Manchester By The Sea (Kenneth Lonegan, November 18, 2016) Movie • Page 5

ugh, that's disappointing.

 

As much as I liked this movie, I didn't see how Casey took home the oscar. He was essentially playing an exaggerated version of himself.

 

That's basically what acting is (most of the time). Emphasizing natural traits or physicality to funnel them into a performance as a character. Affleck is really incredible in this. He embodies a broken-ness that really informs every single moment, so much that it hits home so hard when he finally admits he can't beat it, after having tried and actually connected with his nephew, that he's still got this weight inside him that won't let him function the way he knows he has to. "[X actor] is just playing themselves" is the most misguided criticism of acting there is. Very few actors are the transformative type who become unrecognizable or can authentically embody a completely different physicality (plenty try, not that many are great at it).

Now, recognizing Affleck as a human being, and the things he's done, he doesn't deserve the legitimization that comes with awards and lionizing profiles and interviews. Not at all.

 

I'm not familiar with his personal life, nor do I care, because I'm watching him work as an actor and I prefer to separate real life and fiction. I don't agree with Tom Cruise's cult beliefs but I still enjoy the shit out of his action movies.

It's hard to explain regarding him "playing himself." He's not getting lost in the character, or anything special like that. Look at Daniel Day Lewis for a comparison. He is completely method and completely loses/transforms himself in any role he does.

 

Yeah I can't call anything about his performance into question, it was fantastic


The Lonergan article sucks, tho. Endemic throughout the industry

 

But you're holding an actor's physicality against them. Affleck is completely this character in Manchester, even if he happens to look and act a lot like Casey Affleck does. Marlon Brando's physicality, voice, mannerisms, aren't all that different from Terry Malloy's, and that's one of the great film performances in history. Brando is funneling his natural physicality, voice, and personality into a performance that heightens certain aspects of him. Brando is completely Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront. Affleck is completely Lee in Manchester by the Sea. Daniel Day Lewis is completely Abraham Lincoln or Daniel Plainview or Bill the Butcher or whoever else. Lewis is doing a lot more showy stuff in most of his roles, while Affleck's performance is a small, sublte, inward, everyman performance. They're incomparable.

Also, there's only one Daniel Day-Lewis. He's basically impossible to compare to almost anyone else.

 

I did enjoy the movie, and I liked his performance, but I would have preferred Denzel to take it home. Mainly because his performance just overpowered everyone he shared a scene with.

 

I suppose we fundamentally disagree on what good acting is, then. I haven't seen Fences yet and I'm sure Denzel gives a great performance, but there's some faults in overpowering every person that you share a scene with. What made this film so special in terms of acting and the screenplay was how well the characters fit the natural ebb and flow of day to day dialogue and existence. Affleck was great at both captivating the audience and playing off other characters in a scene, he didn't really have too many big blowup long speeches that are typical for a "best actor" award, and I know from reading Fences with my students that Denzel had like 25. Fences is a great play, but I don't view it nearly as human or realistic as what I saw here. Affleck felt real, lived in, which I think is hard to come by in a lot of films.

 

In Manchester, Casey was flat for a majority of the movie. The only emotion portrayed was sadness, minus anger shown in the form of a physical fight. Then you look at someone like Denzel, who portrays a vast range of emotions through dialogue and little things he does during a scene.

It's just a personal preference, but I don't really like when someone plays a flat, monotone character that resembles they're real life persona. If that were the case, Jesse Eisenberg and Michael Cera would be taking home awards left and right.

 

There's humor and joy in Affleck's performance as well, humor throughout the film and genuine joy in the flashback scenes.

I mean, Denzel's performance is a powerhouse, but it's absolutely one note. He has the gas pedal to the floor the entire runtime, whether he's jovial, angry, or conflicted. He has no real quiet reflection or introspection, everything he does is outward. And that's not bad. His domineering performance works for the film because the character is always attempting to dominate those around him. But it's an incredibly different performance from Affleck's, who is so reserved and quiet and is doing nothing but think about himself and attempting to retreat from contact with anyone. Both actors are doing incredibly different things. Both performances are at least very good.

Your sticking point with actors whose on-screen performances are close to their real-life physicality and mannerisms is limiting. You said yourself you prefer to separate real-life and fiction. If that's what you're doing, it shouldn't matter that an Affleck or Eisenberg or Cera performance is similar to who they are in real life: what matters is how it fits into what's happening onscreen.

