Dave Boyle’s abduction catalyzes the
progression of events in Mystic River.
It is evident from the clips depicting his capture and the shots of him frantically
running away through the forest that Dave encountered violence while trapped in
his captors’ basement, but it is not explicitly stated what exactly occurred during
the days of his detainment. Eastwood’s decision to leave out this violence
requires that the details be left to the imagination and invokes the first
sense of mystery in the film. This ambiguity leads to a contemplation of what
kind of horrific situation Dave was placed in as a child to lead him to rest in
his mental state as an adult.
After his release from his captors, Dave
never seems to recover and continuously acts out of touch with reality. His
mindset never completely returned to normal and it is because of this that he
becomes wrapped up in the murder investigation. This questionable mindset is
evidence of Dave’s unclear past encounter with the two men who abducted him. The
violence of this childhood incident is concealed, but the effect is not,
leaving the identity of the murderer logically in question.
The effect of a violent past on Dave is
shown when he elicits his own act of violence the night he leaves the bar and
lashes out on the man outside. This provides insight to what Dave endured as a
child trapped in the basement and shows how much the memory has stayed with
him. Both these encounters function at first as an implied sense of violence
and provide the film with a sense of wondering about the truth of events. Their
lack of obviously stated brutality aids in emphasizing the importance of the
event and the impact it has on the outcome of the story.
Ever since Dave's abduction, nothing was the same. He left that basement, trying to run back to his old life, but that was something he never achieved. The old Dave never came back, and his future self was greatly affected after that incident. Since Eastwood decided to not show what occurred within this scene, the audience is left to make their own conclusion. By observing the way Dave had acted for the rest of the film, the audience can then conclude that there was an act of violence within the scene of his abduction.
ReplyDeleteI like how you said "The violence of this childhood incident is concealed, but the effect is not." Through Dave's act of violence after he left the bar, the flashbacks from his childhood were like scars that were being covered most of his life. He acted violently and absentmindedly since he had uplifted this tragic childhood remembrance.The scars were forever in his memories and could never be uplifted.
ReplyDeleteBy pointing out that Dave acts "out of touch with reality" is a good observation. Instead of focusing on the now, he seems to be stuck in the past. I also like that you related Dave's past experience with violence to his current act of violence. By drawing that connection, you bring out a justification for his actions.
ReplyDelete