Shutter Island (Martin Scorsese, 2010)

[Murdoch]

After Hours is his best film. There, I said it.

[Mr. Ned]

Spoilers below, kinda....

Just got back from this and my fears were sadly realized; whatever the original reason was to push the film back, it caused the film to suffer from the "curse of the cutting room floor." I can picture Scorsese in the editing room for months with his footage, desperately trying to capture the mood the book (barely) achieves and project it onto celluloid. Ironically, I think he's guilty of the same thing as his protagonist: he repeatedly went back to the movie and re-edited, re-edited, re-edited, thinking at some point he'd get the shot/reverse shot sequences and music synced just right to finally find that elusive sense of unease...a collection of faulty attempts to escape the reality he is under the delusion that this story could translate into a powerful film. The strange removal of the number riddles--hokey as they are in the novel--also make the multiple red herrings even more discombobulated and less captivating; the addition of Teddy's violent outbursts also made things a little too obvious. Regardless of the penetrating look at delusional ontology--something Scorsese has never been afraid of (he studies it in almost every one of his films, actually)--and the inevitable application of schizo-philosophy into the director's repertoire, the film is too flat, too dreary, too empty and lost (much like its protagonist) to raise any harrowing or compassionate reactions...I left the theater as emotionally stunted as Teddy. Nice touch with the end shot...more subtle than the rat in The Departed and gets at the rat/island metaphor from the book (also oddly missing from the film, though maybe the rat similarity did that one in...), a reminder that in our perceptive travels through life there is no lighthouse...there are our only our islands and there is the sea...but hasn't Scorsese done this already countless times in nearly all his movies (The Age of Innocence has a beautiful and much more thoughtful lighthouse sequence!)? The movie felt awkward, with too many s/rs sequences syncing into loud and extravagant camera movements and the ominous music desperately patching the film's silence in parts to reinforce Scorsese's insistent belief this story can provoke its audience. Teddy's last line is a final grasp at his story's significance...but it all seems too trite and pushy for it to work well. Even with all the criticisms I kind of sort of liked it, if only for the gorgeous New England scenery and the well-lit interior scenes (nice acting performances too, all around)...but it definitely isn't Marty's best effort, though I don't think he's to blame. The novel is a good--but not a great--story, and that mediocrity is one of the only things that translates flawlessly from text to image. A (very) flawed but somewhat enjoyable movie, even if the only satisfaction I got out of it was that my own mental issues pale in comparison to Mr. Teddy....this one will stick with you a while though.

[Murdoch]

Basically agree with what Ned said, an interesting if flawed and overlong film that successfully creates a certain eerie atmosphere even though there isn't much payoff.

However, I was very disappointed to see Elias Koteas wasted as a character who spends all of five minutes on screen.

[Mr. Ned]

Not even five minutes...he was sorely misused. Laeddis doesn't hold much significance in the book either, but Mr. Koteas is too underrated a talent to be glossed over like that. I was also surprised how Scorsese handled the Warden's character, too; he does not hold a lot of sway in terms of narrative transition but his role in the book, though still limited, plays on an ominous, unconscious mistrust of authority in Teddy's character when he first sets foot on the island. That was a nice touch when I recollect on the novel. Also, I think this is the first thing I've seen Mr. Levine in where my mind didn't immediately flash to Buffalo Bill, but twenty years of aging will make even the most vivid performances fade away from an actor's aura. I kept on thinking of Vargtimmen and Shame when Max von Sydow came on screen, though; will he ever escape these island movies?

[Markson]

$40.2 million opening weekend. Scorcese's biggest ever, by quite a margin. It easily topped the box office, though The Ghost Writer, which played in only 4 (!) theaters, had a three-times higher per-theater average.

[nsps]

After Hours is his best film. There, I said it.

Murdoch is correct.

As for Shutter Island, after two viewings I find it a quite satisfying thriller, with the real star of the film being Scorsese's eerie dream sequences. I love the way they weave through different memories, implying different levels of subconscious drama. Of course, the significance of the various images is more clear on second go-round, but they're just as—if not more—compelling to view while you're still in the dark.

[Mr. Ned]

After Hours is his best film. There, I said it.

I love the way [the dream sequences] weave through different memories, implying different levels of subconscious drama. Of course, the significance of the various images is more clear on second go-round, but they're just as—if not more—compelling to view while you're still in the dark.

The first sequence in particular, with the complex layering of images--fire, water, blood, windows into differing views, a wife who simultaneously smolders and perspirates--was amazingly well done. Scorsese also put more emphasis on Dachau's dream sequences more than the book, and they worked much better than I thought they would. The middle dreams,

Spoiler

with the dead children and bloody Rachel

, were too reminiscent of The Shining for me, though.

