A character, late into the game of Martin Scorsese’s wonderful Shutter Island, comments on insanity, “It was like an insect in my brain, pulling my strings” And there, ladies in gentlemen is how a well seasoned and versatile master-filmmaker can take a simple genre movie and elevate it to one of the premiere film events of 2010. The trailer suggests all kinds of horror (and mental asylum) cliches and pretty much gives away the twist ending right there. But no matter, the pleasure here is in the journey, not the destination, and the director (and his long-time collaborating editor) have no problem stepping off the path of the main story to give loads of detail on the denizens, workings and locations of the titular island-asylum-prison. Those who complain that 138 minutes is way too long for such a basic plot have completely missed the point (and the myriad pleasures) that Shutter Island has on offer.
The story is set in the 1950s and follows the investigation of a baffling disappearance by an insane murderous woman from an island-prison off the coast of Boston by a pair of G-Men (Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo). Trapped on the jagged rock by a storm, trying to assemble the strange stories from the patients, and getting precious little help from the warden and doctors, the federal officers fly headlong into conspiracy, paranoia and hallucinatory states of mind somewhere in between M. Night Shyamalan and The Shining. The film spends a significant portion of time discovering the nooks and crannies of the island, with its 19th century fort converted to a dangerous offenders mental ward, complete with well groomed gardens, weeping brick basements, aristocratic doctors quarters, an isolated lighthouse, ragged stony cliffs and leafy forests; the island is a world unto itself. And then there is the head-space of Leonardo DiCaprio’s Teddy Daniels whose opening line is “Pull yourself together, Teddy” and seems on the verge of cracking at just about every moment of the investigation.
So, patients and patience are the focus and core of Shutter Island. The former represent a wonderful collection of great character actors doing their thing. Ben Kingsley plays the head doctor (and head-doctor) who advocates time and care first, drugs and frontal lobotomy a far and distant second. This is Scorsese as a surrogate saying (to me at least) you can go for Avatar (drugs) or Transformers (lobotomy) or you can watch a film interested in building characters and story and theme. Max Von Sydow has a couple wonderful scenes as the more aggressive doctor and Ted Levine (probably best known as Buffalo Bill in another another horror/prodcedural hybrid – Silence of the Lambs) has a show stopper with DiCaprio which takes a big bite at the animal vs. dignity angle woven throughout the film. Shutter Island has been compared by many critics to the seminal films of Val Lewton, it is indeed a throwback film in quieter pacing and emphasis in glue character and plot together. There is certainly plenty of elements of 70s era movie making (of which Scorsese was obvious one of the golden lights) including nods towards Brian DePalma, Roman Polanski and Milos Forman. Yet some spiffy modern effects, in service of mode and tone, and Robert Richardson’s aggressive cinematography make it very much a piece of big budget modern entertainment.
This one should handily reward subsequent viewings, and even those who have elucidated the ‘secret’ from either the marketing materials or the hundreds of hints (indeed Scorsese and screenwriter Laeta Kalogridis have a ball offering sly visual and dialogue tidbits at the drop of a hat) in no way hampers relishing in the voluminous detail or the marvel of having the tricks and traps end up in a message of compassion and human dignity. That, and the thrum-n-drang of well made cinema.
I’ve seen every one of Scorsese’s films and this is one of his very best. Great review.
Also, I too felt the first trailer gave away too much until I saw the movie. It goes much deeper than what it leads you to believe.
I have the distinct feeling this will become one of the underrated films of this year. Its a nicely twisted plot works well to bring together the apparently problematic threads in the first two acts. Enjoyed it far more than I expected to.
I loved the score and the setting for this film. Leo gives a great performance of a man on the brink of sanity. Scorsese does a great job of juggling 50 balls in the air and not dropping any. This film could have gone off the rails in the hands of a lesser director. I want to see it again. The only weak spot for me was Mark Ruffalo. The little nervous ticks that he bring to any role are really getting old for me. The rest of the cast is very solid. Jackie Earle Haley has another great performance. He can do no wrong in my opinion.
I really, really dug how character actors kept popping out of the woodwork for a single scene and then the story moves on. Gives a bredth of how many patients/inmates, etc.
reminded me a bit of the ‘interviews’ portions of Spike Lee’s THE INSIDE MAN (which handily broke up the ‘excessive plotting’ to get a bit more character stuff in there.)
Patricia Clarkson is awesome.
Michelle Williams is awesome (although not as strong as some of her recent films.)
Emily Mortimer is awesome.
Max Von Sydow’s “WOUND IN GERMAN” speech is wowsers!
John Carol Lynch (either the hubby from Fargo or the suspected Zodiac Killer) and his surrender your fire arms scene is really, really good.
Elias Koteas (pictured above) in the Taxi Driver jacket and playing like a Zombie Travis Bickle is magnificent.
Jackie Earle Haley waltzes away with his scene.
The crazy racist inmate (Christopher Denham?) is a nice aside moment.
The interviewed lady who writes “RUN” (Robin Bartlett) is spectacular.
But, the capper is Mr. Ted Levine – who I like in just about anything – bloody well stops the show with his words of philosophy in his jeep.
for the most part i was in love love love with Shutter Island, the tone which put me in a Synecdoche-ish haze even as it also reminded of Lynch Lost and the Shining amongst other things. by the end it had dropped a couple points for me with another ending that like Gone Baby Gone revels a little too much in its unfolding. 4/5
Same editor as Gangs of New York and The Departed. The laziness is REALLY distracting.
Other than that, a great film. I don’t think the trailer gives away too much. In fact, I think it gives away enough to keep you on your toes. I was filled with doubt all the way up until the very very end. Yeah you get the 67th patient bit, but after that, it could be anyone’s game.
and… the fucking score. the fucking score.
4/5 movie for me. Rewatches will either deliver genius or uncover plot holes. We shall see.
Scorsese has used the same editor, Thema Schoonmaker since RAGING BULL. She is one of the best in the biz, and Shutter Island is edited beautifully. I fail to see where you are coming from on this one ‘Drew.
I think I know where you’re coming from on Schoonmaker Andrew, she’s brilliant at the overall essence of the craft – pacing etc. but I noticed loads of horrible cuts in The Departed too. My opinion or at least my hope is that she sometimes sacrifices minor continuity errors for the greater good. Generally it takes someone with a great eye for detail (or an editor themselves) to spot the mistakes so she thinks it’ll be for the best in the end.
All of Scorsese’s movies have little continuity errors and such, there is a fair bit of writing done on this subject. having the angle of the actors tie or the length of cigarette ash is simply not important to that particular filmmaker.
