Manchester by the Sea (Kenneth Lonergan, 2016)

[mfunk9786]

This is a stone cold masterpiece, one of the best films of the [crowded] year. Incredibly emotional, while maintaining a strong sense of humor and warmth - the cinematography is like looking through a window, Affleck and Williams are astonishingly great, and the writing never cheats or takes the easy way out. Richly textured, tragic, and just about flawless.

[mfunk9786]

It's a testament to how great Manchester by the Sea is that even having seen the epic, excellent The Handmaiden immediately following it, this film continues to occupy a very fragile, emotionally vulnerable part of my brain [& has for days now]. Not sure who I'm paraphrasing, but a film critic at Cannes(?) said that they "thought about Manchester by the Sea the next day and started crying again" and I can certainly understand the sentiment. This movie carries a stunning amount of emotional heft, there are moments when you'll be crying and laughing at the same time, moments when you'll be horrified, moments when you'll just be completely devastated (Michelle Williams has a scene that sort of kicks off the 3rd act that I have essentially had to train myself not to think about further, lest I lose it right here and now). I realize all this hyperbole could certainly have a chilling effect if the movie doesn't work for someone, but if you've plugged into Lonergan's other work, this is an unexpected (if only because the bar was already so high) improvement. I apologize that I've now posted twice about this without getting into plot details - but I really don't want to have to ponder them too much more than I already have until I inevitably revisit this - it takes a lot out of me.

[jazzo]

Saw it this weekend, and can only echo all the praise posted above. What a pleasure to see a film that lives and breathes and takes its time with things.

A telling moment for me was watching Lee load his car with the help of his brother and nephew, and seeing all those modest bungalows in the background, and the cars passing on the street - houses that could be in any industrial/working-class smaller town - and realising that they, too, have the same story. We all do, this is simply the one this film is focusing on. Life, for most of us, is a barrage disappointed dreams, compromises and heartbreaks, and this film chronicles how we get or don't get past them.

If I was to level any criticism at all, it is Lonergan's use of classical music, not just in this film, but in his previous two, as well. It is a quiet film, and its beautiful choral score was enough. I found the actual piece distracting, particularly during

SpoilerShow

Lee's police inquiry/attempted suicide (and if any scene ever cried out for silence on the soundtrack except for the diagetic sound, it was this one.)

It also has a slight air of pretentiousness about it that isn't really present in anything else in his work. For me, it's a true directorial misstep, and leaves me feeling a bit like I do when I see some of David Simon's projects (cough cough Treme); like an old man is lecturing me on how my musical taste is shit. That's probably unfair, but I can't shake the feeling. I'd really just like the scene to do the work itself.

Otherwise, I loved it. People, for the most part, don't or can't change. How refreshing to see a modern North American film with recognisable name actors which understands this and

SpoilerShow

refuses to have a rousing epiphanic ending.

[isakorg2]

Saw this yesterday, in great anticipation, both Margaret and You Can Count on Me being in a class by themselves as far as I'm concerned. I felt the same way about the use of classical music in the film, particularly the Albinoni in the scene mentioned. If there is some way in which each human being has a uniqueness such that when they are no longer there, there is now something that is missing in the universe, Lonergan is an artist who has the rare ability to capture that. (How he does it is worth investigating.) So I found the use of the music - letting us know ala Bresson - that we are dealing with spiritual matters here - unnecessary. But if Lonergan prefers to do that, who am I to say not? Because it's so successful at avoiding certain pitfalls, it was only after the film that I recognized how easily - one might say definitely - in hands other than Lonergan's the Affleck character would have been insufferable - over two hours of down at the heels depression and self-pity. Which of course is NOT our (my) reaction to him. But thanks to Affleck and Lonergan's artistry, we take this avoidance for granted. They make it look easy, which it is not. And what a pleasure to see a film with a blue collar setting which is not populated by "characters" who are beautiful or handsome people who a moment's thought will tell you they look like - actors. And nobody has speeches to give anywhere in this film, thank god. And it uses so beautifully everyday objects to get across what used to be (and perhaps still are) called "moments". Never say "the most" or "the greatest" etc of something, but Ill break my own rule anyway. I don't think I've ever seen a tinier or more under the radar bit of business that contains such unforced significance as the play with the ball in the penultimate scene of the film.

