Me, Popcorn and The Oscars: “Manchester by the Sea” Is Realistic, Polished, Heartbreaking, and Yet, Forgettable

“Manchester by the Sea” is not the year’s best movie and it tried to take on more than it should’ve, nonetheless it has a clear, minimalist and generally realistic script that, even if far from outstanding, is strengthened by a tactful cinematography, extraordinary performances, and an unforgettable score.

Advertisements

*Spoilers ahead*

2016-11-12-1478968630-1457362-manchester2674x491

    The good things (what I liked)

  • I liked the coldness and clarity of the movie. If you haven’t watched the movie, and you watched the trailer, forget everything you saw! This is not one of those cases where the trailer is better than the movie, it’s just that it gives a wrong idea of the movie. This is not a feel good movie! This is not “Educating Helen”, this is not the movie Rachel’s sister, Amy, describes on Friends’ Thanksgiving episode, season 9 (I’m sorry, couldn’t help it). Here you don’t see the typical story of the black sheep of the family getting his dead brother’s child, and using this to be a better person or anything. I mean, it sort of is, but at the same time not in the way one would expect. This story is raw, realistic, deeply human.
  • Most people, at least before this film, only knew Ben Affleck. But, Casey Affleck’s performance was definitely the highlight of the film. The whole movie had great acting, however, Affleck stole the show.

maxresdefault.jpg

  • One shouldn’t ignore, however, the power of Michelle William’s scene (you know which I’m talking about). She was only in about 5 scenes throughout the whole movie, but that scene could very well win her an Oscar.
  • The music is incredible in this movie. Incredible! It helps so much to the overall tone of the movie, and I really enjoyed it. Sometimes, I would stop paying attention to the scene to pay attention to the music. It was great! Game of Thrones episode ten, season six great>
  • The dialogues in this movie are really good, and most characters are well created, and you can know them through the way they talk.
  • Lee is a pretty good protagonist, in the sense that even though it’s hard to like him sometimes, rarely do we judge him. I understood why he did the things he did.
  • The ending, although really unsatisfying, was very realistic.
  • The scene with Patrick and the freezer, and how that connects to his father’s body, was perfectly crafted. How Patrick had said a couple of times by then the same phrase of not wanting his dad to be in a freezer and then saying it again, but crying… it was excellent.

1122_patrick-lee.jpg

    The bad things (what I didn’t like)

  • Okay, so what is it with this year and its frontrunners (Moonlight and this one, at least)? Didn’t the writers take a class in plot development? I won’t spoil anything about Moonlight, although I already did a post on that movie, but there is just so much going on here! And it’s terrible. Couldn’t they just make a movie about either a father accidentally killing his daughters or a man getting his dead brother’s son? There is just too much going on here, and what’s more, the B story (Lee killing his daughters) seems to be more emotionally devastating than the A story (Lee getting Patrick). Also, you have a mother who abandoned her son, a mother who’s also an alcoholic, a man’s divorce and depression, a town’s irrational (and somewhat forced and unrealistic) hate towards a man, a couple of relationships, and a rusted, old boat. The movie just should’ve chosen one of the two stories. Personally, I feel as if the writers were more interested in writing the B story (Lee’s past life), and just had to write the A story as an excuse to write the other one. I know it should be the other way around, but most of the movie’s best scenes belong to that B story (Randi kicking out Lee’s friends, Lee describing what he did to the cops and then trying to kill himself, Lee running into Randi on the street), so it leads me to believe the writers were more intrigued by that story than Patrick’s.
  • You know how you can know when a character’s emotional question is not very well-developed? When the characters react in a specific way towards something, particularly strong reactions like crying or getting into fights or having destructive behaviors, is it clear why they’re doing so? In this movie, you never know the character’s emotional questions, conflicts or dilemmas. For example, take Lee when he’s crying: is crying because he got divorced, or because he lost his daughters, or because his brother died, or because he’s now in charge of Patrick?