Thelma Shoonmaker, “Matching Shots is for Pussies!” – http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2010/02/lick-the-bloomin-boots-of-im-thats-got-it.html
this movie reminded me how underused Elias Koteas is, he’s so damn good.
A-fucking-Men, Goon. I 100% agree. But Koteas does get a lot of work (and yes, he is always good).
I mentioned it specifically in my Gangs review and my Departed review. I forgot all about it until I saw it time and time again (probably worse in this movie) in Shutter. Even worse than the back and forth cut scenes of a discussion in which Leo is looking left one minute and then looking right the other then left again, is the rear shots of actors (especially Kingsley since he has no hair) in which their mouths simply aren’t matching up with what they’re saying.
So whether intentional or not, for me it’s distracting. I don’t know how a person can’t notice it. And you can call it unimportant if you want, I call it laziness.
Ugh! I think about it and it actually pisses me off a little bit that an editor (or director or whatever) presumes that since I don’t have a film school background, I’m not going to notice that one moment there is a needle in Sydow’s neck, then we cut to a different angle and it’s at DiCaprio’s side and then we cut back and it’s up against his throat again. That’s just annoying.
It’s not unimportant, it is definitely a style that Scorcese is consistent in across his entire filmography.
(Similar to Bava’s harsh red lights which make no sense from a ‘where is that source in the scene’ – does this bother you? Nope, me neither).
I admit that some continuity issues can be distracting, sure, but for one reason or another this has not bothered my in Scorsese pictures. And shutter Island even has a sensical reason for why they are there (ha!)
I never noticed any of the editing glitches that you mentioned. I love the look of the feel and sense of creepiness that is created. Total agreement from me on Koteas. We need more Casey Jones!
It’s only in The Departed that errors have really stood out for me, but that’s the only Scorsese film I’ve seen on the big screen and I haven’t seen Gangs for years. I didn’t realise it was such a common thing with Schoonmaker until this post.
I wasn’t saying that only professionals are going to notice these mistakes, I’m just saying not everyone will (see some of the comments above), it depends on the way you watch the film.
Errors like that annoy the hell out of me too (especially in The Departed), but what I meant is that I can see why things like that can happen – sometimes the strength of a performance in a take outweighs the importance of the length of their cigarette.
I’ve not seen Shutter Island though and those continuity errors sound pretty brutal so I shouldn’t take Shoonmaker’s side too vehemently.
Again I point up to the SomeCameRunning link above, where these types of criticisms are tackled. When do these types of things become a problem, vs. when are they not a problem.
Glenn Kenny mentions that you go to far down the rabbit hole looking for these types of mistakes, and you miss the forest for the trees, or as he puts it, you become no different than an unpaid Script-Girl. (Note Reed Farrington does this at Film Junk in some of his reviews)
In some films it may matter (I remember someone taking to task THE PROPOSAL because the lighting was so shoddy that reflections and shadows didn’t match what was green-screened Alaska backgrounds or somesuch), in some films (And I’d argue in Scorsese films, because there is so much more going on in the film/character/theme/etc. that these minor technical gaffes don’t matter.
Did people stop watching THE MATRIX because you can see the Wires pulling Keanu Reeves out of the subway? Nope.
Andrew, I think you should take a second look at Shutter Island before totally ragging on the continuity errors. I suggest you pay close attention to the scene in which DiCaprio is interviewing the woman who writes ‘RUN’ in his notepad. When she requests a glass of water, pay close attention to the shot to shot continuity; she clearly picks up the glass of water and in the next shot, she takes a sip from her empty hand, pantomiming the action. No glass. She then puts the glass down on the table — close up insert shot — revealing it to be empty. In the next wide shot, the glass is full again.
Hardly a lazy continuity error considering the subject matter of the film and possibly a reason to re-evaluate some of your previous complaints. (Not all of them. Hearing people talk over backs of heads that clearly aren’t talking happens in MANNNYYY films)
Believe me, I noticed the glass Jay. The fact that I noticed it and I don’t think it’s part of the surreal world he’s created or any sort of plot development, it’s simply a distraction. Granted a minor one, but when the first thing I do is come home and check the IMDb to see if it’s the same editor that I’ve complained about before, I think that says something important.
And yes, I notice them in other films too, but they seem so much more prevalent in Scorsese films. Considering how revered he is and how meticulous his stories flesh out and how well crafted everything else is, it’s perhaps why these errors are so glaringly obvious. They just stick out like a sore thumb to everything else in the production.
If it doesn’t matter to you, then awesome. If you think it’s actually deliberate, then fine. But I think if it’s deliberate I should feel that it is – since I don’t, it’s just annoying.
And I honestly didn’t go in looking for these errors. I actually forgot about my beef with The Departed on this matter until they started popping up here. Even after one or two I still wasn’t deliberately looking for them. They are just so glaringly obvious that how can you not notice them – and there are so many of them to boot. If it was just once or twice then fine. But when there’re about 30 of them in a 2 hour movie, it’s hard not to get distracted.
Damn, I’ve just realised this debate means I’m going to be actively looking out for these mistakes when I watch it next week. Film ruined.
So I started thinking about why we’ve never discussed this before with any other movie – since it’s being mentioned here that this is actually very common. I looked up this editor on the IMDb and other than some music videos, she has not done any movies for anyone other than Scorsese for 30 years (except maybe one title I think I found that I’d never heard of).
That’s an interesting point I think. So is she really “the best in the biz”? Because no one else seems to want to use her.
But Andrew, she has 3 oscars, so obviously she is one of the best editors who ever lived.
So Andrew…you think it was a continuity error when the woman drinks from the glass that isn’t in her hand? Like everyone on set forgot to put the glass in her hand? Or she didn’t realize? I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying.
**POSSIBLE SPOILER**
**POSSIBLE SPOILER**
As I was thinking about it, the glass bit is maybe the character not drinking the water because she believes it to be contaminated with psychotropics. I remember noticing it at the time and thinking, “huh, that was weird. I wonder why she did that – or was it a weird editing glitch?” Then I didn’t think about it again.
If that is the case that it was there for a story driven reason, it doesn’t really make much sense. But considering all of the other glitches in the story, I think that maybe yeah – it was a take they did without an actual glass of water and because something else within the shot was more important (as David pointed out), that maybe she went ahead and used that clip; hoping we wouldn’t notice. Yes, it is possible.
I’d actually have to see it again to analyze. I thought my eyes were actually just playing tricks on me at the time. I just remember something being weird with that shot.
And the very fact that we’re discussing it is fishy to me.
Scorsese’s films are generally tightly and stylishly cut, especially when music is involved, so I see where the acclaim comes from – I was blown away by the editing the last time I saw Goodfellas, but it makes you think that maybe a lot of that is largely down to Scorsese’s input rather than Schoonmaker’s.
