While I’m being a film critic I’d like to say something belatedly about Manchester by the Sea. I can’t quarrel with the acting or the direction. I have my usual nits to pick about Boston accents and local goofs–what’s a convenience store doing selling beer at two in the morning? But I left the movie feeling annoyed and frustrated, and it took me a while to figure out why.
The point of the movie, it seems to me, is that the Casey Affleck character doesn’t change, because he cannot change; he’s too deeply damaged. So he ends the movie back where he started, more or less–living by himself, working at a menial job. He doesn’t get back together with his wife; he basically gives away his nephew. Fair enough, I suppose. But that means that nothing happens in the movie. Well, stuff happens, but it’s like real life–one damn thing after another, without form or meaning. No one really changes; we all just end up in a different spot because time has passed.
I have pondered this a bit, because I do appreciate that the movie didn’t go in for a soft-edged Hollywood ending. In that sort of ending, the responsibility of parenting his nephew would change Affleck, help him come to terms with his grief. Meh. But there could be perhaps a glimmer of hope for redemption. Or, if not, it could be a tragedy. Just not utter stasis.
Also, that scene in the convenience store really annoyed me.
Similar complaints, Rich. I was expecting much more after all the Oscar build up. Good critique, Rich. Thanks for sharing. Roberta
Whereas I saw the ending quite differently. I felt there *was* a glimmer of hope of redemption, and that we were seeing the first hints of healing in the Affleck character, and in the nephew. I thought the message was, he’s *not* too damaged to change–and if he can heal, anybody can heal. But for you to really see it, we’d have to make the movie six hours longer, so let’s not do that.
It’s possible, I suppose, that I saw what I wanted to see. But that’s what I saw.