Manchester by the Sea : Matthew Broderick's role - deliberate slam at Christians?

I found this character somewhat unsettling. I'm a Christian, but whenever I've encountered another believer who acts like he did, it really gets to me. Seemed wholly unsympathetic to Patrick's situation, very stiff. I understand he was looking out for his wife, but still he seemed to not get how he was coming across. Wondering if this character was meant as a slam to Christians in general? Most other Christians I know really care about people.

Why does it have to be a slam at Christians? They're flawed just like everyone else.

My take on that particular character was that he was a do-gooder who was either a little nave or who really didn't know about the extent of Patrick's mother's alcoholism and mental illness. He was clearly trying and he cared about her, but did not handle it well.

I hardly think his character was "a slam at Christians." He was awkward with his stepson, but how could he NOT be? Everyone was in an awkward situation. I thought he was portrayed sympathetically, and I think the writer took pains to make the character caring.

Lonergan didn't handle the scene particularly well either. It wasn't very believable.

Lonergan is a New York ultra-liberal, so you have to expect that he is against Christianity.

Patrick, regarding meeting Broderick's character: He's very Christian.
Lee: We're Christian.

Just because an author has Christian characters in his work doesn't mean he endorses it. Usually today they're presented so that they can be painted as narrow and stupid, while non-Christians such as Muslims are often presented as noble and wonderful.

Unfair to Lonergan.
Lonergan plays a Christian minister - not sure what denomination - in his own "You Can Count On Me" and is a sympathetic character.
In his "Margaret" he depicts a Jewish teenager in a verbal batter with a Muslim teenager in school a few years after 9/11 in which both make valid points but neither are particularly "noble and wonderful." They're outspoken kids and shown as so.

Max is more concerned about making his little political point than about being fair to anyone.

The main characters were Christian

That's funny. I'm an ultra liberal, and I'm also a Christian. And I try to follow the Christian verse that says, "Judge not lest ye be judged".

(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

I didn't think it was a slam at Christians.

I interpreted it as the guy's religious beliefs is probably what helped the Gretchen Mol character become a more stable, sober person.

But that he's also just one of those guys who just likes the wife, and doesn't want to be with the son, who would eventually be his step-son.

So I don't think his rejection of his potential step-son had anything to do with his Christianity.

But that's just me.

I, too, found that scene eerily unsettling, which made me think it was a not-so-subtle comment against Christianity. The home is spartan, with just a large portrait of Christ dominating the dining room. Broderick's mannerisms are downright creepy. His gentle voice masks a certain stridency that comes across as vaguely sinister, compounded by the subsequent threatening e-mail he sends to the boy. We know nothing about the struggles that the mother/wife went through to become sober or how, if at all, the husband/boyfriend helped. All we get is a caricature of a person of faith.

Fck Christians and the cross they rode in on


~I see a little silhouette of a man, Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango.

amen

Yeah, they're so close-minded and excluding of othersonly ass holes do that.

I think he and Patrick's mother were both nervous wrecks at that gathering. The mother because she knows she's a total *beep* up of a person and a horrible mother. The mother's husband because he doesn't know what to expect and, in his own weird way, is trying to protect her.

I thought the Christian angle was to show two extremely fragile people holding onto another life line. I don't think it was to slam Christians but to show that they were using Christianity as a crutch.

I agree with this!

I think if you see Lonergan's first film, You Can Count On Me, you will see that he acknowledges the presence of religion in most of his characters' lives. Faith is a big part of all of his writing, including questioning its utility but also how it informs people's lives.

Also, it is not at all uncommon for recovering alcoholics to embrace Christianity as it is so much a part of AA. I don't think this was a slam against Christians so much as it was a demonstration of how people in crisis embrace the platitudes of religion as a means of immediate survival or protection, using it to convince themselves that they've achieved some kind of personal transformation (which Christianity, amongst other religions, certainly promises) which is ultimately superficial. I don't think Lonergan pretends to know what it is that heals us other than to suggest that the only thing that truly heals is the way we take care of each other. Faith is ultimately what people draw personal strength from, what helps us endure, but it is our kindness, empathy and care for others - and its reciprocation - that heals, both the giver and the receiver.

POSSIBLE SPOILER

Joe gave his brother Lee the greatest gift by entrusting him above all others with his son, taking care of his brother even in death. I thought it was a beautiful film.

Most alcoholics, if they go through a twelve step program, 'find Jesus' in their recovery. I assumed he to was a recovering alcoholic and that they met during their recovery.

I didn't find it to be a slam against religion, there is no discussion or commentary on the topic of religion throughout the film. As for the mother, she is mentally unhinged and, no offense to Christians, but a lot of mentally unstable people talk about Jesus.

I was raised in a Christian household and went to church as a kid, not saying all people of faith are crazy either.

Oh PLEASE!!!! I get so sick of these, gee I'm offended. I'm Christian as well and could not disagree with you more.

The only C words I had in my mind about him are Codependent and Controlling, so if there's any slam, it's about that dysfunctional relationship.

The character pretty much summed up the disconnected and self-absorbed nature of most Christians who adhere to the faith. It was an honest portrayal. I've known many people like this. He's basically the everyman Christian who goes to church every Sunday. Such people only care about themselves while only pretending to care about others. Real Christians don't bother with scams like the church and all that born again nonsense.

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

if I was in someone's house and saw this serious picture of Jesus I would think Yikes red flag

What??????

Christianity as taught by Christ was a philosophy of tolerance, forgiveness, humility, love and detachment from material things. Christianity as practiced by US Christians is a philosophy of intolerance, judgmentalism, pride, greed and hostility towards other religions. Christians have earned their reputation for hypocrisy over many centuries.