18manbysea-blog427

  • The characters are too static. I think this may have been intentional, and in a way, I enjoyed the fact that most of the movie wasn’t overly sentimental, but after something like this hits you, you have to change, at least a bit. And these characters (Lee and Patrick) don’t change at all. Patrick still sleeps with both his girlfriends (something he did since before his dad died, so there’s no reason to believe it’s a change in his character) and Lee still gets into fights. Why don’t they change? If not by the death of a loved one, by each other? By the end, I was left asking myself a simple question: “And… so what?” This is probably the worst thing someone can ask him or herself after watching, reading or listening to art. If you don’t see the point of it, if you don’t understand why a story had to be told, then it utterly failed. I understand sometimes characters must be static because that would be the reality of someone in their situation (for example, with most Raymond Carver stories you see this, or with Fiona on Shameless, US version), but in this case, it was a bit unbelievable.
  • The whole thing with Patrick and his mother was totally unnecessary. Totally. And that dinner scene was simply horrible, unrealistic and, once again, unnecessary. I get they needed to take the mother out of the picture for Patrick to go to Lee, but still, it was an incredibly forgetful B story.
  • Also, Patrick and Lee seem too similar. Almost as if the writers couldn’t write two different type of characters, so they wrote the same one twice.
  • Finally, I don’t want to sound mean, but Patrick was such a horrible character. He was so easy to hate. This is probably a good thing because he is a teenager who only thinks of sex and sports (even during the worst of times) but I put in here because God I hated him all throughout the movie! Also, the actor didn’t pull off the Jock-Heartbreaker-D*ck act. Just saying. 

1122_manchester-hedges.jpg

    Who would I (or wouldn’t I) recommend it to

I’d recommend this movie to anyone who likes real, dramatic yet not melodramatic movies that can make you cry, to anyone who likes The Oscars and to anyone who likes family dramas.

    Best scene or dialogue (if there was any that stood out)

  • Although the movie as a whole isn’t great, it had great scenes. Probably my favorite was when Patrick opened the fridge and all the frozen meat falls, and he tries to pick it up, and it falls again, and he tries to close the door and it can’t close, and then he hits his head. Finally, he ends up crying. This was one of the best scenes of this year’s movies. If scenes could win Oscars, that scene would be one of my favorites. It was so real and devastating. Personally, I can say this has happened to me when you’re having a really bad day, and then something really small happens and you can’t get it right, and you just start crying or screaming or something. I can really relate.
  • Another favorite was the whole scene when Lee tells the cops what happened, and then he tries and kills himself. Everything was on point on this scene! The music, the acting, the character psychology, the dialogues… The way he asked if they were really letting him go as if in a way wanting to get punished, and the way he said everything so coldly and realistically… It was great.
  • Finally, that scene with Michelle Williams. Even on the trailer, you know that scene is going to be great. It might even win her an [extremely deserving] Oscar.

manchester-by-the-sea-trailer-michelle-williams-3

    Who stole the show?

Casey Affleck. No questions asked. Yes, Michele Williams gave a great performance. But her hard scene was literally one minute. The rest of her scenes (which incidentally were only like 4 other scenes) were rather easy. He was the emotional core of the movie, and he pulled it off.

    Do I predict this movie will have any actual nominations?

Yes. And even win some of them. Maybe has a shot for Best Movie, but probably will just win in the acting category (at least one of them has to win either Best Actor or Best Supporting Actress), maybe screenplay, and a couple of other ones. I don’t think this movie will be the night’s biggest winner, but I don’t expect them to go empty-handed.

michelle-williams-casey-affleck-manchester-by-the-sea-tiff-premiere-05.jpg

    Overall thoughts

“Manchester by the Sea” is not the year’s best movie and it tried to take on more than it should’ve, nonetheless it has a clear, minimalist and generally realistic script that, even if far from outstanding, is strengthened by a tactful cinematography,  exceptional performances, and a memorable score. And let me just say this: after this movie, Casey Affleck will never again be thought of as “the other Affleck”.

    How many stars?

