MovieChat Forums > Mystic River (2003) Discussion > Why Mystic River Ended The Way It Did (S...

Why Mystic River Ended The Way It Did (Spoilers)


Mystic River's ending is actually pretty realistic, when you look at the neighborhood and its culture. This is South Boston, and the culture of that is the driving force that, ultimately, makes the ending of the three main character's stories inevitable.

Jimmy Markum: Men like Jimmy are considered to be the greatest people in the world in neighborhoods like his. It's the "he's a sonuvabitch, but OUR sonuvabitch attitude" that is rampant in many old and generally crime-ridden areas. No one is going to rat Jimmy out, even if they hate his guts. And it's not just the threat of being killed by him. It's the code of silence that's been hammered into everyone for years. There were at least a dozen witnesses to Jimmy murdering Dave after beating a false confession out of him. And the sad part is, Southie has infected them so much that they simply don't care who gets killed. Jimmy is the alpha male; therefore, only his family matters. Anyone who gets murdered along the way to finding justice for Katie is just collateral. Long live the king.

Sean: Sean is a good cop, but his hands are tied by the Southie code of silence. Unlike his counterparts, he has to maintain good relations with his old neighborhood to get anything done. If even one Southie boy gets put into jail with his involvement, and without the blessing of guys like Jimmy, not a damn person will ever talk to Sean again. No witnesses, no crime. Jimmy knows this, and enjoys rubbing it in Sean's face. In this world, cops are the beta male, even though the order is reversed outside of Boston. But during the parade, when Sean pretend-shoots Jimmy, it becomes clear that there are cracks forming in the old order of things. If you watch closely, the king suddenly goes from smiling at Sean, to having an angry sneer. The end may be coming sooner than he thinks.

Dave: Despite all the posters on here who believe he's a pedophile in secret, rewatch the movie and listen to his dialogue about vampires. Rather than suggesting that he became a pedophile, it suggests that he was one of those underage prostitutes for a while. His is a truly tragic story, and as usual, it all circles back to his neighborhood. When the boys stand outside his window, watch how his mother jerks him back and draws the shades. Watch how harshly people treat him years later, and transfer that to Celeste after his murder. In the world of Southie, the victim is always to blame. Everyone thinks that Dave deserved to be raped; when Sean asks Jimmy where Dave was, Jimmy tells him the last time he saw Dave was twenty-five years before in a car going up the road. To him, Dave died the moment he became weak and "allowed" himself to be violated.
The sad fact is, everyone else believes it as well. If Dave had tried to tell anyone about who had raped him, he would have been called a liar. A priest and a man posing as a cop?! How dare that little sh-t tell such lies! His own wife and son treat him with contempt; the only ones in the entire film to treat Dave with any decency are Sean and his partner. Both are outsiders due to being on the opposite side of Southie's values, and are well aware of how child molesters and rapists work. But they had to send him home eventually, and the perverted justice of the good ol' boys of the neighborhood claimed another victim.

Mystic River is a tragedy, because of the inevitability of the outcome. An innocent man is murdered, but no one will care. In South Boston, the law is what men like Jimmy Markum say it is. The victim is always evil, the violated are always liars. The most unforgivable crime in Southie is not to be evil, but to be weak.

reply

I don't care what anyone says, Jimmy is hawt and that his wife could swoop in and support him like that is superhawt.

Good analysis, thanks for posting.

reply

Not a Boston native here. Just spent a few months there for work a couple of years ago. I get what you're saying about the Southie code, but it looks to me like the whole movie takes place in North Boston, up around Chelsea. They kept showing the Mystic River bridge which crosses the river from Charlestown to Chelsea, both of which are on the north side of town.

reply

interesting analysis. I agree the story was inevitable - and I think that's a theme Clint Eastwood likes pulling off. Even though it's not a western it does work like one of his westerns - you got a place with it's own rules, and the element of consequences that plays out on and on; Once a certain decision has been made, the future is set. with this movie, what happened to Tim affects his fate, and what Sean does affects his fate. His "solution" of killing people and paying their family comes back to haunt him again and again. I think that's the message of the movie, that you can't really "bury your sins in the river" like Sean says.

When you see dave's son in the ending scene and the look on his face, you know how it's gonna play out. When he grows up he will murder sean or a member of his family.

another message could be is that, even though Tim is the only one screwed in the head, his mental problems only mirror the entire Town's mentality(as the OP says). They're all a bit crazy. P.S Who freakin' calls someone again and again and says nothing? lol that was NOT romantic.

reply

By "Tim", you do mean Dave (Boyle), right?
It already gets just a little confusing with Sean playing Jimmy and Kevin playing Sean.

reply

Terrific analysis.

reply

Disagree. Culture my arse. Victim of unbelievably horrible circumstance? YES. Period. Sean however can be summed up as a poorly written character. Which is probably why Keaton left the film/role one week prior to shooting.

reply

In the book, Dave is a pedophile in secret, and killed the child molestor both to "kill" his emerging urges but also out of a weird, perverse jealousy. His murder is turned into a mercy killing of sorts towards the end of the book. I think this is why people often assume he too was a pedophile in the movie, even though Eastwood leaves it purposely ambiguous. I have to wonder what Clint's mentality is for omitting this detail from the film, but I can respect it, so I think people need to judge this movie for its own merits.

The use of water imagery in this movie provides a great motif for the flow of familial violence. It flows like a river, from one generation to the other, and depending on the choices each character makes, maps out their future and the choices that their spawns will make on their behalf, leading them towards different and lone detours. In a way, it's almost like a feudal hierarchy. I pretty much agree with everything written here.

reply