I get that people deal with things differently emotionally. Some people yell and scream and are depressed for weeks, and others react differently after it has time to sink in.. but in this movie he almost didn't react emotionally at all. He was just a robot. I kept watching him act in this movie waiting for him to kinda explode, or come to a realisation, or just do anything, but nothing ever happened. It was just a long steady examination of a guy just going "..meh.." to everything around him.
Having seen C. Affleck (assuming that is who you are referring to) in several films, I have concluded that he is congenitally incapable of expressing emotion. I am baffled as to why he is employed as an actor, and have been consistently annoyed by his insipid performances. Meh is right.
Affleck did an amazing job in this role. Most people way over-act in roles where their character deals with death. How Casey played the role was much more "real". He was in shock. Heck....he was completely numb, sleep-walking through his life after what happened to his children. The death of his brother was yet another blow to his soul. His subtlety was why his performance was so good. I KNOW people like his character, Lee. I've seen people like that....at funerals.....where they are completely in shock. The real emotions have not hit yet.
There was just something so real and true about how Lee, when he found out about his brother, compartmentalized his pain and shifted into a completely disconnected mode. And at the hospital...he was completely clueless as to what to do next. So true. So real.
I didn't have an issue with the way Lee reacted for most of the film, it seemed real to me apart from when his children died.. perhaps there were tears later but it just seemed odd to me that there was no reaction at all.
Yeah, I don't even know if there can be any story about someone
who has been through that experience really. It's bad enough to
make bad decisions that screw up one's own life, but to make a
mistake that kills people, and you own children.
One thing I wonder is if this is a movie that if you switched around
the roles, for instance Lee was a woman. Would we be interested
in seeing that movie, and would we feel the same way. Something
I think when I see new stories about woman who go crazy that
kill their children, which is not the same situation of course, but people
are extremely harsh and unforgiving about them. Like the women who
left her child in the car on a hot day and he died. People are so harsh
on this kind of situation.
Affleck is the perennial bad boy, so in this movie he was supposedly justified to be that way. It was not a good movie, it did not deserve the praise it got. Amazon productions is usually very good in what they do, but I don't understand this.
I know. There was really nothing in that performance that wowed me. And he WON the Oscar for that performance?! Denzel Washington was so much better in Fences? Casey was just expressionless.
They seemed to have tried to hit this note that gives a subliminal
message that a violent guy is somehow deep and passionate and
a good person. The success of this movie is a mystery, and it is
probably because it got a lot of attention ... why I have no idea unless
it was advertising and payola or something. I though this was a below
average movie.
It was not odd at all. Having one's own children burnt to death because of simple but tremendeously horrible mistake he himself made is really maddening.
It either shut off any emotion like Lee or it would make him crazy like DiCaprio's character in Shutter Island. Or suicide. And he already tried suicide.
I think this is a very realistic, subtle, deep and profound potrayal of a tragic man. He explodes quite often though. At random times he tends to hit peoples and windows.
That said, the wife's emotional response is also very realistic and not over dramatic at all. She blamed Lee for the death of their children, then years later she blamed herself for blaming him. Really well-tought characterization and also very well acted.
> I think this is a very realistic, subtle, deep and profound potrayal of a tragic man.
I can see your motivation for saying that,
but there is a lot of contradiction in that too.
Why did he go around fighting all the time?
Why was he still drinking?
Why do we need to hear a story about such a man,
what is it we have to learn from or get out of his story?
There were things that rang true as you said, the wife's reaction,
but that is not enough for me to be a story. I didn't see any
reason for this movie to be made.
I can't answer all your questions. But one thing struck me about this movie. I think it's quite profound and strong.
what is it we have to learn from or get out of his story?
The scene I was talking about was when Lee and Patrick was walking to their car and they passed a nosey guy walking down the street. The guy said something like bad parenting (I don't remember the exact words) and it made Lee almost got into a fight with him.
