The Other Villain in Primal Fear

John Mahoney’s turn as John Shaughnessy reminds us that sometimes the worst villains are the very ones charged with upholding the law.

I recently bought William Diehl’s 1993 book Primal Fear.

The psychological thriller inspired the 1996 hit film starring Richard Gere as Martin Vail, a confident and high-profile Chicago defense attorney, and Edward Norton as Aaron Stampler, a 19-year-old altar boy accused of the brutal murder of a powerful bishop.

As far as thrillers go, the movie, which took home $103 million at the box office, is as good as it gets. Filled with gripping legal drama and shocking twists, Primal Fear was nominated for several Academy Awards, including a Best Supporting Actor nod to Norton.

The movie is remembered primarily for Norton’s breakout performance as the timid, stuttering Aaron Stampler, yet several other magnificent performances make Primal Fear a masterpiece. Laura Linney is great as Janet Venable, the hard-nosed prosecutor assigned to put Stampler behind bars for murder (and see him executed). Steven Bauer does yeoman’s work as Joey Piñero, a mafia leader who knows about Bishop Rushman’s shady business dealings.

Yet my favorite performance in the film is that of John Mahoney, who readers may remember as Frasier’s dad Martin Crane in the hit TV show Frasier (1993–2004). Mahoney (below, left) plays John Shaughnessy, the state’s attorney who assigns Venable as prosecutor to assure that Stampler fries for murder, even though it’s unclear he’s the killer.

The Other Villain

The primary villain in Primal Fear is the person who murdered Bishop Rushman—whom I won’t name (for now), lest I spoil the surprise—but Shaughnessy is what is known as a secondary villain.

A shadowy, powerful figure, we learn early in the film that Shaughnessy had close personal ties to the murdered bishop. He also invested heavily in the bishop’s philanthropic enterprises and is leaning on Vail’s client, Piñero, to get out of the city after paying him a $1.5 million settlement after police attacked him.

Shaughnessy, who we find out used his office to hide the Bishop’s dark sexual secrets, is clearly a person not to be trifled with. Eventually, we see just how dangerous he is, when Piñero turns up dead for “not honoring his side of the deal” (leaving town after getting his settlement).

Piñero’s death and Bishop Rushman’s are very different, of course. The mob boss was not stabbed 78 times, as the Bishop was. And it’s safe to say Shaughnessy did not do the deed himself.

Yet we see the state’s top cop is also evil and fully capable of murder. In fact, in some ways Shaughnessy is more sinister. His killing is rooted less in passion than in power.

During a private dinner between Shaughnessy and Vail, we see how the state’s attorney thinks when he goes off on a soliloquy explaining how he makes the city run.

“You know what people think? That this great city runs itself. They think it gets up, goes to work and climbs into bed at night, like we do. Unaware of what it takes to make sure it doesn't break down.

Crime, fires, riots. The goddamn water pipes bursting under the city. What a f***ing mess that was.

Who does the Water Commissioner call? The contractor who built it? No, he calls me. They all call me. …They call me because I keep the peace. That's my job. This city doesn't burn because I won't permit it. I'm the great negotiator. You think people get that? The truth is I don't care. The dumb bastards don't even vote. They just eat, sleep, watch TV and occasionally [copulate].”

A Tyranny for the Good of the People

Shaughnessy is clearly a man of self-importance, but it’s a mistake to brush his comments off as mere vanity.

His attitude calls to mind what John Stuart Mill described as “paternal despotism,” a form of governance in which rulers or governors justify their actions—even authoritarian ones—because they’re taking care of the people. The On Liberty author rejected such thinking, calling a positive despotism “an altogether false ideal.”