Think of tragedy, that rare form of great drama, in which a noble yet fallible hero struggles against his unfortunate fate until finally falling victim to the forces of Nature, Destiny and his own human imperfection. A number of names most likely spring to mind: Sophocles, Arthur Miller, William Shakespeare and Dirty Harry Callahan. Okay, well the last one is a stretch.
Most people know Clint Eastwood as the man who became a cultural icon by wrecking violence and mayhem across the silver screen while pondering such grave philosophical quandaries as, “Did he fire six shots or only five?” But in truth, Eastwood the image has never quite matched Eastwood the man. As a director, Eastwood has revealed a thoughtful perspective and subtle style, which sharply contrast with his screen persona as a one-man weapon of mass destruction.
“Mystic River” is Eastwood’s latest directorial effort, and it may just be his best yet. Although the film doesn’t fulfill its tragic aspirations, it nevertheless excels on so many levels that its ultimate failure as classical tragedy does not significantly detract from its stunning success as a piece of contemporary cinema.
Working from Brian Helgeland’s sparse adaptation of Dennis Lehane’s novel, Eastwood applies his characteristic restrained, minimalist style to the story of three blue-collar Bostonians: Jimmy (Sean Penn), Dave (Tim Robbins) and Sean (Kevin Bacon). Starting as childhood friends, these three have gone their separate ways after suffering a devastating trauma. They are reunited when Sean, a homicide detective for the state police, begins to investigate the murder of Jimmy’s daughter and the troubled Dave emerges as the prime suspect.
Some might say that Sean Penn has discovered the role of a lifetime in Jimmy, but to say so would rob Penn of the enormous credit he deserves. Rather, with Jimmy, Penn has crafted the performance of a lifetime. As an ex-con whose grayed temples, quiet demeanor and workingman appearance mask a lethal volatility, Penn is not just good; he is phenomenal. Seething with emotional intensity without even a hint of self-conscious design, Penn is at once utterly compelling and generously humble. He supplies the film with the necessary emotional gravitas while providing the other actors the space to do their own work.
Penn sets the bar high, and the rest of this talented cast rises to the challenge. Saddled with the least interesting of the three major characters, Bacon transforms Sean from an underdeveloped plot device into a haunted soul, laboring under burdens beyond his control. Bacon abandons the slick, cocky machismo of earlier roles, revealing in Sean the kind of tortured sadness one can only acquire with age. While the film undoubtedly revolves around Penn, Eastwood himself seems most present in Bacon, who embodies the film’s atmosphere of melancholy helplessness, with dreary eyes and gaunt face.
If any performance wavers, it is Robbins’. Despite his effectively creepy portrayal of a man broken irreparably since childhood and thus never fully developed, Robbins is always somehow off. While the performance boasts moments of genuine inspiration – such as when Dave exhibits an unexpected competence under interrogation – overall, Robbins seems to be working too hard. Unfortunately, the actor exerts too much energy trying to be convincing to actually be convincing.
It is a testament to the talents of Laura Linney and Marcia Gay Harden that the two actresses are able to do so much with so little. As the film focuses on the inescapable violence brewing between the men, the women of “Mystic River” shine like bright stars in a black sky. And while Harden has the tougher part, it is Linney who gets the climactic monologue, triumphing in a troubled scene.
As a director, Eastwood has always seemed more at home on the frontier of the 19th century than in the streets of the 20th. In films like “Absolute Power” or “True Crime” Eastwood’s stark, naturalistic approach seemed to deprive the material of its dramatic potential, producing films remarkable only in their utter ordinariness. However, Eastwood’s characteristic simplicity suits “Mystic River” well.
Throughout the film, Eastwood retains a firm grasp on both the medium and the material, demonstrating a distinct maturity that is sorely lacking from most contemporary American filmmaking. There is a bold and elegant confidence in the way Eastwood slowly unveils his tale, allowing his camera to linger and his characters to unravel. The muted tone Eastwood establishes early in the film contributes to the ominous atmosphere of impending disaster, while reinforcing the narrative importance of repression.
Under Eastwood’s influence, “Mystic River” is both intensely intimate and appropriately cinematic. The film doesn’t attempt to reproduce life as we know it. Rather, it attempts to present a story in which we discover insights and truths about the lives we live.
Despite the valiant efforts of Eastwood and his cast, “Mystic River” simply lacks the narrative muscle to qualify as genuine tragedy. Screenwriter Helgeland manages to coherently interweave the film’s multiple storylines without sacrificing character development or narrative cohesion. However, the story’s willingness to relieve Jimmy of the moral responsibility for his fatal error in judgment ultimately undermines the integrity of the film as a work of modern tragedy.
Leave a Reply