Berlin International Film Festival
(EDIT: Star rating adjusted upon consideration.)
To filch an aphorism from Mike Skinner, “Shutter Island” represents of continuation of Martin Scorsese’s decade-long quest to find the hardest way to make an easy living.
If that sounds like a jab, it’s not. Since the self-amusing personal statements of “Kundun” and “Bringing Out the Dead” perplexed far more than they pleased, Scorsese has weaved over to the middle of the road, flirting with broad Oscar-bait and crowdpleasers (successfully marrying the two in “The Departed”) while playfully maintaining an auteur’s consistency of theme and aesthetic.
It’s a tricky game to play, and when the elements align, it can work to smashing effect — as in “The Departed,” a nifty pop movie-movie winkingly intended as the prototypical “Scorsese film” that casual cinemagoers attributed to him, but that he’d never actually made.
When they don’t, however, you get “Shutter Island,” a film awash with beauty and trademark stylistic flourishes, attached to a narrative that he never seems all that into. A near letter-faithful adaptation of Dennis Lehane’s pulpy source novel, itself something of a genre lark for the author, it surprises principally by offering more intrigue as a Scorsese picture than as an entertainment. As an artistic investigation of B-movie construction, it has all the impeccable craft, and a measure of the cinephile intelligence, of “The Departed” or “Cape Fear”; but a lot of the fun is missing.
The vastly underrated “Cape Fear” is, as always appeared to be the case, “Shutter Island”‘s closest sibling in the Scorsese oeuvre: a depersonalized experiment in Grand Guignol horror, its mind as much on other, older movies than anything written in the script.
“Shutter Island” shares the 1991 film’s occasional balls-out strangeness – most notably in a dream sequence of lusciously kitsch staging that teases a more vivid and disorienting work entirely – but sorely lacks its wit, a crucial omission when negotiating the extravagantly silly mechanics of Lehane’s plot. And where “Cape Fear” tied its genre games to a piercingly nasty examination of family life in post-Reagan America, the new film really isn’t about anything beyond its own puzzle: once completed, there’s little payoff beyond the satisfaction of having reached the maze’s end.
Taken as a fairground ride, then, “Shutter Island” isn’t bereft of loopy pleasures while it lasts. The film is particularly tight and alluring in its opening act, which establishes the players and the game with pleasing swiftness, elegantly assembling information while planting sly bonus hints for the keen-eyed.
But as Leonardo DiCaprio’s protagonist, a federal marshal on what initially appears to be a missing persons investigation, loses grip on the situation, the storytelling follows suit. Scorsese concocts almost apologetically elaborate atmospheric setups for numerous scenes hinging on prosaic verbal exposition; a resplendently designed sequence in the dankest ward of the mental hospital in which the film is mostly set drips with gleeful Gothic scaremongering, none of it in the wordily informative encounter it finally enables.
I’m admittedly not well-placed to comment on the effectiveness of its axis-shifting plot twist, having anticipated its arrival from the outset – the film doesn’t suffer in comparison to its literary source, but doesn’t reward familiarity with it either. Screenwriter Laeta Kalogridis actually does a better job than Lehane of guarding details that threaten to prematurely unravel the enigma, only to undermine her own effort with a notably botched reveal that conveys dense psychological flips in banal “Murder, She Wrote”-style bullet points.
With the script so unmoored, it’s no surprise that the spectacular cast comes at it from a range of angles, in apparent disagreement as to the film they’re in. Patricia Clarkson, for example, dives in with campy, wild-eyed commitment to the B-movie cause, but this kind of kerr-azy cameo playing is oil to the water of Michelle Williams’s more abstracted intensity. Somewhere in the middle, Ben Kingsley enjoys himself with oleaginous semi-villainy.
There may or may not be a narrative rationale for the film’s more arch supporting turns; either way, at its center, DiCaprio isn’t given much in the way of a foil. So limber and responsive in his last two collaborations with Scorsese, DiCaprio is here instructed to begin the film at his most dramatically clenched, leaving the performance little room to grow.
Still, it’s impossible to come away empty-handed from a Scorsese picture. Here, where the jerky storytelling and scattershot ensemble leave voids on the canvas, Scorsese fills them in with brazen, sporadically brilliant filmmaking bravado. No prizes for guessing that Hitchcock — “Vertigo,” most prominently — is top of the director’s reference list, but the expertise of the pastiche can dazzle all the same, even in set pieces as well-worn as DiCaprio’s cliff-face clamber.
