criterionforum.org

It really comes down to the age of the building. Most Catholic churches in the U.S. built post-1950s look just like Protestant churches; the only obvious visible difference being the use of the Christ figure on the cross (Protestant churches emphasize the resurrection of Christ so the crosses are empty).

TMDaines wrote:Enjoyed the film, but didn't find myself moved as much as others seem to have been. What nobody seems to have mentioned is how funny the film is. As in real life there's a good amount of laughter mixed in with sadder events, even during testing times.

I just watched it and that's basically my feelings too. I wasnt moved a lot, except during the heavier parts of the movie but part of it is, precisely, because of how many small funny details just came between me and the emotion.
It's also a bit hard when the son seems more annoyed by all that comes between him and banging one of his girlfriends than by his dad's death. And it doesnt help than Lee is so unwilling to talk, so much that at some point, I just wanted to hit him.

I wasn't shattered by this like I was by the end of Margaret, but part of what made this film so strong to me is that it seemed like a fairly honest expression of the unexpected ways some people process grief. There isn't much overt emotion here, except in some key raw moments, and that rings true to me; and to tenia's point, in particular the reluctance of a teen character to directly confront emotional heaviness seems accurate to me. It doesn't make it easy to be wrapped up in emotions for the duration of the film, but the losses hang quietly over everything that happens and occasionally bubble to the surface. The humor is almost a defense mechanism.

I totally get the point; it's something I thought about myself. But I believe there is, for drama, sometimes the need to shy away from pure reality and indulge into pure drama.
Sure, it will risk being a bit too much or not matching reality anymore, but in the case of Manchester, I felt all these "reality matching" elements simply hurt the build up of the emotion.
But I understand how it might move more some people that it did with me.

As for the teen though, he often didnt seem so much "unwilling to confront the loss directly" than just really not caring; or at least that's what the movie's showing / not showing. You can see often how Lee holds back any overt showing of emotion, but Patrick ? Except his random fit in the middle of the movie, he just seems not to care at all.

I keep meaning to chime in on this thread, and I count myself as a big fan of the film. I haven't seen any of Lonergan's other films, but I keep going back to how pitch perfect the opening was. Showing a day in the life of Affleck gave us everything we needed to know and care about the character. Following him around the various tenants gave us a feel for the situation he's in. Once we get to the hospital we understand there's some sort of family estrangement going on. Through it all, we get tons of great acting from supporting characters. I was especially in love with the details Affleck had to go through in the hospital, and all of the paperwork and signatures he had to get. It was both "real" and helped the audience identify with the character. Those first fifteen minutes did a great job setting up the film for me, and helped carry it.

dustybooks wrote:I wasn't shattered by this like I was by the end of Margaret, but part of what made this film so strong to me is that it seemed like a fairly honest expression of the unexpected ways some people process grief. There isn't much overt emotion here, except in some key raw moments, and that rings true to me; and to tenia's point, in particular the reluctance of a teen character to directly confront emotional heaviness seems accurate to me. It doesn't make it easy to be wrapped up in emotions for the duration of the film, but the losses hang quietly over everything that happens and occasionally bubble to the surface. The humor is almost a defense mechanism.

I agree with all of this, including the effect of Margaret. I think what's missing here is the release that Margaret offered (it also piled it on a lot thicker and for longer), which I assume lead to some of the nonplussed responses to this film. I think the power of Manchester by the Sea is in recognizing the characters are so true to themselves that it's okay for us to be disappointed in them and not confuse it with disappointment with the film itself for being honest about the characters its created and fostered. I can't believe we live in a world where Casey Affleck is probably not going to win the Oscar for this. Hell, even Lonergan might come away empty handed. Good on the Academy for nomming Hedges though, as near the end many pundits were sure he would be snubbed. Hedges gives a superbly convincing teenage performance by maneuvering through a minefield. How easy would it have been to overplay any of his responses into being too bratty or too childish or too adult? If this film truly is the Ordinary People of our day, then carry that down through the line and give Hedges the Oscar too (in today's installment of Things That Will Never Happen)

Of course, I can't say I ever wanted to smack Lee in this film the way I often did Lisa in "Margaret" -- perhaps because, as a depression sufferer myself, I could better identify with the feelings of, for lack of a better term, 'emotional blankness' that he usually seemed to be experiencing than I could a stuck-up, privileged Manhattan teen who ends up going on this strange personal crusade seemingly as a means of amending the fact that she was more or less the personal catalyst for the event that was basically in turn the main catalyst for the whole film. While I never would have started numerous the numerous bar fights he did, Lee's plight was easier to relate to for me personally.

domino harvey wrote:

dustybooks wrote:I wasn't shattered by this like I was by the end of Margaret, but part of what made this film so strong to me is that it seemed like a fairly honest expression of the unexpected ways some people process grief. There isn't much overt emotion here, except in some key raw moments, and that rings true to me; and to tenia's point, in particular the reluctance of a teen character to directly confront emotional heaviness seems accurate to me. It doesn't make it easy to be wrapped up in emotions for the duration of the film, but the losses hang quietly over everything that happens and occasionally bubble to the surface. The humor is almost a defense mechanism.