**POSSIBLE SPOILER**
**POSSIBLE SPOILER**
“But considering all of the other glitches in the story, I think that maybe yeah – it was a take they did without an actual glass of water and because something else within the shot was more important (as David pointed out), that maybe she went ahead and used that clip; hoping we wouldn’t notice. Yes, it is possible.”
This would never happen without reason. Plain and simple. Evidence of this would be the insert shot of the empty glass, which would serve no reason other than to clue the audience in to something being awry. Here’s what we know: 1. Food, cigarettes and possibly water are supposedly being tainted, 2. It’s an insane asylum with delusional patients, 3. DiCaprio is experiencing his own issues.
Considering the final shot of the film, I think anything’s possible.
**POSSIBLE SPOILER**
**POSSIBLE SPOILER**
Not saying you’re wrong or right – I’m just saying it’s weird.
But just to clarify, you think she pretended to drink the water, but the glass halucinatorily (my word) or magically appears in her hand and the water is gone in the subsequent shot; and that was totally deliberate as a plot device/detail. Is that what you’re saying?
Either way, it was confusing, weird and ultimately distracting since I still don’t what the scene was trying to accomplish. At the very least it was simply too ambiguous.
Also, to place all of the blame for continuity errors onto the editor is pretty unfair. It’s the responsibility of the script supervisor to maintain consistency on set and it’s the responsibility of the director to be sure to get enough coverage to cut away in the case of mismatched actions/props. Hell, you could even take it right down to the actors and their ability to remain consistent in their performances.
Continuity is a bitch!
That’s a totally valid point. I don’t know enough about film making for it to be fair to direct my complaints right at the editor. It just seems to me like that’s where most of the blame would lie.
Also, just to be clear, I really liked this movie a lot. This is just an interesting criticism to me – one that I think too many people (as suggested in Kurt’s link) apologize for, simply because it’s Scorsese.
Very true.
Has Scorcese been using the same script supervisor for 30 years?
I guess you’d have to see all of the rushes to see who’s really to blame.
The first thing my friend said when Shutter ended was, what was with all those continuity errors. I saw a lot of jump cuts, particularly with Michelle Williams, holding a drink, than not holding, etc… and to me I think it was entirely intentional, considering the context. It reminds me of what Oliver Stone does in Natural Born Killers, its applying a bit of psychological distress by drawing attention to the false appearance of reality.
I loved the film, and yes Kurt, that Jeep scene is the absolute best moment. It does goes on a bit long after the reveal, but fuck it, I loved every moment, so many corners to get lost in.
If they can nominate The Departed and Silence of the Lambs, than they can damn well nominate this.
If it’s intentional because of conext, why does it happen all over the place in The Departed. Emma and I are popping in Gangs/NY right now. We shall see.
Gangs is a Mess as much due to Miramax interference as anything else.
There are no obvious continuity Errors in After Hours, I didn’t see anything crazy in Bringing out the Dead.
I think you are seriously overboard on these continuity details. It’s getting wacky.
Halfway through Gangs. A mess? Actually I’m enjoying the hell out of it. The plot couldn’t be simpler. It’s the set design and costume and make-up that is beyond spectacular. The epic cast (DD-L, John C. Reilly, DiCaprio, Brendan Gleeson, Diaz (ugh), Liam Neeson) and acting is great too. Actually, not sure what’s not to like. I can see someone (especially Kurt) being bugged by the U2 score.
“I think you are seriously overboard on these continuity details. It’s getting wacky.”
How am I overboard? Everyone else seems to have noticed them except you. I think it’s an interesting detail in his last three films (yes, I noticed three in the first half of Gangs last night; including one pretty BIG one).
Call it intentional, that fine. If that’s the case, I think it’s stupid to purposely make your films look like they have major technical mistakes in them.
“There are no obvious continuity Errors in After Hours…”
I suggest you look again. I just chalked it up to early career, smaller burdget during the movie club. Haven’t seen Bringing out the Dead since the theater. Don’t remember it at all. That movie was very “Oliver Stoney” wasn’t it? I’m sure the craziness in that movie is intentional.
Were there continuity errors in The Departed?
I think in Hollywood, it’s ridiculous to speculate that anything technical happens by accident.
I’m sure there are continuity errors in Shutter Island, like you said where a person’s mouth isn’t moving when the head is turned away from us, sort of thing, but the things I caught I believe were absolutely intentional, in particular the many jump cuts of Michelle Williams. Its actually a pretty common technique with someone who is drugged or crazy to have their perspective jumping around a bit, things not quite cleanly depicted. The example Jay gives is clearly intentional too, so at least you have to admit they are playing with this technique in the film… whether every flub is intentional, probably not, but the big ones are I think.
also I remember moments where sound was out of sync too, quick shot of Michelle Williams not talking while her voice carries over from the last shot. Its not something you do by mistake.
heh rot, I never noticed anything weird during the Michelle Williams bits at the end.
Sorry guys, these little things are so clearly not style or purposeful technique. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills myself. If this were Michael Bay or even someone like PT Anderson, you’d be jumping all over him.
Let’s just say for a second that you’re right. All of the little visual continuity errors and misdirects and audio syncs are completely intentional for Shutter Island‘s tone. In that case,
A) why would it be in all of his movies?
B) why is it trying so hard to stay hidden?
C) why is it so ambiguous?
D) you can straight up tell when something is supposed to be seen and understood as a hallucination in ANY other movie.
E) why have we never discussed this with ANY other movie or film maker before?
How is it an awesome “technique” that Jim Broadbent looks like he’s lip syncing to a completely different audio track for no reason? Sorry. It’s just stupid and annoying and insulting considering far lesser films don’t seem to have this problem.
There are more dangling plot threads and characters that go nowhere in Gangs of New York than any of Scorseses films. There was some MONDO interference from Harvey Weinstein at Miramax, and I’ve heard that Scorsese’s original cut (40 minutes longer if I recall) goes a way towards making Gangs a coherent drama. I’m hoping that happens one day, but with Miramax going belly up, I’m doubting it will be any time soon.
Plus Cameron Diaz almost single-handedly brings that film to its knees. She is terrible.
Yet, I don’t completely disagree with you Andrew, there is a lot to love in Gangs of NY, high production values, a crazy DDL performance and lots of big set pieces.
Totally. Diaz is horrible. But anytime DDL is on screen (even when he’s not speaking) is awesome. That hair department art alone is worth watching.
@Andrew, “Sorry guys, these little things are so clearly not style or purposeful technique. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills myself. If this were Michael Bay or even someone like PT Anderson, you’d be jumping all over him.”