Working from the same memo, Robert Richardson’s camera obliges with imperious swoops and a richly saturated palette. The real technical star here, however, is music supervisor Robbie Robertson, who has assembled a remarkable Herrmann-echoing score from cannily overlapped selections of existing works from a panoply of sources ranging from John Cage to Brian Eno to Max Richter. (Wastefully buried in the closing credits, meanwhile, an orchestral remix of Dinah Washington’s “This Bitter Earth” is one of the most gorgeous things ever to grace a Scorsese soundtrack.)
Sensually overwhelming and intellectually undernourished, then, “Shutter Island” finds Scorsese positioning himself as the star more than in any of his mainstream works of the past decade. Part of me thrills to see him commanding his medium so aggressively; a grumpier part wonders why he chose such shallow material in order to do so.
Even taking aside the glaring flaws that keep it well below the ranks of a “Cape Fear,” it would be easier to enjoy the film as a cheerfully disposable potboiler were there not such effort and occasional artistry in its construction. (And, if we’re being quite frank, had we not been kept waiting for it for nearly four years). But a potboiler, by definition, should abut something more selfishly subversive – with his formal gifts still bright, America’s greatest living filmmaker has by now earned the right to make one for himself. Scorsese the showman has delighted us long enough.
Comments
60 responses to “REVIEW: “Shutter Island” (**1/2)”
In you opinion, what’s the best Scorsese movie, Guy? I haven’t seen all of them, but I think it would be hardpressed to beat “Goodfellas.”
well, we have very different tastes in film it appears, thanks for avoiding spoilers and i look forward to it
That’s a hell of a review.
Clearly a film that begs more than one viewing. I come at this having read quite a few reviews and many of them clashing in regard to the viewer’s response to the film. Some see it as one thing, popcorn fare, some as something deeper and more emotionally involving, some saying they can’t really review it without more than one viewing or at least a lot more mulling over. Interesting responses, all. Makes me want to see it to at least see what the fuss is about. I think at the very least, it’s probably better than The Departed in some ways — more challenging to be sure. The Departed, much as I liked it, was rather too easy for a Scorsese outing, imo.
Also important to note that DiCaprio’s role calls for the character to be clenched from the outset — just as in the book. One note to some perhaps but also a very difficult, very tough thing for any actor to pull off. A bit like Al Pacino in Godfather 2.
It was a bad script, by the same person who did AVATARD. It’s not Scorsese’s fault. He tried… I’m assuming.
Scorsese is not America’s greatest living filmmaker. Never had been. Not as a sum total of his output nor due to any single stretch of his career. I am sorry but this is fact.
He wasn’t the greatest of the 00s, 90s, 80s or 70s. Out of respect to him, I will not offer alternative(s) though I could.
You may like him, admire him and really really love him but you shouldn’t feel free to offer up such statements. Nor is it needed. He is a very good and interesting director and one who deserves praise. What he doesn’t need is over-praise or canonization. Not when Scorsese is so active. And especially not, as you have wisely pointed out, he is admired in an unknowing sort of way by the public – won’t help but only hurt.
And for the review it’s a very good one and one that sparks interest. For those of us who know better however, whether you really meant it or not, the ending is brutal.
So here I am, a guy who likes, mind, saying:
Ouch!
Just to clarify: I am planning to see the movie but, in the meantime, I wanted ask Guy the one obligatory question: How do you feel about the film’s Oscar chances?
(And do you feel that he could find himself in the similar spot Eastwood (presumably) did recently? I think you know what I mean by that)
Still looking forward to this, Todd McCarthy compared it to The Shining
“I am sorry but this is fact.”
Uh, no it’s not, and making such a bald-faced assertion doesn’t make it any more true. The man who made Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and GoodFellas can, in fact, make a VERY persuasive claim as America’s greatest living filmmaker.
Joel: What a choice! Probably “Raging Bull.”
Maxim: On the contrary, I should feel absolutely free to offer up such statements in what is, after all, an opinion piece. But I do respect yours. As for Oscar chances, I’d say they are minimal — perhaps some techs if it manages to ride out the whole year.
