Hacker Cinema
A Serious Man
2009 · Film · 106 min
Directed by Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
It is 1967, and Larry Gopnik, a physics professor at a quiet Midwestern university, has just been informed by his wife Judith that she is leaving him. He scrambles to find a semblance of meaning as he loses control of nearly every aspect of his life.
7 positive1 negative3 neutralfrom 11 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
11 comments on Hacker News
> Yes. Reading is a prime example This article does not appear to be supporting a point counter to what I said. It is also focused on the opinions on non-experts. In fact, the majority of the article is discussing how schools aren't "following the data."
I would be surprised if the dominant method was "memorize" for reading, as this would mean a curriculum that has little free reading.
I'm not too interested in what non-experts have to say unless there is quite compelling evidence. The average person quire frequently overestimates their confidence in how something should be done.
> It's not. It's just a skill that might become unused, like playing piano I grew up playing piano and memorizing holy texts. Even participating in scripture competitions as well as music competitions. With the highest confidence I can assure you that no professional in either of these subjects believes that one should memorize without limit. In music they will use the words "without soul" while in scriptures they may say that you know the words but not the meanings.
I'll directly quote from the bible to demonstrate both at once:
> Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Mathew 13:13[0] I suggest reading the chapter in full, as it makes the point more explicitly.
I think both groups understand something important to language (which yes, I will argue that music is _a_ language): that the "words" (sounds) used are only tools to convey what is the deeper meaning inside. In music you seek to draw that out of the listener. In scriptures it is the same. The clearest cases of these may be proverbs, parables, koans, or fables. The words hold only what is at the surface. It is ironic you specifically mention Hasidic Jews, as they are deeply entrenched in the Kabbalah, which is famous for being entrenched mysticism. That there are hidden meanings in the scriptures. This isn't even uncommon in religion in general! I don't think it is hard to see this in music or any art. If you are in any doubt, please go visit your local art gallery and listen to one of the local artists. Even if you believe they are full of hogwash, it still illustrates that they are trying to convey something deeper. If you wish to get this lesson and learn a bit about Jewish mysticism at the same time I'd recommend A Serious Man[1] (a Coen brothers movie)
I must stress that language (of any form) has three key aspects: what is intended to be conveyed, the words and way the words are used (diction), and the way the person receiving interprets this. The goal is to align the first with the last, but there is clearly a lossy encoding and lossy decoding.
> I maintain that you can't learn how to think without grinding through facts I'm not sure why you thought we were in disagreement. Perhaps you know the words but not the meaning. I hope your head does not feel too heavy from all the things you carry in your mind[2]
[0] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013%3A13&version=NKJV
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1019452/
[2] https://ashidakim.com/zenkoans/76thestonemind.html
I saw the film A Serious Man[0] at a cinema in Amsterdam when it came out. There's an opening scene with Yiddisch dialogue and it had no subtitles but judging from the laughs everyone understood it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Serious_Man
What are you going through is a normal reaction when going through a breakup. You just need perspective and that will only come with time. In the meantime focus on your physical health - diet, working out, sleep etc. Don't repeat my mistake - these things may seem completely pointless now and future may seem bleak etc. But please, just do it, you will thank yourself in the future. Watch some movies, I recommend "Swingers" (1996) and "A Serious Man". And remember, there are plenty of fish in the sea.
> I'm reminded of this scene from one of my favorite movies, A Serious Man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbzWYjVrvpI
That is beautifully appropriate to the article — thank you.
> Science writers should be more careful to point out when we are using metaphors.
I think she should replace "science writers" with physicists. In my experience, it's when physicists give overflowing and superfluous explanations of things that cause the most trouble, because they are viewed as authorities. Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, PBS Space Time, and many others. It's interesting, because I once read an interview with Brian Green, and the question was: what career would you have chosen if you weren't a physicist? His answer was both surprising and unsurprising: a Baptist preacher. One should note that he actually has the speaking style of one.
