Manchester by the Sea

************Spoiler Warning************

I knew very little about this film going into it beyond the fact that the story was about an uncle, Lee, who must take care of his nephew in the wake of his brother's death. Manchester by the Sea is less about Joe's death, however, than it is about Lee's struggle to cope with a tragedy from his past. Casey Affleck's performance is reason alone to see this film, but I was left wishing the film's writing matched its acting.

Characters/Acting

Casey Affleck: I will start by saying that Casey Affleck should (and probably will) win best actor at this year's Academy Awards. He carries this film with his portrayal of a detached, tortured, shell of a man whose only display of emotion is the rage he exhibits during the fistfights he is constantly picking.

Casey Affleck is especially good in the scenes where he is offered chances to rejoin society such as the woman on the phone and the woman at the bar who both try to flirt with him, Sandy's mom who asks him to come in for dinner, or Michelle Williams (Randi) who asks him to get coffee with her. Affleck's body language is a gateway into the soul of a man caught between torturing himself over his past and allowing himself to move on. Normally actors are to be praised when they convincingly display a wide range of emotions in a single character, but what makes Affleck's performance in Manchester by the Sea so impressive is how well he depicts someone struggling to contain their emotions. It's difficult to imagine him in real life as anything but Lee Chandler: a man tormented by the accidental murder of his three children eight years prior to the film.

Lucas Hedges: I was equally impressed by Lucas Hedges who plays Lee's nephew Patrick, enough that I am convinced that he too should take home an Oscar for best supporting actor. Typically an adolescent male who loses their parents and goes to live with a relative is portrayed as ornery, whiney, and annoying. Thanks to better than average writing and Hedge's talent, Manchester by the Sea avoided this dreadful cliché; the relationship between Affleck and Hedges was far more interesting than the rather exhausted coming-of-age theme. A lesser actor would have been dwarfed by Affleck's performance but instead the two formed an excellent chemistry which kept the audience entertained in the midst of an overwhelmingly depressing story.

 Hedges handles his emotional scenes with more subtlety and care than most actors his age (and many older actors for that matter), especially the scene where he endures a panic attack while trying to close the freezer. He is also very believable in the scenes where he must adopt a tentative demeanor in the face of his uncle's anger. This "walking-on-eggshells-" aspect of his character is a very realistic quality that is rarely portrayed on the big-screen. I look forward to future Lucas Hedges films and hopefully he's rewarded at this year's Oscars.

Michelle Williams: I don't mean to make the acting section of this review so Oscar oriented, but since the film was nominated for three acting awards recently, the topic merits some discussion. Having seen the film I'm surprised that Michelle Williams' portrayal of Randi was nominated for best supporting actress. I usually enjoy Michelle Williams and she will probably win in the near future, but she simply did not have enough screen-time to warrant an Oscar nom. Her best performance (called an "Oscar moment" by some) is excellent, but nothing out of the ordinary. One could argue that it's "just a supporting role" but Williams' character (and her performance) is simply drowned-out by Affleck and Hedges.

Directing

Kenneth Lonergan directed and wrote Manchester by the Sea. Usually when the writer and director is the same person, like Tarantino for example, I combine the two into a single category. I've decided to separate them in this case in order to briefly highlight some of the directing I appreciated in the film before moving on to the writing where I have much more to say about the film.

Dramas about everyday people do not usually require the same amount of input from a director as most other genres, therefore it's only fair that my assessment of Lonergan's directing be based on whether he did what was necessary to allow the film's story to be told. To that end, Manchester by the Sea is well directed. There are some beautiful shots of the New England countryside in the winter and the Chandlers boating, and the fire scene made for a shocking, albeit brutal, plot-twist. The bleak winter shots and the bitter cold effectively augment the film's dark tone. Lonergan also gives the audience a good sense of the people of the Manchester-by-the-Sea community: portraying them as somewhat gritty and yet a caring communal.

The film also suffers its share of weaknesses, however, most notably its score. Manchester by the Sea's score of mostly operatic pieces is an unnecessary distraction that sometimes competes with the film's tone. The audience's focus should be on Lee's constant struggle to keep his emotions under control, but this can be quite difficult when an aria is blaring from the surround sound. It was unclear whether Lonergan's intended purpose in using such emotional music was to create a representation of Lee's inner emotions which are fighting the emotionless mask he wears, or if the music's emotion was meant to enhance whatever emotion was taking place in the scene (as was certainly the case and to great effect in the scene where Lee attempts to kill himself). Either way, the film's score should have been relegated to the background more and perhaps removed from some scenes entirely. It is also worth noting that the film's pace, which is an area of both writing and directing, was too slow, even for a serious drama, and I found myself checking my watch 5 or 6 times during the film. Overall, the film's directing accomplished what it should have; mainly, getting out of the way and allowing the story and the acting to drive the film.

