Watching SHUTTER ISLAND last night, I felt kind of like how I did watching EYES WIDE SHUT or THE WICKER MAN remake, two movies where big budget and directorial over-thinking were applied to a story better served perhaps by a grimy, no-budget backyard or city-without-a-permit shoot full of unknown actors, discovered on a
Something Weird double bill from 1972. There, any of these three films would be instant "discoveries" for the cult film niche dwellers, but with so much high tech Oscar-reaching craftsmanship involved in these B-movie plots, so many highbrow toots and expository whistles, we end up looking at both less and more than the sum of parts that probably originated in some screenwriters collection of DC
House of Mystery comics and was never intended to bear the full brunt of 21st century Hollywood craftspeople.
Spoiler Alert!
Here are some issues I had with the film:
1.
"GOOD" GRIEF:
If Leo's character is going to be delusional and alcoholic from issues of his memories of liberating the camps and shooting the Germans, I can assure you he'd a) start drinking again as things got really fucked up on the island and b) his first instinct when finding all that death in his big flashback would not be to scream "Noooooo!" up at an overhead camera--as has been a cliche as far back even as 90s "McBain" satires on THE SIMPSONS (and which I even made fun of Leo doing a
few years ago, before he even did it!)
No sir, he would not. Marty, Marty... Marty. You're better than that.
A real alcoholic in dealing with something as horrific as that big climactic flashback would have calmly gone back in the kitchen for that bottle and started drinking and calling the cops, going safely into a fugue state of numbness from booze and repression, winding up a bit like James Stewart after his VERTIGO breakdown, which he'd clearly never emerge from. He's a
Ranger, for Christ's sakes, not a wailing widow, and if he's going to process grief in huge cathartic Oscar-baiting howls of anguish that means he probably won't repress the memory two seconds later; you can't have it both ways: you can't process grief with primal bawling and repress it at the same time. The person who has hysterical hallucinations in denial of reality years later likely never properly reacted in the first place. Basic PSYCH 101, Marty! Leo seems to be accepting all the blame and grief of the war in his ghastly howls: primal scream therapists would surely approve, except it does not good. He's still in denial - he should read Freud or his doctor should.
2. TOO TOUGH - Leo needs to learn that gaining a bunch of weight won't make him look coppish, just bloated. He still needs to try that thing of leaning on his baby face for dangerous criminal associations, ala Richard Widmark in ROAD HOUSE and KISS OF DEATH, which
I've been urging since his Ridley Scott film, BODY OF LIES (2008). Instead, Leo acts as if he's been obsessed with the JFK-style "Bahstin" accent he learned for Marty's last film, THE DEPARTED ("the dee-pahhhted") and is determined to perfect the "tough cop who cared too much" martyr role even if it kills us. There's a kind of normally good actors who becomes laughable when they try to be menacing, thuggish. A really tough guy doesn't need to act it, that's Acting 101, Leo - you don't act tough to seem tough, you act like you
are tough and trying not to
as tough, to be a normal guy and not a thug. Exhibit A would be Tom Hardy or Russell Crowe, neither of whom, you will notice, never tries to talk deeper than their real voice, or play act a tough guy. Until Leo plays on his strengths rather than weaknesses, I'm afraid he'll seem petulant rather than assertive, sulky rather than manipulative, comical rather than dangerous. A role with John Wayne in a Hawks film might, like the Ricky Nelson part, might have saved Leo from this strait-jacket of masculine insecurity (we all want to be the one thing we never can). Without one, he's like Lancelot without an Arthur. And Scorsese ain't no Arthur, he's more like the New York Yankee in King Arthur's Court, scribbling down notes in awe as Lancelot prattles about his ability to poke other dudes in the shield. And PS, Lancelot would have been a washout if he didn't weaken and sleep with Arthur's wife. Until Leo does a similar high horse-dismount, he'll always be just a guy on a horse with a rod, trying to be tough, like Wilmer the neurotic gunsel in MALTESE FALCON, only he's cast as Samuel Spade. Again, Richard Widmark... turn to the Widmark, Leo, and he will show you the way, Leo. Or at the very least, Dan Duryea.