[Roger Ryan]

I love the film as well. I saw it yesterday in a packed theater and there were a number of viewers who vocally expressed their displeasure with it ("well, that was a waste of two-and-a-half hours...", etc.). This only demonstrates that Manchester by the Sea goes to some uncomfortable places and refuses to conform to expectations. The thought that this screenplay may have been directed by someone other than Lonergan (or, at least, someone without the fortitude to take the same subtle, brave approach) is dismaying.

SpoilerShow

Specifically, I can't imagine another director choosing not to show the audience the three framed photos of Lee's children - a choice that makes the scene where Patrick sees the photos for the first time all the more stunning.

Fortunately, we have a fully-realized Lonergan film where the truly great moments arrive in the myriad of small details while some of the expected dramatic high points are elided. As with his first two films, the drama and oft-times black humor are interwoven, but accomplished here with a surer hand. The performances all around are, indeed, spectacular, but Affleck and Hedges are particularly amazing.

I can't say the use of classical music came off as pretentious to me. A similar use of the "operatic" is a big part of Margaret, but here the music is used less flamboyantly and feels more like an ironic counter-point to the matter-of-fact images it accompanies. Then again, if any film deserves a soundtrack that conjures "big emotions", it's this one.

[jazzo]

I agree wholeheartedly about his decisions to not show/say things. It has a profound effect on an audience, similar to not having Ruffalo's character in Your Can Count on Me not speak the phrase (the film's title) the two siblings shared to get through difficult times during their childhood.

[jazzo]

Also, maybe my use of "pretentious", in regards to use use of classical music is the wrong word. Maybe portentous? Because for a film (and artist) that underplays everything, it definitely overplays the emotional content in its usage. At least for me.

[Foam]

I can barely account for it, but this one left me more indifferent than I had hoped.

The hype for this is and has been absolutely through the roof since it was first screened. On Letterboxd (I know I know) it's currently just outside of the all time top 100 films when you sort by rating. Having recently had great rewatches of Lonergan's previous two, which I think are both total masterpieces, my expectations were probably too high.

In many ways, though, I recognize that it is a great, exceptional film. I would still encourage people to see it. My hope is that registering my disappointment may encourage some Lonergan-heads like me to keep their expectations within reasonable bounds.

One definite problem I had with the film though was the

SpoilerShow

totally condescending representation of the mother's Christianity. This was especially disappointing given how sensitively and respectfully religious difference is portrayed in You Can Count On Me. A viewing of that film with my conservative, Christian father seemed to play a significant part in healing our own relationship. But the scene in this film, with Matthew Broderick sitting beneath a carefully arranged kitsch portrait of Jesus in goofy, deadly seriousness--like a scene out of Linklater's Bernie--struck a definite false note and completely took me out of what should have otherwise been a wrenching scene.

[Professor Wagstaff]

One definite problem I had with the film though was the

SpoilerShow

totally condescending representation of the mother's Christianity. This was especially disappointing given how sensitively and respectfully religious difference is portrayed in You Can Count On Me. A viewing of that film with my conservative, Christian father seemed to play a significant part in healing our own relationship. But the scene in this film, with Matthew Broderick sitting beneath a carefully arranged kitsch portrait of Jesus in goofy, deadly seriousness--like a scene out of Linklater's Bernie--struck a definite false note and completely took me out of what should have otherwise been a wrenching scene.

SpoilerShow

I get what you mean as the scene also made me pause. What helped me get around that was the follow-up scene when Patrick mentions his mother has become super Christian and Lee reminds Patrick that Catholics are also Christians. The mother and the boyfriend had a born-again/Protestant vibe that's very alien to Patrick given that his family and the people around him, even if they aren't practicing or devout, are steeped in the Catholic tradition. Patrick doesn't probably have a lot (if any) reference for other denominations. Just as his mother went off to form a new life, she's taken on new ideas of Christian faith that go against their roots and probably feel like another abandonment.