Story/ Writing
Manchester by the Sea's story was in large part a success (if you sense a "but" coming, you're not wrong). Lonergan's story explores a level of human suffering that I haven't seen since The Deer Hunter. What appears on its surface to be the tragic story of a man losing his brother and a son his father is really just window dressing for the death of Lee's three children. Lonergan also cleverly disguises this inner tragedy through the dialogue. When Lee shows up to Manchester-by-the-Sea to tell Patrick of his father's death, the hockey coach refers to him as the Lee Chandler in a tone of awe, as does the vice principal's secretary. This suggests to the audience that Lee is a hometown legend, perhaps a high school hockey phenom, rather than a man who is infamously known. The plot twist itself catches the audience completely off-guard. After watching Lee casually trudge through the snow to the gas station and back, no one is prepared for the shocking scene of his house burning down with his children inside and his wife screaming as she struggles to save them. The methodical buildup and then sudden reveal of this haunting scene is tremendous writing and it might be enough to capture best original screenplay if the film comes up short on best picture and directing (as I think it will).

Unfortunately, the scene of the house burning down is in many ways the climax of the film. The audience now knows why Lee is unable to function socially and why he is so void of emotion, even upon the news of his brother's death. The audience also understands why his wife left him and why he chooses to work as a janitor away from his brother and nephew. By this point in the film, the audience realizes why returning to Manchester-by-the-Sea is so difficult for Lee and the reason he doesn't want to stay with his nephew. All that remains for the second half of the film is continued exploration into Lee's suffering and resolving the living situation between Lee and Patrick.

Here comes the "but" you've been waiting for. The second half of the film is where the writing takes a turn for the worse. As the film continues to build towards a resolution the question in the audience's mind becomes "how are two people who obviously care so much about each other going to still live together when neither wants to uproot themselves?" Lee can't deal with returning to the town that reminds him of the horrible act he can never forgive himself for and Patrick has more than just a typical teenager invested in where he lives. So how can this conflict be resolved? Well it turns out that apparently it can't, at least not beyond Lee saying "I can't do it, but I'll have a spare bedroom so you can visit". Seriously? A movie that had such a unique and creative twist earlier in the film, that spent over an hour hours building towards a resolution, can't do better than "I can't beat it"?  Disappointing.

 Another weak point in the writing was the scene with Patrick's mother. While it's always a treat to see Matthew Broderick, I'm not sure what this scene achieved that wasn't already established through the mother's e-mail relationship with Patrick. She's hasn't seen her son in years but is now making an effort to re-connect, except due to nerves and an inability to cope with her own past she is not ready. The former we already know from the fact that she's emailing him, and the latter isn't particularly relevant to the story. So what if she's struggling with her own inability to cope with the past, she's hardly an important character for the audience to sympathize with and we already get more than enough of this from Lee. Many plausible explanations for this scene come to mind but none that justify such a clunky scene.

I liked the use of Joe's character as a means to bring Lee and Patrick together and as a window to their past relationships. I don't think the audience is meant to feel sympathy at his loss as most of his screen-time follows his death and it's difficult to build an attachment between an audience and a character when that character is already deceased.

The character of Silvia (girlfriend number 1) seemed to serve almost no purpose in the film other than to establish that Patrick had two girlfriends. Was this fact even necessary? All having two girlfriends seems to achieve is either that he's popular and/or that he's somewhat of a sleaze. The audience already knows he's cool because he's a star on the hockey team and he's a likable character. The sleaze element does establish that he's not perfect, but the audience already sees this when he gets in a fight with another hockey player prior to Lee showing up. If anything, having two girlfriends who don't know about each other is an unnecessary stain on an otherwise likable character.  

Conclusion:

Manchester by the Sea is by all accounts a good film, even an academy award winning film in my view. Its acting is easily the best I've seen in what amounted to a very weak film year and the director has correctly made it the focus of the film. I was disappointed in the film's ending and the pacing of the film, and as a result its score suffers in my view (A reminder though that this is not an educational grade where everything below a 70 is borderline failing, but a true 1-100 score.)

Grade:

WRAP: 70%

Author's Note:

My friend and fellow cinephile Mr. David Henderson is convinced that the ending of the film was meant to convey to the audience that Lee plans to kill himself. He bases this theory on several elements, mainly 1) while bouncing the ball with Patrick, Lee tells him to "let it go" down the hill, perhaps symbolizing his own decision to let go of life, 2) he tells Randi "I can't beat it", perhaps referring to life itself, 3) we never see Lee pick out the apartment he says he's moving to, perhaps evidence that there isn't one because he doesn't actually plan to go back to Boston, and 4) he tried to kill himself previously.

While I would prefer this ending to the more obvious ending, I don't buy it for several reasons: 1) when he is bouncing the ball is right after burying his brother and it seems like he just loses interest in it, which seems not out of the ordinary, 2) The "it" he is referring to is the town itself, which he has been battling ever since he returned and he is anxious to get away from (hence the title of the film giving the town its deserved significance), 3) he still tells Patrick that he's looking for a place with a second room so Patrick can come and visit. Why put this in there at all then if the audience is meant to understand that he will kill himself. Wouldn't this be significantly muddying the issue? I think so, 4) the film ends as it begins with Lee and Patrick going back to the sea where they fished and this is the close to the story's loop, 5) it's been 8 years since he tried to kill himself with 7 of those being with him living alone in Boston. If he were going to kill himself he would have done so before now, especially before reconnecting with his nephew.

But what do you think of David's theory? The ending as a whole? Let me know with your comments below!