“Goodfellas,” “Taxi Driver,” “Raging Bull,” “The Departed,” “The King of Comedy,” “Bringing Out the Dead,” “No Direction Home,” “The Last Waltz,” “Mean Streets”
My favorite 9.
Scorsese is easily one of the greatest directors of all time. I do think though when guys like Polanski or Coppola are on the top of their game (Polanski is has been hit and miss lately and Coppola hasnt really captured the magic in the 70s in many years) they are just as good if not better.
As an addendum to Maxim’s question Guy, and I know it’s a moot point now, but what do you think it’s Oscar chances would have been had it come out in October, as originally intended?
Scorsese’s pretty good, but I agree with Maxim – America’s greatest living filmmaker? Impossible to go passed Woody Allen.
I found Scorsese’s overratedness at one point led me to feel immense backlash to his work (ditto Godard). I’ve come to appreciate both, but still find the verbal fellation often irksome.
(he is recently dead of course) but I don’t think anyone beats Kubrick. I don’t think he directed an average film in his life.
Carson Dyle: Kris would be the better person to ask. My unreliable gut instinct thinks it wouldn’t have been a major player, but let’s wait and see what the critical consensus is.
Amor – I love Woody Allen but better than Marty? eh… I for myself really don’t believe so. But yeah, like mentioned, opiions should be free to choose.
Since having watched Shutter Islands trailer for the first time many months ago, I’m no longer expecting too much of this movie. I’m among those people who think that he is (at least one of) the best living filmmaker(s) in the states but that movie doesn’t look like a classic Scorsese pic.
Favourite Scorsese movie: Raging Bull. By far because it probably is my favourite movie ever. Then maybe Taxi Driver. But they’re all great, I’ll have to give Goodfellas a second chance
When I first saw ‘Gilbert Grape’ I thought Dicaprio was such an amazing talent and thought it was awesome that a young actor was taking so much risky choices so early in his career, “Total Eclipse”, “Basketball Diaries”. However it seems in the past decade after working almost exclusively with Scorsese his work has become boring and predictable. Scorsese is a legend but I wish Leo go outside his comfort zone and work with other directors.
Personally, my favorite is easily Mean Streets. The rawest, most original, most emotionally resonant, and most involving for me. Raging Bull drove me crazy. Beautiful to look at but I just never felt very involved with it. Hated the central character and I don’t think DeNiro ever recovered from gaining all that weight. Taxi Driver hasn’t aged well but still great. I actually like After Hours pretty well — definitely undervalued. Goodfellas is pretty entertaining although at times tough to watch. The Departed is Scorsese’s best shot at popcorn fare. Gangs of New York was an interesting, flawed film, but still watchable for me. Great DDL perf. Bringing Out the Dead suffered by comparison to some earlier work but had a fascinating and oddly touching dynamic between Nicholas Cage and Patricia Arquette who were in the process of breaking apart at the time they made the film. The Aviator had it’s moments but ultimately was flawed, though DiCaprio was at times quite impressive as that lovable OCD’d eccentric, HH.
Age of Innocence, Kundun, Casino, and Alice were all interesting, enjoyable and/or repulsive depending, and instructive to some extent or other. Jeez, how many other filmmakers have these kinds of things going for them?
Can someone please get Bobby DeNiro, Scorcese, and Joe Pesci in the same room so we can have one more mafioso masterpiece before they all die?
The King of Comedy is his best film
DiCaprio has also worked with Stephen Spielberg, Sam Mendes, Ridley Scott, Christopher Nolan and soon, Mel Gibson. Why do you think he only works with Scorsese? Because he’s made 4 films with him? What actor wouldn’t cut off his arm to do the same? As it happens, with each outing with Scorsese, he seems to be learning something, imo. But I do wish he’d find a great comedy or something less dramatic to do as well.
Also, in regards to criticism that film isn’t as much fun as The Departed or Cape Fear…..do films have to be fun to be watchable? Depends on who’s viewing and what they consider “fun”.
“Mystic River” had a foolish plot, resting as it did on a very smelly coincidence (the night thirty-years later when Tim Robbins decides to flip out and get revenge against child molesters happens to be the night his school chum’s daughter is murdered in a quiet, leafy neighborhood of Boston that probably gets one murder every five years). For that reason, I’m not getting my hopes up for this one.