I agree with all of this, including the effect of Margaret. I think what's missing here is the release that Margaret offered (it also piled it on a lot thicker and for longer), which I assume lead to some of the nonplussed responses to this film. I think the power of Manchester by the Sea is in recognizing the characters are so true to themselves that it's okay for us to be disappointed in them and not confuse it with disappointment with the film itself for being honest about the characters its created and fostered. I can't believe we live in a world where Casey Affleck is probably not going to win the Oscar for this. Hell, even Lonergan might come away empty handed. Good on the Academy for nomming Hedges though, as near the end many pundits were sure he would be snubbed. Hedges gives a superbly convincing teenage performance by maneuvering through a minefield. How easy would it have been to overplay any of his responses into being too bratty or too childish or too adult? If this film truly is the Ordinary People of our day, then carry that down through the line and give Hedges the Oscar too (in today's installment of Things That Will Never Happen)

Not saying it will happen, but Supporting Actor seems more wide open than any other category. And man is that freezer scene excellently executed by all parties involved

Maybe Shannon and Bridges cancel each other out for both playing rural Texas detectives, Patel and Ali cancel each other out for progressive voters wanting to ensure OscarsNotSoWhite and Hedges slides in. I mean, I don't believe for a second that what I just said will occur, but c'mon Oscars, we're due a Paquin-level shakeup

Ali deserves the award over even Hedges, I think - it'll be an uphill battle. I think if we see a surprise in that category, it's going to be Bridges for being a beloved older actor in a movie that older voters loved

Late Feb: when every thread is an Oscars thread at CF.org

mfunk9786 wrote:Late Feb: when every thread is an Oscars thread at CF.org

To think this process used to last all the way until late March...

mfunk9786 wrote:Ali deserves the award over even Hedges, I think - it'll be an uphill battle. I think if we see a surprise in that category, it's going to be Bridges for being a beloved older actor in a movie that older voters loved

Late Feb: when every thread is an Oscars thread at CF.org

I would have said Shannon might be the shock. I think Ali is pretty much nailed on. But Bridges is a recent winner. I think with Hedges the nomination is the reward. Patel is I think the thing the Baftas sometimes do of going with a more unusual British winner. But Shannon is respected, has had a lot of talk of nominations that never quite pan out, and this year has Nocturnal, Midnight Special and Loving showing a body of work. If anyone could sneak through I think it could be him.

I saw this a couple of months ago. I liked it but I was not entirely floored by it. It was quite solid in performances and I admire the realist leaning in the story. And yes, I had fun placing everything within eastern Massachusetts. But at the same time, I didn't feel as if it were groundbreaking material.

I didn't realize til it was pointed out to me that Hedges played Redford, the kid who gets stabbed by Suzy with lefty scissors in Moonrise Kingdom. Good to see those two patched things up here

The same year Sam and Suzy reunited as teenage anarchists in Paterson!

Anyone who saw Terry Gilliam's most recent feature The Zero Theorem saw Hedges playing off of Christoph Waltz remarkably well. I anticipate Hedges having a long, accolade-filled career.

Parents who killed their special needs child were inspired by Manchester by the Sea (spoilers for the film in link)

domino harvey wrote:Parents who killed their special needs child were inspired by Manchester by the Sea (spoilers for the film in link)

If these parents were actually inspired by the movie, they would have known not to do what they allegedly did to avoid a lifetime of inconsolable grief and self-degradation.

There are happy endings after all.

I was tempted to save this for the Oscars thread, but what the hell. At least there is one unmitigated great film from last year's line up. This film does everything right. Even the use of multiple time lines which I wasn't sure the handling of at first comes together in a deep and profound way and blows Arrival completely out of the water on its one thing. Actually this bests a lot of things with very simple and effortless moves that are almost invisible. The main plot is almost indistinguishable from Win Win from a few years ago and even the usage of Williams character is strikingly similar to Shutter Island.