No, not really. These sort of things only really bother me if it is in a bad movie. SO yea, it would bother me in a Bay flick, and no it would not probably bug me in a P.T. Anderson film. Double Standard? Maybe. But really, I only nitpick a film when I’m not involved in it. Shutter Island involved me from start to finish.
Points C and D are patently ridiculous. I don’t want a filmmaker to only be able to do it the way it has been done before. Slap yourself Andrew. Good filmmakers can re-invent film grammar, that is what they do (From D.W. Griffith to J.L. Goddard to Nicholas Roeg to Steven Soderbergh).
Point E – Fight Club.
And not-perfect ADR dialogue looping happens all the time, I notice it in tonnes of films from Sam Raimi (Evil Dead II) to Kevin Smith (Mall Rats), etc. etc. It is the equivalent of seeing actors slightly breathing when their characters happen to be dead. THis is very, very, very common in movies.
(I’m thinking it is too bad we couldn’t be recording this on the Cinecast this week, hopefully we’ll still have some stuff in the tank for Wednesday night!)
@Andrew, “That hair department art alone is worth watching.”
I was thinking more the stove-pipe hat department. Man that movie takes the cake for hats. It pushes into parody at points.
Oh it’s ridiculous (in a totally good way). It’s like watching an over-acting, on-stage production ensemble with the biggest budget of all time. Then I was looking at some of the extra features on the DVD last night. They have a little featurette on life of that time and the film is a pretty accurate representation based off of the drawings and political cartoons of the time. It’s awesome.
“no it would not probably bug me in a P.T. Anderson film.”
Me either. Because they are so minor and hard to spot. And yeah, I notice the occasional audio sync problems in tonnes of other movies too. But they are nowhere near at the shit level that I saw last night in Gangs. I mean it was ridiculous. And you’re going to spot those things more prevalent in a Sam Raimi or Kevin Smith film that probably cost about ten bucks to make.
The key here is not that there are continuity errors. Yes, they are in almost every film. The problem is how glaring they are in these three specific movies who all happen to be done by the same director and editor and have (I imagine) a pretty gigantic budget – probably damn near carte blanche. I don’t pick out continuity errors in Transformers or Valentine’s Day. Why are they so huge in these other movies? Only two possible reasons:
1) the tech is shitty and lazy.
2) it was intentional.
If it’s the latter (which we may never know), at least I can accept that he’s trying something new and experimental. The problem is it doesn’t come off that way and it just leaves the viewer bewildered. If Soderbergh did it, we would say, “wow, did you see what he did there? That was great technique”. With these Scorsese films, it sounds like everyone is saying, “what the fuck was that? That looked like shit!”
It was more during the early Michelle Williams bits, and then there is the scene Jay was talking about, at the very least there are some intentional stuff in Shutter Island (who knows maybe he was reacting to the continuity error complaints of The Departed, but these scenes were absolutely intentional)
Holy shit, The jeep guy is Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs.
The “jeep guy” is in tons of stuff. And he’s awesome – and pretty funny too!
Hopefully you were reading my review when you came to that conclusion! I’m sure the iconic character actor, Ted Levine will love his new moniker, “Jeep Guy”
/kidding
the lack of a star rating discourages me from reading your review.
The more I think about this film the more I love it. Someone told me most of the Canadian press are bashing it, and I get the feeling Shutter Island may go the way of Zodiac as a kind of unsung masterpiece, praised by the lowly bloggers. Both are indulgently long and meandering. Both have Ruffalo.
again, about continuity in Shutter Island, anything that can be construed within the story to be affected by mental disturbance or hallucinogenics need not conform to rigid continuity rules. It shouldn’t in the least bother someone that a glass is empty when it should be full, or a character is holding a glass and then its gone, or a voice is talking and no mouth is moving if it is occurring within a distorted perception of reality. All bets are off.
@ANdrew, “The problem is how glaring they are in these three specific movies who all happen to be done by the same director and editor and have (I imagine) a pretty gigantic budget – probably damn near carte blanche”
Again, Andrew, this sort of technical bullshit only really bothers me if the film sucks.
Don’t you hate Star Wars where the stormtrooper bumps his head, or the visible glass in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the visible wires in The Matrix, etc. Irrelevant little gaffes.
I do understand what you are saying about the NUMBER of them, but unless there are crew-members walking around in the background of the shot (and this does actually happen in one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies), little non-continuites (even a lot of them) DO NOT BOTHER ME.
Admittedly I have my own pet peeves (Kung Fu Fighting Song, Excessive Brand placement, Anthony Hopkins that almost always hurt good movies.)
Well, for the record again, I’m not sure I’m saying these things “hurt” the movie. I suppose they do for me on some level; it’s more just something I notice and is worthy of a mention.
The major continuity problem I notice in Star Wars is in the conference room when Vader is talking to Tarkin and he says, “I told you she would never consciously betray the rebellion.” After he says that he starts making all of these hand gestures as Tarkin just watches him do it. It’s pretty off-kilter and clearly a flub. But it’s comical in a movie like that (same as the Stormtrooper hitting his head – funny stuff) – plus it’s George Lucas on a pretty ambitious film early in his career. With Scorsese 30 years in making film, I expect more. Done for now on this, we can tackle it in the Cinecast.
There is some good speculation in this thread about the twist of Shutter Island:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100220095521AAejbNR
Anybody read the book? The same author of Gone Baby Gone, I get the feeling I would like his stuff.
Last word on this until the cinecast Tomorrow. And the words are not mine, but stolen from the comments section over at Glenn Kenny’s wonderful blog.
“…it seems that Scorsese and Schoonmaker may just care less about something like the position of a dessert on a table in THE DEPARTED than in cutting the scene for rhythm and performance.”
This is the point (elegantly stated) that I’ve been trying to make for this entire thread.
In other words, laziness.
A friend of mine once commented that the single worst thing they ever did for their enjoyment of film was to take a course on film editing. From that point on, they found themselves dragged kicking and screaming out of the moment because an editing flaw would grab their attention more than the movie.
I sympathize with Scorsese’s approach. If you have a great take that doesn’t work out perfectly for the anticipated edit and a good take that does do you use the great take, the good take, or do you grind away at it hoping for a great take that you can edit properly? The details of his films are lavish enough that I don’t need 360 degrees of perfection to enjoy them, and I respect the approach he takes.
I bet Andrew throws hissies over poor grammar too.
Matt – great point. I totally forgot that DiCaprio kept saying “excape” rather than “escape.” I thought it was awesome and realistic as hell. Campea used to do this all the time and it drove me bonkers.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the meaning or purpose of the Jeep scene.