Im not a huge fan of DiCaprio, I find some of his performances a bit too forced sometimes, but you cant really blame him for working with one of the greatest directors of all time, he takes the opportunities. I do wish Scorsese would cast someone else in a leading role though like Ryan Gosling or even do a film with Al Pacino
that was one of the most pompous reviews I have ever read and I feel like any time someone is discussing Scorsese it brings it out in them.
This reads like a 2 star review Guy. 2 1/2 tops.
This review and most of the others I’ve read are more or less exactly what I expected. I read the novel, and it just isn’t anything special. Yeah, it’s intricately plotted and it reads quickly, but it’s thematically shallow. And the prose is never more than workmanlike.
So the book lowered my expectations, but only to a point. Many of my problems with the book were on an aesthetic level. I figured that wouldn’t be the case with the film. I have more faith in Scorsese/Richardson than I do in Lehane’s prose. (To be fair, I’ve only read Shutter Island, which is apparently a departure for him, so my criticism only applies to this one novel).
So I’ll still be there on Friday, but I’m not expecting anything more than a routine gotcha thriller elevated by some top tier talent. It should still be a good time.
As for Scorsese as the greatest living American director….it’s had to argue otherwise. Too many classics, hardly any disasters. You could argue for Woody Allen, but the hit to miss ratio doesn’t favor him as well as it does Scorsese. And Allen probably has fewer stone cold classics, too.
Damn, I can only hope to disagree! ;-)
I get a strange impression that not even Guy is sure exactly how he feels about this film. Same thing as a few other reviews I’ve read. They can be just as schizophrenic as the film they’re reviewing.
I agree with Chad. Why give it 3 stars if your review doesn’t match up with that? Are you going on a 5 star system (like some moronic critics do), because it’s a 4 star system and you gave that 3 stars it seems like you buried the film quite a bit.
I think it will do stellar in the box office and still very much looking forward to it.
@ Guy just curious did you read the novel it’s based on?
Guys, don’t worry, it’s probably a fine film. Simply the best that was possible with the supposedly shallow source material.
Has Chris seen the film Guy? What are his opinions on Oscar chances?
And what would you say to McCarthy’s comparison to The Shining
Guy…why all the Cape Fear love?
I thought it was one of Scorsese’s most disappointing, uninspired, and almost instantly forgettable films. I liked the original with Mitchum much better, and keep in mind, I’m normally a huge Scorsese fan.
I’m definitely psyched to see Shutter Island, as well as the new Polanski film. Even an average film by these guys, is better then 80% of whatever else is out there. I’m so tired of all the mindless mainstream, and pretentious art house drivel.
No argument from me that Scorsese is America’s greatest living filmmaker (though I really love the work of Paul Thomas Anderson).
It occurs to me that every time a director like Scorsese releases a new film, it’s akin to someone like Paul McCartney or Elvis Costello releasing a new album. Critics and fans have such a love and investment in their back catalogue that they make the new project shadow-box “Band on the Run”, or “This Year’s Model” or “Taxi Driver”, which doesn’t really do the new or the old much justice.
I’m very much looking forward to Shutter Island. I think Guy’s review was tough, but ultimately probably fair. I’ll lay my cards on the table and say that I generally really like Lehane’s writing, and the only issue I’d have with the review and some of the subsequent comments is how they’ve tagged the book and its themes as shallow, which I honestly just can’t agree with at all. Granted, Shutter Island has its roots in the pulp fiction and detective movies of the 50s, but to see that as all it is is a little short-sighted. Anyway, all that is a long winded way of saying I think people need to let Shutter Island stand on its own too feet, let it be a film in its own right, and maybe not bash a novel we haven’t read in some cases ;). Roll on Feb 19th
Right on! BTW, critics Glenn Kenny and The Onion’s Scott Tobias are on board for this film. Divisive film, though.
Fave Scorsese? Hands down, Goodfellas – mostly because I can’t even explain why I love it so. More than any other – and I seriously love movies – it’s still exhilarates me, even after countless viewings. (Best flight ever: SF to O’Hare, watching the DVD with the commentary with the real Henry Hill and his prosecutor.)
After that, I’m going to throw in Last Temptation of Christ – a film that only improves over the years. I also believe Kundun is under-appreciated. Few filmmakers approach spiritual subjects with such understanding and nuance.