I also read the film as deeply Catholic, just drenched in the kind of old school guilt and suffering that Scorsese used to explore more often (like Newland Archer in The Age of Innocence). Lee has chosen suffering as his penance and cannot allow himself to be forgiven. I wish I could conjure up some ideas about grace through suffering, but it's been awhile since Catholic school.

[mfunk9786]

I think it's her illness (addiction/alcoholism) more than her religion of choice that made her behave unusually. I think we are supposed to see her as very uncomfortable in her own skin and faced with the reality of her failures.

[Professor Wagstaff]

SpoilerShow

I'd totally agree with that, mfunk, but I'm not sure I referenced anything about the mother's behavior or suggested she acted unusually because of religion. The scene is played out through Patrick's perspective. He's surely no stranger to his mother's behavior, but he's hyper-aware of the new setting she's in with the aforementioned picture, the conservative attire, prayers, and overall tone that's just different to him.

[terabin]

This article and news = major bummer. Haven't seen the movie yet.

[knives]

There's valid points to be made there, but definitely not in that obnoxious way especially as the writer conflates, poorly, two separate issues. Why bother critiquing the film at all if everything is going to be dismissed because the lead actor is, supposedly, a terrible person? Why talk about white ennui or suggest it is impossible to pity a character because the actor rather than the character isn't worth pity? That's just a terribly stupid package to present a situation which highlights major issues concerning race and power in the industry.

[Roger Ryan]

I think it's her illness (addiction/alcoholism) more than her religion of choice that made her behave unusually. I think we are supposed to see her as very uncomfortable in her own skin and faced with the reality of her failures.

This is how I took the scene as well.

SpoilerShow

Patrick's mother has clearly not addressed her long-standing problems and has simply taken on the veneer of "Christianity" to deflect close inspection of her character. When Patrick references his mother and her husband being "very Christian", he's reacting to their insincerity. If Lonergan is commenting on religion, it's to contrast the way the Catholic belief is simply organic to the way-of-life for most of these folks (and therefore unheralded) versus the mother's need to make a big show of her supposed faith.

[mfunk9786]

Indeed. And I don't believe we are supposed to look upon her with scorn. The film is brimming with broken people who may never be able to be fixed.

[Foam]

To be clear, I don't think Lonergan actually intended to mock the character. Clearly we are supposed to view her with full sympathy. My problem is that there was a falseness to the set design which got in the way of that and made me think that Lonergan's sympathy had a strong of uncharacteristic, unknowing condescension to it. That schmaltzy portrait of Jesus and the way it is positioned on the wall feels like a joke; I haven't seen such a portrait displayed like that in my entire long history of spending time in the houses of people who believe what this couple apparently do. It didn't fit the measured, lived-in, sympathetic tone that the rest of the movie had.

[lacritfan]

Just realized Patrick's first girlfriend is Suzy from Moonrise Kingdom. Also the guy who yells "Great parenting" was Kenneth Lonergan, wondered why they stayed on him for a beat.

[Roger Ryan]

...Also the guy who yells "Great parenting" was Kenneth Lonergan, wondered why they stayed on him for a beat.

This was the one odd bit of editing I found in the film. Did Lonergan really want a little more on-camera time? Was it a little in-joke the editor slipped in? Or, was this cutaway necessary because they didn't have enough coverage to comfortably get Afflect and Hedges into the car without a continuity jump?

In other interesting casting, Patrick's other girlfriend is the real-life daughter of Mikhail Baryshnikov.

[MoonlitKnight]

Michelle Williams and Casey Affleck to star in Kenneth Lonergan's next film

The phrasing here is a bit misleading here as this is strictly Affleck's film (along with Hedges to a lesser extent); Williams is hardly in it (though, in her final scene, she definitely reminded me why I consider her perhaps the best American actress under 40)... but I'll allow there's no way you could've known this at the time.

