Shutter Island (2010)

[ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Shutterislandposter.jpg - Pentru incarcare in pagina (embed) Click aici ]

Regie: Martin Scorsese
Producători: Martin Scorsese, Bradley J. Fischer, Mike Medavoy, Arnie Messer
Scenariu: Laeta Kalogridis, Steven Knight, Dennis Lehane (cartea)
Distribuție: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ben Kingsley, Mark Ruffalo, Michelle Williams, Patricia Clarkson, Emily Mortimer, Ted Levine, John Carroll Lynch, Elias Koteas, Jackie Earle Haley, Max von Sydow
Gen: Dramă / Groază / Mister / Thriller
Durată: 138 minute
Studio: Phoenix Pictures, Appian Way Productions, Sikelia Productions
Distribuitor: Paramount Pictures
Țara: Statele Unite
Buget: 80 milioane $
Premiera: 19 februarie 2010 (Statele Unite), 26 februarie (România)


*** Executor al agenției federale de aplicare a legii - US Marshals, Teddy Daniels ajunge împreună cu partenerul său Chuck pe mica insulă Shutter, unde se află un ospiciu pentru tratarea condamnaților cu tulburări mentale. Cei doi investighează evadarea unei criminale, dar nimic în acest ospiciu nu este ceea ce pare. Și nici Teddy Daniels nu este. Se află acolo pentru a găsi o pacientă disparută? Sau a fost trimis pentru a investiga zvonurile care denunță practici extreme de tratare a bolnavilor? Pe măsura ce Teddy și Chuck se apropie de adevăr, acesta este din ce în ce mai greu de surprins, iar cei doi încep să se teamă că nu vor mai părăsi niciodată Shutter Island. Pentru că cineva încearcă să-i facă să-și piardă mințile... ***
Sursa: CineMagia

TRAILER: AICI!

Edited by mu_zz_i, 18 February 2010 - 12:58.

cat am asteptat filmu' asta
pare tare...de-abia astept sa apara

Am fost in seara asta si l-am vazut, il astept de asta vara, am crezut ca il vad in octombrie cand trebuia sa fie lansat dar s-a amanat lansarea pe ieri.

1. Inca un film la care trailerul nu este relevant, se pare ca este un fel de moda sau de principii il ultimii ani sa faci trailer-ul cat mai sumar si mai putin cuprinzator ca sa impresionezi cu filmul cat mai tare.
2. Este foarte dur, poate cel mai dur film a unui regizor de asemenea calibru din acesti ani.
3. Este un Scorsese veritabil - lasa loc de numeroase interpretari cat si comentarii.
4. Legat de punctul 2, a nu se vedea impreuna cu prietena - aceasta nu va putea urmari o mare parte a scenelor, mai ales la cinema unde sunetul are un volum ridicat pentru a introduce publicul in actiune.

Dupa ce il vedem majoritatea, astept sa comentam intelesurile, sa vedem de ce parte a baricadei ne aflam fiecare.

N-a mai fost nimeni sa il vada?

5. Coloana sonora este atipica, foarte bine aleasa, si are un foarte mare aport pentru intrarea in atmosfera filmului. La cinema, unde volumul nu este ca acasa - efectul coloanei sonore este mult accentuat. Se remarca 2-3 piese care ruleaza de mai multe ori pe scene a la Hitchcock.

Mie nu mi s-a parut mai dur decat alte filme ale lui Scorsese.
Foarte bine redata atmosfera de epoca, chiar in felul cum vorbeau personajele.
Intr-adevar si eu m-am gandit la Hitchcok, mult suspans.
Interesant scenariu, dar parca finalul m-a dezamagit putin, un pic prea explicit.
Vad ca DiCaprio a devenit in ultimul timp un fel de actor-fetis al lui Scorsese, si zau daca inteleg de ce, nu se compara de nicio culoare cu De Niro. Ultimul rol in care mi s-a parut ca joaca cat de cat interesant a fost cel din The Aviator; in cele mai recente, de la Blood Diamond incoace, trecand prin The Departed si Body of Lies joaca exact la fel, de-a dreptul neconvingator si stereotip: eroul-matur-si-sfasiat-de-chinuri-interioare-depaseste-cu-eroism-situatiile-dramatice-cu-care-se-confrunta.

