This film has anti-catharsis, with the audience playing the coquette who hits on the unavailable target only to recoil upon successful reception of the advances. Somewhere within our suspense watching the film, we want him to be vindicated, but on further thought not really because that's even worse for everyone. If we take the ending literally, it's a poorly thought out disaster of a film, a bad Frailty imitation without that film's cleverness of purpose. But any interpretation other than the literal salvages what had until that point been a good look at a deteriorating human being. If I can choose, I choose to believe in a film that's good. Believe, like the characters, at your own reward or peril.
Just saw this tonight and was pretty blown away. I have to agree with most of the latter interpretations of the ending:
Spoiler
I too saw the ending as both his wife and child accepting the storm aka his ongoing descent into madness/psychosis. Particularly because the ending consists of them standing by Shannon and the last words I believe are Chastain's character very calmly looking out onto this dark incoming storm and uttering the words "it's okay" very softly.
overall a great movie which I wish I would've been able to see in theaters.
I think all of you are trying to hard to look into a deeper meaning than is actually there. A previous poster pointed out the fact that the camera angles and point of view tell more detail of how the ending is to be perceived. I don't mind taking the ending literally because it even though some of you feel it would be a cheese twist, I say it's done better and more uniquely than any other film that addresses the subject.
Look at it this way... It could have had a line like "No more pull ups dad" (courtesy of the film 2012) and the worst closing line in all of Hollywood.
stroszeck wrote:Just saw this tonight and was pretty blown away. I have to agree with most of the latter interpretations of the ending:
Spoiler
I too saw the ending as both his wife and child accepting the storm aka his ongoing descent into madness/psychosis. Particularly because the ending consists of them standing by Shannon and the last words I believe are Chastain's character very calmly looking out onto this dark incoming storm and uttering the words "it's okay" very softly.
No, I believe she simply said "ok". The ending was literal. The movie was supposed to be a drama/thriller.
I was on another board, but it wouldn't let me post. I hope the reply I wrote makes enough sense here.
He wasn't present when Hannah learned to sign "storm". That's the first clue that it's not a delusion; he didn't know the sign, so wouldn't be able to put it in his delusion. It's possible that he knew the sign, or could have known it, but throughout the film they make a point of showing that he is not as fluent in sign language as his wife, and in the scene that Hannah learns how to sign "storm", his wife makes a point in saying "new sign" and then demonstrating the spelling and word. This is a very deliberate scene, with seemingly no other purpose but to demonstrate hannah learning this word, and he isn't present for it. In a sense, the scene is...well...spelling it out for us.
When he sees that Hannah sees the storm, he isn't sure that she actually sees it because he doesn't know she is signing it. But the audience does; this is how we know this isn't his delusion, its reality. And now after all he's been through, he doubts himself, he thinks he is crazy. He turns to his wife, and his expression is perfectly readable (upon my second viewing of the film), it says "honey, is that storm really there?" and she is bewildered that he was right this whole time, she's overcome with everything sinking in, and nods slightly . Without words she said "yes honey, it's real.". Both people in the scene have now verified that the storm is real, and with Sam feeling the oily rain, a coincidence of just any ole type of catastrphic storm hitting is ruled out. Hannah verifies the storm is real, and Sam verifies that it is the one her hudband predicted. He nods back ("that's what I thought.") and then realizes he needs to take action. He is now ready to face the dangers, because he's used to it; he's been doing it for weeks. Once the shock of not being crazy has worn off, hes almost more comfortable now that his visions have become a reality, its all been leading up to this for him. he picks Hannah up and heads for safety. His wife is of course still in shock because not only has her husband NOT been crazy this whole time, he prophetized a major event, and that major event is a catastrophic storm, and it's hitting right about... now. He then says "Sam." ("Time to head to safety.") and she says "Okay." (I accept this new reality. You were right."). During this final scene, the audience is meant to feel exsctly how Sam feels, and once that is acheived ("I accept this new reality") the screen goes black. Its brilliant. Interesting note, someone earlier in the thread (on another board) was talking about how a theme in the movie was poor communication, and in the climax, so much is said between the two main characters without much being said at all, which leads us to believe that they will be alright as a couple, that they will be able to weather the storm...as long as they can weather the storm, that is.