The use of location seems to have gotten a lot of the discussion and certainly the film emphasizes that in ways I can only begin to understand, but that use of time is what really got to me. Longergan mostly uses it as it relates to memory, but even that isn't done in the usual manner. Affleck doesn't remember, in the adoption scene for example, anything directly relating to what is going on at that moment Instead he distracts his mind to an incident that might cause a mischievous smile to appear. The memory is helping him heal, but it also rips at him until some of the relevant concern bursts through making it hard to know what to decide or even how to take it in. In real time this thought process lasts maybe 15 or 20 seconds, but in reel time is lasts about two or three minutes. Lonergan would have constructed a great scene had he limited it to that. The film though makes relevant and important a third level, the off screen time. The memory takes place over at least five or six hours and is compressed so much and not even necessarily to what is the most important or dramatically necessary elements. Certain scenes go on too long, others are too short or not even there.

I also have to applaud the level of the performances across the board. It could have been easy enough to just have this be some Affleck starring vehicle with the intimacy of a few characters, but the film sprawls introducing a really lived in world with a ton of memorable characters that don't have much impact on Affleck. Stuff like the Star Trek conversation is instantly quotable and hilarious in no small part due to the delivery while even the most minor characters like the coach or the grossed out lady at the start just stay in the memory like a rock. That takes a supreme talent that is far too rare nowadays. Though these virtues don't seem to be fully appreciated given the truly dumb commentary the Internet was floating about it when it first came out. It's probably just a matter of bad timing. A decade or so ago this would have easily won the big prize, but now it's just lucky to show up at the dance. I've got to admit my sole previous familiarity with Lonergan is with Rocky and Bullwinkle so this came as a real surprise making me automatically a fan.

knives wrote:The use of location seems to have gotten a lot of the discussion and certainly the film emphasizes that in ways I can only begin to understand, but that use of time is what really got to me. Longergan mostly uses it as it relates to memory, but even that isn't done in the usual manner. Affleck doesn't remember, in the adoption scene for example, anything directly relating to what is going on at that moment Instead he distracts his mind to an incident that might cause a mischievous smile to appear. The memory is helping him heal, but it also rips at him until some of the relevant concern bursts through making it hard to know what to decide or even how to take it in. In real time this thought process lasts maybe 15 or 20 seconds, but in reel time is lasts about two or three minutes. Lonergan would have constructed a great scene had he limited it to that. The film though makes relevant and important a third level, the off screen time. The memory takes place over at least five or six hours and is compressed so much and not even necessarily to what is the most important or dramatically necessary elements. Certain scenes go on too long, others are too short or not even there.

I should point out that some of these reminiscences that occur when he is driving either around that area to it from Quincy. And as Patrick points out, it takes a good hour or so given the traffic. (Eastern MA can and often is a bitch to navigate in general.)

And yes, I definitely noted the local character, which I must say I really admire a lot of these directors who are not necessarily native to the area but have a great respect for it and allow the geography to be the important supporting character. (This sounds like it should be a more elaborate and expanded post on its own =] )

I finally convinced my wife to watch this with me, now closing in on a year after its original theatrical release, her hesitation being that she would find it too overwhelmingly depressing as a parent of two, ages 4 & 6.

She did not. She was moved by the central tragedy, certainly, and agreed that it was all very well put-together, and that the acting and direction were all above-reproach, but also came away from it feeling slightly underwhelmed. Oddly enough, that was her very same reaction to YOU CAN COUNT ON ME and MARGARET years ago. All I could respond with was, "Sometimes it's very hard being married to you."

Kidding aside, I loved the film my third time through as much as my first (which I raved about earlier in this thread), although I will add that my only issue with the film - Lonergan's use of music (especially during the pivitol flashback) - rubbed me even more the wrong way, and remains absolutely one of the worst directorial decisions I've ever seen in film, and particularly what is, in my opinion, an otherwise pretty perfect little picture.

My wife agreed, so there's that, too. I'm right Kenny! Should have consulted with aging Canadian film afficianado/Ontario Provincial bureaucrat, JAZZO, first!

Finally caught up with this, and it was okay. Maybe it's a movie for East-coasters? I couldn't tell if it was supposed to be a parody of people from Massachusetts or if you're all actually huge assholes because I've never seen a more miserable cast of jerkwad characters. The music was way over-the-top and

Spoiler

the big birthday cake surprise in the middle with the reveal of his barbecuing his kids was kind of corny.

It's like Ordinary People meets Young Adult - self-absorbed douchebags grinding against a toxic cloud of conservatism and masculinity. I would've liked it more if the dialogue were punchier or if it weren't so dully removed from itself.

Wow.