And, yes, After Hours is Scorsese's best; it's my favorite, at least. I am, admittedly, also a huge advocate for The Age of Innocence, although I think that's because I first saw it in high school literature class after we read the novel... Having seen it when gangster violence (Goodfellas, Casino) and intense alienation I couldn't fully grasp yet (Taxi Driver) were the only things that came to mind when I thought of Scorsese, my fifteen year old self really took to the quiet grace of that film. I also adore Cape Fear (I'll wait for the tomatoes to be thrown)...for some reason it hits all the right chords for me: Henry Miller, the disintegration of the American family, a tour de force by both Nolte and DeNiro. There's an unbridled, animalistic force to that movie that I can't deny; combined with some kookie experimentation on Scorsese's part, I have to admit it's an uncharacteristic guilty pleasure.

[oldsheperd]

Very evocative film. Reminds me of my favorite Val Lewton, Bedlam

[Robert de la Cheyniest]

I don't know, I'm generally kind of a Scorsese apologist (he's one of those directors who's body of work I find pleasure and great moments in even in his worst films) but I thought this was not one of his best by a long shot. It has some beautiful imagery and atmosphere but I find that the script is really the worst part of the whole thing. It seems like it can't decide whether it wants to be a fun pulp picture or a serious character piece (which isn't to say that a movie can't be both, considering all the movies that Scorsese is referencing like Laura, the Val Lewton films, and Fuller manage to do this sort of thing beautifully.) But I think where it really stumbles is really in the parts where it goes for seriousness, and further more, it stumbles the most when it tries to fuse these elements together and they never gel. Part of the problem I think is that I was never really invested in the film, really just noticing nice touches in the mise en scene editing etc without actually being wrapped up in the picture. Even the "twist" at the end of the film (I thought Teddy's flashback at the end of the film was handled beautifully and probably the best part of the film) doesn't really do enough to make the film work as a character piece. I would like to see it again at some point and see if maybe these elements work better on a second viewing, but for now I'm pretty underwhelmed.

However, I will say I thought Von Sydow played his part perfectly.

[Tuco]

Having yet to see the film, I nonetheless submit what passes for film criticism here in Minnesota, from the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

"Scorsese is a psychologically astute filmmaker. In "Taxi Driver" and "Cape Fear" he opened a trap door in the civilized forebrain and threw a bucket of bloody meat to the hungry crocodiles writhing in the sewer below."

[HarryLong]

Is it possible to fall in love with a sentence even while not having a clue what it means?

[Tuco]

HarryLong, you must visit the Star Tribune website Wednesdays and Fridays - Colin Covert has got a million of 'em...though he reached a new high (low?) with that sentence!

[Nothing]

Mr. Koteas is too underrated a talent to be glossed over like that.

By some accounts, Mr. Koteas is too financially motivated to do his talent justice.

[HarryLong]

HarryLong, you must visit the Star Tribune website Wednesdays and Fridays - Colin Covert has got a million of 'em...though he reached a new high (low?) with that sentence!

This is the first that this particular critic has flown into my radar.
I've certainly read enough analytical writing (not mereely on film) that expends a great deal of words either spouting nonsense or even nothing at all, but rarely have I encountered it combined with such a juice, chewy prose style. Wow.
(I'll check out that site...)

[zedz]

Not a great film, some mighty flaws, but I enjoyed it. And the same can be said for just about everything Scorsese's done since The Age of Innocence, in my opinion, so I wasn't really expecting much more. I'd rather see this as a standard order Hollywood thriller with lashings of style, so I just enjoyed the overload of visual ideas and encyclopedia of film references. In this latter area, I was interested to pick up allusions to films I didn't necessarily know that Scorsese rated (did anybody else get a strong whiff of Horrors of Malformed Men, particularly whenever Leo got near the cliff face?), though that whole referential dimension of the film got somewhat distracting.

I also felt the working out of the plot in the last lap of the film was sluggish and laboured, lacking the speed and baroque panache of the set-up. The most interesting device Scorsese used in the film was initially really irritating,

Spoiler

namely the mismatch of shots and reverse shots. In retrospect it makes sense, but sloppy shot-to-shot continuity is so epidemic in modern genre filmmaking that at first I thought Scorsese and Schoonmaker might have taken their eye off the ball. However, the mismatches were so insistent it soon became evident that they were indeed deliberate, and functioned as a nice, understated representation of the protagonist's frantic attempt to stitch events into an acceptable version of reality, and not quite pulling it off.

[Murdoch]

One thing I really enjoyed about this movie was

Spoiler

how it handled the cliched "Partner? You don't have a partner" line with Leo just saying "oh, yeah" and trailing off instead of going into a whole thing with him running around questioning people if they ever saw Chuck. It's weird to say, but it was probably my favorite part of the film.