3. BOOZE: Alcoholism is not a trait you can pick up and put down with the ease that Leo's characters seem to, espcially in Marty movies. For the non-Marty movie, THE BASKETBALL DIARIES, Leo ably--nay, brilliantly!--conveyed the effects of opiate withdrawal, so why in THE DEPARTED is he a doll head, a Valium addict but only when the mood suits him, as if he felt his cranberry-drinking little
pisher character needed some edginess, then forgot about it two minutes later once Farmiga scribbles him a script for 20 Valium, even though she recognizes his sulky petulance as "drug-seeking behave-
yeh." Other than that one session, the Valium is never mentioned again, and never affects him. And that's all Mahty and his lack of understanding of drug and alcohol enthusiasts. Exhibit 402P -why is his SHUTTER ISLAND United States
mah-shall an alcoholic
only in flashbacks and thus able to refuse offered drinks when he's clearly sweating and shaking like a lunatic and there's about a thousand justifications for a relapse all around him? And no AA Big Book in sight. No alcoholic suffering so much delusion would be likely to forget that relief is just a swig away. Also, his shakes and migraines would make much more sense if he was detoxing... i.e., if he never intended to spend the night at the island and so didn't properly,
ahem, pack for the trip (we've all been there, bro, and it's a rough stay--most of us would just grab a raft and try to paddle back to the mainland at 5AM). If I'd have seen this with my old AA crew, we'd have walked out over these details!
4. DACHAU BLUES - The use of Nazi concentration camps could have been very effective but again it's overkill and explains nothing. Leo's memory of it is refracted enough to make him a hero of the war by shooting unarmed Nazi guards during liberation. This is actually one of the film's most hilarious moments - a cliche'd ridiculous tracking shot along a huge row of disarmed German guards lined up against a fence, all patiently waiting for the camera to reach them before dying in a spastic dance, falling only as the camera passes onwards; before the camera reaches them they just cower in little clusters rather than running for it like any sensible soldier of the Reich (also with a row of shooters, they're hardly going to all shoot in the same linear row for Marty's camera; they're filmed like a row of girl divers in an Esther Williams musical number. Giving Leo this cathartic moment should be enough! Leo, you avenged the Jews singlehanded, how can they not cower Schindler-like, before you enough in gratitude!? But no, Leo also has to brood and sulk about it later (and maybe it didn't happen we learn later, not that anything matters by then). Again it's a matter of having cake and eating it too and then denying there
is such a thing as cake. He's processed hate and grief and anguish but repressed them at the same time, saved the Jews but let them down, became an alcoholic to manage his PTSD but then just stopped cold and that ain't how it works, except when Oscar beckons, and Scorsese indulges.
As I've written
before, these things seem to point to some inherent fear on Leo's part to alienate audience sympathy, and yet, Leo! Leo! Look at your antecedents who might have starred in this film were it made in the 1950s when it's set: Bogart, Van Johnson, Aldo Ray, Robert Taylor, Robert Ryan, Dick Powell (hell Powell's face was even babier than Leo's, yet Powell pulled off playing tough guy Phillip Marlowe pretty damned well in MURDER MY SWEET), none of them would have been afraid to delve into audience alienation via realistic displays of sadism, greed,
delirium tremens (Mitchum in EL DORADO expertly plays one of those rare drunks that's funny, sad, and realistic at the same time), lust, avarice, masochism, uncontrollable rage, moral weakness, humor, or hostility. Look at IN A LONELY PLACE or ON DANGEROUS GROUND. Imagine the tortured resilience Ryan would have brought to SHUTTER ISLAND. Leo might have done all right if SHUTTER was directed by Nicholas Ray--they'd probably get into a fist fight and then Leo would get a busted nose and finally feel tough, ala Mickey Rourke, but instead we get lost in a house of guilt-edged mirrors that's both a
noir-flypaper doom device and a taunting reflection of Leo's own inability to "go all the way" as an actor --the way, say, Nicolas Cage does so well in LEAVING LAS VEGAS,
THE WICKER MAN and
KNOWING. And Leo only did in WHAT'S EATING GILBERT GRAPE.
