Comments on: Shutter Island

By: Jayna

Jayna — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:16:23 +0000

I agree with you. I just watched the movie. And there's no way he killed the children. There was nothing to even suggest that from the doctors' dialogue, etc.

By: sean

sean — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:56:37 +0000

The real beauty of this film is that everyone seems to have missed thepoint….who walked "Teddy" away at the end??….the Nazi war criminal and the "military" commandant…..;-)

…ITS BETTER TOLIVE AS A MONSTER THAN DIE A GOOD MAN…

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:28:16 +0000

The word is "metteurs-en-scène," s'il vous plaît! Not "metier en scenes."

By: picky guy

picky guy — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 05:39:31 +0000

The reference is "in tow"

By: Anton Bitel

Anton Bitel — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 07:39:52 +0000

"he is disgusted by the stories of Rachel, that a person may drown their own children. He is even sickened by water as shown in the opening. Note that it was not sea sicknes, but mearly the expanse of water."

Exactly – but why should this too not be regarded as a sign of his guilt, deep-seated self-loathing, and – precisely – his memory's retaliation against the murders of the children. Maybe (and that 'maybe' must be stressed, as my whole point is that this is an ambiguous film, not simply a film about a filicide/uxoricide) Teddy buries his guilt about hisown act of filicide by always projecting it upon other supposed perpetrators – Rachel/his wife/the Nazis etc. If not all of them are responsible, perhaps we should not insist that any of them is. The belief that certain patients deserve no mercy reflects not just the kind of judgement he passes upon Lucy, but also, ultimately, upon himself, no?

By: Kenna

Kenna — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 23:40:44 +0000

That is an interesting view, Anton, that Teddy may have killed the children along with the wife, but I don't believe that is so. Teddy seemed to think in the beginning, when faced by the various old methods of treating the patients, that they deserved no mercy, exactly the kind of judgement he passed upon Lucy. However, he is disgusted by the stories of Rachel, that a person may drown their own children. He is even sickened by water as shown in the opening. Note that it was not sea sicknes, but mearly the expanse of water. While his memory retaliates against the murder of his wife in order to bury his guilt, it does not retaliate against the murders of the children because there is nothing for him to be guilty of.
That is my evidence that he killed his wife, but not the children.

By: ArcainOne

ArcainOne — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:05:45 +0000

A bit of a spoiler here. Honestly I loved this movie, Why because it was a well developed. I have to greatly disagree with the predictable tag because honestly what isn't. It is called good writing and foreshadowing. My favorite moment of fore shadowing was in the very beginning when his partner tried to take off his gun but fumbled with it a moment. It is such a minor detail but a major clue if you take into account the guy is a US Martial who supposedly caries a gun with him all the time.

If you, like me, where able to put it together congratulations you are some what intelligent and able to recognize the little clues the writers and directors thew out at you. If they hadn't you'd end up with something like "Angles and Demons" where the character makes a 180 and acts completely against every thing you had seen or heard about him through out the story. What makes this film interesting is that while some may say it doesn't warrant analysis, it however has gained it, thus making it warrant analysis. As the fellow above pointed out a very interesting idea on the ending I myself did not think about, it only farther proves the point.

The most brilliant aspect of this movie was the fantastic integration of two parallel realities combating each other through the characters dreams. They where the biggest key to the entire movie and in fact the ending "twist" really shouldn't have been that much of a twist if you paid attention to the dreams. It should have been a mere confirmation that validated what it was you had suspected about 20-30 minutes before it was revealed. Ideally what should happen? Either right before or during the big reveal everything pertaining about the dreams, his in counters with the crazies (one in particular) and the guards (specifically the warden) should collapse into a single brilliant moment singularity of realization.

In the end it all boiled down to one single line, "Is it better to live a monster, or die a good man". That was beautiful, it actually ended in a way that was opened for interpretation.

By: Anton Bitel

Anton Bitel — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 07:45:54 +0000

"This film does not warrant this much analysis."
Fair enough, if that's the way you choose to look at it, although your review offers no analysis.
Close interpretation, full engagement with a film's themes, analysis of style, content and their intermixture – these all bring rewards of their own, and can be more interesting (in your head, on paper, and on-line) than mere out-of-hand dismissal or approval. It is also often (although not always) true, to adapt a wise man's words, that the film without examination is hardly worth seeing.

By: Luke

Luke — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 04:30:47 +0000

This film does not warrant this much analysis. Here is my review, in bullet points:

- Excellent acting
- Beautifully shot
- Good musical score
- Predictable
- First comment that came out of my mouth after the disappointing final act was, "Shutter Island? More like Shitter Island."
- Wham bam, thank you m'am, review done. Next movie, please.

By: Anton Bitel

Anton Bitel — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:05:59 +0000

Nice point about the Dachau commander. I do think that it is possible to believe in such a radical experiment at a time when the field of psychiatry really was undergoing profound change. Many of the staff (and near all of the patients) are barely playing a role at all, and frequently drop the mask (it is just that the protagonist, along with many viewers too, chooses only to see what he believes) – and there are clearly massive disagreements within the staff as to whether the experiment has validity, or is indeed sensible. The experiment is taking place mostly because of Cawley's (and perhaps Aule's) immense professional faith in the protagonist's ability to get better – coupled with their (possibly false) belief that his crime was merely a case of tragic (wo)manslaughter with no malice aforethought. Part of the film's tragedy is that Cawley, the champion of enlightenment (in a lighthouse!), turns out to be very wrong. This is a film about the failure of psychiatry.

The Killer Inside Me would make a fantastic double feature with Shutter Island. Not only do both films complement each other, but Winterbottom's psycho-noir is, I believe, a far more subtle and slippery film than many (distracted by the whole debate about on-screen misogyny and violence) have given it credit for, and its themes of delusion, denial and fugue are actually easier to follow if you have Scorsese's film as a map to guide you through.