MovieChat Forums > Gone Baby Gone (2007) Discussion > I don't think it made him a bad person b...

I don't think it made him a bad person because he sent Amanda back.....


I don't think it made him a bad person because he sent Amanda back.....I don't think it made him a good person because he did what he thought was right. It was a decision and one had to be made. He made his choice and regardless of the choice, he will have likely had to pay for one or the other, in some regard, the rest of his life. There is no way he could have known what the future may bring for Amanda. Neither could Morgan Freeman's character. It's all a game of chance, there are no guarantees. Who's to say she wouldn't have gotten on drugs even in the most loving of households? Who's to say her mother's "piss poor neglectful parenting" wouldn't have encouraged her to live a very different life, make moral and honorable choices, be the mother she never had? We don't know. When I first saw the film, I thought he should leave her there but if Morgan Freeman could abuse his position, watch people be killed, and take part in kidnapping a child, what else is he capable of? Furthermore, he would have to lie to this child her entire life. I don't believe in lying to children, it makes them very untrusting adults. They think, ".....what else did they lie to me about."

reply

What made him a bad person was that he claimed the moral high ground, saying that it wasn't right that Doyle took Amanda away from her mother, when he's the one who executed an unarmed man and faced no consequences for it.

If he believes the right thing to do is to turn Doyle in for his crimes and return Amanda to her mother, then he should've confessed to the murder he committed and served his time for his crime.

Patrick: "You can't do this Doyle, you have to follow the law, the law is all that matters, and you can't just take a girl from her mother even if you think she's neglectful."
Doyle: "And what about that unarmed guy you shot in the back of the head?"
Patrick: "That's different!"

reply

The bathroom scene was a unique situation. For me it wasn't about right or wrong, some moral high ground, it was about justice. Arguably, one might proclaim it wasn't his decision to make, however it is not a decision I disagree with and possibly not a decision that I, if holding a gun, at that exact moment would not do the same. People are too dynamic to put in boxes of black and white. There are contexts which change or affects the reasoning behind split second decisions. I believe he believed in justice regardless of the laws of man. Men are flawed. At the end of the day, he stood by what "he" believed in and that's all we have. It was a decision and a decision had to be made. He wasn't bad or good, he was human.

reply

Arguably, one might proclaim it wasn't his decision to make,


Arguably? It's a fact that it wasn't his decision to make.

I believe he believed in justice regardless of the laws of man.


Yeah, and Lionel, the detectives, and the Doyles believed that protecting a little girl from her drug-addicted, neglectful mother was necessary regardless of the laws of man.

At the end of the day, he stood by what "he" believed in and that's all we have.


That's the problem. If he believes it's perfectly reasonable to execute an unarmed man (regardless of what crimes that man had committed) then he has no right to pass judgment on Doyle.

If he turns Doyle in for kidnapping Amanda, a crime he committed out of an act of compassion (even if it's misguided and illegal) then he should turn himself in for executing the unarmed guy (regardless of his crimes) which was a crime he committed out of revenge/anger.

reply

The difference is this little girl was dead. She was probably raped, sodomized, beaten and drowned in a dirty bathtub, by a grown man who was right in front of him. Amanda was alive.

reply

1. It was a boy he kidnapped, so you weren't even paying attention that well.

2. His crimes don't matter, Patrick still has no right to execute anyone. Especially someone who is unarmed and cowering on the floor.

3. For all Patrick knew, it could've been the other people in the house who abused/killed the boy, the violent drug addicts who shot at the police.

It doesn't matter how bad you think the guy is, or how much you think he deserves to die, it doesn't give Patrick the right to execute him. And if Patrick actually cared about the law and doing what's right, he would've turned himself in for his execution of an unarmed man.

reply

The sex doesn't matter. Girl or boy, makes no difference to me. The child was murdered.

reply

Just pointing out your lack of attention.

He could've murdered a dozen children, that still doesn't give some guy the right to execute him. If Patrick felt it was the best way to stop him from ever harming a child ever again, then good for him, it doesn't make his actions any less illegal. And if he actually believes in justice, then he should accept responsibility for the murder he committed.

