criterionforum.org

If Take Shelter were to end at any one of several points towards the middle of its third act, it would be a near-perfect film. Unfortunately, Jeff Nichols doesn’t seem to know when and how he wants to end this film, and encounters what appears to be internal conflict about what he wants to say. Michael Shannon should [will?] win the Oscar for his lead performance, hitting every single note that he needs to as Curtis, a man who finds himself coming apart at the seams when his family needs him most. Nichols shoots him with reverence – his height and strength are accentuated throughout the first act, we see him as his family sees him – a stable influence in their lives who can simultaneously provide for them and care for them. The script has a lot of incisive insight into the role of a husband in a lower-middle class Midwestern family, and this adds even more pressure to what Curtis is experiencing. Jessica Chastain is wonderful as ever here as well, and one’s heart breaks for what she is going through – the more Curtis looks inward, his wife becomes more and more tortured. As the film unravels, one realizes they’re seeing something truly catastrophic and stunning – but the film keeps on going. The final scene (and the one before it because of what we’re given afterward) feels completely extraneous and confusing, and my mind went back to how many moments there were to end the film with appropriate weight and personal tragedy that Nichols presumably did not find suitable. To say that I’m confused by the ending is an understatement – Take Shelter was not a film that traded heavily in metaphors before, nor was it one that led us to believe that there was any credence to be lent to Curtis’ hysteria, so… why? It’s still a great film, but it could have been so much more if Nichols had found a way to put down his pen.

Re: the ending:

Spoiler

I took it as a sign of how his trust in his wife had developed. His daughter was always in his dreams as something he needed to protect, but now his wife was too. He had opened the doors in the shelter because she made him, but it was clear that it was against his better judgment. The final dream was his acceptance of her into her delusions, but moreso than that, an acknowledgment by him that she's on his side.

I thought this was one of the best of the year so far. Definitely top 3.

Nichols's first film Shotgun Stories - also starring Shannon - is also excellent, for those that missed it a few years ago. Not sure how available it is but it's worth tracking down.

mfunk9786 wrote:

Spoiler

I found it intentionally ambiguous as to whether it was a dream or not, that's what threw me off.

I don't see any reason to think otherwise. I didn't really think it ambiguous at all;

Spoiler

absent some clear reason to think it is "real", I assume it's a dream like all the other very similar dreams in the movie.

Brian, that's an elegant explanation for the ending (which like mfunk I initially found exasperatingly unclear too), but I think the message would've come through much stronger if

Spoiler

it was entirely shot from Shannon's perspective, and not his wife's or daughter's. As it is now, with the daughter spotting the storm first, and Chastain's POV for the motor-oil rain falling on her hand and the lens taking in the storm from her angle, the message is just a touch too murky and I think could've been tightened up by slightly different filming choices/angles.

Still, its an impeccable, and difficult, movie. I did it a disservice by seeing it immediately after being crushed to smithereens by Melancholia, and look forward to revisiting it with a clearer mind.

LQ wrote:

Spoiler

As it is now, with the daughter spotting the storm first, and Chastain's POV for the motor-oil rain falling on her hand and the lens taking in the storm from her angle, the message is just a touch too murky and I think could've been tightened up by slightly different filming choices/angles.

That's probably true.

I saw this wonderful film last week and wanted to chime in on the ending.

Spoiler

I didn't see it as a dream at all. My explanation and forgive me if I'm taking things at face value here, is that Shannon's character did conquer his fear by opening the basement doors. What we saw at the end was real and Shannon had been right about a storm coming. As the film went on, I thought it was more about this guy being a prophet than being mentally ill.

Or you guys could be right.

See, that's where I have to roll my eyes at the film, if your interpretation is right. And that's sort of the vibe I got - that Nichols was a little kooky himself and pulled the rug out from under us. Because, as LQ pointed out, the final scene isn't shot like it should be if we're to take Brian C's interpretation at face value. Which I really desperately want to.