Nu doresc sa ne abatem de la subiect, dar rolurile din Departed, Body of Lies si Revolutionary Road il situeaza pe unul din primele locuri intre actorii generatiei lui - nu cred numai eu asta, exista si reviewuri oficiale. La fel criticii spun aceasta colaborare a celor doi este foarte potrivita - de asta si continua numai in 2010 cu inca 2-3 productii conform imdb.

Edit: nici spoiler nu vreau sa fac - dar au fost unele scene care m-au speriat atat pe mine cat si pe altii din sala - ceea ce nu mi s-a mai intamplat de foarte multi timp, si la niciun film Scorsese. Ma refer la scenele explicite insotite de muzica aceea

Edited by StGermain, 01 March 2010 - 18:35.

 StGermain, on 1st March 2010, 18:32, said:

Eu mi-am exprimat o opinie personala cu privire la DiCaprio, nu am pretentia ca ar fi 100% corecta. Mi se pare ca promitea foarte mult in What's Eating Gilbert Grape si ca a esuat intr-un stil relativ plat. E drept ca pe Revolutionary Road nu l-am vazut.
Probabil ca pe mine nu m-au socat atat de tare scenele acelea pentru ca ma asteptam la ceva destul de sumbru, data fiind muzica si atmosfera. Mi s-au parut mai dure, chiar daca in cu totul alt registru, Good Fellas, Casino, Raging Bull (e posibil sa fi fost mai impresionabila pe vremea cand le-am vazut).
Per total, filmul mi se pare foarte reusit, 8-9/10.

Edited by Moaca, 02 March 2010 - 11:03.

l-am vazut si eu duminica.
oarecum interesant dar previzibil si 100% de vizionat acasa nu la cinema (unde tinde sa devina plictisitor)

Fetele se pot uita linistite la Shutter Island
e un film care te tine in suspans, nu infricosator, si muzica nu face decat sa accentueze acest lucru
eu l-am vazut si mi-a placut

iar spre deosebire de altii care il considera cu un final prea explicit ... eu consider ca nu putem lua de bun acel final prea banal ...
cred ca ne putem astepta la ceva mai mult din partea lui Scorsese
eu cred ca Teddy era sanatos si acelea au fost decat incercari de-ale doctorilor de a se juca cu mintea lui
voi ce ziceti ?

Chiar daca finalul nu e mai deschis decat pare si Scosese nu atat de profund pe cat ne-am fi dorit, filmul ca divertisment, e de superclasa. E excelent facut pe toate planurile iar ideea, desi nu e tocmai originala cum o acuza unii (se aseamana foarte cu "a Beautiful Mind" printre altele) e invelita intr-un ambalaj atat de diferit incat uiti cu totul de eventualele ripoff -uri. Atmosfera e sumbra si nelinistitoare, iar muzica, desi uneori merge intr-un crescendo ce atinge in unele momente cote indigeste, are un mare merit in scaring the shit out of you. Un mare plus pentru secventele onirice, care sunt breathtaking si mai ales foarte foarte verosimile... cred ca nu am mai vazut pana acum o reprezentare atat naturalista a unui vis.
DiCaprio, e cam acelasi temperament din "The Departed" dar desi nu are sclipiri ca atunci, e mai echilibrat si fara scapari majore.
Eu am crezut si am sperat pana la capat ca adevarul e de partea lui Teddy, si nici acum nu stiu ce sa cred. Exista multe argumente si de o parte si de cealalta dar deruteaza oarecum unele aspecte pe care nu stii sigur daca sa le iei ca fiind realizate constient de regizor.  