[planetjake]

Not a great film, some mighty flaws, but I enjoyed it. And the same can be said for just about everything Scorsese's done since The Age of Innocence, in my opinion, so I wasn't really expecting much more. I'd rather see this as a standard order Hollywood thriller with lashings of style, so I just enjoyed the overload of visual ideas and encyclopedia of film references. In this latter area, I was interested to pick up allusions to films I didn't necessarily know that Scorsese rated (did anybody else get a strong whiff of Horrors of Malformed Men, particularly whenever Leo got near the cliff face?), though that whole referential dimension of the film got somewhat distracting.

I also felt the working out of the plot in the last lap of the film was sluggish and laboured, lacking the speed and baroque panache of the set-up. The most interesting device Scorsese used in the film was initially really irritating,

Spoiler

namely the mismatch of shots and reverse shots. In retrospect it makes sense, but sloppy shot-to-shot continuity is so epidemic in modern genre filmmaking that at first I thought Scorsese and Schoonmaker might have taken their eye off the ball. However, the mismatches were so insistent it soon became evident that they were indeed deliberate, and functioned as a nice, understated representation of the protagonist's frantic attempt to stitch events into an acceptable version of reality, and not quite pulling it off.

It's funny, because I usually think of Scorsese as someone who doesn't pay particularly close attention to continuity. Just keep your eyes on those cigars in Goodfellas!

[Mr. Ned]

I also felt the working out of the plot in the last lap of the film was sluggish and laboured, lacking the speed and baroque panache of the set-up. The most interesting device Scorsese used in the film was initially really irritating,

Spoiler

namely the mismatch of shots and reverse shots. In retrospect it makes sense, but sloppy shot-to-shot continuity is so epidemic in modern genre filmmaking that at first I thought Scorsese and Schoonmaker might have taken their eye off the ball. However, the mismatches were so insistent it soon became evident that they were indeed deliberate, and functioned as a nice, understated representation of the protagonist's frantic attempt to stitch events into an acceptable version of reality, and not quite pulling it off.

I'm glad someone else noticed how cluttered and awkward the s/rs sequences were, and I enjoy your interpretation. I originally thought the mismatches were an unfortunate side effect from too much time in the editing suites and foley rooms, but a few I remember towards the beginning couldn't have been glossed over by Scorsese and co.; they were indeed deliberate. I don't know if I agree with the effectiveness of the execution, but it's an admirable experiment in technique.

Having let the film settle in my brain after a week, retrospect affirms it is indeed a flawed and ultimately forgettable part of Scorsese's filmography, but I also couldn't help but drift back to its application of historical references from time to time. It is a patchwork quilt of sorts in terms of homage...it's too bad Marty doesn't take them--and the story--anywhere too interesting.

[zedz]

If this was the forties and Shutter Island was Scorsese's second or third film of the year, I'm sure we'd look back on it more fondly in retrospect as a crazy genre piece, but with today's slowed production pace, all your career eggs get put into one basket, and each film becomes the stockholder's annual report on the State of Your Career. That said, the film could be better, but at least it's a success so there will be more, and there are a lot of worse successes out there.

Mr Ned: The s / rs stuff struck me exactly the same way at first, but it was so overwhelming I had to consider it was deliberate. I don't know if there's a sequence in the film with wholly 'proper' matches, and some of the misses are as good as a mile (characters holding one another in different places, for example). I wasn't paying strict attention to how it worked, but it seemed like it was much more about physical character relationships than continuity errors with decor or props.

[geoffcowgill]

It's funny, because I usually think of Scorsese as someone who doesn't pay particularly close attention to continuity. Just keep your eyes on those cigars in Goodfellas!

JOEY LAMOTTA: Ah, Jake, yer cuts are openin' up and everythin'!

[rs98762001]

In this latter area, I was interested to pick up allusions to films I didn't necessarily know that Scorsese rated (did anybody else get a strong whiff of Horrors of Malformed Men, particularly whenever Leo got near the cliff face?), though that whole referential dimension of the film got somewhat distracting.

Interesting. Horrors of Malformed Men also has that intensely hallucinatory feel to it that Shutter Island tried to capture, although I think the Japanese film does it (and everything else) far better.

In terms of other films that Shutter Island seems to rip off/be influenced by, I'm surprised so few people have mentioned Brad Anderson's grossly-underrated Session 9. Aside from the obvious similarities (institution setting, presence of ghostly figures that may or may not be all in the characters' minds, etc) the twist/reveal at the end

Spoiler

that Di Caprio has killed his wife and then repressed it

is almost identical. Session 9, however, is by far the stronger film, despite being made for about 1/100th of the budget. More terrifying and atmospheric, with a better use of its haunted house-style location. The asylum of Session 9 is the stuff of nightmares. The asylum of Shutter Island never feels like anything but a movie set (although thanks to Marty's obsessive movie homages, this may very well be intentional).