*SPOILERS*
I’d have to re-watch the scene again, but really, it goes back to the ugliness of the human condition, and that once the veneer is torn away, it cannot be put back. There is no fixing things, which foreshadows the real ending when DiCaprio (voluntarily?) goes to the lighthouse
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
The one thing I didn’t get is if Teddy is really a patient and this is all to help him recover why does Ruffalo’s character emphatically stress that if it was him he would kill Laeddis twice, coaxing him to be violent, and then this is also echoed in the Jeep scene, there is this coaxing of Teddy to be violent.. it makes me think he really is some kind of military assassin they are trying to create, and all of this is part of the process of breaking down the humanity in him.
Just listened to the FilmJunk podcast on this and Jay compared this to LOST a couple of times. I can’t totally disagree with the various open interpretations of things and what not. Plus they’re on an island I guess.
Jacob’s Ladder!
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
I’m still on board with the idea that DiCaprio was never insane and it was all a part of the plan. I would have to watch it again but the last shot (light house) and the opening scene (DiCaprio mentioning his cigarettes being missing followed by Ruffalo, a stranger, offering him his) seems to at least point to the idea that it’s as much of a possibility as the assumed ending.
The whole time they started revealing the ‘secret’, I’m sitting there thinking ‘don’t listen to them. don’t buy it’. This is what made the ending awesome for me where others seemed to think it was a bit of a cliched ‘it was all a dream’ easy way out.
Still, as I said, with only one viewing, it seems it could go either way. I Just find the ‘sane’ option more interesting/exciting.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
I also wonder how much really the concentration camp stuff was a red herring. I kind of believe the Patricia Clarkson stuff as actually true, and that for whatever reason Teddy was recruited to the island (and yes that sounds a lot like Lost).
Hey Rot, we briefly got into the Clarkson bit in the Cinecast and then we lost track and I forgot to come back to it. I kind of get the feeling the Patricia Clarkson stuff in the cave was real too. That’s why the doctor’s used nurse Mortimer as a stand-in; because they couldn’t find the real Clarkson (i.e. Rachel).
You guys are seriously over thinking this.
Sometimes a cat is just a cat.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
1. why is the military involved on the island?
2. why does Ruffalo egg on Teddy to be violent when he talks about arsonist Laeddis?
3. Why does Kingsley pretend at one point that Ruffalo never existed, only to later acknowledge he did? How does that encourage Teddy to recover?
4. What is the jeep scene all about?
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
also, what was with what Kingsley said when Teddy barged into the Lighthouse, something like “you’re all wet baby”? I know Teddy says that in his hallucination to his wife, it seems odd though, like a trigger phrase you would say.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
The military isn’t involved on the island. The warden simply had previously served. All of the OSS and CIA nonsense is part of Teddy’s delusion.
They continually try to egg Teddy on throughout the film. The patient who supposedly escaped drowned her three children. That’s just as much a needle at Teddy to try and get him to recognize what is going on as any outburst from anyone else.
Kingsley even states the reasoning for confronting Teddy later on, that the Board was getting frustrated with the lack of progress and the amount of resources they were devoting to one patient. Kingsley was simply trying to push Teddy rather then letting the scenario continue to spin its wheels, as Ruffalo did earlier.
Its one monster talking to another. Plus I took it that the warden was speaking on his own at that point, as he had similar feelings about the criminally insane as Teddy professed to have at the start of the film. Damn their comfort, and damn them.
That’s a huge leap in logic. Its far more reasonable to conclude that the phrase is something Teddy reacts to because he said it to his wife the day she murdered their kids, and Kingsley knows it due to reading his file from therapy. At that point Kingsley is clearly getting desperate as he knows if Teddy doesn’t show a breakthrough then and there that he will have to be lobotomized, which is something Kingsley clearly dislikes.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
I’m thinking matt is right on this one. Much of the speeches and whatnot contribute to the theme, rather than a labyrinthine plot. One thing that Matt missed is that Kingley, Ruffalo an others have been through this several times because they’d sort of get thru to Teddy then he would relapse.
And that leads to the final scene. Is teddy acknowledging on some level his constant relapses and whirlybird trips though his own denial to know he can never be cured, thus a reasonably lucid suicide is his final option.
The plot, I think, is quite simple, all the garnish is not as simple.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
I remain unconvinced that Patricia Clarkson character was any more real than Elias Koteas’ in terms of actually existing on the island..
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
I think if you go back and look at the movie it is very clear cut (at least to me, and again I need a rewatch) when Teddy is hallucinating and when he is not. When he’s hallucinating it’s almost Lynchian or Oliver Stone-ish and strange; it’s just obvious when he’s talking to someone who isn’t there (the smoke going backwards into his cigarette, speed ramping, odd lighting, etc.). With everyone else the tone is very balanced and straight forward.
I’m not convinced either way about Clarkson either. But I do question it. Will see this again over the weekend to evaluate.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
I am not entirely convinced either way, and perhaps it was the point of the screenwriter to make things very ambiguous, but Matt, your emphasis on them egging Teddy on toward a psychological breakthrough explains some, but not all of the behavior you see in the film.
Assuming Ruffalo is a psychiatrist, and Teddy says he doesn’t want to kill Laeddis, why does he goad him on about how good revenge is, he says if it was him he would kill him twice, and he lingers on this point. If he really is a disturbed violent offender, that seems like a really strange strategy to healing. The warden, whether working on his own, or in cahoots with the doctor, also emphatically makes this point about being violent as natural.
As a therapy session it seems incredibly dangerous, all to the purpose of healing someone, whereas the flipside, I can see allowing this to happen in order to break down his mind to weaponize him, in which case the concentration camp stuff is not a red herring, but actually part of the reason he is there (the military sees something to exploit).
The glass of water issue is not an error in continuity, it is a part of the plot. An important one at that.
ok Richard, you got to explain.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
Rot-After his wife killed his children and he killed her, he went insane and left that life behind, creating the Teddy persona. He supressed all thoughts about water (because of the lake where the kids were drowned). Hence why he is sea sick on the boat at the start, why he won’t go to the lighthouse because the tide is too high, and why the glass of water dissapears.
Also, I think that the idea behind everything being out of sync or seemingly an editing error is supposed to be a subtle indication that he is hallucinating during those parts of the movie.
OK ok ok.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
After second viewing, this movie is SO much clearer. The Patricia Clarkson bit is not real at all. The glass is clearly intentional. There’s another bit in which Michelle Williams is holding a bottle of booze and in the next scene it disappears. The flask in Laeddus’ coat disappears and suddenly appears in Ruffalo’s hand. All that stuff is dreamlike and intentional (Christ, there were black roses falling from the ceiling, “Tears of the Black Tiger” color scheme and cmoke going backwards). This stuff is all obvious.