 Angelina1986, on 2nd March 2010, 20:09, said:

Puteai sa faci si o mica precizare: e previzibil de prin minutul 110-120 doar... si da-mi voie sa-mi spun si eu parerea vizavi de acest aspect ca sa echilibrez balanta: de vizionat 100% la cinema... acolo unde trebuie vizionate toate filmele care merita vazute.

@dacoroman ...si unde volumul sunetelor si a soundtrack-ului sunt ca atare. Adica se recomanda a se vedea la cinema, pentru a putea intra cum trebuie in atmosfera filmului. Mai ales daca aveti norocul sa nu fie comentatori prin sala.

Interpretarea mea adresata celor care au vazut filmul


Daca gresesc va rog sa ma corectati/completati.

Edited by StGermain, 07 March 2010 - 14:09.

vazut si de mine si placut mult.
nu prea am vazut scene horror, m-am uitat la el fara probleme.
nici previzibil nu mi s-a parut, doar ca unele detalii de pe parcursul filmului nu se potriveau. cu toate astea nu ma asteptam la acest final.

Si eu am vazut filmul insa se pare ca multi nu l-au inteles.El de fapt nu era nebun,cei de pe insula se jucau cu mintea lui.
1.Primul lucru pe care il face cand incepe filmul este sa isi cunoasca NOUL partener,dupa care realizeaza ca nu mai are tigarile,iar "Chuck"ii ofera o tigara.
2.In momentul cand Teddy interogheaza o pacienta,acesta ii scrie pe bilet:RUN.
3.Gaseste biletul.El este al 67 pacient din legea celor 4:el,Chuck,si cei 2 directori de la institut.
4.Directorul ii ofera o tigara,iar Teddy refuza motivand ca s-a lasat de fumat.Gestul directorului este ca isi baga pachetul de tigari in buzunar si isi aprinde o pipa,nicidecum nu isi aprinde tigare din  pachet.
5.Atat doctora pe care o intalneste in grota cat si nevasta sa,din viziunile lui ii spune:"nu te duce la far''.Stiau ca daca va merge acolo,acela va fi sfarsitul sau.
6.In momentul cand se intoarce in institut dupa ce si-a petrecut noaptea in grota,gaseste toate usile deschise.Isi aminteste de prima zi cand a ajuns acolo.I-au spus ca toate usile intotdeauna stau incuiate,insa de data asta erau deschise.De ce?Pentru ca toti cei de pe insula stiau de fapt ce se petrece acolo,iar in fata lui jucau roluri de nebuni.
7.I s-a spus ca pe el de fapt il cheama Andrew,si ca ar fi inversat cifrele.Dar de fapt pe el il chema Teddy,deci nu avea ce sa inverseze.

 3l3na, on 11th March 2010, 19:05, said:

N-am timp sa-ti contra-argumentez la toate punctele, ci doar la asta: pe personaj il cheama initial Edward (diminutiv: Teddy) Daniels, ceea ce este anagrama de la Andrew Laeddis, numele lui real.

 3l3na, on 11th March 2010, 19:05, said:

Observatii foarte, foarte superficiale. Pana te uiti un pic pe IMDb pentru aprofundare, put it this way:
- filmul incepe cu imaginea vasului iesind dintr-o ceata totala poate sugera realitatea fragila si inselatoare care se va dovedi mai tarziu
- Teddy nu isi aminteste cum a ajuns pe vas ci e constient doar de cand il vedem si noi prima oara: raul de mare poate sa fie o refulare a efectelor medicatiei; de asemenea plasturele pe care il poarte pe frunte e un detaliu pe care se insista si care nu ar avea niciun rost in realitatea lui Teddy
- pe Chuck, ca partener ar fi trebuit sa-l cunoasca de cum au urcat pe vas si nu la jumatea sau sfarsitul drumului
- apelativul "sefu'  " cu care insista Chuck e ridicol in cadrul relatiei celor doi; e evident "ironic" .
- numele de "Chuck" are iarasi conotatii clasice de inferioritate; adica bate la ochi cand ai o "sluga" pe nume Chuck.
- tigarile, ca drog, puteau aveau la fel de bine rol in cadrul experimentului. chiar mai probabil.
- Teddy observa cat de incordati erau gardienii din port care il intampina. mai tarziu ne dam seama de ce.
- Chuck are dificultati in manevrarea pistolului cand il preda. pentru ca era un doctor.
- McPherson are o atitudine ironica fata de Teddy la faza cu insigna mai ales
- cand ii primeste Dr. Cawley pe cei doi, li se adreseaza pe nume fiecaruia in parte, fara sa i se fi prezentat.
s.a.md. ca m-am plictisit.

