Friday, March 4, 2016
Up to the Imagination
Eastwood chooses to leave out the events that occur between the time Dave leaves the bar and the time he gets home. This intentional exclusion leaves it up to the audience's imagination to determine the true events that unfold during this time, which gives the movie a murder mystery feel. The audience must rely on direct and indirect characterization to infer what really happened. When Dave goes home he is covered in blood, which sends his wife into a state of panic, and when he tries to recall the events that happened that night he changes the story suggesting that his account of what happened can not be trusted. Not only is his story inconsistent, but he also admits to going off and essentially blacking out; therefore, the validity of his account comes into question because his memory of his actions may not exactly line up with the reality of his actions. Dave’s original story consists of a mugger who threatens him for his wallet. He fights back and leaves the mugger to die in a parking lot somewhere, but he never says that he moved the body. When the audience finds out there is blood in the car, part of the evidence lines up with his story but the other half does not. The fact that there was a significant amount of blood in the driver’s seat lines up with his story because he drove home with a significant wound, but the fact that there is blood in the trunk makes the audience suspect that the story Dave tells is not accurate. Not only is there blood in the trunk, the blood is type O which is the same blood type Katy has. Dave's inconsistency and unsettling aura leads the audience to believe that he is Katy's murderer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Eastwood does an excellent job of confining violent events from the audience because the hidden events do add a mysterious feel to the movie. At first, the audience actually believes Dave’s story of him killing the mugger until Katie dies on the same night. All evidences point to Dave as Katie’s killer due to Dave’s inconsistent stories, the blood in his car, and the fact that he is mentally unstable. I agree with how Marlise interprets Eastwood’s choice of leaving out the events that happened after Dave leaves the bar. It sets an imagination for the audience to figure out what actually happen and to pick up the clues and characterization they noticed in Mystic River. The audience plays a special role as detectives to follow along and solve the pieces of the puzzle as to who murder Katie, so justice can be served.
ReplyDeleteNot only did Eastwood leave out the scene of Katie's death, he also left out what happened to Dave. Leaving the horrible past of Dave to the audiences imagination allows the audience to piece together what happened to him and why he is so messed up today. Leaving out this scene plays a large roll later in the story when the "mugger" Dave killed is actually a pedophile.
ReplyDelete