physically unattractive as possible; and,
4) a catastrophe is looming on the horizon.
A Serious Man is, beyond all that, a tale of rabbicide. If you read the trailing credits long enough, you will learn that “no Jew was killed in the making of this film.” That’s because, in this story, the rabbis discredit themselves so much that the killing remains a mere formality. But the question raised during the Yiddish prologue remains: If we kill the rabbi, will we be cursed? Or as Maimon puts it: Will the abolition of the despotic Jewish theocracy mean the annihilation of the Jewish nation? Or will it mean its liberation? Or have the Jews been cursed since they killed another rabbi and cried out in unison, “His blood be on us and on our children!”

...

Top-tier.

wew I can feel the butthurt from here user.

I'll address your points one by one and give you a less hysterical (and imo more accurate) interpretation of the Coens intent.

1. Suffering is God's gift, and no mortal can give a satisfactory answer to why. Seeking a definite truth is folly. It so happens that Jewish tradition has accreted many 'answers' over the millennia, but answers are not truth.

2. All wise men are clueless, fatuous fools. The film could have been made about a Joel Osteen character, but it wasn't because the Coens would have been lynched. They went with what they knew.

3. All family and friends are repulsive. Man will resent even his closest relations eventually, especially if he feels unappreciated.

4. Are you kidding me? Impending catastrophe is a major theme in the film, in the character's life, and in every man's life. This is the connection to the greater, singular question of why, and then why me. Something the Jews (and other holy men) have struggled to answer forever.

Did it occur to you that disclaimer was included not because "killing remains a mere formality" but rather to caution the oversensitive viewer against making overreaching criticisms the Coens were right to anticipate and you are proving this moment?

You're a brainlet.

t. plebeians

shit taste

Even the title is embarrassing

>the jewish tradition of self-deprecating humor

You know I don't hate jews or anything but this is probably why a lot of people do.
They just tend to be the kind of people who can see their own flaws yet choose to revel in them rather than trying to improve themselves.
This is what self-deprecation generally leads to.
Just watch Annie Hall, Woody Allen really hit the nail on the head with that one.

The best adaption of The Book of Job is the diary of Anne Frank.

how?

+1

Someone get this smooth-brain off my board

But that's just delusional puritanism.
>muh self improvement
Striving for embetterment is good, yet it shouldn't cloud your view of reality. You are flawed, and so I am. You don't have to remain eternally the.same.flow, but perfection is not of this world.

>jews are self-deprecating
what a hateful tendency, they shouldn't revel in their flaws
>jews aren't self-deprecating
what a hateful tendency, they should admit that they are flawed.

I think you misunderstand what self-deprecation really is
It's just another style of defense tactic designed to make yourself feel better and disarm others
It's harder to make fun of someone when they already make fun of themselves right?
It's basically just wallowing in self pity except in a way that people will find humorous rather than pathetic
It's never meant to be a genuine form of self-reflection but rather a way of avoiding that very thing

whether self-deprecation is loathsome or not, a jew-hater will find a way to frame this dimension as being a reasonable reason for his hatred. if the jew isn't self-deprecating, self-deprecation is a good thing; it's the ability to laugh and take a joke and not take yourself too seriously. if he is, then it's a bad thing; it's cynical and self-serving and disingenuous.

but i don't accept your premise anyways. if jews are more self-deprecating to some degree as a way of dealing with their imperfections as opposed to "genuine self-reflection," are we supposed to pretend that non-jews as a rule do engage in "genuine self-reflection?" if we're going to generalize jews as self-deprecating, gentiles are repressed. most people are dealing with it in suboptimal ways; i suppose that makes you think hating them is reasonable.

youtube.com/watch?v=rqbckoIEJGo

behold refn the new goebbels

Burn After Reading is their most misanthropic film that I’ve seen. I think it would have been a bigger critical success if some plebbie critics didn’t need a character to relate to. At least they’re funny with their intellectual misanthropy.

refn is jewish.