People have scoffed at the idea of a Martin Scorsese’s “Shutter Island” campaign for months now. The film didn’t hit with the critics, therefore it must be an also ran, right? The thing is, it made decent bank and is packed with elements I know for a fact are well-respected from the industry, whether it’s Thelma Schoonmaker’s typically expert film editing, Robert Richardson’s throwback lensing, Dante Ferretti’s creepy production design or, indeed, Leonardo DiCaprio’s fantastic lead performance.
All of that goodwill can build momentum in a year of 10 Best Picture nominees, and let’s face it, every DiCaprio/Scorsese collaboration has been nominated in the top category, in years of five, no less. With Halloween right around the corner, now is the perfect time for Paramount Pictures to remind everyone of the film. The studio is therefore kicking off the season’s festivities with a two-day American Cinemateque retrospective on their eight-year partnership.
The dates are November 13 and 14 and the event will take place at the historic Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood. DiCaprio will attend in person on the 14th and Scorsese will join him live via satellite from London. Hopefully all the buzz gives naysayers a reason to take another look at the film. I still think it’s one of the most misunderstood films of the year.
[Photo: Paramount Pictures]
Comments
53 responses to “Scorsese/DiCaprio retrospective set to kick-start ‘Shutter Island’ campaign”
It could happen, but I’d say that at most their chances are 50/50. All things said and done, Shutter Island was released way, way too early. They’ll need every bit of publicity to bring it back to the mainstream attention, but it could happen.
Also, I honestly think it’s far easier for Shutter Island to get into the top 10 than for DiCaprio to be nominated for best actor. He was good in that movie, but the acting categories are still kinda crowded, not to mention that he is against his own performance on Inception.
Amen, Paramount seems serious about this, and Im hopeful
DiCaprio’s final scene in the film is astounding. Where Scorsese is going with Teddy’s final “relapse” is one of the finest cases of morality ever played out onscreen. I don’t see Wahlberg’s performance beating that one out.
Saying it’s one of the most misunderstood films of the year is not the same as saying it’s one of the best. Do you think it is? Or do you just think it’s better than critics say it is?
It would probably be in my top 10 right now.
It kind of feels like the critics went in expecting too much because it was a Scorsese film, and ended up disappointed that it wasn’t blowing their minds on the highest level. I highly doubt the critics would’ve been as harsh if it’d been another director’s name on the marquee.
The audiences clearly loved it, just look at its 8.0 rating on IMDb from over 110,000 votes. That’ll ensure it’ll be one of the best rated films when all is said and done.. And it did very well at the box office which can’t be discounted.
Personally I could easily see this getting a Best Picture nomination along with a few technicals (Cinematography, Art Direction, maybe Costumes). It could very well miss out too, but it’s got as good a shot as most of the films that are in the hunt for those last few slots.
I’m certainly excited for Leo getting his proper due for this performance. I’m curious if the Academy decides to play it safe and nominated Michelle Williams in Supporting for this picture without a Best Actress nomination for Blue Valentine.
How Leonardo DiCaprio isn’t at the top of people’s lists for a Best Actor win for either of his performances is beyond me.
I really liked Shutter Island and I totally agree with Kris that many people did not understand what it was going for. Other than The Social Network, I have not seen a film that I enjoyed more this year, but I really doubt it will be nominated for Best Picture. I would love to be presently surprised though.
@ Graysmith: See, I agree with you that Martin Scorsese’s reputation had a lot to do with the film’s reception, but I came to the opposite conclusion.
I think that the critics were far too forgiving to Shutter Island and it was a box office success largely due to the cult of personality surrounding the director, especially coming off of his Oscar-winning hit four years ago. I don’t dispute that there are many genuine fans of the film (though I’m not sure what they could have possibly seen in such a terrible film), but I think Scorsese is now the kind of director whose works are given an immediate benefit of a doubt. As James D said on his blog, “If it wasn’t directed by a legend, then no one would have cared.”
P.S. — IMDb score? Really? These are the same people who couldn’t score a single Altman over an 8 but think The Green Mile and Gran friggin’ Torino are among the 100 greatest films ever made.
“though I’m not sure what they could have possibly seen in such a terrible film”
LOL
Sometimes one just can’t help oneself.
And James D was wrong in his blog. Pure (lazy) speculation and not even worth bringing up as a result.