Re di Caprio: I agree that he’s lost the easy spontaneity of his early work. Lately, he’s too studied. In Revolutionary Road, I felt he only loosened up in his scenes with Winslet, esp. the later ones. Right now, I consider him rather over-rated, but hold out hope for the future.
One more Goodfellas note: IMO, Scorsese’s best use of music, most esp. the use of Layla (now in my mind as Dead Mobster Music) and the slam into the credits with Sid Vicious’ rendition of My Way. Effin’ brilliant!
Goodfellas is perfect filmmaking, there so much detail, one of my favorite scenes which im sure is many is the tracking shot, and the guy swings by with the huge red crate and passes Liotta and Bracco, its brilliant and I dont think any director would have ever thought of this very simple detail
DiCaprio generally got really great reviews for his work in Revolutionary Road and I felt he was every bit as good as Winslet, who seemed more than a little studied at times herself, btw. It was one of those kind of films that felt more like a filmed play to me. Don’t know why….maybe it was Mendes. I think every film he makes with Scorsese he gets better and more emotionally real. I don’t think, from what I’m generally hearing, this is any less true of SI. Mike Medavoy, who is trustee for Marlon Brando’s estate, thought his performance in SI was a lot like some of Brando’s earlier work. That sounds like a huge compliment to me.
Maxim, due respect, but I don’t think you’re analyzing “greatest living filmmaker” properly. Who alive has achieved a run equal to MEAN STREETS, TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, THE KING OF COMEDy, THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, or GOODFELLAS. I really don’t think there is a rational argument. But I will not say it is “fact”.
@Chad and Bill: Yeah, you’re probably right about the star rating — it was a little ill-thought at 4am. (And Bill, we always grade on a four-star system.)
Sometimes a film gets lucky, I guess. I’m not much for star ratings, anyway — reviews are there to be read.
Great review, Guy, but I don’t know what this word — “oleaginous” — means, along with several other “big” words you use here. Maybe scale back the vocabulary a bit next time?
@InSneider: Well, I guess that explains the “pompous” jab from another commenter! I’ll keep your note in mind, but I’m always going to write in the way that comes naturally to me.
And hey, a new word never hurt anyone. ;)
I guess this make sense of the bumped release date out of Oscar season. But even mediocre Scorsese is better than 90% of what is out there.
What a cop out to reduce the rating, Guy! Guess this means you’ll revise it a few years hence if it suddenly becomes clear that the opinion on it is more favorable, kinda like with Vertigo, Touch of Evil, and a number of other flicks that didn’t get much appreciation on initial release — oh, let’s not forget The Shining. The plot thickens.
Don’t agree with your review. This is a masterpiece, the best movie Scorsese had done since “Casino”. Deep substance and perfect style. The most terrific study about human nature, misery, pain and the origins of “evil” since “Silence of the lambs” and “The Addiction”. Scorsese deserves an A.
“As an addendum to Maxim’s question Guy, and I know it’s a moot point now, but what do you think it’s Oscar chances would have been had it come out in October, as originally intended?”
You know, Carson, that’s a very good question. I’d still like to hear Guy’s take on it, as, ironically it may help me determine this year’s Oscar’s chances even better. Could it be that the movie was moved for reason’s that, while good, it wasn’t awards material? Even in the year of 10?
Ferdi, I think Scorsese had better movie(s) than Casino since Casino. I’m just not a big fan of that film.And Guy, I’ve never said you CAN’T offer your opinion. I just tried to list the reason’s why it wasn’t necessary to make that statement.
“DiCaprio has also worked with Stephen Spielberg, Sam Mendes, Ridley Scott, Christopher Nolan and soon, Mel Gibson. Why do you think he only works with Scorsese? ”
I don’t understand what you are trying to say at all. First of, CLEARLY he doesn’t ONLY work with Scorsese. Second, he’s very fond of Spielberg (read his recent ‘Esquire’ interview). Third, Scorsese is unique in his reuse of lead actors. Four… wait, what was the point again?
I think the better question would be to ask why does Scorsese only seem to work with Di Caprio (see the converse is actually true!) while other directors opt to juggle their actors more.
I mean, you sorta mocked Kundun and Bringing Out the Dead, Guy. So I gotta take this review with a big ol’ grain of salt. I have no reason to not anticipate it more than any other film this year.