@StGermain: da, e o teorie echilibrata si cea mai plauzibila. sunt de acord dar nu vad cum explica imaginea fetitei, si a lui Rachel, ca substitut al sotiei sale, din lagarul nazist. acesta e un argument folosit de "saneri" in teoriile lor.

Un film bun, dar pentru mine, care am vazut "A beautiful mind" rasturnarea de situatie din final  nu mi s-a parut chiar asa de surprinzatoare.
Si parca si atmosfera aia incarcata de umezeala, aminteste de "The Ring".

Un film superb.

Eroul principal cine este pana la urma? Teddy sau Laeddis?  

Poate ne lamureste Scorsese, din cate vad pe aici opiniile sunt impartite in doua

Parerea mea ca filmul lasa suficient loc de interpretare nu doar pentru cele doua versiuni (sanatos vs. nebun) dar si pentru numeroase combinatii de argumente pe care sa le folosesti in acelasi timp si sa te zapacesti total.
Absolut fiecare replica sau detaliu din film are o semnificatie pentru aceste argumente sau cel putin reprezinta un simbol.

Sincer mie imi place mai mult versiunea in care Teddy este sanatos mintal. Nu stiu daca am voie sa postez asta, dar este un punct de vedere de pe IMDB care argumenteaza aceasta versiune:

Scorsese is an auter. As such, he makes his movies multilayered. In other words, the most obvious interpreation both the plot arc and meaning of one of his flims is not the end of the story. He makes movies that have an "obvious" meaning and an "arthouse" meaning. Indeed, he structures his movies so that the events of his plot are consistent with both interpretations; it's just that most people never see the subtext beneath the superficial interpretation.

In the case of Shutter Island, the obvious interpretation is that Teddy Daniels is in fact Andrew. Indeed, Scorsese purposely includes clues throughout the film that foreshadow the "twist." In fact, Scorsese is trying to make it OBVIOUS that Teddy might be Andrew. Thus, there are plenty of examples to cite as evidence for the interpretation that Teddy is Andrew.

However, there is a deeper subtext to the movie which, once appreciated, suggests that the proper interpretation of the film is that Teddy is actually sane. Let me explain.

Let's suppose that Teddy is Andrew. On this view of things, Shutter Island becomes nothing more than a combination of Memento and Psycho. We have a character who, due to personal trauma, has repressed past events and lives in a fictional world. At the end of the film, it is revealed that the protaganist has been deluded. This, of course, is what happens in Memento. Now, in Shutter Island, are we supposed to believe that Scorsese adopts this trite plot arc, a classic film noir plot device, and then merely varnishes it with a reference to the end of Psycho? Sorry, folks. This movie is more than a “psychological thriller.” It certainly is inspired by a tradition of great films that take the psychological thriller as their guiding theme. But Scorsese, as all great artists, takes pre-existing elements and then creates something entirely audacious and new from them. He's not the type of director who is going to end a film with a typical Hollywood plot twist, and then exacerbate the triteness of it all by having it explained to the audience for twenty minutes (Shutter Island is not the Sixth Sense with a gratioutous explanation to “prove” the twist. C'mon!). The interpretation that Teddy is Andrew, then, is the "obvious" interpretation. But, as I mentioned, Scorsese is an auter. There is always a deeper subtext.