Matt’s comment before about a cat being just a cat is right on. This movie is as straight forward as it gets. There is no storm, there is no Rachel Salondo and the hints that Ruffalo is not a cop are all over this picture (the fact he can’t get his gun off his belt easily is the first big clue).
gotta eat now – be back later.
This was one of my favourite parts of SHUTTER ISLAND, how Scorsese absolutely delights in rubbing the viewer (as is apparently in Andrew’s second viewing) in just how obvious he and the screenwriter are making things.
(See also Marla’s character arc in Fight Club)
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
who was ever saying Ruffalo was a cop? the two versions of the truth I have been talking about is either Teddy has been a patient for two years on the island, or he is drugged and made to think he is crazy to serve a military secret-op (and because he was snooping). Both scenarios rely on deception involved on the part of the island crew, and neither requires there to be a real Rachel Solondo.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
Just saying that there is no frame-up. I suppose it is still open ended if you want to look at that way, but it’s pretty obvious, like Kurt said, that Scorsese is just messing with us and everything they tell Leo at the end is the truth. They are very sincere in wanting to help him and everything they explain seems to be the truth… at least to me.
The only hole I find is that none of the patients ever blow the lid off the whole charade. Surely they know he’s been a patient there for 2 years? Why wouldn’t they just straight up tell him what’s going on? A) probably because he wouldn’t believe them anyway and B) it’s arguable that they sort of DO try to tell him or warn him. Writing things and Earle Haley straight up calling him Laedis.
Whatever, as I watched things play out this second time I never really questioned anything and it all seemed so simple. Emma was the same way, she agrees that the story is pretty clear cut and dry; it’s just Scorsese fucking with us so much throughout the middle sections, that we begin to doubt everything – including ourselves.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
isn’t a lot of this stuff consistent with both readings?
Leo is clealy hallucinating through much of the film. Which is consistent with hm being crazy and also with them drugging him as he suspected.
Ruffalo is “in on it”, but is he in on Leo’s treatment or in on framing him?
Leo has some very detailed and vivid memory of being Andrew Laledus. But it’s no more detailed his “memories” of being Teddy Whatever.
What in the film is consistent with him being crazy and inconsistent with the nazi conspiracy theory?
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
it seems like your avoiding my point Andrew.
I’ve heard a few people say that Patrica Clarkson in the cave isn’t real. I’ve only seen the film once, what’s the tip off?
Here’s something: if I recall Ben Kingsly tells leo D. the lighthouse was abandoned. It didn’t look very abandoned. Ben Kingsly had an office there.
I think the beauty of the entire movie is you don’t know how to feel and you don’t know which to believe. You are very much in the mind of Leo’s character. Paranoid and stuck between two different things that both could very much be true. I called it very early on. The fact that it didn’t show him anywhere else but the Ferry and the Island. He has experienced Trauma. The Doctor said he does experimental procedures. Patients seemed coached. Just met his partner. And there wasn’t much to the movie unless he was crazy. Frankly, practically from the beginning I just felt that’s the only way it could have been.
Andrew, I’m confused how you ever though the glass of water wasn’t intentional. That was so obviously deliberate as I felt much of what you felt were continuity errors was. Seeing your second viewing reaction though REALLY excites me to see this again.
This is a really goddamn good movie.
As for continuity errors in general though, I notice them often, but in the case of most great films, it doesn’t distract me. Like said above, when there is effective character and plot development and engrossing performances, that is what excites and captivates me more than anything.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
I think that there is evidence to make an argument for either reality. Much of what we see could either be delusions or drug-induced hallucinations, but this is definitely a film that needs a second and third viewing to really pick apart.
One question that I want to echo though: if this was treatment, why did Dr. Cawley tell Teddy that he came to the island alone and deny the existence of his “partner.” Wouldn’t this be counterproductive if they were trying to help him recover, just furthering his confusion and madness? Right here, it seems as though there is trickery and purposeful confusion going on.
Or – and I’d have to watch it again to remember the exact exchange of dialogue – maybe Dr. Cawley’s intentions were to remind him that when he came to the island two years earlier, he did indeed come alone. I’m really not sure here.
After one viewing, I definitely lean towards the Teddy is Andrew reality, which, among much else, explains why the guards were so on edge at the beginning.
I posed that question too Jonathan, why pretend there was no partner, and like I said before, why does Ruffalo goad him to feel vengeful feelings towards Laeddis?
I looked at the Shutter Island graphic novel, and in particular at the end of it, and it is even more vague in how it ends the story, no talk about dying a hero or living a monster, I am interested to know how the book ends.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
In the book he is a patient and has a relapse. The final line was added for the movie.
After waiting a week to see this (not my fault, friend bailed but still wanted to see it later), I was gonna try to get comment #67. But I missed even that. Oh well.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
Pretty much 100% agree with Kurt’s review (both here and on the Cinecast). I generally have issues with thrillers that end up resolving things with “oh, he was schizophrenic the whole time” because I think it’s a cop-out way to end a story. BUT. This one did it perfectly. Because it’s never about the twist; there’s no surprise that Leo’s Patient 67 (though what that means is a bit up in the air), and in fact, I’d argue that for this film, it doesn’t even matter which way you read the ending. Because it’s the details that matter, and the way the story is built up.
Usually I get upset if I figure out a mystery/thriller ending early, because with most films I feel like I’m not supposed to, like the ending is supposed to be a surprise and the filmmakers weren’t smart enough to keep me guessing. This time, though, the joy was seeing all the parallel things and clues that Scorsese and Co. are dropping EVERYWHERE and yet still doubting the conclusion I already suspected. Things like “oh, this part where Rachel [Emily Mortimer] is talking with Teddy is shot and scripted a lot like the dream he had of his wife in the burning building” and “hmmm, why is Dolores all wet in this dream when she died in a fire” and “is Chuck really so new to being a cop that he can’t figure out how to take his gun off”. There were so many of those moments, and I know I’ll see more on rewatch, but they’re done with just the right balance of subtlety and obviousness, so I never felt that Scorsese was either hiding or drawing attention to those things. They were just there, available.
It was never “can you believe this crazy thing just happened”; it was “of course this happened, it was inevitable – didn’t you love the ride to get here?” And yes, I did.
I do wonder about rot and Jonathan’s point, though – why does Cawley say Leo’s partner didn’t exist? That doesn’t seem to make sense in any interpretation.
this is one of Scorsese’s best… why is this released in february?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
How did the doctors know that Teddy would restart (his mind) on the boat just in time to get back to the Island and fall into the setup that they planned for him? Also, if Teddy is so dangerous, why would they take him out on the boat where he could have possibly not restarted and ended up escaping?
good question, matt. i wondered that myself. where did his new “memory” start?
@Murph, “where did his new “memory” start?”
