Film Review among other things..

1. Just finished watching the highly praised film Manchester by the Sea by Kenneth Lonergan, which had been nominated for multiple awards, but I knew little about outside of the fact that it concerned profound grief and took place after the death of the protagonist's brother. The plot I was told -- follows a man who looks after his teenage nephew after his brother dies. So, of course, I was convinced that the story revolves around the loss of the brother, and their grief over that loss.

Not quite. Or rather, it does and it doesn't. The protagonist isn't really mourning that loss, or rather he is, but that's not the grief that the film is really about.

This is what Wiki had to say about it:

The film is a treatment of profound grief from which it is difficult or impossible to recover. In an essay by Colin Fleming for Cineaste magazine, he says that "the question Lonergan invites us to ask ourselves is how on earth would we be able to carry on after an event so tragically full of loss and guilt."[5] Speaking to the persistence of grief, Film Comment magazine says that "Lonergan is telling us that Lee's grief cannot be contained or subdued because his past lives on wherever he goes."[6] Remarking on the way flashbacks appear suddenly in the movie, critic Anthony Lane says that Lonergan "proceeds on the assumption that things are hard, some irreparably so, and that it's the job of a film not to smooth them over."However, one critic noted that juxtaposed to the tragedy is "the harsh comedy that colors much of the dialogue, and the near-farcical frequency with which things go wrong."Along those same lines, critic Steven Mears called the film "a study of grief and reticence that finds droll humor in those very sources," and Richard Alleva says the loving but tense relationship between Lee and Patrick "keeps the story nicely balanced between rough hewn comedy and delicate pathos." Explaining his objective, Lonergan said, "I don't like the fact that, nowadays, it feels like it's not permissible to leave something unresolved... Some people live with their trauma for years. I'm not interested in rubbing people's faces in suffering... But I don't like this lie that everybody gets over things that easily. Some people can't get over something major that's happened to them at all; why can’t they have a movie too?"

The film's events takes place through the cultural filter of a blue-collar, New England community. John Krasinski and Matt Damon initially approached Lonergan about developing the story in New England.[12] As Lonergan researched the areas surrounding Manchester-by-the-Sea, he sought to include details specific to the area, for example its distance from Quincy, the delayed burial because of the frozen ground in a historical cemetery, and the realities of fishing life.[12] Critic Sam Lansky remarked that his New England roots make the lead character "disinclined to emote,"[13] and Tom Shone said that Lonergan's dialog forces "the story’s heartbreak to peep from behind these tough, flinty New England exteriors."

I'd agree with that assessment. It's a compelling film, and weirdly reassuring in a way...because it shows that grief affects people in separate ways and for separate reasons. It's also quite funny in places, I laughed more than I cried, which surprised me.

My only quibble is how they did the sound editing...the director seems to have a fondness for violin music. Very loud violin music. During a flashback sequence that depicts the tragedy that destroyed the protagonist...the dialogue, all sound, is blocked out by very loud violin music. It's an interesting choice on the part of the film makers...where we are shown the images in a memory reel of sorts, with scant dialogue and increasingly loud violin concerto playing over it. But the violin music gave me a headache and took me out of the story. I would have preferred it taken down a notch and just put everything on mute.

As an aside, you wouldn't think sound editing is a big deal, until you see someone do it the wrong way -- then well, you have a whole new appreciation for the process. Grey's Anatomy has the worst sound editors on the planet, for example. They overlay voice over narration, music, and dialogue. (Ugh). This wasn't quite as bad as that...but, I'd have dialed it back a notch.

There's also a lot of talking over each other. But ...I think dialogue is used in the film to get across the pain of the protagonist and the fact that just carrying on a conversation with another person is painful. We are in two points of view throughout, Lee Chandler and his nephew, Patrick. When Patrick's pov is front and center, there's a bit more humor, the lighting is less glum, and sound isn't dulled. People can talk. When Lee's pov is front and center, everything is either really loud or dulled down. We don't hear conversations, just violins or music, when he speaks it's in mono-syllables or strained.