Theres also further evidence that he isn't actually crazy, but Hannah signing "storm" was enough (and set up beautifully, in my opinion). If we are meant to believe he is crazy because it runs in the family, well, he mentions paranoid schizophrenia, and that he only had two of five symptoms. He didn't actually think people were out to get him, or going to hurt him, but the feelings wouldn't leave him, the thought of it. He could see through the feelings though. He didn't actually think his coworker was going to hurt him, but the thoughts of it disturbed him. Same with his dog. Same with his wife, but the connection was too strong to cut; he had to get himself through it. in my opinion he was haunted, not paranoid.
Anyway that's my take. He had strong visions, but he was never crazy. Please discuss, and excuse the format, I wrote this on my iPhone. Sorry.
Well this is something that I had not read yet and that probably makes the most sense. I think you did a very good job of confirming the ''not crazy'' thesis while also demonstrating that the end is not in fact botched at all. I tip my hat off to you, Walker. I personally thought the whole build up gave the last 15 minutes so much intensity (although I still preferred Shotgun Stories).
I would recommend Glengarry Glen Ross and Blood Simple, for those who haven't seen those. Also, please do not mind what I said a few posts back, I was fairly drunk.
I'm glad you don't think I'm crazy Chicago, cuz it's getting hard for me to tell
I just wanted to add, one of the most important scenes of the movie is when he is in the shelter and he has to finally trust his wifes judgment. He trusts her more than he trusts himself at this point and he has to admit that to himself in order to open the doors. I believe this scene lays the foundation for the end scene of the movie; he now trusts his wife to tell him when things aren't real. I think this reinforces support for the interpretation I proposed, because the director in the commentary says they aren't going to talk about the end scene, but he will say that that last exchange of looks they give each other in it is key. To me the look he gives her is unquestionably "is it real?", and she nods.
I think this adds more meaning to the shelter scene, where a lot of people view it as the place the movie should have ended (had it been about a man slowly going crazy), I feel it actually set us up to properly interpret the ending through how it redefined the relationship between him and his wife. As a couple, by the end of the movie, they have come to a point where they trust each other 100%. He trusted her enough to open the doors and possibly be killed, and now no matter how crazy something sounds, she will always believe him, no matter what. He has to trust her with reality, and she has to trust him with...non-reality. Blind, unconditional faith in each other. It's quite a thing to ponder, in my opinion.
Sorry if this is a dead thread people. I think I am done now lol. But still, feel free to chime in!
I agree with jazzsoda. The final storm is shot differently, most notably the inclusion of the wife's POV. I dont think this means it is a 'real' storm, I feel the scene symbolizes the family as they face the disease. Looking at it that way I felt it was a very good ending to the movie.
puxzkkx wrote:I think the ending can be interpreted as showing that Curtis' family now accept and are willing to understand his illness. The fact that Spoiler
they see the storm
means that they now identify with his struggle.
I really, really hope Nichols intended it that way...
just finished this and like many others was extremely annoyed by the ending at first...but I think I shall force myself into this interpretation if only to avoid cheapening the amazing 112 minutes that came before the final scene. It does make sense, but boy did Nichols seem to almost go out of his way to encourage viewers to suspect the opposite - and I find that rather cheap.
Not much to say that everyone hasn't covered already. Except maybe to add the idea of
Spoiler
prophecy to the mix. I agree that the ending has a feeling of consensus reality about it. Curtis isn't crazy after all. But he might as well have been, because being prophetic in the fashion that he was not only did not save his family from the events he foresaw -- because prophecy by nature is imprecise, dirty and ragged as it were, demanding interpretation -- but he was tortured by his visions in a fashion nearly indistinguishable from what would have happened had he merely been mad. So I suppose I take this brilliant little film in part as a modern day retelling of the subjective experience of Biblical-type seer such as Noah, but without any strong belief in or connection to a supreme being.
Watched this one last night. It was like a more coherent version of a Shyamalan film with quality trappings. I'm missing whatever it was you guys got out of it.