The world is angrier every day. The nosey guy doesn't know about Lee and what he went through. Yet he condescendingly mocked him. Lee also ignorant of other people. He just didn't care.
Now after I watched this scene, whenever I'm out driving my car I no longer judge other people's behaviour. I don't know them. Maybe the driver that cut my line just had been cheated by his wife this morning, or maybe his dad is dying in the hospital and he's rushing there. I won't get angry and race him to prove that he's wrong or something.
Life might be a little better when we just care a little to not judge too quickly. The amount of internet fights might also decline! 😃
I'm not saying this is what the producer of the movie intended. Maybe they were just in it for the money lol.
reply share
OK, well, I can just say how it affected me. I am glad the movie meant something to you and you got something out of it. I thought the guy who say "way to parent" was kind of right, and if you say that on the street it is kind of our responsibility to do or say something. He didn't hurt anyone of threaten anyone. Lee was constantly fighting people. I wonder if you would search for and read my post about the political meaning of this movie and tell me what you think?
Well, to sarcastically comment on people we don't know is not our responsibility. If he's really care he could offer help or something, instead of mocking.
This is what our politically correct society became. Yes, he was technically in the right. Nobody can say he did wrong. He didn't. What he did is just not wise, not nice, not helping anything or anyone. He only made matters worse for everyone. Yet he is absolutely not breaking any law. Stuffs like this have no solution that I know.
Lee was wrong and he needed help. But nobody really want to help him. No one even could. The only help he got was from his brother. The only genuine brotherly love he had. And then he died.
It's a tragic story. People love sad and tragic stories.
I'll try to find your post about the political meaning and respond on the apropriate thread.
I thought his reactions were fair ... realistic. He felt he did not deserve
to live or have a life, that he was worthless and had to be on alert all
the time to not make a mistake like he did again. He was the walking
dead.
I think the way they told the story, this guy really would not have stayed
living, he would have killed himself, especially after what he did in the
police station.
But he was alive, and he had people that cared about him, close friends,
but why would his brother leave his kid to be taken care of by Lee?
Also, Lee seemed to be totally unchanged by anything that happened.
It's a story but not a good on or hopeful one, so I didn't really get the
point, if there was one, and there should be some point to any movie.
I think a point the movie makes is that some mistakes can be so horrible that they're really hard to come back from.
I think a good effect it could have on its viewers is help them understand the mind of someone who has made one of those mistakes, so that the next time they hear about someone who did something similar (accidentally causing deaths) they won't demonize the person and understand that he/she hates himself more than anything (and could maybe use some help).
Yeah, I think that is a valid interpretation of the movie.
But I also kind of thought that if you did not know that or feel that
way already this movie would not really portray it very well.
Those of us who might feel that way already would get the movie
and others would just think it's boring.
It would have been interesting if they had been able to weave
more of the ex-wife who we see at the end who has seemingly
moved on and gotten on with her life. That is kind of hard to
believe.
Also the crisis over the frying pan and the smoke alarm. I've
done that many times and never had the response that I could
trust myself to be around people. Get a smoke alarm, that is
what they are for, and in that first house, why did they not
have smoke alarms? That mistake was just as bad.
This movie sort of illustrated what George Lakoff the neuroscientist
called "the strict father" mentality, which he believes is the basic
morality of Republican thought. Subliminally I think that is why
it got so much attention.
But I am just curious ... at the end of the movie, what do you
feel about Lee? Do you like him, or dislike him. Do you think he
deserves to live? Does he ever deserve to be happy? Should he
kill himself, or do some kind of penance.
These are questions they movie does not explore.
I look at a lot of movies as being political, because I think they are.
They are produced for a profit inside or a system that needs to
justify and perpetuate itself.
I think the overall message of this movie is that Lee is a loser,
that losers are unredeemable, and they should know it and accept
it. That they deserve punishment and nothing from society ... that
is another aspect of "Conservative" thought. That if you help people
you actually hurt them and hurt society.