What is the subtext in Shutter Island? To put it simply, Teddy Daniels is a veteran of WWII, who has become a Nazi hunter. Shutter Island is a psychiatric ward qua concentration camp staffed by expatriated Nazis. There is so much evidence for this interpretation that I can't believe it hasn't already been pointed out. The "role play" scenario is a plot device that Scorsese uses to weave the superficial plot arc under which he then develops this deeper meaning.

Supporting evidence:
If it were really a role play, then the staff wouldn't have lied to and obstructed Teddy in the myriad of ways that they do:
(1) During the initial search for Rachel, the guard tells Teddy that the lighthouse is empty, that it's already been searched, and that it is a "sewage treatment" plant. To being with, the lighthouse we initially see isn't the same lighthouse we see for the rest of the film (the reason why Teddy doesn't find any evidence of lobotomies in the lighthouse is because it's not the lighthouse where the lobotomies are conducted!). In any event, why doesn't he find the sewage treatment equipment at the lighthouse when he gest inside at the end of the film? The guard lied. What reason would the guard have to lie to Teddy if they weren't trying to conceal anything?
(2) Scorsese purposely designed the gateway entrance of Shutter Island to look like Auschwitz. This is symbolic, and for a reason that is relevant to the plot and meaning of the film (more later).
(3) When the guards request Teddy's gun, here again we have a SYMBOLIC act that needs to be situated within its proper HISTORICAL context (recall what the Germans did to the Jews prior to the Holocaust). Also, note that Chuck's gun is handed over in a hulster; Teddy's is not (this matters for the ending).
(4) Teddy is never allowed to see the Island's files. Again, if this is truly a role play, and Teddy is given "free run of the island" as Cawley says he is, why can't he see the files?
(5) The psychiatrist tries to give Teddy a sedative in the hallway. Again, why try to stop the role play with a sedative? This doesn't fit with the notion that Teddy is being given free reign over the island.
(6) Chuck disappears when Teddy is talking to George (this is relevant to the end.)
(7) Cawley's second-hand man is introduced in a red chair, learing over a devilish fire, with his back turned (this is a metaphor for the fact that the psychiatrist is an evil, expatriated Nazi psychiatrist).
(8) In line with (7), Teddy recognizes the accent as German. In other words, Teddy instinctively outs the psychiatrist as an expatriated Nazi. The fact that Teddy is able to do so points to the fact that Teddy is more than just a mere deluded mental patient.
(9) Cawley's living quarters are a metaphor for the "devil's den." This is why Teddy and Chuck are INVITED over. Get it? It's a metaphor folks.
(10) The tie that Teddy is wearing while on the island doesn't match the tie he imagines himself wearing when he finds his wife and "children." This is signficant. It suggests that this scene of his wife and kids is a hallucination, not a memory. In other words, there are elements of the “memory” which are fictionalized (more on this later).
(11) Use of cigarettes and "aspirin" are obviously intended to suggest that Teddy is being drugged.
(12) In the scene with his “kids,” Teddy only displays an emotional connection for his “daughter,” not the sons. This is because his "daughter" is actually a victim from a concentration camp. The two boys aren't even his sons; he didn't have sons! And the girl is not his daughter. He's being brainwashed into confabulating the idea that a girl he saw at the concentration camp is his daughter (more support for this in a moment).
(13) Scorsese directly references Schindler's List by having the girl wear red shoes. This is symbolic. She is the only one of the kids that is actually rooted in the reality of Teddy's past. Also, this highlights the importance of the Holocaust subtext, and also unifies the interpretation that Shutter Island is actually run by expatriated Nazis.
(14) The warden is clearly a sadist. Why would Cawley, if truly a benign psychatrist, surround himself with a sadist like the warden and obvious former Nazi like Dr. Naehring? Again, the very grounds of Shutter Island harken back to a death camp. In addition, the staff all represent the archetypes of a concentration camp staff (we have the clinical psychiatrists like Mengele, the guards who are like sadist SS guards, and an ambivalent, obedient set of ordilies who "go along to get along" just as the German populance did during WWII.)