How far down the rabbit hole do you wish to go with that? There are part of Memento (as tightly as that is written) that collapse under that scrutiny (as in, how does Pearce remember that he has a condition if his condition was brought about by the head trauma)- I’ve never gotten a successful answer to that question. (But it in no way hurts my enjoyment of that stellar movie.)
maybe kurt… but couldn’t it also be used to strengthen the argument that leo dicaprio’s character WASN’T crazy?
thanks Murph….that is exactly what i was getting at.
There is no boat.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
What I wondered was why was Leo a patient on the Island to begin with? Why was he considered to be so dangerous when he killed his wife because she did that awful thing, which is something I suspect many people would do if faced with that situation. It’s never discussed how dangerous he is or why he’s there in the first place. His action didn’t seem that severe to me for him to be at a place like that.
Well, he does make several comments to Max Von Sydow’s doctor which underscores Teddy’s ‘scorch the earth’ policy towards his own crimes and fellow inmates. Perhaps his fantasies had a tendency to spiral towards violence, which makes Ben Kingsley’s strategy particularly risky and controversial, and why so many of the minor characters are a bit nervous or “off” around him. It makes me think how much more ‘Truman-Show-isms’ could have been worked in to the story before breaking it. How about a staff-member who really doesn’t want to play along to the point where they lay everything out, proof, etc. yet it still filters into Leo’s delusions. One could even make the argument (feebly) that this is in fact Patricia Clarkson’s character, but I remain convinced that she is in fact a figment of his imaginings. It’s funny that after so much consideration of the film that the final balance would say that Scorsese used a fair bit of RESTRAINT in telling this story.
Man I look forward to seeing this one again!
(Oh, and as a postscript, we’ve passed 100 comments on this review thread. NICE.)
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
wait… so… is there a theory that EVERYTHING was in his head? did the storm never happen? i never even considered that stuff, but that seems like quite a stretch.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
swarez, the whole reason they’re going through the elaborate role-play to bust him out of his delusion is because he’s dangerous and violent; Kingsley says so near the end when telling Teddy he’s really Andrew. He beat up George whatshisface for calling him Laeddis, because any mention of who he really was or the crimes in his past (he also blamed himself for the children’s deaths because he ignored his wife’s mental problems), he’d get angry and violent.
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
The storm never happened. It’s even mentioned specifically by Kingsley near the end. It’s in Teddy’s mind to justify him staying on the island. Although I have to admit that opens up some plot holes – like were their clothes really wt after the cemetery visit?
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
I don’t think the storm or the boat were literally happening, but foggy recreations by trouble Teddy. A second viewing is most certainly mandatory to clean up much of the minutiae.
@Kurt, “There are part of Memento (as tightly as that is written) that collapse under that scrutiny (as in, how does Pearce remember that he has a condition if his condition was brought about by the head trauma)- I’ve never gotten a successful answer to that question.
If I remember correctly, didn’t Pearce tattoo on his leg to remember the dude from one of his former investigations that had the same short-term memory loss problem? Since Pearce still had his long-term memory, I guess he could infer from the tattoo what was going on with himself.
a few more open questions for the insane-scenario -
1. how could chuck smoke the same cigarettes if they were drugged?
2. wasn’t it far too dangerous to let all the patients of block c out in order to let him wander around there?
3. why wasn’t he violent against noyce again down there if the guy called him laeddis again?
4. why was noyce so calm about him despite having been beaten up by him short ago?
5. how did they unroot big trees with no storm there? no storm would be the explanation though of the car’s coverage not having been blown away during the hurricane.
6. why is the most dangerous patient of the facility frequently left without real chance of being stopped from physical offense towards others? why aren’t they afraid of him killing more people if he is the most violent? why doesn’t he kill anyone, not even his attacker in block d (fairly sure he knows more efficient ways of killing a person next to choking him to death, which he was still far from)?
7. why did they want to reveal his story to him particularly in the lighthouse?
8. and why did chuck desperately try to stop him from getting there in the first place?
9. if teddy/andrew’s so afraid of water, how can he just so jump into the sea and swim over to the island, not being discovered by the guard patrouilling over there in his (more or less still white) suit?
10. how could the doctors anticipate the moment in time that teddy/andrew would finally get to the lighthouse (supposing he’d really get there despite his antipathy to water)?
11. wasn’t aware people in those days used to carry their operation tools around in gardens…
oh, to 3.: how could he get to beat up noyce if they were all locked up tightly in block 3?
ähm ‘c’…
beg your pardon guys, only just watched the movie in germany (therefore dubbed), that’s why i’m coming up with my doubts so much later!
hope you get me some answers, i found loads of interesting, convincing stuff above!
thanks!
bad editing, continuity errors almost everywhere
*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
I listened to the screenwriter on the Creative Screenwriting podcast and she is very clear about two things:
1) Leo is a patient not a cop
2) Thelma was deliberately fucking with the editing because she and Scorsese knew there were drinking games about their continuity errors
That’s a bizarre reason to fuck with the editing of your huge Hollywood film.
not really because it also plays into the story, the relative truth of what you are seeing.
I don’t think it plays into the story at all. It’s not surrealistic or hallucinatory. It’s just annoying and looks like mistakes.
again, I think some errors may not have been intentional, but the ones I noticed made sense in context of the film, they felt like jump cuts.
Oh definitely, rot, I agree. Like I have said in this discussion, there isn’t a doubt in my mind that some of the errors were there purposely to serve the story. Not a doubt.
rewatched and no more questions, everything fits and makes sense now. Also kept an eye out for continuity errors and I counted only two instances in the film where they were conceivably mistakes, the smoking scene and the von sydow scene. The others were clearly intentional.
This was obvious from a single viewing
I still prefer the film in my head.
I`m going to have to agree with Mr.Andrew James on the editing for this film. Sure we don`t all care about the length of a cigarette for a film. But two glaring glitches got me. First off, the first hallucination scene with Dolores Daniels, in one part she`s speaking but as she turns her head you can clearly see that she isn`t moving her lips. Then it cuts and her lips are moving properly. I doubt that, this was intentional. The second one, and this was extremely bad, came near the end.
*Spoiler Alert*
When Teddy Daniels faints after realizing that he`s Andrew Laeddis. He looks like he`s about to faint. Then it cuts to him waking up in a bed later on. Then it cuts back to him fainting. Then back to him in the bed. There`s no way in hell that mistake wasn`t noticed by everyone.
