‹ The pretzels may make you thirsty, but the chemical weapons will make your town turn into THE CRAZIES (2010) — THE HILLS HAVE EYES (1977) but not a twisted soul ›

In defense of SHUTTER ISLAND

Posted by Daniel Metz

After reading Michael’s very thoughtful review of Shutter Island, I feel the need to offer a rebuttal. Michael’s review, while repeatedly insisting that the film is a success, is on the whole quite negative. I say he sells the film short. I can’t let that stand because the film is, in fact, the best film yet released in 2010, and although it is soon to be dethroned by Greenberg, it is still a fantastic film.

I did not write a proper review of the film because I saw it at the overwhelming Butt-Numb-A-Thon, around hours 8-11 of a 26 hour film event. I must come forward now, though, with some key points, per chance that our dear readers by swayed by Michael’s opinion and stray from one of the best opportunities of the month.

1. Shutter Island is a genre picture like The Exorcist or The Shining are genre pictures.

Those two films, one from the early 1970s and the other the early 1980s, are now recognized as classics in the horror genre. These films are not merely examples of the cinema’s most troubled classification; they work to define it. Horror could not exist today without the head spinning Linda Blair or the red lipstick’d REDRUM. These films are scary as hell. More than that, they are scary as hell because they are works of cinema masters who craft terror through artistry.

Shutter Island is technically brilliant and creates a psychological suspense and terrifying madness through mise-en-scène, editing, acting, and a bulletproof script. The dream sequences are some of the most haunting I’ve seen. The plot, while not exactly a mystery, is crafted carefully like a good story should be. Shutter Island’s power lies in its execution. Each line of dialogue, plot-point reveal, character flaw, and camera movement is done with the deliberation of an artist painting a beautiful if horrifying portrait.

Quick diversion: The Exorcist (1973), The Shining (1980). I’ve got to have other early decade horror films that change history. How about The Silence of the Lambs (1991), House of 1000 Corpses (2003), and now, Shutter Island (2010).

2. The lighthouse scene is clutch.

In the parlance of my old friend Craig Barnes, the climax to the film is clutch. There is a scene where Leonardo races up a lighthouse staircase, uncovering with each twist and turn the layers and layers of madness that the film is drenched in. Michael, I ask you, did this scene do nothing for you? Every time Scorsese’s camera goes around the wooden structure, were you not holding tight to your arm rest? The building suspense is especially beautiful here because you know painfully well what is going to happen. You are being taken on a roller coaster ride that you know is broken, yet you look forward to the drop because the track was built so well.

3. The colors.

4. The Holocaust is finally brought back into horror genre properly.

Our country loves Holocaust narratives, and the reason for that is because we feel very guilty. Guilt makes us feel all squishy inside, and there is a certain perversion in the discomfort. In Shutter Island the protagonist was involved in the Holocaust as a rescuing soldier. Throughout the film he continually flashes back to moments of terrible memories. These flashbacks are directly referencing the brilliant Sidney Lumet film, The Pawnbroker. You have to give credit to a filmmaker who can properly reference Sidney Lumet films, and to do it in a way that heightens the despair of a horror film deserves even more credit.

In one of DiCaprio’s dreams, he actually sees a dead child in a pile of dead Holocaust victims that says to him, “You should’ve saved us, you should’ve saved all of us.” Can you believe that? In that one moment, Scorsese is having his protagonist placing the guilt of the entire Holocaust on his own shoulders. How is that for character?

5. The supporting cast is tremendous.

This is a point I agree with Michael on. Max von Sydow, Jackie Earle Haley and Emily Mortimer are wonderful. I am surprised to see, however, that you don’t mention the even stronger performances by Mark Ruffalo, bow-tie rocking Ben Kingsley, Patricia Clarkson and John Carroll Lynch as the Boston-accented Deputy Wahden McPheason.

I am stupefied to see that you didn’t mention the award-deserving performance by Michelle Williams. Her deranged wife character is poignant and evocative, and her presence in the film is like a looming specter of desolation. The way she interacts with DiCaprio, begging him not to go forward in a ego/sanity protective gesture is brilliant and deep.

I could go on with more of these numbers, but I have other things to do. I am not sure that Michael and I saw the same film. How can you not be as crazy about this movie as I am?