Well, I'm not sure Shyamalan is ever trying to do anything but thrill us. And even then the thematic heaviosity he lards onto most of his work doesn't add meaning so much as distract from whatever thrills remain. And I write that as a fan of Unbreakable and -- yes, really -- The Village.
While I do find Take Shelter consistently thrilling up to the very last second, Nichols is after something altogether different. If you took the fantastical element out of this film, it could still play as an excellent drama of the psychological disintegration of a normal hard-working joe in the heartland. It's the way the film weaves his family dynamics and job responsibility and family of origin backstory so effortlessly into the genre plot that elevates the whole endeavor to another level. Not to mention Michael Shannon's performance (indeed all three of the leads) as a strong man of few words coping for the first time with a huge and secret problem that scares and embarrasses him in equal measure.
And I'd argue that Nichols is far cannier about what he ultimately "means" by his mysteries than Shyamalan. In an M. Night pic, there are big questions right up until a certain climactic moment, in which everything gets definitively spelled out for even the slowest audience members. Nichols' film permits honest disagreements and competing interpretations about what it all ultimately adds up to.
Take Shelter really shocked my foundations:
Spoiler
I just want to share with you people reality before talking about this film. My brother is diagnosed with symptoms of schizophrenia but not schizophrenia itself. I have seen people much worse than him with full-blown paranoid schizophrenia, which has different symptoms than dis-organized S and Catatonic-S. Some of the behaviours he displays is lost train of thought,mannerisms (bowled limbs) walking in around the kitchen with a blank look/grin on his face. Depression,delusions and hallucinations of sound and touch, and de-realization. These symptoms,although nothing to hospitalize him yet are constant in nature and they repeat themselves f he does not medicate or get CBT. I do feel pissed of when people make films about this subject and the directors hollywoodize it too much (Shutter Island, A Beautiful Mind)
Take Shelter was much more accurate in this regard. I like the simple everyday life struggle of man to provide and protect combined with the larger interior struggle of the split mind & soul-motive in this film. The play on, and lets be honest, ridiculous Americanized prophecies of the end-world which in our reality can only cause unstable people to act more like Curtis, this is true.I believe that is the only motive for these false prophecies.
The oil turning people makes sense because this is how these things sometimes sound even if nonsensical to sane people. I like the idea that this film gradually builds up towers of delusional thoughts and then gets closure at the beach that his family is now part of his storm (or crumbles down on Curtis self acceptance that he is Ill and can no-longer protect). The fact that the girl did not hear the storm first but saw it indicates to me that she saw the mannerisms in her father even if she could not understand his delusions. His wife acknowledging the yellow rain, acknowledging perhaps his Illness or notes he is wetting his bed? These are good points and this is a very difficult ending and makes it weak for some, but look at it know from this POV: Curtis's dreams and reality spill into one another (nothing like Inception sci-fi). His actions are based on his ideas or thoughts of prophecy. (Many biblical prophets are now regarded as having 'S' which cannot be proved.) However his decisions are based on his fears. Schizophrenia is an incurable but treatable life-long disease. Many people relapse into their fears like John Nash did in A Beautiful Mind, but he did get closure in the end. Reality check!
What we are led to believe is closure in 'the end storm' scene with his family by his side, might be a relapse. Can the ending be a prophecy fulfilled? (He always feared of becoming like his mother and now it's has come without reason).
I think Curtis will retreat into himself (his shelter/hole) again, he will not go on the yearly trip to the beach,he is to ill, perhaps 'full-blown' already.Maybe his wife realize this when she feels the bed is wet at their own house. Their normal patterns and traditions are now shattered, new decisions need to be made.Curtis might never leave the house again. And going to the beach will forever be a dream unless he decides to go away from his family and into an institute. Schizophrenia is a bad illness 1% of us have it, and it takes a loving/supporting family like Curtis's to forever change and adjust there life style, like they had to for Hannah's deafness, to support him in a storm even if he is constantly digging new shelters.
