Gone Baby Gone movie review

Gone Baby Gone movie review

Gone Baby Gone is a movie about the investigation of the kidnapping of a young girl, which turns into both a personal and professional crisis. It is the story of a missing child, lost idealism regained, and wayward parents. Gone Baby Gone meticulously and fearlessly depicts life’s ugly side. The director uses symbolism and foreshadowing to depict the moral dilemma. The movie is profound enough to be realistic yet not repetitive to get annoying. The director closes-up on the almost disfigured people who are broken physically to depict the rampant degeneration of morality in this violent, corrupt, and greedy world. The movie is an inquiry about the profound damage someone’s hometown can have on their psyche. The movie’s end challenges the characters in the movie, and the viewer is vicariously to make a morally impossible decision in a situation that lacks choices that are satisfying or easy. This movie is an exploration of the consequentialism and deontology morality philosophies. This essay will discuss Gone Baby Gone’s moral philosophy, specifically on Patrick’s moral position that I disagree with.

Patrick is a follower of the moral rules that society ingrains on people. He agrees to take up the child abduction case even though he might find the girl dead or traumatized because somebody has to take it up. Patrick is human; he sympathizes and forms a relationship with Amy Ryan’s irresponsible mother, who is also a drug addict. Patrick sees everyone as equal to the other. He believes that people are entitled to some things, such as; the right to live and the right to raise your child. Patrick fights to take back the child to her mother despite the fact that the mother is not the best choice for her just because she is her mother. Patrick feels guilt about killing a child murderer pedophile because he is not armed. Patrick is mortified by how willing Remy is to break the rules to get the things he wants. Patrick is a deontologist from the actions he portrays in the movie, Gone Baby Gone. He is okay with Amanda turning out as broken as her mother, and continuing the cycle of brokenness on her child and her child’s child or children after to be right for that moment. Deontology is a theory of ethics that adopts rules in its distinction of wrong from right. The philosopher behind it Immanuel Kant suggests that actions should be based on the universal laws of morality, such as do not cheat, lie, or steal.

This theory encourages people to act according to their intuitive thoughts. Deontology discourages benefits and costs, weighing in a situation to prevent uncertainty and subjectivity from following only the rules set. Patrick denies Amanda a fresh start. Because he can stomach apologizing for a life destroyed, but cannot stomach leaving a child with a kidnapper who loves and takes care of her.

While I do not support kidnapping and murder, I am a consequentialist just like Angie and Remy in the movie Gone Baby Gone. The wrongness and rightness of the actions of anyone should be based on the consequences of the actions. I disagree with Patrick’s view or morality. I think the real moral decisions are made by breaking the societal set rules of morality to make decisions that have the best outcomes. For example, Angie, in this movie, is afraid of taking the case because she is afraid she will find a dead or traumatized child. She, however, decides to jump in on the potentially dangerous and life-threatening case to try to save the child. According to me, she has the right motive while Patrick does because someone has to do it.

When Patrick takes away Amy from Jack Doyle, he believes Helene; a drug addict deserves to raise the child because she is her mother. He takes away the hope of a good life and future for Amy. Growing up with a drug-addicted mother, who is mostly absent is likely to have an impact on the individual, you turn out to be. People should earn certain rights instead of being entitled to them. Even though jack Doyle conspired to steal her from her mother, his actions were justified. Helene is a drug addict; Amy was taken from her in the first place because she was out looking for drugs. She left her young daughter in the house alone. Although abducted, Amanda was happy, fed well, taken care, and loved, which is more than Helene ever did.

I do not agree with kidnapping, but I agree with the end justifies the means in some cases such as these. The guilt Patrick feels about killing a child murderer and pedophile should not be. While I understand taking the life of another person is wrong, were the children the pedophile killed armed? He honestly got what he deserved. While I do not misunderstand his decision to take back Amanda to her mother, I do not necessarily understand how maintaining a clean slate for yourself over saving a life from getting destroyed is better. Consequentialism requires that for an action to be considered moral, a good consequence or outcome should be produced, and I agree with that, especially in this case. A moment’s right action that will destroy someone’s life in the future is not worth it. The conventional rules of society are wrong often. Patrick’s readiness to apologize for destroying someone’s life rather than apologizing for denying them their family is sickening. If I were Amanda, no matter the love I have for my mother, I would choose to grow up better than her to be able to change the family lineage. Consequentialism does not necessarily favor rule-breaking when the consequences are short-term; we all agree on specific aspects of morality. A consequentialist will make a decision based on the best consequences available, and because the society earned better consequences because the specific rule was followed. There were a variety of other options that Patrick would have chosen instead of taking back Amanda to her destruction. Child services which would have placed her with a better family who would have possibly helped her grow in a better way.

The consequences of an action should determine its rightness or wrongness. Patrick felt that he had no justification for taking part in the wrong action. However, his deontological actions are wrong too. A moral action that causes damage is no longer moral. A wrong action that corrects a worse action is possibly the morality we need in society. While I believe in some of the societal rules of morality, such as do not kill, killing an unredeemable suicide bomber to save the lives of many others is moral. Neither deontology or consequentialism views are always right. The choice between wrong and more wrong gives the final answer to the worst of dilemmas.