The film is a compelling character study and portrait of profound and all-consuming grief. ( major spoiler )

In some respects the handling of grief in this film reminded me of Joss Whedon's "The Body", an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, premiering in Season 5 of the series, in which Buffy's mother dies. It did the opposite regarding sound...and in some respects I preferred how Whedon handled sound editing to Lonergan...where he mutes the sound. There is no music. And Whedon highlights the sense of negative space. Also like Lonergan, Whedon highlights how one doesn't just get over losing someone who filled their lives in this manner. Whether that person be a parent, sibling, children, or spouse.

I've seen a couple of films handle profound grief in various ways..."Ghost" with Demi Moore and Patrick Swayze...showed it as a haunting. Nashville which also depicts the hole that one character left behind them.

Anyhow, the film is worth watching but I'm not sure it's worth the hype. I find it irritating in places and jarring in others. In some respects I prefer how Whedon handled grief on Buffy. Odd, I know, but there it is.

2. Americanah -- this novel delves into the cultural differences from a black perspective on Nigeria or Africa and America. In particular being black or dark skinned in both countries, among fellow persons of color and white people.

It also depicts the collateral damage or consequences of the white European imperialism in Africa in regards to race, immigration, and how people interact with each other.

But mainly it is a fish out of water tale or what it is like to belong and the struggle to do so.

The cultural differences between the two countries that have been cited include:

Hot dogs. The protagonist, Ifelmeu, thinks they are the same as sausages and attempts to fry them with oil.

Dressing down...in Nigeria, people are more formal, they dress up for parties, which have dancing. But in America, which is what she calls the US, they do not have dancing and wear whatever to hang around and drink.

When she goes to register for classes. The registrar acts as if she isn't speaking English, because her accent is thick and British. So shamed by the registrar, she attempts to adopt an American accent.

She's told that they do not use the words black or white to describe people here, and avoid it, since it is considered offensive. Also the word half-caste is offensive, you use bi-racial. The racism seems somehow more pronounced yet also repressed. It is present also in Nigeria, where lighter colored skin is valued over darker. The protagonist has darker skin. (Honestly this perplexes me, I think people with darker skin are more attractive. It perplexes the protagonist as well.)

America she notes beats people down. And the news is constant crime...to the extent she gets worried about things.

Also there seems to be hidden code language or lingo that is easier to adopt when young and less when older.

What I found interesting was the differences in language and cultural miscommunications depicted throughout the novel. Early on they show the differences between American English and British or Nigerian English. The Nigerians, having been colonized or invaded at some point by the Brits, have been educated to speak British English. But they have received American media imports, such as the Cosby Show, Tom and Jerry, Fresh Prince of Belaire, A Different World...and their view of the US is through that lense. They somewhat romanticize it. They are less deluded about Britain. Possibly because it is closer and people have been there and back more frequently. Anyhow, one of the big differences mentioned is trunk vs. boot. (A trunk is a tree not a car trunk, one of the characters states.)

Another bit is hair, and how in America one relaxes their hair for job interviews and doesn't braid it. (Not at my work place, women have it braided as do men all the time. Some just shave close to their heads, like my friend MD does. I remember my freshman roommate, Jameel, would oil her hair at night and put it under a hair net. She was constantly adding oil to it. She didn't braid it and never relaxed it. She cut it close, but not too close to her head and wore it as an afro. While Casey would
relax hers, and have it in a bob, nice and neat. Tanya at work, braids hers in long beautiful multicolored braids, while my stylist Rachel, just grows hers down to her waist, where is is long and silken and black. But Daphne keeps hers close shaven to her head. And Lodze lets it be an afro. Their hair in a way, for more than mine ever has, expresses their personality and preferences. It's hard to manage, I know, because I have wandered around more than one store with Marquetta hunting hair products...she makes her own shampoo or hunts for one that doesn't have certain things in it.)