Saw the movie for the first time a couple of nights ago ... great movie, both compelling and confronting. Clearly, in the final scene Curtis is having another dream. Interestingly, he experiences the biggest storm to date yet presents as less distressed, more in control. Curtis seems comforted in the knowledge that his wife understands that he's suffering and by extension she shares (in his dreams at least) his experiences as witnessed by the oily raindrops on her hand. One thing is certain ... huge challenges await the family but with love, understanding and commitment they give themselves the best chance of living with the illness. Great movie
I just saw the movie a few nights ago and it has been rumbling through my mind for the last few days and wanted to confirm what other people might have thought about the movie. Very good points throughout, with great insights.
Here's my two cents about several plot points that haven't really made it into the forum or haven't been covered too thoroughly.
I'm particularly intrigued by his name, Lefourche, which means 'the fork' in french. This I believe is a nod to how the events, his state, and their lives together are at a cross roads.
Several times throughout the movie Sam has her own POV, at the beginning when she sees a storm in the back yard and walks up to the storm shelter before the first 'nightmare' Curtis has, her meeting with the medical counselor who coordinates Hannah's implants, and another when she is selling her work to a woman who haggles her down to 8 dollars in change from 15$. These events tie together a family portrait of struggles, but those which are somewhat detached. Sam mentions she was talking to a someone who wasn't 'crazy' when being counseled, because she is getting help, care and support. These scenes are not filler, they are very deliberate - like the woman who disregards the 'lots of stitching' and says 15$ is 'more than I want to spend' - in the background is an american flag. I believe these point to a crumbing society, maybe crumbling security - like the debris next to the storm shelter.
Curtis' dog also plays an important role, he might symbolize faithfulness (fido), but I believe serves more as reasoning device in the film - that is to tell us about Curtis' mental state. The dog instead of protecting him, bites him. Hence his fear of it around Hannah. Moving the dog from inside to outside identifies Curtis' fears, but notice he gives the dog to his brother and in doing so hugs him in a very awkward embrace.
One of the main elements of the film is the music. It is mysterious and haunting, but I believe mostly fantastical, not full of dread and foreboding, which I would assign to a movie about mental collapse. The closing sequence is sonically climactic in a way that is revelatory, encouraging ...
Probably the most important element in the story is Curtis' willingness to seek help, take medicine, tackle his fears, whereas someone who is irrational with paranoid schizophrenia does not, they tend to be in denial. He seeks his mother, take a quiz and looks for guidance. These are not typical behaviors and show his awareness of his condition - self-reflective. His are symptoms of someone who has a psychosis, not paranoid schizophrenia, as he states in his first meeting with his counselor.
ONe last point, in the scene with the doctor after the first storm, but before the second, Curtis is told he will need treatment with medication and time away. This after they return from a vacation. It is clear that Curtis is to be taking medication after that consultation. Considering treatment time, two-weeks for typical absorption and improvement, he would have already been 'better' by the time of the vacation. If I'm remembering the proper sequence of time.
Ultimately I believe that Nichols has a wonderful film here, balancing meaning, symbolism and ideas. Where the first storm in the shelter enabled Curtis to overcome his fear of his sanity to be honest with his wife and family - his only anchor - the second storm tells of the hardship that befalls everyone ... socially, economically and emotionally in a world that has so many problems on the verge of cataclysm. Remember it is being told at one of the worst times in modern history both environmentally and economically (which continually plays out in the film with small hints).
I believe that reading the film as only a story about a man's mental state simplifies down what is truly great about this film that elevates this to high art. It is a story that weaves multiple readings about one man, but also all men. This is as Shakespearean a tale as I've ever seen, with wonderful acting and beautiful imagery, wrapped up into a question about what it is to live in an uncertain world.
Can anyone confirm if the UK Blu-ray includes the commentary track with Shannon and Nichols? I see that the French BD does, but it's pricier and harder for me to get.
What a truly amazing film, especially the last quarter - absolutely masterful filmmaking, no ifs or buts. Is it just me, or did anyone else find massive parallels with Kiyoshi Kurosawa here? (Not just the ending, but the whole film)
RobertAltman wrote:No commentary track on the UK blu-ray, only a 10 minute featurette and a few deleted scenes.
Thanks for the confirmation - shame about that. Apparently though, according to people on the Blu-ray.com forum, the UK disc is also afflicted by sharpening, so better go for the US disc in any case.