The appropriate course of action would've been to have the guy arrested and have him stand trial for the rape/murder of the boy. Patrick, on the other hand, decided to put a gun to the back of his head and pull the trigger.

So when he turns Doyle in for his crime of kidnapping Amanda, he should've turned himself in for the murder he committed. If he thinks Doyle should pay for his crimes, then he should pay for his as well.

reply

Your point is well thought out. It was a decision, one I don't disagree with. There are no right answers from my point of view. It's not simply black or white. There are contexts and dynamics that are very complex.

reply

Your argument is incredibly dumb. These are two separate acts that have nothing to do with each other. You don't pay attention very well either. Corwin admitted to killing the boy when he said "It was an accident". That's how Patrick knew who did it!!! You're just pissy because you wanted him to leave Amanda with the kidnappers. If he didn't kill the murdering child rapist, you'd STILL be mad about him returning Amanda to her mom. So cut the crap

reply

Way to be politic! "Your argument is incredibly dumb" Genius! How long did that in-depth analysis take?

I don't necessarily agree with Yamagotagirl but she's entitled to her opinion. At least she took the time to explain her argument intelligently.

You might consider taking note.

"Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it." Norman Maclean

reply

Very fair point!
Though I suppose one kind of gets canceled by going to the police whereas the other wouldn't.

reply

I think he has a good moral compass but thats what makes the ending so great. It's very difficult to make that decision so as an audience you feel torn. Morgan Freemans character still needed to be brought to justice regardless of who he is and his intentions

reply

Patrick: "You can't do this Doyle, you have to follow the law, the law is all that matters, and you can't just take a girl from her mother even if you think she's neglectful."
Doyle: "And what about that unarmed guy you shot in the back of the head?"

Patrick: "That's how I know you're wrong! I learned something from what I did and now I'm applying that knowledge."

reply

Patrick crosses way over the line in the bathroom scene, and he knows it. In the following scene, when Remy shares his bottle of Rum, we have the morality of relativity--situational ethics--laid out by the cop. If he thinks the greater good is served, he will gladly cross the line. But that "greater good" is based on his own "ethics," not those accepted by Western culture. Otoh, Patrick is guilty and feels it. Those who criticize him for making the decision that feels honest to him, later on, have missed the point. Patrick is decency in the midst of squalor. When he explains to Doyle what he has to do, he points out that Doyle "stole" Amanda, and that he could have called Children's Services. Even Doyle admits, grudgingly, that he did it for himself. Doyle's act, which most see as love, is criminal. He has fallen prey to the ethics of his peers, while Patrick is the standard against whom the others are measured.

The film opens with the importance of family and neighborhood. As damaged as most people in the neighborhood seem to be, it's their world, and it's Patrick's world. It's where they belong. And it's a great setup for the decision Patrick makes at the climax. He is of his place and time, except for his principles. (Amy Madigan's character, Bea McCready, shows us that Patrick is not alone in his standards.) I think his decision regarding Amanda is perfectly in character, given his background and his personal standards. Whether that decision is "right" or not is part of the sequence of moral dilemmas that Lehane gives us to ponder. This is art, not life. While it's tempting to judge Patrick as if this were real life, the most we can do is ask ourselves what we'd have done in his circumstances. I'd like to think I'd have done the same thing, but it's a tough call. That's where Lehane puts us. As a piece of drama, though, it's consistent and believable. Finally, the last scene shows us that Patrick is willing to take responsibility for his choice by being a part of Amanda's life. The scene at least implies that he will be a sort of surrogate father. I think it's a compelling film, and Patrick is a compelling character.

While I'm at it, I can only praise every other aspect of this film. The writing, directing, acting, and set decoration, art direction are completely believable. I feel that we are really in the crumbier, over-crowded, insular sections of Boston, though I've never been there. Affleck is just boyish enough to make his toughness a surprise. Harris is convincingly compromised. Ryan is maybe the best of the lot as the irresponsible and crass mother. Measured against other films in this genre--not Citizen Kane--this is a 10.

reply