Dare I say the vast majority of the people who went and saw Shutter Island couldn’t care less about Scorsese’s name being attached to it. Yes, us movie buffs care about things like that, but the average person (and given it’s box office gross there were quite many of those who went and saw it) don’t really care about who the director is. I’m sure Scorsese’s name helped draw attention in some circles, but it’s comparatively puny compared to who’s starring in it and the trailer.
As for IMDb score, I agree it’s not exactly the word of God, but we’re still talking about the averaged opinion of over 100,000 people.
“Dare I say the vast majority of the people who went and saw Shutter Island couldn’t care less about Scorsese’s name being attached to it.”
Obviously neither of us will know for sure who’s right in this case, but it is worth pointing out that his name and selected filmography were plastered all over the trailers and promotional materials for the film. You may believe that Scorsese’s name was a “relatively puny” draw, but that certainly wasn’t the attitude of the marketing department.
@ Kris: And the Flip Condescension In the Face of Dissent Award once again goes to….
what. Scorsese is a draw now because of The Departed. I don’t think that can be disputed. The fact that Shutter Island did well at the box office doesn’t hurt. Personally, I loved it at the time, but I can’t work up the energy to defend it the way I would defend, say, Animal Kingdom, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Winter’s Bone, Exit Through the Gift Shop, or Splice to the death.
Shutter Island is currently my 4th fave film of the year behind Inception, The Social Network, and Toy Story 3.
Question. I asked this elsewhere, but I’m curious here …
if DiCaprio gets 250 votes for SI and 200 votes for Inception, does he just get 250 towards a nomination or 450, and Shutter is the film represented?
You forgot to insert “uninformed” in between “of” and “Dissent.” About the Scorsese factor, that is. You are, of course, free to think what you like about the film.
If I may but in…
I just did not like this movie, and was very surprised in reminding myself that it came from the creative womb of a directing legend.
I found it a very bland, by-the-numbers phsychological thriller that would’ve been handled the same way by just about any other director. No suspense, no genuine scares, nothing to feel compelled by. Plus, it’s one of those films where you can figure out the twist well before it’s over.
I just don’t think this film deserves a lot of award season recognition if any. Clearly lots of wonderfully talented people attached, but the synergy just didn’t.
I actually started nodding off in the theater, and I NEVER do that.
Good question, JJ1; I have wondered the exact same thing for years.
I think it’s gonna be in the 10
This is definately a Best Picture nominee
I am not the only person who thinks that (A.O. Scott, among others). I can see some people liking it, but critics losing their minds over it has to be a result of the Scorsese name. Even among Scorsese’s twenty year run of mediocrity, it stood out as being especially bad, even worse than Kundun and Gangs of New York.
I can’t even see what people are seeing in DiCaprio’s performance, frankly. Then again, I am always confused when people champion his hammy acting in things like Revolutionary Road, so maybe I am missing the appeal.
Why is it so wrong to suggest a director will cause people to be lenient? After years of getting no respect, critics and the Academy have bestowed honors upon every sub-par thing he has put out recently.
James,
Considering your opinion is that Gangs of New York (10 Academy Award nominations) is bad, doesn’t that mean we should expect Shutter Island to top it, given the Academy’s apparent tendency to heap tons of nominations on “bad” Scorsese movies?
Robert,
I think that has to do with the fact that you pretty much have to do that, not because it will be an enormous draw. Scorsese is one of the greatest filmmakers currently working, of course they’re going to use that in the marketing.. And of course he has SOME draw. I’m just saying I doubt he’s that much of a draw for the average person. No one’s got a poster of Martin Scorsese on their bedroom wall. The average person probably hasn’t even seen most of his work.
Just think of Christopher Nolan. No doubt some people got jazzed knowing Inception was by the guy who made those awesome Batman movies.. But I bet far more got jazzed about it because of the trailers, the story and who starred in it. Directors, not even the It directors at the moment, will ever have such enormous draw.
Unless you’re Steven Spielberg.
No one can just like a film with well-reasoned perspective anymore. It has to be “because” of this or that.
Once again, lazy. Appallingly so. That’s why, James.
I actually really, really loved DiCaprio’s performance and he’s the only person I would be happy to see beat Jesse Eisenberg for Best Actor, but frankly I’m not holding my breath even for a nomination.
I only see this movie getting into the 10 if people just feel nice about Scorsese and don’t really have strong feelings for enough other movies.
What’s funny to me is, IF Shutter Island was released in December, and IF it got somewhat better reviews (still, 68% in RT isn’t bad) – then this would be a shoe-in for a Top 10 nom. In my opinion.