How tolerant, forgiving humble, loving, and detached of you.

Pedophile priests, pastors in their McMansions, Trump's xenophobia against Islam . . . need I go on?

Are you arguing that these are a result of the Christian faith/power structure (ie these phenomenon are paticular to Christianity) and that "US Christians" (your unqualified words) support this sort of behavior?

Am I tracking you correctly?

US Christians are infected with unacceptably high levels of self-righteousness, greed, ignorance, intolerance and hypocrisy - evidenced respectively by delusions about American exceptionalism, megachurch pastors, denial of science, homophobic hate and voting for a man with a long career as a business swindler who boasts about sexually assaulting women.

I think you're just talking about Americans, the Christian bit is incidental nor are these properties exclusive to that set.

Also I think if you widened "science" to "critical thinkin'" you'd probably capture just as many of the folks in the set that voted against DJT.

I doubt you're doing sufficient 'critical thinking' yourself.

Why? do I sound particularly biased to you?


cus you know

Your counter-accusations sound defensive, and show classic symptoms of being in denial.

Yeah, how dare I criticize your behavior while leaving an entire group of people unvilified when there are literally several anecdotes upon which to base those attacks.

Why criticize behavior when you can attack people amirite?

You're the one calling yourself a Christian - not me. Christ demanded rigorous self-examination from his followers. You avoid it and judge others - thereby disobeying his teachings. That's hypocrisy in my book - a sure sign of the Christian religion and many others.
Broderick and Mol's characters are typical representatives of those flaws.

LOL wut?

When did I call myself a Christian?

Might be a time to do some self-examination yourself pal


Definitely NOT a Christian lol. Just someone who dislikes bad arguments, and assaults on large swaths of people based on their ideologies.

For somebody who supposedly dislikes bad arguments, your own arguments are weak to non-existent.
For somebody claiming not to be a Christian, you happily overlook their flaws and pick arguments with those who critique their hypocrisy. Christian religious authorities have incited or supported countless grotesque excesses which have been well-documented throughout history, encompassing genocides, invasions, occupations, inquisitions, slavery, torture, witch trials, heresy trials, executions, selling of indulgences, confiscation of land, sexual perversity, cover-ups and much else besides.

I do not overlook people's flaws, but I do not condemn, or color a group of people with the flaws of a few. I'm not overlooking horrible *beep* people have done, but if you think only Christians are capable of the awful *beep* you listedyou most certainly are.

That some Christians have done some bad *beep* does not show a correlation between Christendom and bad behavior, let alone causation. Yes, Christians have done some awful *beep* however, that awful *beep* has nothing to do with them being Christians and everything to do with them being human.

Ideology of all kind is flimsy, susceptible to manipulation and corruptible. People do awful *beep* regardless of the ideology they (purport to) subscribe to. Bad *beep* has been done in the name of preserving democracy, you'd not attack all those who believe in the democratic process for the actions of the few who have molested that ideology towards their own selfish ends, would you?

PS Hey, if you get a chance please let me know which of my arguments are weak or non-existent I'm always eager for a chance to learn.

---

PS Hey, if you get a chance please let me know which of my arguments are weak or non-existent I'm always eager for a chance to learn.

---

Your reply to my initial post: "How tolerant, forgiving humble, loving, and detached of you." Sarcastic counter-accusations are not arguments - they are just diversions.

It was subtle, I was pointing out that A:Anyone can be guilty of this kind of behavior, and B: That if this was the sort of behavior you actually cared about you'd have got your own house in order first.

But you're right, my snide remark was probably inappropriate and unproductive. I'll try to be more direct in the future.

Your acknowledgement of being inappropriate is very gracious. Many thanks for that.
At a time when fundamentalist Christians in our society are demanding special privileges while claiming they are being persecuted, I think it's important to hold them to higher standards. I feel they've consummately failed to demonstrate any kind of superiority through their conduct over the centuries.
As for myself, I struggle with a wide variety of shortcomings, but make no claims of superiority. I do have spiritual beliefs, but would never force them on others or constrain others in the way they live their lives. Christians do all this, with their demands for Biblical literalism, school prayers, denial of science and persecution of various minorities. Institutionalized religions seem to bring out the worst in humans.

Many Christians do not make such demands, your characterization is unfair.

I believe your heart is in the right place, but you really do need to be careful with your scattershot.

Focusing on the behavior you don't like rather than entire, and frankly, arbitrary organizations will not only prevent you from alienating the individuals in that group who might agree with you, and prevent any mistaken accusations of bigotry/

Now you're being ingenuous or deliberately deceptive - and I know which I suspect. In America, nobody has consistently encouraged bigotry of various kinds with more enthusiasm than white Christians. End of conversation.

So any kind of bigotry up to "the most" is acceptable to you?

Just because one person's behavior is terrible does not excuse your own slightly less egregious" behavior.
And while you're considering that, consider also that bigotry is completely subjective, there is no measure of quality or quantity.


Also, you've still not addressed the way you've painted all Christians with the same brush which is the very definition of bigotry.

This kind of behavior is what needs to be addressed, not Christianity.

well my point is I am all those things and more but do not need a huge picture of a religious figure to do it for me religion and politics are private and some things should remain private

I think it's ridiculous to claim that people who do these things and happen to have religion, NEED religion in order to do them, or that people who have religion and DON'T do them, do so as a result of having faith in a particular organized ideology.

If you believe that religion and politics are private, then perhaps you should set an example by opinions on these matters to yourself


and if you are a tolerant, loving, adult, you should understand that while you might hold these beliefs many others do not, and it is absurd for you to judge them for not following your own little set of values.