Shutter Island by Martin Scorsese

Wow, it had major Oscar buzz for this year until Paramount decided to delay the opening into 2010 so next year.
 
The studio just revised the numbers to $37.5M opening weekend. That's pretty good considering they only have a little over $70M in it after the MA tax incentives.

The screen writer Laeta Kalogridis was also the exec producer for Avatar, she's a big up and commer in that town.

Anyone like it better than The Departed?
 
capitalP said:
Saw it yesterday, I'm curious if anyone else noticed the film was poorly edited. But needless to say it was a good film, not great but good. I enjoyed it. Though I feel if this was in the hands of another lead beside Leo it could of been incredible.

This is the kind of role that needed a character actor. I must admit I felt a little sad at the end... 2 ½ stars out of 4.
Click to expand...

*SPOILERS AHEAD*

Poorly edited? I hope you're not pointing to so called continuity errors. Those "continuity errors" are deliberately placed. The story, Teddy's narrative and conception of what is happening around him is supposed to be forced, to not quite fit together. They are supposed to feel like pieces of a puzzle being forced together into a coherent narrative, because that's what they are - selectively chosen memories being placed by him in order to relieve himself of fault.

If you think Scorcese has those particular cuts in there on accident, you are SORELY mistaken. The film, as far as I can tell, is phenomenal in every way. The cinematography fits the story so perfectly - the imagery is gorgeous yet gritty and imperfect in a surrealistic sense. Every little thing emphasizes Leo's fragmented and delicate mind, but every clue he gains in his pursuit of the missing prisoner reinforced his narrative, forcing the audience into believing, up to the end, that his story is the right one.

It's....amazing. Seeing it again tomorrow.
 
Just think of Scorsesse trying to throw people off from the cuts, ring a bell?

Thanks Finnegan, I'm not a big typer.
 
What I want to know is what lenses they used broken down to a shot by shot basis, good stuff!
 
Wow, I am amazed that with 26 posts, on a forum dedicated to filmmaking, not a single post noted that this film was shot by Robert Richardson, ASC. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0724744/ I am a huge Scorsesse fan, but I am also a huge fan of Robert Richardson. I am going to see the film tomorrow. I don't have much anticipation about this being a "Scorsesse" film, but I always go out of my way to see a Robert Richardson movie. I mean for pete sakes, this guy shot, "Platoon", "JFK" (His oscar winner) and "Snow Falling on Cedars", an amazing job of cinematography. I am looking forward to it.
 
Yea, I know and I revived it after idle for MONTHS! I did drop Laeta's name (like I know who she is), I was going to mention more but no one here cares. BTW there was a short thread here from a video that it made it's way to every studio exec and it got like 30ish posts., It was amazing stuff and no one cares or noticed.

EDIT: I just went back and looked, 19 posts in the thread :)

No one here knows what a @$%$@$! is btw.
 
Last edited:
J.R. Hudson said:
Blasphemy

Thelma poorly ediited ?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the movie yet, but Marty and Thelma are often pretty loose with continuity. Noticed a lot of continuity issues in Departed. I think I read somewhere that Scorsese said he always goes for performance over continuity, which he thinks is an overrated virtue. Anyway, it's that kind of thing that can stick out and make the viewer think a movie is poorly edited.
 
Finnegan said:
*SPOILERS AHEAD*

Poorly edited? I hope you're not pointing to so called continuity errors. Those "continuity errors" are deliberately placed. The story, Teddy's narrative and conception of what is happening around him is supposed to be forced, to not quite fit together. They are supposed to feel like pieces of a puzzle being forced together into a coherent narrative, because that's what they are - selectively chosen memories being placed by him in order to relieve himself of fault.

If you think Scorcese has those particular cuts in there on accident, you are SORELY mistaken. The film, as far as I can tell, is phenomenal in every way. The cinematography fits the story so perfectly - the imagery is gorgeous yet gritty and imperfect in a surrealistic sense. Every little thing emphasizes Leo's fragmented and delicate mind, but every clue he gains in his pursuit of the missing prisoner reinforced his narrative, forcing the audience into believing, up to the end, that his story is the right one.

It's....amazing. Seeing it again tomorrow.
Click to expand...

At first I thought maybe the projectionist in the theater messed up or something, but the cuts were jumpy, more then once. But I've seen other Scorsese films and never noticed a problem like that with the editing so maybe it was intentional for the purpouse of this story. But it happened more towards the beginning and didn't see it towards the end.
 
capitalP said:
But it happened more towards the beginning and didn't see it towards the end.
Click to expand...

*SPOILERS AHEAD*

This makes perfect sense from a storytelling perspective. If the whole idea of the movie is that the psychiatrists are trying to "break through" Teddy's delusions, which they finally achieve in the end of the film during the revealing moment, then only toward the beginning of the film would Teddy's thoughts and dreams feel forced together. Remember, at the very moment we meet the main character we're sucked into his delusion, which he selectively created for himself to avoid feeling guilt for killing his wife and kids. The problem with this is that it is not reality, though Scorcese doesn't tell us that out the outset of the film. It is revealed to us as Teddy (and we) go through the story. Slowly but surely we gain the sense that something is wrong since Teddy seems to be uncovering some sort of conspiracy. It makes sense to Teddy, and therefore us as we identify with him as the protagonist, but Scorcese drops us little clues that something is not right. For instance the music obviously tells us something is wrong and ominous with the island and its facilities. Teddy ignores the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that Rachel Solando even existed, and when he is presented with the one shred of evidence that WOULD have proved it in his delusion (when his partner finds the invoice or record or whatever it is) he refuses to look at it. In the context of the story, he refuses to look at it because he doesn't trust his partner - at this point, he doesn't trust anyone. But in the "real world" of the story, he doesn't look at it because its a defense mechanism - his mind already knows what's on that paper (his name, proving his insanity). His mind and seemingly rational thought are simply a way of his mind upholding this delusion he's created.