It brings up an interesting point in that physics at the highest level sounds almost like what ill-informed amateurs produce. I have degrees in mathematics and some understanding of physics, but I've watched a few lectures of Ed Witten before, and he might as well be just making it all up. I know, it can all be backed out such that it all follows from known mathematics and physics, but one does have to marvel at the similarity, and I think this is what so-called cranks get emboldened by. It makes it worse when physicists use words like "believe".
I think physicists have done a poor job explaining that what they do is model building. The models are not reality. What reality is currently lies in the realm of philosophy. The models physicists build are simply our best descriptions based on what we observe (string theory aside). The article gets at this a bit with mentioning metaphors, but it still doesn't drive home the point because she's referring to metaphors of metaphors (i.e., metaphors for the physical models). Once you understanding that physics is about building models that describes what we observe in physical reality, it lowers the barrier of "authority". In that, in some sense, the entire point of physics is often to find out how we're wrong just as much as it is to clarify where we're right. I think many don't understand that when "is" is used in physics, it really means "is modeled by" (or something to that effect).
I'm reminded of this scene from one of my favorite movies, A Serious Man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbzWYjVrvpI
Yeah, I didn't get that comment either and even tried to do a web search on it. I've seen A Serious Man numerous times. It's one of my favorite movies.
But it isn't about physics. It's overall theme is somewhat cryptic but it is making statements. It is less cryptic than Coen's other films like Barton Fink.
If you haven't seen the Coen Brother's filmography, start with A Serious Man. It's the kind of movie that gives you nostalgia for loneliness. It probably could have helped me in my teenage years. It's undoubtedly a cathartic movie for those who have had unfortunate luck or feel misunderstood.
There is a lovely side narrative in the movie A Serious Man about this phenomenon. Although the characters in the movie were Korean, it is an excellent example of this phenomenon in Asian cultures.
What intrigues me the most is that it is sort of implicitly the de facto standard. Curious how cultural mores develop!
The Animatrix. The best reason to watch the live action trilogy is to be sufficiently informed to watch this. It delves far deeper into the philosophy and psychedelia of technology than the live action films. And it's made and voiced by the same people.
Big Fish. How will you live if you know the exact moment you're going to die?
The Wicker Man. Weird. Christopher Lee apparently said it was his best work?
Waking Life.
The Big Lebowski.
A Serious Man
O Brother Where Art Thou.
If anyone saw the movie "A Serious Man", you may remember that the protagonist's employer received anonymous poison pen letters regarding himself. I know someone that happened to in real life. His name is Louis Proyect. He was a student in the 1960s and got involved with the anti-war movement, and then became a programmer at Metropolitan Life still active in the anti-war movement. The FBI used to send anonymous poison pen letters to his employer, Met Life, in order to try to get him fired.
Actually he got his hands on some FOIA documents after a lawsuit, he has some of them on his web page:
http://louisproyect.org/2007/08/19/encounters-with-the-fbi
Yes, of course.
Ever hear a movie described as "the kind of movie you get to make after winning an Oscar"?[1]
There are some movies - special movies - that are the kind of movies directors get to make only after they've made a successful movie.
Start-ups seem a lot like that.
[1] That was Todd McCarthy, writing for Variety, about the Coen brothers's movie A Serious Man.
Disclaimer: I haven't read the book.
As a physicist, I think it's a bad idea when scientists write popular science books where they try to explain advanced, unproven theories like various interpretations of time and gravity or string theory. First of all, it's not even real science as of now, and second, it gives readers a false sense of understanding: it's like in the (otherwise really bad) movie 'A Serious Man' where a student is complaining to his physics professor after a quantum theory test that he feels his failing grade is unfair, because he didn't know he would be tested on the mathematics and not just the physics ("I understand the physics! The cat if both alive and dead!"). The professor answers that the mathematics is the physics.