Reflections
on “Road to Perdition”
Directed
by Sam Mendes
Written
by David Self
(based
on the graphic novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner)
Starring
Tom
Hanks, Paul Newman, Daniel Craig, Tyler Hoechlin and Jude Law
A video presentation of this material can be viewed here.
When gangland enforcer Mike
Sullivan’s son, Michael, witnesses a murder committed by Connor Rooney, the son
of gangland boss John Rooney, who is also Mike’s boss and mentor, this sets in
motion a chain of events that lead to the deaths of Sullivan’s innocent wife
Annie and his second son, Peter. Sullivan will consequently abandon the code he
has always followed and will challenge the mores, social structure and
hierarchy he has known all his life as he takes whatever measures are necessary
to protect himself and his son from former colleagues and friends while seeking
vengeance on the self-indulgent Connor who, desperate to ensure his own safety
and survival, is responsible for the deaths of Mike’s wife and child.
The film offers insight
into the milieu and politics of Depression-era gangsters while examining
father-son relationships and the conflicts and complications they can generate.
Underpinning everything is the contrast between John and Connor’s relationship
and Mike’s efforts to instil values and respect in his son amid a general
contempt for law, order and morality.
There is no recourse or
reference to law enforcement or religion. Instead, we have a pragmatic or
Machiavellian gangster order in which morality, honour and rectitude are
reduced to keeping your word, being discreet and protecting fellow gang members
if that serves the greater good.
Connor’s conduct goes
beyond self-centred indulgence and borders on narcissism. He exercises
emotional manipulation of his all-powerful father which may be due to his
apparent inability to impress his father or gain his respect. In turn, Connor’s
perceived character weaknesses may be the result of John’s apparent inability
to impose discipline on his son and his mollycoddling of him. Of course, it may
also be due, in good part, to the environment in which he has been brought up,
with no respect for values or consideration for others beyond their use in the
advancement of family “business”. At one point, Connor is described as “a big
baby” by another powerful gang boss, but he is so consumed by his own character
and importance that he fails to recognise any truth in the description and
instead offers vague threats based on his future position as the head of the family
business, further confirming his delusions and lack of self-awareness as he
fails to see that he is tolerated only because of his father and his influence.
John Rooney knows himself
and recognises what he is. He is willing to steal, cheat and murder but he is aware
of the pain and consequences he can inflict on others in pursuance of his
business affairs. He appears to prefer a balanced and restrained approach to business,
using violence as a tool and resorting to it only when necessary, and refusing
to exploit his clientele at their work as well as in their leisure time.
His great weakness is his
devotion to his son, Connor. Intelligent and insightful, John also knows who
and what Connor is but he cannot discipline him and is obliged to cover for
Connor’s ill-considered actions and indiscretions. Perhaps he is clinging to
the only meaningful blood tie left to him as all other relationships can be
bought and sold, used and discarded. He is clearly close to Mike Sullivan whom
he has brought up as a member of the family but whose life has been dedicated,
or even sacrificed, to pursual of Rooney’s nefarious interests as Sullivan was
trained to be an enforcer and an assassin. There is a closeness, affection and
understanding between them but Rooney requires complete devotion and compliance
from Sullivan. Mike is not afforded the same freedom and indulgence as Connor
yet Connor is envious of the respect and warmth shared by Rooney and Sullivan.
Ultimately, however, Mike is treated like a loyal vassal and he is expected to
accept the murders of his wife and son by Connor as part of that loyalty, but
their loss proves too much for Mike, whose allegiance has reached its limit.
Mike’s life appears to be
governed by loyalty, gratitude and indebtedness, all of which lend a tragic and
contradictory aspect to this unsmiling, taciturn, dangerous and profoundly
conflicted man.
As a youngster, Mike was
taken in by John Rooney who provided him with a home, comfort and security, all
of which were appreciated by Mike to such an extent that they fostered within
him a profound sense of debt, a reaction that suggests he is a man of honour in
spite of his actions and profession. Rooney has continued to provide for Mike,
his wife and his family, and gratitude, debt and loyalty are the price Mike
feels he must pay for this stability, especially in these difficult
Depression-era times.
Often silent and
distracted, it seems that his life as an enforcer weighs heavily on Mike. He is
aware of the effect he delivers, even dread, when he gives his name. At home, when
his son Peter inquires about the nature of his work, there is a sudden change
in atmosphere and Mike’s wife snaps that he works to put food on the table.
This telling response suggests not just a desire to protect the boys from the
truth but also shame or embarrassment and that this is something he does out of
necessity rather than through ambition or desire.
These are parents who
seek to instil discipline and family values in their children. Mike and his
wife could easily have lied about the nature of his work, but they choose not
to do so. The boys are expected to show respect, not to question and to do
household chores. They are encouraged to do their homework and they have a warm
and loving relationship with their mother.
At home, it may be the
true man we are seeing, a man of honour and values but one who loyally serves
his criminal master by day, undertaking threat, violence and murder in his
name, surely leading to internal conflict and depression which explain his
silence and distraction. Mike may be trapped in his existential quandary and may
be somewhat distant with his sons, but he is determined that his sons should
have an outlook and options based on respect for others and a principled
upbringing, all in direct contrast to the upbringing experienced by Connor.
Michael represents hope
for the future in Mike’s eyes. In the aftermath of the murders of their kin, father
and son are united by common grief, experience and a need for one another. They
get to know one another better and do what they must to survive, but their
efforts are tempered by reason and control. They are pursued by amoral
individuals and may use amoral methods to deal with them yet they show
constraint and balance. Michael is forced to grow up quickly and he shows calm
determination in helping his father. In part reflecting his maturity, his
idealistic and romanticised view of his father and his work (symbolised in his
interpretation of the graphic novel he is reading) is steadily replaced with respectful
realism.
In contrast to Mike’s
human and flawed assassin, we have Maguire, a quirky hitman hired to take out
Mike and his son. Maguire is an assassin who enjoys his work. He is totally
amoral – he has no scruples and indulges his passion for death by photographing
the recently dead or dying. Although ostensibly he and Mike have much in common,
Maguire does not suffer from self-doubt or inner conflict and he is not acting
to fulfil a perceived debt of honour. He kills because it gives him pleasure
and fulfilment, and his very presence and motivation allow us to compare and
contrast with Mike and enable us to gain a clearer understanding of Mike’s
existential position and attitude.
At the end of the film
young Michael could have killed Maguire. He holds the upper hand, in the shape
of a gun, but he is hesitant and unwilling to shoot, though he might have
pulled the trigger if necessary. Fortunately, Mike removes that necessity and
takes upon himself the guilt of killing Maguire, thus sparing his son from having
to take a life and allowing him to walk away with an unblemished conscience. Mike
dies happy in the knowledge Michael did not mindlessly pull the trigger – in a
world where morality may not exist in itself and in an environment where it is
certainly not respected, the values and self-discipline he has tried to instil in
his son have won out over self-centred amorality.
This is a brooding,
atmospheric character piece set for the most part in a dark, shadowy world
which contrasts with the airy lightness and hope of the scenes at the end of the
film. On the face of it, this is a well-constructed revenge thriller offering
relatively familiar fare in terms of politics but its great strength lies in
the contrasting father-son relationships and how they inform the moral choice
at the core of the film.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