 

I absolutely would not call Affleck's character flat. Passive or worn down, definitely, but not "flat". Flat implies one dimension or personality trait without any characterization or changes throughout the film. The unique timeline throughout the film allows us to see the subtle changes in his character from the flashbacks of them on the boat years ago to him married to him in present time.

I think it was a brilliant move to have his character as subtle as it was for the beginning stages of the film until the flashback where you can see exactly why he behaves the way that he does, why he has the pent up anger or sadness within him. He is not a complete sad sack either, he does show glimpses of humor when he interacts with Patrick. He has a clearly formed motivation for why he does and does not want to take care of his nephew. A lesser film could have portrayed him as filled with rage or anger or more powerful. Lonergan is intelligent enough to realize that the amount of pain that this man was put through, basically because of his own hand, would cause him to behave in such a way.

 

People often misunderstand the natural limits that any actor has. Every actor has a strength and it makes sense for them to carry that. Jesse Eisenberg is nebbish and seems like he would be neurotic, so he plays those roles. It would be weird if Jesse Eisenberg played a muscular action hero. Samuel L. Jackson is known for his extreme presence and yelling, and his best roles carry that. When he played a sleepy introspective Jedi, he was awful.

Here is the thing: most movie stars are not incredible, classically trained actors. You have the Daniel Day-Lewis and Meryl Streep types, but most people fall into particular strengths due to their look and personality. Good directors make this work, such as when Paul Thomas Anderson harnessed Sandler's particular type of comic performance, tweaked it slightly, and got results. Even the best actors flounder without good direction; look at the recent careers of Al Pacino or even Meryl Streep.

Casey Affleck embodies some of the qualities in the character, but that is fine. You don't want Sylvester Stallone in that role, just like you don't want Jonah Hill. He does a lot of strong work with his face, which is why you don't get a lot of the "big" scenes you would expect in other dramas. In the big emotional scene, it works exactly because of Affleck's characters desire to suppress that emotion.

 

Affleck gave one of the greatest performances I've seen in the last several years in this film. It was one that will be remembered for years to come. But the message giving him an Oscar sends is not a good one and so I would have preferred Denzel win it (even though Affleck's performance was better).

 

Just wanted to say I've enjoyed reading this whole page of opinions immensely

 

I finally watched this last night after months of mounting anticipation and it did not disappoint. Affleck was absolutely terrific. Here's one thing that has been driving me crazy that I don't see anyone talking about...MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD

How come Lee wasn't charged with a crime for the house fire that led to the death of his three children? Involuntary manslaughter comes to mind or at the very least, child endangerment. He admitted illegal activity going on at his home shortly before the fire that could have been argued that directly led the fire. He talked about cocaine and marijuana use (cocaine more likely to stick) and being trashed and then starting a fire. I highly doubt if that happened in real life, they'd just tell you to go home.
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.

 

Probably because it was such a small tight knit community. I also think on of the cops says what he's living with is more than enough punishment.

 

I kind of got that feeling too, where everyone knows (and likes) each other...but that's not how the criminal justice system works, haha.

 

It is in many small towns around the country.

 

Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:

1. Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions.
2. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
3. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

I don't think 2 or 3 would fit. I could see the DA not pressing charges.

 

I'm not saying he'd be proven guilty, but I do think there is serious information to at least spend a few days to look over for the possibility of charging him and it shouldn't have been as easy as 'OK, you can go now' and 'we're not going to crucify you for not putting a screen on the fire' despite the fact that he was trashed and high off cocaine with little kids inside.

I think all three of those points could be argued in favor of at least charging him (maybe not ultimately finding him guilty though). Someone was killed as the result of his actions and the defendant should have known that doing cocaine, getting drunk and starting a fire with kids in the house and then LEAVING (that's the kicker for me - that and the cocaine) could very well be a threat to others.

 

Meh, doubt it.

 

Massachusetts Involuntary Manslaughter and Motor Vehicle Homicide Laws - FindLaw

From the article:

There would most likely be a 24 hour detainment, at the very least. You can't prove intent, but if you're an idiot, and your idiotic decisions led to multiple deaths, you're going to be held responsible.
EDIT: Jesus Christ, this happened in MA in 1944.

Massachusetts Murder Defense - Involuntary Manslaughter

Somewhat confusing, but what I took from is was basically that you aren't held responsible if you do something stupid and accidentally get someone killed?

 

There wouldn't be a movie if he went to jail. It really isn't that hard to believe that they felt it was not worth prosecuting.

 

Of course, they knew it was an accident, and they also knew Lee.

 

This is a weird thing to get hung up on I feel like