Scorsese, DiCaprio, well-respected cast, Thelma Schoonmaker, Robert Richardson, Dante Ferreti (sp?), Powell, great sound design ………. the list goes on.
But the Feb. release and 68% is bothersome. We’ll have to see if a campaign catches fire.
I should add, and if it made somewhere near as much $$ as it did.
Usually I understand why people like films I don’t, Kris, but Shutter Island was just so amateur. I can’t understand why people like it, and when every person I talks to channels Scorsese’s career as proof of its greatness, what other conclusion can be drawn?
I’m with James D. on this one. Yuck. I strongly disliked “Shutter Island” (the worst film Scorsese’s ever made) and DiCaprio’s performance was decent, even though the character was barely developed. It deserves to be nowhere near the top 10 of the year.
(In other news, this is one of the first times we have agreed on something, James.)
“Shutter Island was just so amateur”
And yet that’s an opinion.
Did it feel too staged to you? Too fake? And have the requisite rebuttals (what you’re seeing unfold is a farce so these are expressionistic choices, etc.) just not been good enough?
I mean, I’m sorry you’re only talking with those who have nothing but “Scorsese rocks” to say regarding their love of the film. Praise can be weak and ill-considered, too, I suppose.
What constitutes DiCaprio’s character as being ‘barely developed’?
In all seriousness, I’d like to know what more you need to know about him to have made for a better character for the purpose of the novel/movie.
Maybe it’s my own ignorance, but I rarely understand when the ole ‘lacking 3-dimension/underdeveloped’ argument rears it’s head in certain movie discussions.
Either you feel like you know the character, like the character, sympathize with the character, or you don’t. That’s understandable.
But I mean, what? Did you want to know if the DiCaprio character had a curmudgeony grandfather? A mangy dog? Liked roses, instead of carnations? Like his meat rare, instead of medium-rare? What more do you want to know about him that would’ve made (for you) a better character/movie in the end?
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be cheeky, but I just don’t get it. Can you explain it to me?
I seriously hope the film gets a fair shake. Partially–I imagine–because I’ve not seen a majority of the big contenders coming out in the next two months, and partially because the year’s been so weak, this is still in my top 5. I thought the entire film was excellent, from the technical aspects to the performances to the script.
I still think the movie would be a major dark horse to even get nominated, but good for Paramount to give it a little love.
I am really bothered by the defense that things like bad acting, goofy musical cues, and a ridiculous story are intentional because it is a choice. The idea that an entire mental institution would create such a charade, especially in an era where a good lobotomy was the answer to so many questions, is absurd to me.
Then you are bothered by the film’s conceit. Though “bad” is relative. It’s pretty difficult to pull off stylized histrionics, but that’s very much what’s happening here.
But then you’re attacking story, so go after Lehane. Scorsese, IMO, did something very artful with it.
I agree ^.
I mean, this is not your typical story, movie, or storytelling. And I think Scorsese did something interesting with Lehane’s work. Not everyone will agree. Most people I know who’ve seen it agree with me, and a few thought it was awful.
I didn’t like this when I saw it in February but I didn’t hate it. I am going to watch it again pretty soon. I just watched the opening scene again and noticed Leo’s funny tie, Mark Ruffalo not being able to take his gun out of its holster and the inmates waving to Leo as if they know him. Yeah I guess I wasn’t paying full attention the first time around but I tend to notice things better at home than in the theater.
Also the first time I saw this I was wondering about Mark Ruffalo’s wacky performance. “Now they have us both here, now!” Obviously now I realize it’s a performance within a performance so perhaps I will appreciate him and the film more on second viewing.
We’ll see….
Oh damn wish there was an edit but SPOILERS ABOVE!!!
Is Laeta Kalogridis part of the Oscar talk for this movie? I haven’t seen her name mentioned among all the dudes.
Gosh, it’s just SO appalling to ascribe “reasons” for one’s opinions and it infuriates you…and yet you’re silent when Graysmith does exactly that to Shutter Island’s detractors.
Look, none of us are saying that you’re somehow lying to us or that you forced yourself to enjoy the movie. But it’s hard for me to believe that you would have seen Shutter Island as a farce with expressionistic choices and stylized histrionics if, say, M. Night Shyamalan was making this instead of one of the most revered American filmmakers of all time. The overmixed score, the gratuitous lakeside climax, the tawdry use of concentration camps as backstory; none of these were piss poor decisions, they were just misunderstood because, dammit, the man who made Goodfellas just couldn’t have gone off the rails this badly.