I think I might need to revisit "You Can Count on Me." I saw it right after its video release, and thought it was pretty good -- but not that good. I've also yet to see "Margaret." Anybody know how the original theatrical cut compares to the over-three-hour director's cut?

[mfunk9786]

We have a thread for that film that'll answer all of your questions. But please try to refrain from nitpicking posts from 2 years ago passing on an article that a film is going to be made, there's nothing productive that could come of that.

[Lowry_Sam]

I guess I'm the only one to find this film extremely annoying & not particularly good. I had high expectations given that You Can Count On Me is one of my favorite US films of this millenium & that the film has been praised by almost everyone. But I reacted to it the same way I did to Boyhood. I found it overly long & boring and not particularly believable. The only actor that excelled was Michelle Williams & that was for only a short screen appearance. Affleck's acting was too under-the-top to be believable. This is the first time I found Albinoni's piece to be extremely annoying in a film. Beautiful scenery & nice classical selections can't make up for bad writing & editing. Most of the short scenes with secondary characters were extremely cliche, with the Matthew Broderick scene the most cliche of all.

[hearthesilence]

I thought this was really good. My expectations were lower due to the wave of backlash I've seen for all sorts of reasons, but I really liked this, especially as the film wore on, and Casey Affleck was particularly good indeed. A "masshole" no doubt like many of the others, something more than a few people I've known have pointed out, and the film is very aware of this. I don't think it undersells the less noble aspects of these characters, but it still has real compassion for someone who can't ever forgive himself or really trust himself either.

[Luke M]

Saw this tonight and popped on here to see what others thought. I agree with the highest praises. I thought this was a brilliant film. I don't think I've seen a performance of a character processing their grief played better than Affleck here.

[Cronenfly]

While I certainly wish this film and Lonergan all the best, for me this was a step backwards from the panoramic scope of Margaret. Given that all three of his films operate along a similar dramatic crux (horribly scarring accidents form the spine of all of Lonergan's directorial efforts), I felt that he was treading water here. The movie is no doubt more technically robust and enveloping than You Can Count on Me, but it otherwise feels warmed-over in certain key respects (Affleck's character is extremely similar to Ruffalo's from the earlier picture). Affleck does offer a compelling portrait of grief, but his slouchy sub-Brando mannerisms feel a bit old hat as well. I would certainly recommend the film, and found it quite affecting at times, but I hope that Lonergan feels secure enough the next go round to really swing for the fences again. Margaret may be a more flawed movie, but it also felt more alive to me than this one, which for all its dramatic fireworks is ultimately a bit too pat for my liking.

[movielocke]

I've got a lot of respect and admiration for this picture's script and excellent performances, but I just didn't like it very much. About thirty-forty minutes in, I was thinking, "this is fine but it's the eleventy billionth awards picture about tormented suppressed white male masculinity, ho hum, here he is all depressed walking to the store at night and it's dark, probably two more hours of endless moping, clearly it will win all the awards."

SpoilerShow

And then THAT scene happened and it sort of makes the whole movie worthwhile (other than the bizarre plot hole that a woodburning fireplace is less dry than central heat, when the opposite is the case, nothing dries out a house faster, actually).

But also requiring mind numbing tragedy of that scale, emotionally it made me completely shut off and disconnect from empathy for with anyone in the movie (since they went for such an extreme tragedy it had an extreme effect) and that makes me find the picture incredibly manipulative and it is sort of irritating how blatant and ham handed it is.

The cutesy editing construction is quite nice, overall, and the photography is lovely, but man I just didn't care.

I was astonished by afflecks final decision as I felt his inability to cope was an incredibly good choice for the story, and perhaps the only unexpected story choice in a super predictable genre (the genre is 'awards bait') piece. And being genre isn't bad, it's a good genre picture, I like genre pictures. But it's just like all the other movies like this made every year, sort of a marvel movie for film critics, more of the same, I'll order the usual, tastes okay to me.

Kyle chandler is pretty amazing, a shame there's not more. Kid was good too, Michelle Williams seemed to exist only when they remembered women exist in his world of men and remember they like crying scenes to demonstrate "great" acting for awards bodies.