Essay On Urban Planning 200: Cities In Cinema

Urban Crime and Morality in “Gone, Baby, Gone” by Ben Affleck

The movie “Gone, Baby, Gone” explores the reasons and circumstances for the phenomenon of urban crimes and puts both the main character and the spectator in the sticky situation, namely presents with a dilemma. It is difficult to define where the right ends and the wrong begins because the particular nature of crimes in the suburbs makes no laws and rules appropriate. The urban neighborhood with its traditions and secrets does not completely fit in the federal law enforcement. The end of the movie argues upon whether the corruption can sometimes do good with no harm to anyone and anything except for the sense of conscience. The morality and the inevitable suburb pace of living intertwine, and only God knows how the stranger who wants to help should act if one’s destiny is in his hand.
The film vividly demonstrates the atmosphere of the Boston neighborhood of Dorchester so that the spectator sees the heavily populated area with stern faces and industrial landscape. Everyone knows each other, and basically their life is the same as of those who live in Manhattan, except for the poorer image. People go to the hairdresser’s, walk out with babies, talk with each other, children play games. But the spectator starts to feel uncomfortable when the camera shows the police and the photo of the abducted little girl. He sympathizes with the bleakness of these people, the indifference of the police to the accidents which happen in the suburbs and the failures of the search of the guilty. The level of crimes is high here, and the problem is so profound, no strict laws can solve it. When the police officer talks to the private investigators, the spectator notices his pessimistic reinforcement, as well as the doubting that the girl is still alive. He mentions that police find children only in 10% of cases which testifies of the incidence of crimes in the neighborhood.
While the interrogations of the local inhabitants and gathering of information, the spectator gets a bit more familiar with the foundations of this small community. The situation is standard: the television shows a sad story, but behind the scenes, the mother is a cocaine addict who sells drugs, changes her lovers and does not care about her child. It is no surprise that there exists such probability that the kid might disappear one day. The house is dirty, the beer and bottles of alcohol are everywhere throughout the rooms, the kid’s room has bare walls and no furniture. The film demonstrates the logical chain between the deprived backgrounds of the community of the Boston neighborhood and the high level of violence. The typical representative is a young woman without a husband who does not want to work and bring up her kid. She is connected to bandits and drug dealers; she even takes her daughter with her while drug dealing. It is no secret that such mother is dangerous to her child. The abduction of the child is possibly connected with the woman’s questionable environment.
Another crime depicted in the movie is the abduction of the 7 year old boy. Here, the viewer finds out that the high probability of the disappearance of children lies in the existence of maniacs and mentally ill people. The movie particularly gives the example of the child molester and assassinator living with his cocaine addicted parents in the run-down house. Here is the difficult case of searching and finding maniacs dangerous for the already unfortunate society. The boy was not found by the police, and this fact proves the insecurity of life of people in the neighborhood. The spectator remembers that only 10% of kids are found. It is hard to tell if the reason lies in the unwillingness of police or maybe their incompetence. This leads to another question – why is the police unwilling or incompetent? Maybe because everything that happens in the suburb is always a bad case? Maybe to change the simplest is impossible because it is necessary to change the whole system including the police corruption? The movie shows that there is no right answer, and the main character who is a real justice crusader might have made a terrible mistake though he did everything right and according to the law.
The quantity of crimes can be also explained by the fact that many people in the neighborhood start in the cracks and then fall through. The environment enormously influences the personality, and it is hard to avoid the seductive possibility of quick and easy money. And so the infection broadens. In most of the cases, it is appropriate to say that the suburb is the refuge of the weak – those who don’t want to do everything they can for the better life. The very bright character, the girl’s mother, demonstrates what basic needs for happiness she has and what a pathetic mother she is. The same can be said about the other characters – the bar visitors, the drug dealers, the police officers. The person usually deserves the life he lives; this utterance coincides with the theory that if all the money in the world were divided equally between all the people, there would still soon appear the rich and the poor.
The main character reveals the crime of the police with the members of the girl’s family and it is now in his power to decide whether to leave everything as it is or to do a decent thing and give the daughter back to her mother as he promised to. He does not doubt about the choice even in spite of his girlfriend’s tears and pleading not to do it. But the viewer has a bitter feeling when he watches the retired policeman who loved the girl being put to the police car, his wife being torn apart with the kid and the kid herself being serious and confused when in the arms of her biological mother. The uncle of the girl is put into prison as well. His wife hates Patrick because he is the one to blame for that. Another policeman is dead when trying to prevent Patrick from getting to know the truth. The girl does not seem happy when her mother leaves her for another date with the one doll and TV. Did Patrick do the right thing? Was it for the sake of the girl? Or maybe he was too concentrated on the sense of justice and hate of lies? Or maybe he just did not feel where the line of the good transforms into the bad.
The regular viewer might judge and blame him but what the author wanted to say is obviously that good motives and the absence of life experience mixed with the adolescent maximalism sometimes lead to the bad ending. The main character is a rare example of devotion and justice seeker. He blamed himself for the impulsive murder of the child molester though it was obviously the slightest punishment for the monster. The author suggests that he blames himself for calling the police when he was begged not to. Now when he sees the kid’s mother will never change, he might blame himself for the bad choice.
Here, in the suburbs, there is less hope that the level of morality will increase – the crimes will keep on happen, the drugs will still be sold and the people will not work unless the government pays attention to them and imply special programs in order to fight with the rotten social class.

Works Cited

GERMAIN, DAVID; LEMIRE, CHRISTY. "'No Country for Old Men' earns nod from AP critics". Associated Press (2007). Literary Reference Center. Web. 8 Feb. 2015.
LUMENICK, LOU. "Ben Flair, Done That". New York Post (2007). Literary Reference Center. Web. 8 Feb. 2015.
MENNEL, BARBARA. “Cities in Cinema”. Taylor & Francis Group (2008). Print.
MUMFORD, LEWIS. “The City In History, Its Origins, Its Transformations, And Its Prospects”.
Mariner Books (1961). Print.