I agree with the above. I see the ending as

Spoiler

an ill-advised gotcha twist.

Which sells the rest of the film short. I liked it well enough, but I thought the pacing of the film was unnecessarily lugubrious in the middle and it was kept afloat by the performances in those stretches.

Anyone else think Michael Shannon bears a resemblance to Richard "Jaws" Kiel? Or am I imagining things? 8-[

It's there now that you mention it. sort of like if Kiel was more normalized in the jaw.

Caught this yesterday, and it sat in my head all night.

Spoiler

First things first, I purposely hadn't read anything about the film, other than watching the trailer, since that's what I try to do with all movies. Thus, I was unaware of the twist ending, or that there was one. However, watching the film, it wasn't really a twist for me, since that's what I was expecting most of the way through the film. The reason being, there was something vague about the daughter's behaviour (something I can't quite articulate, I'm sorry to say) that led me to believe she had a similar sense of foreboding that her father had, but because of her age, she did not fully understand it, and because of her disability, was less able to communicate it. But to me, she just acted in a way that she felt bad things were coming. And that's what led me to believe that Michael Shannon was right all along.

There's also the old adage that "crazy people don't think they're crazy", though I'm not sure that's scientifically accurate (though it has been in my personal experience).

That adage is a fallacy, though it applies to some people. Often if someone has a history of mental illness in their family (as Michael Shannon does in the film), they can start to see the signs when/if they're faced with symptoms creeping in.

Yeah, that's what I thought about the adage ...

Two other side thoughts my fiancee had today:

1. How stupid is Shea Whigham's character? Why would you admit to your boss that you helped steal that equipment on the weekend?

and

Spoiler

2. How stupid does Michael Shannon's character feel, spending all that effort on the shelter, only to be more then a 10 hour drive away from it when the "storm" comes?

I'm going to chime in and say it's a nearly-great film with a terrible ending.

Spoiler

The ending is the literal opposite of "It was all a dream." It's an ending of "It was all real."

The daughter's acknowledgment of the storm, as well as the POV shot for Chastain seals the deal. Further, if it was a dream, what makes this vision any different than the ones that happened in Act II? There would be no reason to end the film on yet another dream with the same content.

The film becomes retrospectively way less interesting viewing this as a character study of the messiah rather than an examination of degradation through schizophrenia. The fact that Shannon has dreams about his dog, co-worker, and wife, and begins getting rid of those elements in that order leads to some truly dreadful suspense about the fate of the wife and that adorable kid. Nichols has such command over the tone of this film that he seems to throw it away going for a twist ending (based on a shot by the Coen brothers).

At least in these days of 2012'ers, Rapture-thumpers, and those wishing for the Middle East to descend into Armageddon, we now have a film that says, "Stay loyal to your apocalyptic delusions. They just might be true."

Well, I don't see where the film provides any evidence for that latter interpretation. At least, not in any form that doesn't serve much more naturally as evidence for Grand Illusion's more straightforward interpretation. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

I agree, Grand Illusion, entirely. Well put.

Spoiler

If what we've been watching all along has not been a pretty riveting character study of a man not only losing his mind but his family, which matters even more, perhaps, but Armageddon in drag--then who cares? The world ending after all is not just a cheap surprise at the end of what had been a compelling film, but not nearly as interesting as the story of madness tearing a life apart. If the world is indeed ending, who cares if you're crazy or not? Same lack or response to other ideas posited--if it's all a dream, or if his madness has grown to include his family, the focus shifts--again--entirely away from the films most affecting element. This--a family being torn to pieces is what made Shotgun Stories biblically gripping and so much more successful.

zedz wrote:Well, I don't see where the film provides any evidence for that latter interpretation.

Yeah, I think the language of the film is established pretty early on. To say that the Take Shelter suddenly changes how it's telling this story is to project something onto the film that it isn't doing.

