Comments on: Neighborhood values

By: Leo

Leo — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:04:51 +0000

George Higgins does come to mind: But The Digger’s Game is his best novel, and all of you who like this sort of thing should go and read a few more of his. He was a U.S Attorney in his day, and not a bad one. He asked my father once (who has a sort of cameo in Eddie Coyle) if he could keep him from making a fool of himself. He replied, “Before, or after, George?” Heh. I need to read the book. I’m afraid it’s been my experience that people who routinely kill people don’t seem to be bothered. I booked someone charged with a double homicide in my town a year or two ago and he asked me to call his wife. She said, “oh” and asked what court he would be in the next day.

By: Invisible Adjunct

Invisible Adjunct — Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:31:39 +0000

You’ve convinced me to read the book. I did enjoy (or perhaps appreciate would be a better term) the movie, but some parts of it—esp. near the end—didn’t seem to add up.

By: seth

seth — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:20:50 +0000

I never read the book but really enjoyed the movie – this post makes me anxious to read the book, too. As a resident of the area, I appreciated the movie on a different level: it’s interesting to see the conventions of the thriller played out with such attention to local details (throwaway lines like “some of us are going to the Cantab later” got a vocal crowd reaction in the theater where I saw it). But, yes, the movie did feel very personal, very detached from a larger context (I kept wondering about Jimmy’s parents; are they still in the neighborhood?). I imagine the book adds that dimension.

By: carla

carla — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:46:44 +0000

I’ve been debating whether to see this movie. I read the book some months ago, and couldn’t put it down—though I really hated the ending! I thought it didn’t make sense (though it’s been sufficiently long since I read it, and enough other books have interevened), but my feeling at the end was that it didn’t have to end that way to be true to the characters. And at the same time, I could see it, and it was so depressing that I’m not sure I can see the movie.

By: Hugo

Hugo — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:56:24 +0000

I haven’t read the book, and I’m fully prepared to believe that it is good, but I’m afraid I can’t say the same for the film. I thought Tim Robbins played an absurd caricature of a man with a history of sexual abuse. The scene where he’s watching the horror movie really had me cringing (on the other hand, he was good in the police interrogation scene). Likewise, I found Sean Penn’s tough-guy-with-a-sentimental-centre pretty hard to take. All the over-emoting after his daughter’s death, wildly underlining his grief struck me as actually diminishing it – less is almost always more. (spoiler alert) Plotwise, it followed all the conventions of a thriller: the withholding of vital information, the very guilty-looking character who turns out to be not guilty, the deus ex machina of sorts to explain the murder (since the kids actually had nothing to do with the meat of the plot), the damaged(sexually abused) character who is essentially good but has to get sacrificed in the end…. The direction and script were plodding, I thought. I didn’t absolutely hate this movie, it was certainly competently done, but I thought it didn’t really rise above the run-of-the-mill thriller level.

By: Henry

Henry — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:27:57 +0000

Sindelar – you’re right – I’ll have to think about how that would change my interpretation.

By: Sindelar

Sindelar — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:30:14 +0000

One thing I didn’t understand Henry, was your comment that violence was random and inexplicable. I thought the film could have been read as describing violence as very much a part of an integenerational cycle of psychological propensity or, in grander and more Eastwoodesque fashion as willed and unwilled consequence of cycles of revenge and honour.

By: Sindelar

Sindelar — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:19:42 +0000

I too just saw the film last night and loved it. There were parts towards the end I didn’t understand that the book might have explained (can’t explain because it would involve a spoiler) but the fantastic moodiness and great acting by Penn and Robbins were superb. Unforgiven though still tops the list of Clint’s films.

By: Henry Farrell

Henry Farrell — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 07:28:29 +0000

Laura Linney’s speech is taken almost verbatim from the book, where it makes much more sense. When she tells Jimmy that he’s a king, it resonates in the parade scene – that’s effectively what Jimmy is becoming. But this element of the book is very much underplayed in the film, which just concentrates on the personal relationships (with a couple of glancing references to the neighborhood and what’s happening to it). Still love the film though – I think it deserves a truckload of Oscars. But it needed the social context to be up there, say, with “The Godfather” (which excels in depicting the quasi-feudal relationship). I dunno where “Mystic River” came from – Lehane’s other novels are no better than competent-to-good. It’s the latest addition to an under-appreciated genre of social realist Irish-American crime novels – George Higgins’ “The Friends of Eddie Coyle” is another cracker.

By: David W.

David W. — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:50:19 +0000

Thanks for the post. I just got back from the film myself, which I also enjoyed, although not as much as you. Hearing about the book helps make sense of some puzzling moments. For example, Laura Linney’s Lady MacBeth speech seemed entirely out of place. Sounds like it has a bit more context in the book. All in all, I don’t think the movie was able to convey some of the texture (gentrification, neighborhood social order/politics) of the book. Or maybe I just didn’t get it.