Rot
“*SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS* *SHUTTER ISLAND SPOILERS*
I listened to the screenwriter on the Creative Screenwriting podcast and she is very clear about two things:
1) Leo is a patient not a cop
2) Thelma was deliberately fucking with the editing because she and Scorsese knew there were drinking games about their continuity errors“
Again, going to have to agree with Andrew James. 2) is a pretty stupid reason to fuck up the editing. Especially since you can`t drink in a movie theater. I`d really like you to link proof of the second reason.
again, Creative Screenwriting podcast, its on iTunes, interview with Shutter Island Screenwriter. She makes two references, the first one she implies Thelma knew, but the second one she mentions explicitly the drinking games and playing with that.
@Malcolm, “is a pretty stupid reason to fuck up the editing. Especially since you can`t drink in a movie theater. “
I don’t think it was entirely meant to be taken literally, but I also think that Thelma Shoonmaker is very much aware that the bulk of the life of any movie is on DVD/Home-Video/etc., where many people watch films again and again (and again) and you can very much drink there!
This is how drinking games start in the first place, not upon first viewing!
having seen it a second time, and looking closely for these errors, there isn’t that many. I think there are maybe three scenes that I can see a deliberate manipulation going on, and two that may or may not be flubs.
I finally saw this last week and the continuity errors weren’t as bad as some of you guys have made out, certainly not as much as I’d noticed in The Departed. There was a lot of purposeful fucking around with techniques which probably stopped me looking for actual ‘flubs’. The glass one is clearly on purpose – I think that’s been established on here already. Great film though, really enjoyed it.
I actually noticed a couple of much more obvious continuity errors in Kick-Ass last night, which I really enjoyed too by the way.
David. Are you embargoed on writing reviews for Kick-Ass? I sure am. Not sure if you want to plop up a review if you are able.
I’m not embargoed as far as I know, it came out over here on Wednesday so I don’t see why there would be a problem. I had no idea we were getting it first, I was surprised no one else had reviewed it. Wow, Britain finally gets a decent premiere! I guess it is sort of a British film (director, writer & source material).
I can put a review up yeah, but it might be in a couple of days as I’m planning on spending my Easter weekend watching as many of my unwatched DVD’s as humanly possible seen as my girlfriend’s away. Plus I’m just sitting down to review a Blu Ray I got sent over that comes out on Monday so I kind of have to review that as soon as poss.
Considering the awful things OSS and later CIA were doing over this 30 year period ( documented archived and held to the tip of the iceberg account in senate hearings e.g. MKULTRA, Dr Cameron Allan Memorial Institute amongst too many others) The entire book having hinted along these lines turns too quickly away to concentrate on yet another ‘all in your/their head’ twist. So for me both the book and film misses the point.
I’m a novice to all of this. I have the movie on DVD and have watched it atleast 5 times in the 3 days. I was wondering the significance of Teddy wearing the bandaid on his forehead the entire time, through rain, showering and everything. Then at the end Andrew is not wearing the bandaid.
I watched this last night, and can’t see how so many of you have missed the continuity errors.
As an editor I believe there are occasions when the cutting is unnecessary, and actually causes problems. For example, when you look at the scene in the jeep, Di Caprio is in one shot looking straight ahead, and in the reverse looking at the crazy guard guy. This happens repeatedly in this scene, and I found it really distracting.
There’s an earlier scene with a room full of nurses, guards who are being questioned by Di Caprio. The blocking is atrocious; one shot he is stood up, and seconds later he is at the other end of the room sat by someone. This is more likely poor continuity spawned from the shoot itself however.
Okay, probably not great examples, but it happens several times throughout and as an editor I really notice these things. Other viewers who aren’t so involved or aware of film-making techniques likely won’t notice, but I’m suprised that it’s allowed to pass so easily when other newer filmmakers would be hung out to dry.
I think poor editing is being excused as being part of the plot. Some things are intentional, like the glass of water. But on the most part it’s just an unfortunate trademark of old school film-making.
Suprised more people haven’t noticed the dreadful green screen work?!
i think the green screen work was intentional. like an old 50s Hitchcock movie.
I’m with Murph on that one. It felt like part of the aesthetic of the film, not a cost-saver. I liked the Boat conversation with Ruffalo and DiCaprio, bad greenscreen and all, it was satisfyingly retro.
See also, Todd Haynes’ FAR FROM HEAVEN that was channeling the era’s rear-projection work when Julianne Moore was driving around.
No issue with either of those films for their visual look.
I agree that the green screen effect was intentional and just sort of gives it a local feel. But on the subject of poor editing, both Scorsese and editor have come out and said that it’s only intentional in that they just don’t care. Which I agree Ben, is very distracting and unprofessional.
It’s like building a house in which the front door is slightly crooked. It works just fine and serves its purpose, but too much of a pain in the ass to make it look right, so you just leave a crooked door.
I watched the movie and loved every minute of it but i had alot of questions. In the scene where the patient who murdered her husband with an axe writes “Run” on Ted’s Notebook, the woman takes a sip of water but isn’t holding a glass, whats up with that? Also, a few shots were shot in reverse, like when Ted is smoking a cigarette and the smoke is going into the cigarette. What is the reason for that? The movie was great either way.
Read the hundred-odd comments above about the water bit. As for the cigarette, it’s one of many techniques used to mess with our minds I imagine.
I too found the continuity distracting. If Scorsese really said that he let the errors into the picture intentionally because he just didn’t care, its time for me to stop watching his films. I for one feel like his film making has just eroded. I thought Gangs was way too heavy handed (like the scene with new immigrants being shipped off to war and returning home in caskets) to argue that the continuity errors in this film were the subtleties of the director. I’m thinking of scenes like the one where Chuck reaches into his pocket in the frontal shot only to begin reaching into his pocket a second or two later when the camera changes angles to the side.
And what’s up with the irrelevant stuff? For example the singer walking down the street in Gangs and singing the score and the rats in this movie. I thought I was watching Willard for a while. Maybe I missed something, but I don’t see any connection between the rats and any other part of the movie. If all these gaffes were intentional, you’d think at some point you’d say, “Oh, I get it now” like the scene where Leo’s holding his wife from behind and she starts bleeding from the belly.
And if we’re seeing this movie from the perspective of Leo, why would he conjure up himself as not being clean shaven? You would think that in 1956, or 1952 or whenever he’s imagining himself, that he would be clean shaven. You might say, “Ah, but that’s the genius. He has a damaged mind.” I’d call that argument a cop out. But then again, I’m just the consumer and I know what I like and I know what to stay away from going forward. And when non filmies like me see error after error, its obvious that someone in the production really just didn’t care.
Gangs of New York got the Weinstein Harvy Scissorhands treatment. I’d love to see the 4h Working-Print be turned into a Director’s Cut of GANGS. As it stands, GoNY is a train-wreck with occasionally compelling scenes.
Kurt– It will never happen; Scorsese dislikes Director’s Cut.