MovieChat Forums > Manchester by the Sea (2016) Discussion > What's so good about Casey Afflecks perf...

What's so good about Casey Afflecks performance ??


Not trolling, he just seemed to play it a bit flat for me, was good for half the film but I was expecting so e kind of change, didn't do anything for me... maybe I should watch it again

reply

nothing he ´s terrible.

reply

It's a very subtle performance

He tells you a lot in his eyes. He doesn't even have to say a word and you know what he's thinking and feeling.
He should be awarded for not being showy and not doing any "Look at me acting"

It was the kinda performance you would see from an older actor like Mark Rylance

reply

It's a very subtle performance

He tells you a lot in his eyes.

Lol! The go-to answers for people who have no idea what they're talking about.

"There are too many of them. Can't kill the world."

reply

I would say it's really hard to judge his performance. It's a character that is emotionally flat for the vast majority of the movie, so I guess the only way to judge his performance is if he succeeded in keeping you engaged with the character during this. You need to project on to the character in some degree because he never tells the audience what he's feeling exactly.

You could say it's a nuanced performance, but it's hard to tell if that's true or if you are projecting nuance on to the character. Personally I thought he did a good job.

reply

Just check the scene at the hospital, when he's told the news about his brother. He manages to create palpable tension by basically doing nothing ...all subtle body language, but you are on the edge all the time, it feels like an eternity, and you just don't know what might happen.

reply

I put too much butter on ze popcorn and had 2 take a dump in mid of movie

Werd 2 ur mudda, bruddafckka

reply

His "performance" was terrible.

There is a big difference between subtle, and non-existant.

He displays no range of emotions in the entire movie. His delivery is muffled and mumbled (he was the only actor in the movie I had trouble hearing).

As for his character - he displayed virtually no redeeming features - a low-paying, mundane job, was humorless, violent, uncommunicative and drank too much. His brother would have been an idiot to give custody to this guy.

reply

I agree with you.

reply

I find it gross that you're using his character's low paying mundane job against him. Why does that determine whether or not a person is likable? It's incredibly elitist of you



#harshtruth
http://barbie-verified.tumblr.com/post/147223710383/

reply

And you've been nominated for how many Academy Awards?

Uh-huh. Thought so.

reply

If you don't buy subtlety and acting through micro expressions, as a few who have replied don't, consider the line to Michelle Williams. He says 'there's nothing there'. He is a completely hollow, spent, black hole. Carrying this round for 8 years (?) he's now a husk. Affleck plays that incredibly. The lack of histrionics and showy self pity just gave me a lump in my throat for him all the way through. Thoroughly deserves the Oscar and to say he isn't a good actor at all is just beyond words. He was also great in Jesse James and Gone Baby Gone.

reply

Exactly. "There's nothing there". Great description, a black hole. Empty, but very violent if you approach it.

reply

I beg to differ. Acting is now down to micro-expressions? Why not go all the way into total silence and a bag over his head? Your assessment is based on your interpretations.

You saw subtle, I saw unremarkable. There isn't a decent actor in the world who couldn't have given that performance. Playing a bland, one-dimensional, uncommunicative, unresponsive character displaying no emotions? Is that even acting?

reply

There isn't a decent actor in the world who couldn't have given that performance.

Playing a depressive is easy money for an actor - they love the idea of playing a character burdened with all the cares of the world. Most wannabe young male actors have mastered this performance even before they enroll in their first acting classes. Affleck's version was dreary to watch and made his character totally unsympathetic. Personally I'm astonished the Academy bought his lifeless routine.

reply

Sure, anyone can play a depressive. You take five people on the street and four of them could play a depressive. That's basically what you are saying. And that's simply ridiculous.
Actually his character is not unsympathetic. He is not 1D, it's a 3D character he creates.

reply

You take five people on the street and four of them could play a depressive. That's basically what you are saying.

Nope - that's not what I said. I suggested wannabe actors would find this the easiest kind of role. If you want to interpret every blink as Oscar caliber nuance, that's your choice. Sometimes a blink is just a blink.
In the scenes with Michelle Williams, she acted Affleck off the screen. Nobody who had a clue about acting even gave him a second glance.

reply

Because she cries, right? and he does not cry. Like crying is the ultimate proof of what good acting is...He does more than blinking obviously, but if you want to reduce an amazing performance to "he blinks", that's your choice. I myself like better contained performances than over the top ones. Yes, nuanced, and subtle, but also explosive at times. He does both, and he does both superbly, meaning the character comes alive. If you don't see that, maybe you saw a different movie.

reply

Because she cries, right? and he does not cry.

Nope again - she acted him off the screen when she was in bed sniffing with the flu. I didn't recognize who she was, she didn't look attractive and I was still knocked out by the acting of this 'unknown'. By comparison, Affleck looked like he was at the level of local theater in that scene.

reply

What? because you did not recognize her she was acting great?? That's what she looks like without make up in her pyjamas... I mean, she's not bad, but saying she "acts him off the screen" by sneezing and wearing pyjamas and crying a little is exaggerated.In that scene he's great too. He's playful and funny, contrasting with the rest of his performance.
Are you a movie critic or something? you ought to be ;-)

reply

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? Acting somebody off the screen means the viewer doesn't bother to look at the other actor because their performance is lifeless or unconvincing by comparison. Whether Affleck was playing taciturn or 'funny', he always seemed like an annoying fake.

reply

Yes, I understood your nonesense perfectly. I just don't agree with you in any way,shape or form. Live with it, mate.

reply

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? Acting somebody off the screen means the viewer doesn't bother to look at the other actor because their performance is lifeless or unconvincing by comparison.
Or more likely in your case, because you can't get a date and the female in the scene was partially dressed and in bed.

reply

[deleted]

The audience has to do most of the work projecting emotions onto Affleck's dismal blank canvas. The Academy has doled out Oscars for banal performances previously - could be about to do so again. He's a very average actor, and has shown it time and again

reply

I was expecting so e kind of change


Ya mean "character arc?" Yeah, that's a normal expectation and seems to be missing more and more in films lately along with character development. We're somehow supposed to care enough about the protagonist when all we know of him is that he's a low rent prick.



.

reply