3/5

The Tragic Non-Existance of Dolores Haze

This distinction between the two [Dolores and Lolita] must be made, or otherwise, one could get entangled in Humbert’s persuasive, baroque and sublime prose; from “Lolita” to “Lolita” one could lose sight of what’s imagination and what’s reality, what’s right and what’s wrong, what’s Lolita and what’s Dolores.

lolita-1

Humbert Humbert, Nabokov’s protagonist in his masterpiece Lolita, will rarely miss a chance to prove to the reader that he is as smart and well-read as they come. The references are vast, from Poe to Joyce to Freud… and one element that seems to plague the novel is the story of Adam and Eve. Humbert seems to be acutely aware of the fact that, yes, although Adam fell, it was all because of Eve, and so he constantly tries to push upon the reader the image of Lolita as a modernized version of Eve, and him as a modernized Adam. 

His Edenic fantasies are not even subtle, for on the morning when Lolita sits on his lap and she “gives” him an orgasm, he describes her as holding in her hand “a beautiful, banal, Eden-red apple” (57-58)—and there it is, the clear and direct reference. They stay together, he takes the apple, she takes it back, they flirt and play, and on the exact same moment when she finishes the apple, he climaxes, creating a correlation between Eve biting the apple, and him climaxing. However, the way he describes having “stolen the honey of a spasm without impairing the morals of a minor” (62), breaks the continuity with the biblical parable. Humbert believes that, although he has tasted sin, he has not been corrupted nor has corrupted Lolita. “Lolita was safe—and I was safe” (62) he proclaimed.

lolita-feature-e1428449929806

Here it is evidently seen how this character goes out of his way to prove to the reader that he is, after everything, innocent of perverting and sexualizing her. Even if he does confess of having killed Quilty, he is never able to bring himself to accept the fact that he has broken the child.

What he must do instead, to be able to cope with the guilt (or whatever feelings this evokes, for arguably, he is never able to fully repent or feel remorse), is what Eric Lemay explains on his essay Dolorous Laughter: “To transform Dolores into Lolita, to seal this sad adolescent within his musky self, Humbert must deny her her humanity” (par. 2). And how he manages to do it, how he accomplishes the task of ridding this girl of her humanity is one of the most genius and artful features of the novel, and it shows how deep and complex Nabokov’s understanding of his work and his character was.

Put simply, it can be delimited to one strategy that Humbert creates and uses constantly: the language, the vocabulary, the words. Through this strategy, he dehumanizes her and exempts himself from any moral blame.

One must only remember how he sees her, how he defines her. By this it is not meant the way her physicality is described, or the way his feelings are explained, or the way he loves her, but the names, the brands that he gives her.

The first, and the most popular name, must be the infamous nymphet, which he so gracefully defines:

Now I wish to introduce the following idea. Between the age limits of 
nine and fourteen there occur maidens who, to certain bewitched travellers, 
twice or many times older than they, reveal their true nature which is not 
human, but nymphic (that is, demoniac); and these chosen creatures I 
propose to designate as ‘nymphets’ (7).

Here we see how, in a very literal way, he says she (or any other nymphet) is “not human”. Need anyone explain that nymphets don’t actually exist? This is a clear rationalization from Humbert’s part, similar to the one he faces after having his first orgasm by the child, which seems to absolve him (in his mind, at least) of any guilt of the truth, this being that he has raped a girl. This strategy he creates allows him to denude her of a self, to butcher her integrity and being, and absorb her, create her as his own.

Similarly, he calls her Carmen, a nickname based on a song which describes the toxic relationship between a man and a woman. Many see the woman in the song as an easy woman, some go as far as to say she is a stripper or a prostitute, especially because of the third line in the song: “And the stars, and the cars, and the bars, and the barmen” (61). Either way, the character of Carmen is far from the exemplary woman, and for Humbert to define the “love of his life” in that way is surely not romantic, much less something that shows his respect for her.

And thirdly, one usually forgets this distinction, he calls her Lolita, “my Lolita”, and not Dolores. He changes her name and rebrands her as he wills. He drowns who she is, and he makes her his; he not only abuses her physically but also breaks her person completely. When he renames her, he changes her, he destroys her.

Through these three simple labels, he decomposes her. He takes her away from the world, where she is real, and he encapsulates her in his words.