Apologies if this is bumping a dead thread back from the grave, but I just saw the film today and had to join the forum after I enjoyed reading the discussion here.

Spoiler

I took the ending literally at first and hated it for ruining the movie, but the more I've thought about it, I think it's a mistake to take it too literally. I don't think it's giving Nichols enough credit to conclude that he's seriously going to end this movie with the real world being hit by simultaneous tornados, a tsunami, and yellow rain that turns people into killer zombies. That would be kind of silly, given the type of film it was up until that point.

Instead of worrying about whether the end is real or a dream I think it's more important to focus on what the storms represented throughout the movie. I think there are a lot of interesting possibilities, but personally I read them as representing his impending schizophrenia itself. His dreams reflect his fears, and his greatest fear is that he's going to succumb to schizophrenia like his mother and end up having his family and friends essentially taken away from him. And that's what happens in his nightmares, the storms cause his daughter to be taken away from him and his wife, best friend and neighbors to turn on him. It's alienating him from everyone as his illness is starting to do in the real world, and his wife and best friend start showing up in the dreams as they start to question his behavior in the real world.

The meeting with the psychiatrist at the end is his worst fear come true, being told that he'll likely lose his family and have to go into treatment. I think the final scene on the beach is a symbolic representation of this, the three of them are now all aware of the reality of his schizophrenia and what it will mean for their lives, and the thing that he had feared all along is now real for all of them.

My two cents anyway, thanks to everyone else for sharing their ideas on the film and giving me some great food for thought.

i expected more of your arguments concerning the ending of this movie, as this is the criterion forum with all its splendid movie releases.

Spoiler

the only one, though i agree fully with this reply, is the last post concerning the ending scenes. it is left open in the sense of what the eyes might give and see, and this is simply because the film centers around his schizophrenia, but very clear in its metaphorical sense. he has a different reaction towards the storm after facing his mental illness(which the scene at the psychiatrist will have to symbolise, if to only choose one scene and cut the build up), and they as a family are now facing it together. the storm will follow them indifferently. it is not complicated at all.[/
though, nichols really does not know how to end a movie this time.

Spoiler

i like the metaphors concerning the storm in the end, but it is not pulled off very well as it gets a bit bleak and dull in comparison to the earlier acts in the movie. it should've ended earlier, in my opinion.l[/
great acting.

Many thanks to Jazzsoda for making sense of an ending that had me confused and bummed last night when I went to bed after watching the movie. There's just no way Nichols would have cheapened perfect filmmaking with a tack-on ending inconsisent with the rest of the film.

Spoiler

To understand the end, you have to recall the beginning. The first scene of Take Shelter is a dream, in which Curtis stands alone wondering what the oily rain is. It makes sense the last scene of the film would also be a dream, bookending the story. The oily rain reappears, as do tornadoes and dark clouds, etc., as we've scene in other dreams in the movie. Only this time he is with his wife and child, who also recognize the "reality" of the storm. That's because in the scene that precedes it, the psychiatrist tells them all, together, that the mental illness is real. Next Curtis has a dream that is populated with his wife and daughter who are aware of what's going on with Curtis. I am not able to believe Nichols would pull a fast one and decide to tack on a thriller ending (at the beach, no less!) to a movie that really isn't a thriller at all. There is not one sign or signal in the film that suggests anything is going on other than Curtis' mental unraveling. If the movie were a thriller building up to a twist ending, there would be signs and signals in the film that suggested it (like in The Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects, which are rife with signs and signals throughout.

Don't bother renting the disc for the commentary to get any answers.

Jeff Nichols and Michael Shannon wrote:People would probably want us to talk about this ending but I don't think we should say anything.

Only nugget he would give (and really isn't a spoiler but)

Spoiler

Jeff Nichols wrote:I'll say this...the most important thing about the end of this film...is that look between the two of you...that to me is the true resolution in the film. What happens after that, beyond that, I leave open to interpretation.

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...