You further confirm my suspicious when you suddenly throw Dennis Lehane under the bus and tell us to blame him for whatever problems we found in the story. Excuse me? Was Scorsese somehow unable to deviate from the novel? Didn’t you blast Watchmen for its fidelity to the source material a year ago?
I haven’t been following what Graysmith has said here, Robert.
Whatever is hard for you to believe, I can’t change that, I suppose. I responded to a film, regardless of director. What else can be said, really? It shouldn’t be so hard to believe. But I won’t stand in your way anymore. You clearly would rather condescend to the gall of finding value in something you didn’t like.
Life’s too short.
(I didn’t throw Lehane under the bus, by the way. A comment was made in regards to story and I’ve been arguing the handling of said story directorially, so I suggested qualms with the narrative are a bit misplaced. No need to dip into breathless hyperbole.)
And boy you won’t the Watchmen thing go a year later, even if it means comparing an orange to an apple and stretching to make a point (since I never once said a bad word about Shutter Island’s story).
I am not a Shutter Island fan. I found it implausible when “the veil” was lifted in the end.
But the problem with people saying that “it’s one of the most misunderstood films” is that when people say they don’t like the film, you get this thrown back in the face: “You just didn’t get it. You misunderstood it.”
No, I did not misunderstand it. I just thought it was a very well-executed film that fell completely apart in the twist. It would/could never happen, and the alternative was much more intriguing.
Should I be surprised that you engage in personal attacks instead of responding like an adult? Probably not, you’ve done it many times before.
Whatever, I’m over it.
One of my favs of the year… I would say top 5 for me. Hope this gets some more buzz and gets in the top 10.
I get what your saying The Great Dane, because I feel the same way when people who loved Inception say to anyone that doesn’t consider it a “masterpiece” , “you just didn’t get it”. On the other hand, I do think it is possible to misinterpret a film. From the sound of your criticism, I think you did understand what the film was going for and still didn’t like it, which is fine, but some people who criticize don’t seem to totally understand the movie. So my question to you is, do you think it is possible for people not to understand a film?
Of course it is. ^
It took me a thorough review/article/wikipedia search the following day (after I’d seen it) to fully understand what the hell was going on in ‘Never Let Me Go’; and I don’t consider myself an intellectually inept person.
Not being snarky, just curious: what was confusing about Never Let Me Go?
No, no problem, Guy. Honest to God … I didn’t even catch on that they were clones.
I know, I know. What kind of idiot must I be?
I just thought they were young orphans who were indoctrinated to believe that they were special and were to accept death by donating organs until completion (in an alternate reality where disease was running rampant), end of story.
I also was confused in the last scenes when the Charlotte Rampling character said her “to see if you had souls at all”. Confused, because of my ridiculous orphan assumption, and also because that scene was not thoroughly executed with regard to the scene in the book (I’ve since read).
I think I was SO confused because my viewing was one of those cases where I didn’t let the film just “happen”, and I was focusing so much on what was going on that it completely flew right over my head (missing something as simple as ‘clones’ in the process).
I hope I explained myself in a cohesive manner. I completely call myself a dumbf*#k for missing several components. That said, the dumbf*#k (like me) who saw the movie with me also had no idea (when I told him the next day) that they were clones, either.
And for what it’s worth, 2 bubbleheaded women who sat behind us had NO patience for the movie and were equally, if not moreso confused.
I don’t know. At least I was honest with y’all, right? haha
In retrospect, I recall certain conversations where, yes, clone-like discussions between various characters WERE had. But it just didn’t sink in the 1st time.
@ James D. DiCaprio’s “hammy” acting? Oh, like the Academy (Sean Penn) has never awarded “hammy” acting [rolls eyes].
Great performance by DiCaprio, who, let’s face it, was 95% of the film and in almost every scene. Also have to give props to the rest of the cast, whose performances were just amazing on most levels. Have seen this film more than once and for me it only gets better and more interesting each time. I don’t see it in the running for oscars, though. It does have a peculiar roughness around the edges and seems too easy on the surface, although I see those as strengths personally. Scorsese made an exceptional film and it’s interesting that it got bombarded with dopey reviews. I still think the most interesting art provokes extremes of division and that isn’t a bad thing.