“Shutter Island” Over Explains Itself
Another similarity between the two is the setting of Boston; the mental institution of “Shutter Island” is located on an island in the Boston Harbor Island chain, and Leonardo DiCaprio’s character Teddy Daniels is a U.S. Marshall from Boston. The film is based on a novel by the local author Dennis Lehane, who penned two other books about Beantown that went on to become fantastic movies: Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone. Since I have not read the novel on which “Shutter Island” is based, I’m at a bit of a disadvantage to comment on whether it was a faithful adaptation, however as a thriller the film is quite intriguing.
U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels is assigned to investigate the disappearance of a deadly criminal from the mental institution on Shutter Island. He travels with his new partner Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) to the island, where he is forced to defer to the authorities on the island while conducting his investigation. Daniels feels that the head of the facility Dr. Crawley (Sir Ben Kingsley) does not want him to find the woman who has disappeared, offering little cooperation in the case.
It’s not long before Teddy starts to feel that something is awry, when a hurricane traps him on the island, and it’s clear that the authorities have no real interest in finding the missing patient. A series of bizarre dreams, tied to events from his past and an increasingly paranoid thought process develops for Teddy, as he starts to believe the hospital administration is guilty of dastardly deeds and experiments on its patients. As he starts to realize he is trapped on the island with no escape, he decides to get to the bottom of the conspiracy he believes is taking place no matter what the cost.
“Shutter Island” a good job of planting the seeds of doubt and conspiracy with you, as you start to piece together elements from a series of bizarre dreams DiCaprio’s character experiences. You immediately distrust Dr. Crawley and you grow to doubt Teddy’s partner Chuck, as you start to suspect some seriously shady dealings on the part of hospital administrators. For most of the movie you spend your time wondering how Teddy will make it out alive and how the resolution will play out.
Once the film arrives at the moment of revealing the truth however, the film goes to painstaking lengths to over explain itself. This is seriously the most frustrating aspect of the story, since as a thriller it succeeds in capturing your attention. Instead of being given the clues to put together, I felt I was being beaten over the head with all of the answers at the end.
DiCaprio turns in a strong performance as Teddy Daniels, an individual truly haunted by his own past, struggling to combat significant inner demons in order solve his case. Kingsley’s Crawley is eerily creepy in a way you can’t put your finger on, and possibly evil.
As a director Scorsese has ceased to wow me as he did with his earlier work. He has fallen guilty to cliché camera tricks like the overdone 360 degree pan, or the Michael Bay effect as I like to refer to it. That being said, he has not gone completely senile like George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, and can still make decent movies, even if they are not the same caliber as previous hits like “Casino” and “Goodfellas.” “Shutter Island” is entertaining as a thriller even though its resolution is completely over explained.
My Grade: B+
I think DiCaprio hit a home run, best he could with this movie. He has great range as an actor!
Lucas I can see, but Spielberg? Coming off a decade that included A.I., Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, War of the Worlds, and Munich? Not all of them were perfect (Munich is), but none of them are made by a man resting on his laurels; rather, I saw a director still asking fundamental, human questions as well as reflecting on how those issues play out in modern times. In a decade when genre took over pop culture, he was still working with genre as a means to an end, rather than simple entertainments (though most of them were immensely entertaining). Granted, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and The Terminal were entirely forgettable, but I’ll go to the mattresses for the others any day.
As for Scorsese, his camerawork has undoubtedly gotten more frantic, but if you compare Goodfellas to the rest of the cinema of its day, it feels comparatively like a Michael Bay movie. I really believe he ushered in the modern pace of mainstream cinema with that, and frantic energy is something he’s been keen on ever since (in his genre films anyway).
Yeah, the ending was really poorly handled, but the implications were strong enough to overcome that (never mind everything leading up to it). I have a whole thing behind it here – http://railoftomorrow.blogspot.com/2010/02/scorsese-shutter-island-and-auteurism.html
And for the record, I’d stack The Aviator against Goodfellas any day. His greatest work still lies in Raging Bull and Last Temptation.
As a huge Indiana Jones fan, I was immensely angry with the way Spielberg ruined a franchise that I held so near and dear to my heart. That’s where a lot of my bad feelings towards him come from though. Admittedly Spielberg is not as bad as Lucas by a long shot. I agree that among your list there are some entertaining films he has made in the past decade.
Scorsese does present a good frantic energy, that has spanned his career and it’s something I’ve always appreciated, however specifically with Shutter Island, I was annoyed he was falling victim to dumb cliches like the 360.
In general though I have not found most of his recent work nearly as entertaining as films like Raging Bull, Goodfellas and Casino. I felt that Aviator was boring and Gangs of New York while not terrible, was rather lackluster.