And this doesn’t only stop with the names he gives her, but with his whole lavish descriptions, his baroque vocabulary, his constant literary references and French phrases. “His artistry conceals her anguish. The magnificent veils of his masterful prose, wafting sentence after sentence over the readers’ eyes” (par. 4), makes one forget of what he is writing about. He hypnotizes the reader with his lyrical sentences, his silky rhythms, his mesmerizing, water-like prose.

One forgets that Dolores and Lolita are two different creations: one by Nabokov and one by Humbert. Lolita is there to be eaten, to be deconstructed, to be dissolved. He even does it for the reader: Lolita; Lo-lee-ta; Lo. Lee. Ta. Demonically, he tears her name, preparing it for anyone who wishes to accompany him on his feast, “to forget his canine gnaw on the remnants of Dolores” (par. 5).

Humbert’s wizardry in writing creates a toy out of her, and when she is finally destroyed, then he has no emotional or moral obligation over her. This distinction between the two must be made, or otherwise, one could get entangled in Humbert’s persuasive, baroque and sublime prose; from “Lolita” to “Lolita” one could lose sight of what’s imagination and what’s reality, what’s wrong and what’s right, what’s Lolita and what’s Dolores.

4cbccf1913f7f048fe4d461428bebecf.jpg

Then, who is Dolores? How can she be known?

In one of the most honest passages from Lolita, Humbert explains: “At the hotel, we had separate rooms, but in the middle of the night she came sobbing into mine, and we made it up very gently. You see, she had absolutely nowhere else to go” (142). She had absolutely nowhere else to go, one must repeat! For this heart-wrenching moment reveals something that, without it, the whole read of Lolita could change completely. One must have the realization, this above anything else, that Lolita is a lonely, lonely character.

I would dare say that this, and the ending sentence of chapter three (part two)—“…the lovely, trustful, dreamy, enormous country that by then, in retrospect, was no more to us than a collection of dog-eared maps, ruined tour books, old tires, and her sobs in the night—every night, every night—the moment I feigned sleep” (176)—are two of the scarce passages where we actually get a glimpse at the character. And what’s interesting is that there is such indifference in how Humbert describes the moments, almost as if Lolita’s suffering were a burden or annoyance on him, and he describes them in such a passing and aloof manner, that one can almost prove how disinterested Humbert actually is in the real human he so proclaims to love.

So lonely is this character that, even being one of the most important and famous images of the twentieth century (either seen as a temptress, as a sex symbol or as a victim), she doesn’t even exist in her own book. Humbert’s Lolita and Dolores Haze are, for all intents and purposes, two different people, and there are so few real glimpses at the true Dolores that it is almost impossible to describe her; she is as elusive as Humbert is pretentious. To get to know why she does what she does, how her mind works, what her circumstances make her feel… it would be a treat. The only thing one can see in the character in a definite manner, especially after the ending of the first part (when she is told her mother is dead, and Humbert describes her as having no one), is that she is a terribly solitary character.

Even Humber himself accepts this distinction—“She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita” (9)—however, he adheres this changes to Lolita, without realizing that it was him that gave these distinctions, not her. She is a rather constant character (with only one big change, this being after she is told her mother is dead), it is he who sees her as someone different depending on where she is or who she’s with.

445b209f456b14f446c175b22d6dd9b4

Most of the allure and attractiveness of the character is actually this exact indescribability, this multiplicity; who is Lolita? who is Dolores? What did she actually feel? what did she think? what is Humbert’s imagination? what is just an exaggeration?

In many ways, Dolores doesn’t exist. One could rarely find her without her sole defining attribute: her solitude. A solitude so profound, it transcends her ability or disability to elude the other characters in the novel, and is able to touch even the reader, and prevent him from grasping fully who she is. That is why, even if Humbert has fulfilled his dream by immortalizing Lolita, Dolores—the real Dolores—barely even existed.

Works Cited

  • Goldman, Eric. “Knowing Lolita: Sexual Deviance and Normality in Nabokov’s Lolita.” Nabokov Studies. Vol. 8. N.p.: n.p., 2004. 87-104. Print.
  • Lemay, Eric. “Dolorous Laughter.” Web. 08 Dec. 2016.
  • Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich. Lolita. New York: Knopf, 1992. Print.