Another baby-faced brother, Orson Welles, shows insecurity in a different way when gave himself the would-be romantic lead/fall-guy in LADY FROM SHANGHAI when that role should have gone to Tyrone Power, and Wlles should have been playing the cranky genius crippled lawyer, a demon who gets all the lines and which Orson surely cast himself as before Columbia cast his alienated wife Rita Hayworth (his old Mercury Theater stock player, Everett Sloane, does a great job, but lacks the star power that even slimy lawyer villains need if they're going to get so many lines). And a romantic lead, poor Orson's all wet. That's the whole thing with LADY, (the second mistake is cutting off RIta's hair and dying it blonde, a purely spiteful decision on his part, akin to Peckinpah's insistence on doing the same for Ali McGraw. When sex and love come into the mix most of us act little better than sixth graders. If it were some other actress giving himself the lead would probably embarrass Orson forever, as it should. Sex and romance aren't involved with Leo, but it's still sixth grader immaturity--trying to seem tough so the bullies don't harass him on his first day of school.
All that said, the film is still cool and I loved the ultra-ambiguous (tragic? who knows?) ending which leaves you with a lot to think about, and then forget ever happened. But hey, at least they freaking smoke in this movie, which was the style of the time and don't let 'em tell you different!
There's a lot of beautiful little ways in which the always superb and surprising Mark Ruffalo steals the show as Leo's fellow
mah-shall (maybe). As his voice lowers, with only a hint of sadness, back to saying "What's up, boss?" we get a nicely understated and ambiguous look at the way insanity reasserts itself, a veritable entire MEMENTO warped and shrinky-dinked down into a single line.
P.S. If you liked the whirligig weirdness of SHUTTER ISLAND I'd also recommend the 1962 CABINET OF CALIGARI, an in-name-only remake of the old silent expressionist classic. Penned by PSYCHO author Robert Bloch, it's got the budget of an anthology TV show but really uses the limits of the frame and dodges the cliches of horror films and "sanitarium" films to play with audience sympathy and narrative expectations. And it tells almost the same story. Or does it?
Mwhahahaha! And instead of a pudgy man-child determined to convince us he's Russell Crowe, we have a hot blonde chick with retrograde amnesia and a tendency towards violent outbursts, making this film like the limbo world between the two halves of PSYCHO (that is to say, HORROR HOTEL and
DEMENTIA).
I'd still recommend SHUTTER ISLAND, but I'd lower my expectations, drink a bottle of whiskey and smoke "laced" cigarettes before watching, otherwise you might suffer from the compulsion to remember the trauma of watching millions of dollars and acres of craftsmanship and talent all laser-beam focused on telling a story that's been told before, better for a about 100th the budget. Well, even Hitchcock had his SHUTTER ISLAND moments, i.e. SUSPICION and STAGE FRIGHT. And sure, SHUTTER is entertaining and refreshingly free of sex or violence. But frankly, it's the sort of story John Carpenter would probably pass on as too cliche'd. And he's the one who should be making it, on a budget of $5, in his backyard, in the dead of night, with Adrienne Barbeau as the cop.
And Leo, if you keep frowning your face is going to look as Satanic as Robert Taylor's in his sleek MGM late 1950s prime. Is that what you want? Even then, you've still got about fifteen years to go before the lines will set. May I recommend next time you make a film like this, that you go ahead and play the evil doctor? Or learn some karate? Or take some freakin' roles other than the testesteronally-challenged
wunderkind asserting his fierceness and cracking up in the process, cuzza his dead wife? (The ideal way to avoid intimacy, much easier to just drink and mourn) What Hawks would have taught Leo is that being "good" has nothing to do with gruffness or bulk, and crazy has nothing to do with screaming up to heaven while cradling a perfectly dead child in your arms. It has to do with being a good shot, with the balls to shoot when you need to, when a moment's hesitation could kill not only you but your friends, and most of all, being true to the code of honor, of brotherhood, of your nature, and freakin' takin' a drink once in awhile.
Luke, I am your Fah-thuh.
(PS I think I'm trying to older brother Leo because he reminds me a lot of my little brother, Fred)