Mystic River-Is Jimmy Marcus a hero or a villain?
F. Sonic Smith
addressing this subject.
I don't fault this movie for having "holes" in it, the lack of DNA
testing of the blood in Dave's car being a prime example. Such
literalism misses the point. The movie was not intended as a
straight-up thriller. As with many of Clint's recent movies, allegory
and symbolism are at work here. Literalists are bound to be confused
by that.
I prefer to view the movie as a separate entity from the book. A
movie can be based on a book, and yet the screenplay and direction can
emphasize or even derive an entirely different theme.
It struck me that the only character in the movie with real depth
is Sean Penn's character, Jimmy Marcus. Dave is a rather flat symbol
of the semi-dead victim (which Eastwood is fond of) with a second
overtone of Jesus-like or sacrifiscial symbolism in the backdrop of
the repeated references to Boston and Catholicism. It doesn't make
sense that Dave can be such a mess by the time we meet him and yet he
was able to marry, have a child, and function without getting in
trouble. It isn't supposed to make sense. Likewise, Kevin Bacon's
character Sean Devine is little more than a foil for Jimmy Marcum. He
represents fundamental decency, reason and law and order, and little
else.
Multiple times, the subject of friendship with Dave comes up and
Jimmy and Kevin Bacon's character are quick to denounce any friendship
with him. Perhaps the only depth to Bacon's character, Devine, is that
despite his basic goodness he is guilty of distancing himself from the
victim of pedophilia and sexual abuse. We hear from a bystander early
in the movie that Dave is "damaged goods". Devine and Marcus
acknowledge their guilt in having spurned their former friend as
damaged goods. Dave was "guilty" of having fallen victim; of not being
strong enough nor street-wise enough to refuse to get in the car (an
image that of course repeats when he gets in the car with the Savages,
although this time he would almost like to be killed and put out of
his misery) The tough Boston neighborhood (the Savage brothers reflect
the brutal toughness of working class Boston) could not and would not
accept weakness. Dave was therefor ostracized for representing
unacceptable weakness. Both Jimmy and Sean are aware of their own
guilt of distancing themselves from Dave.
So, the central issue to me is whether or not Jimmy Marcus is a
hero, a villain, or both. I think the Macbeth reference at the end
between Jimmy and his wife answers that; he is both and neither. He
has the virtues of strength, loyalty, the desire to do what's right,
and the ability to deeply love and the deeply rooted vices of blind
emotion and seeking revenge against all who harm him.
zach
Maybe he was right the first time with Just Ray (though did JR deserve
to be _murdered_?), but Jimmy was definitely wrong with Dave, and he
knows it, at least for a while. So, he is first a villain, but then he
accepts this.
I don't see him as any more than a common thug, like the Brothers. So
what if he embodies "honor among thieves/thugs?" He is still a
criminal, not to be respected, nor emulated. I don't see them as more
than white trash, so what if they grew up in a tough neighborhood?
Sean certainly didn't turn out that way, neither did Dave. I lived my
late teens roving the streets of Stockton, CA, and I came across
people like this. Defensive, quick to anger or assualt (or murder-
though I didn't know anyone personally who killed anybody). I didn't
respect them in the least--- they chose to be low-lifes; those who did
not, left, or were victims. It shows a tremendous lack of character
(to say the least) not to choose to leave such a lifestyle.
I haven't read MacBeth since wither college or high school. I will
have to dig it out (I think I have a WS anthology) and read it. I
assume Mac's wife approves of the revenge killing of his uncle?
Perhaps I will gain another perspective on the movie after considering
this.