The aspects are all there. And so why is this movie so popular, or
was it really popular or the movie industry just wants people to see
it and absorb the story.
And then, now, Lee is a young healthy working man. What happens
when he gets older and needs health care or social security, all big
negative targets for Conservatives ... how does he survive?
"Those of us who might feel that way already would get the movie and others would just think it's boring."[/b]
Yes, I can agree that that is how it goes. But I don't agree with the way you refer to the film as a means to an end (needing a point/ in this case delivering conservative propaganda).
[b]"I look at a lot of movies as being political, because I think they are. They are produced for a profit inside or a system that needs to justify and perpetuate itself."
I agree in the sense that anything anyone does is always affirming existing ideologies, but I can't believe it's actively being spread here. I wanna say the makers of this film saw it as end in itself, film as art and not just a product.
I thought Lee was childish, an idiot when he was drunk (which was almost always?), and I had little sympathy for him before the accident. But I was really touched by the sequence of the reveal, and what happened at the police station (I got tears in my eyes when he tried to shoot himself), augmented of course by the structure of the screenplay (suddenly his character made sense!).
To me the film being popular makes sense because to me it's a really good movie, felt very true to life and I felt like I had experienced something special by the end of it. And I don't remember getting the feeling that the film was judging Lee, or making a negative statement about him.
I guess this is a case where our subjectivities affect a lot how we see the object.
Edit: Oh, and yeah, I guess I too got the feeling that there was something missing by the end, when Lee doesn't change and the film doesn't resolve as one would expect, so in that sense it is unsatisfying. But it serves to drive the point that that is just how it goes often enough. It was too hard for him.
OK, but what it does is model a way of being ... George Lakoff ( anyone can benefit from reading his books, they are truly brilliant, like "The Political Brain" ).
In this movie what Lakoff calls the "strict father mentality". Pretty much like what I said ... I don't express it as well as Lakoff. This is why this is set in a very old and Conservative part of the US, and it is all very toned down, almost black and white, no bright colors in this movie.
There is also the ever-present presence of religion. There is so much to this it's impossible to transmit in a single post. But it means there are people that society believes are hopeless, and Lee is a model of this. We think Lee is a good guy, because he accepts society's condemnation of himself, internally. This is what overrides all of Lees failures, because inside he is moral because he knows he is a loser and there is nothing he can do about it but wait til he dies.
The other side of this Conservative Morality is the Progressive Morality Lakoff calls the "Nurturing Parent" ... that is parent, male or female, not father - meaning patriarchal power. Nurturing parent would have made a movie that somehow shows a character arc of Lee and his relationship to redemption, with the help of society, friends, etc.
The one flash of the "nurturing parent" was when his ex-wife tried to ease his conscience and tell him sorry. But Lee has already internalized his guilt and shame and cannot see past it. Now, I think what Lee feels is completely understandable. I don't think his character in the movie makes sense, but he resonates with all of us. If you notice there are times in the movie where there are a few colors, and yellow is prevalent at certain times, and other times it is almost black and white. To me the message should have been you cannot let someone like Lee fade away and die, and that is what surely happens. As they say, it takes a village. Lee was doing the right thing, and yet he had people who cared about him and that big gulf was to me the center of the movie.
The Strict Father mentality reinforces a conservative or traditional power hierarchy, that leaves out women, children, minorities, and only recognizes one way. Anyway, the thesis is pretty fascinating.
I see what you mean now. Those are some interesting points, and thank you for giving examples.
Society definitely seems to be walking in that direction, maybe because the people who have the power have the most influence and they need that kind of thinking to justify their positions.
I can't say I noticed it in this film, and it's always tricky to state whether the film is supporting or criticizing what it shows on screen, but it's certainly true that the real intention often has no bearing on its effects (like anti-war movies still functioning as pro-war propaganda; the effect of story telling in this powerful medium, I think).