[John Cope]

Though I haven't seen Session 9 in a long time and can't remember the specific details I would have to say that the comparison is not quite right. In a broad, general sense it's the same sort of thing, yes, but unless I'm mistaken there is a tremendous difference in the motive behind the hidden acts of the central characters. In Session 9 Mullan's motive remains veiled, doesn't it? And that choice seems designed to paint him simply as unhinged and revealed-to-be the horrific center at the heart of the film's ultimate madness. In other words, the nuances of the details are secondary and the film is primarily just a horror picture, albeit a very effective one I'll grant you. I'm not even sure we have that moment of dreadful realization as we do when, say, the murderer of Laura Palmer is revealed on Twin Peaks and it is someone for whom we have developed an affection or at least an empathy. Mullan seemed pretty remote from that kind of identification and that keeps Session 9's emotional effect restricted. As I say, I could be doing it and injustice as it has been years since I've seen it but aside from its effective ambience and the deepening horror of violence personalized, it didn't really stay with me; certainly not to the same extent as Shutter Island which I regard as quite masterful.

I'm actually a little surprised by the faint praise here for this one. Having read through these comments I'm still not entirely sure what was wanted or what the picture evidently failed to deliver. For my part I was simply devastated by it and, on a second viewing, even more greatly impressed by the skillful craftsmanship which rendered up such an intricate and powerful piece. Because this is melodrama of the highest order, embracing the artifice of the satging and sets for their best possible employment as stagecraft of the mind; it is, after all, a psycho-drama and the theatrics are appropriate. Beyond that, I admire the nature of this sort of narrative anyway, the understanding of how artifice is an inextricable part of any creation of self or comprehension of circumstance; it limits and directs. I also appreciate its enthusaistic embrace of excess and an almost hysterical hyperbole to augment it point. But what is especially satisfying, of course, is that all this is justified by the final reveal.

The whole film is devastating, really, as all the detail can be seen to support and flesh out the “reveal”; in other words, it’s not just some gimmicky twist for shock value. The fact that many are spending all their time only on trying to “figure it all out” after the fact or disputing the picture’s success because they guessed the twist in the first few minutes comes across to me as a kind of willful retreat into irrelevance but one which mirrors Teddy’s own, just without the depth.

I don’t believe for a minute that the twist is at all central to Scorsese. The emphasis on it and the thriller plot in general has been, I suppose, helpful however to compel audiences who might otherwise be repelled by the picture’s real focus as an intense study of grief and loss. For me part of the great power of the film’s final section has to do with the way in which it makes clear those purposes. I have read reviews in which critics condemn this section for prolonging the reveal, especially as so many are said to have guessed it already, and thus turning into an anticlimax. But such statements can only evidence the mindset of those utterly uncaptivated with Scorsese’s secret subject, or those perhaps who cannot or will not recogize its inherent power. The length of time taken with the explication is a fitting complement in terms of duration for the level of anguish being explicated; the tragic element is taken seriously and yielded to in all its savage power and is not just some stock genre pay-off. The excruciating detail so assiduously gone over is a cue to the audience that they need not concern themselves with "figuring it out"; it's all done for them so as to force a concentration on and a capitulation to the trauma at the heart of it all. The reveal is the appropriate point of this narrative for it is what allows that to happen.

[knives]

Did anyone pick up on the strange sort of stylization of the acting throughout? Maybe it's just the shitty accents, but I think that it has more to do with the twist/ homages. This is really he first of his Di Caprio movies that I've loved. I won't call great in the sense of The Age of Innocence, but it was great in the shear amount of fun it was. The three cameos (especially Koteas) were great, but as I assumed before the seemingly intentionally terrible dialouge was the real keeper. Kingsley saying, "You're all wet, babe," is somehow both the funniest and most heart breaking thing here. That whole climax scene is worth the watch, how did Paramount let Scorsese get away with that?

[Murdoch]

[...] how did Paramount let Scorsese get away with that?

I'm guessing the success of the Departed had a lot to do with it.

[MoonlitKnight]

"Shock Corridor" meets "A Beautiful Mind" with a pinch of "The Shining" is the best way I think I can describe this film. Definitely not one of Scorsese's best (though still preferable to his sterile, glossy, self-important Weinstein collaborations; the overly arid "Kundun;" or his mere updating of the original "Cape Fear"), but you could can do far worse.