So since his delusion starts to become unraveled through the story it makes sense that it feels pieced together only toward the beginning and not the end. It's Scorcese's way of making the audience feel something is wrong. We're supposed to be offset by the continuity issues. We're supposed to feel like he is forcing pieces of a puzzle together that don't fit. We're supposed to feel like it's a carefully concocted house of cards that could fall apart any moment.

This is what makes Scorcese a master. And that's why I'm 100% certain that they're there on purpose. Hell, a professor of mine is really good friends with Scorcese, I'll even have him ask him.
 
Loved it, very different film for Scorcese. Refreshing to see him mixing it up like this so far into his career. Best of the DiCaprio collaborations, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Finnegan said:
*SPOILERS AHEAD*

It is revealed to us as Teddy (and we) go through the story. Slowly but surely we gain the sense that something is wrong since Teddy seems to be uncovering some sort of conspiracy. It makes sense to Teddy, and therefore us as we identify with him as the protagonist, but Scorcese drops us little clues that something is not right.
Click to expand...

I did a thread month or so ago saying that I think trailers/posters give too much away... especially in films like this. Just from the trailer I guessed the majority of the plot and the big twist.

I think it was a mistake to depict Dicaprio in a frazzled condition in the trailers... and the "someone is missing" on the posters tells us the someone that's missing is mostly Dicaprio's mind (as these words appear right next to his face on the poster).

I had to say something since you said "slowly but surely we gain the sense that something is wrong"...
 
I enjoyed it. The editing did have some interesting choices, but I liked how it became more fluid as the film went on.


SPOILER
The one thing that really bugged me though was the "missing" water glass shot. All the continuity stuff was consistent and lead somewhere, but the water glass was just odd and didn't lead to anything else. Plus, if the film is in DiCaprio's POV, why would he imagine her not having a glass?
 
I noticed the water glass too. Reminded me of a continuity error in Taxi Driver when a cheeseburger appears on the table in front of De Niro in one of the diner scenes.

I think it may be even more interesting the second time through. I know I'm seeing it again.
 
bfischinger said:
I think it may be even more interesting the second time through. I know I'm seeing it again.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree, that's why I plan on seeing it again also. Me and a friend at work been having discussions about it, she read the book and also saw the movie. She liked both but she said the book is better.

She said some interesting things that make me want to see it again and also some points Finnegan made regarding the editing. It will be fun to watch it again to catch all the hints and stuff...

One of the things that confuses me as hell and my friend who I went with had her own conclusion and interpretation of the ending...

BIG SPOILER BELOW!!!!!!

Because of that last line he said " What's worst, living as a monster or dying a good man" She said that he will commit suicide at the end but I said there's no way because he is being taken to the Light House for a lobotomy by the handlers, and no way will they let him commit suicide, she said he will jump of the rocks... I was already confused and she confused me even more. My interpretation of the ending is that, he realizes he's a monster and the best way to get rid of it is to have that Lobotomy done, so that's why he willingly take that walk, that ending definitely confuse me as hell.

But my other friend who read the book said it ends a bit different and the biggest thing she was mentioning to me is that, her and some friends been having back and forth discussion about who he really is... is he really "Teddy Daniels" or "Andrew"?

She said she is in the minority when she believes that he truly is "Teddy Daniels" and the audience was meant to get confused thinking he is Andrew. But that's a whole other can of worms.

As for what I believe, I hope to know on the second viewing... man this is some brain cell hurtin mess(in a good way). I love movies that make you think like this just hope I don't pop a brain vessel in the process.
 
Might spoil.

saw it yesterday and I give it an 8/10. I was never bored and it wasn't as predictable as I thought -I think the ending is ambiguous. The visuals and acting were pretty seamless. There's plenty of foreshadowing. I enjoyed the dream sequences the most... the reversed cigarette smoke was pretty surreal.
 
capitalP said:
BIG SPOILER BELOW!!!!!!

Because of that last line he said " What's worst, living as a monster or dying a good man" She said that he will commit suicide at the end but I said there's no way because he is being taken to the Light House for a lobotomy by the handlers, and no way will they let him commit suicide, she said he will jump of the rocks... I was already confused and she confused me even more. My interpretation of the ending is that, he realizes he's a monster and the best way to get rid of it is to have that Lobotomy done, so that's why he willingly take that walk, that ending definitely confuse me as hell.
Click to expand...

I think the ending ties into the conversation in the jeep, after Leo was picked up.

The warden (I think it was the warden) leans over and asks him if he'd try to kill him if he leaned over and tried to chew out his eyeball, to which Leo replies something to the effect of 'give it a shot'. This pleases the warden and indicates that Leo will never go down without a fight.

So I think he's going to fight until the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top