Now, for the final scenes:
(1) The gun that they tell Teddy is his is actually Chuck's (remember the holster?) Why lie and tell Teddy it is his gun when it's Chuck? Answer: they're further trying to destabilze his mind.
(2) The document that they produce showing that he is Andrew could easily have been forged. The reason they know all the details about what Teddy thinks is going on is because TEDDY ALREADY TOLD CHUCK during the storm. This also explains Chuck's mysterious diappearnce when Teddy's talking to George; Chuck is reporting back to Cawley.
(3)There is no sewage treatment plant at the lighthouse. The guard was lying. Why lie if there's nothing going on? Answer: there is, but it's happening at the OTHER lighthouse (the one that Teddy sees the first time, but never revisits).
Also, if it's a role play, why does Cawley tell Teddy he doesn't have a partner after Teddy refuses a cigartte in the ward? Cawley is obiously breaking character early, and he does this because he is miffed that Teddy is succumbing to the experiment in the way that the staff has hoped.

But what about the note you say? Well, the note PROVES Teddy is sane. It's simple math. If Teddy is Andrew, then the guy with the scar across his face (Andrew) and Rachel are fake. That means that there are 65 patients, not 66 on the island. But Cawley insists that there are 66 patients. Thus, for the note to make sense, there must be 66 patients on the island. But if Teddy is Andrew there are only 65 in which case the note makes no sense. The answer is that Andrew and Rachel do exist, and the 67th patient is Teddy qua Teddy. Teddy becomes the 67th patient the second he smokes the laced cigarette on the boat. They try to induce insanity to turn Teddy into a "Ghost." This serves two purposes: first, it eliminates the possibility of Teddy exposing Shutter Island as a modern day Auschwitz, and it also enables them to experiment on a perfect subject (someone who is highly intelligent with a set of skills that would make him the perfect weapon). This is why they have him lobotomized at the end of the movie. The psychological experiment fails and they no longer have any use for Teddy, so they have him lobotomized. Who makes this decision? The psychiatrists. Just like how the psychiatrists at the concentration campes decided who would be experimented on, who would be put to labor, and who would be murdered. Once the people on Shutter Island no longer have the need to experiment on Teddy, they dispatch him. Again, the literal plot here is metaphorical for what happened at the death camps.

When Teddy talks about the monster and the hero, he's not talking about himself. He's telling Chuck that Chuck and the others on the island are monsters. This is why he has a brief look of disdain on his face as he stands up. Then, in a moment of unscripted emotion, Chuck calls Teddy "Teddy." He has no reason to call him Teddy if he truly isn't Teddy. If there even ever had been a role play, it was already over. There never was a role play. The explanation of role play is their attempt to induce insanity in Teddy. This is also why the try to tell him that his gun is a toy when the gun is actually Chuck's? They're tyring to make him question the most basic things about reality, knowing that, by doing so, they might get him so destabalized that their mind control experiment will work. When it fails, they're forced to get rid of him a la a prisoner at Auschwitz or Dachau. This isn't suprising, of course, since Shutter Island is staffed by expatriated Nazis. Teddy, from his war experience, new this. And that's why they ultimately lured him to the island to conduct a psychological experiment on him, and then had him murdered when it failed.

Like I said, Scorsese is an auter. The Holocaust flashbacks aren't incidental. They are crucial to the meaning of the film. The Nazi archetypes embodied by many of the staff are not incidental. The fact that the gateway is meant to look like Auschwitz is not incidental. The "obvious" film noir plot arc, a lone crazy man who eventually realizes his insanity, is just Scorese's skeletal structure to tell the real story he wants to. He's not making another Memento. He's not making another Psycho where the audience has to sit through an uncessary twenty minute explanation of what should have been obvious within the first fifteen minutes of the film. Sorry, he's not doing that. He's better than that. But it's in the subtext and most viewers lack the historical knowledge of WWII and Hollywood film history to see how Scorsese appropriating classical film noir motifs and then weaving them in an entirely new, creative way.