“Shutter Island” Critical Review (SPOILERS)

Shutter Island has been grossly misunderstood and oversimplified by even top critics, so I feel obliged to offer my interpretation of it. As is necessary for such an endeavor, major plot spoilers are below, so don’t read ahead if you haven’t seen the movie yet.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

The typical understanding of the plot of Shutter Island is that Teddy starts off as a US Marshal investigating a crime at a mental hospital/penitentiary where the man who killed his wife is housed, then we slowly come to realize by the end that he is in fact a patient of the hospital. In the final scenes it is revealed that the entire story thus far had been an elaborate role-playing ploy designed to make Teddy realize on his own that in fact he had killed his wife and to accept that as true. It is this interpretation of the film that has led to tepid reviews across the board.

What I want to argue, however, is that such a view of the film is overly simplistic, mistakes the outcome with the process by which it was revealed, and as a result misses out on much larger moral implications. In particular, I believe that the film never gives the audience definitive proof either way regarding Teddy’s sanity, and the fact that most people simply follow the lead of the characters and conclude that he is insane is a misstep.

The only review I found that comes close to doing the film justice is Betsy Sharkey’s from the LA Times. In sum, I don’t believe this film is interesting as simply a big-twist-at-the-end movie, that has been done. A lot. But this is something more. Rather, it is interesting precisely for the fact that in 2 hours it can convince you one way or the other about Teddy’s story. That sanity is so malleable that we can be persuaded one way or another without any definitive proof is itself the point of this film. The only evidence we end up with, ultimately, is the Teddy’s memory of the events at the end which conforms to the doctor’s version of the story. But how do we know which version is true? We only do if we accept the doctor’s narrative. And as the runaway psychologist said in the cave scene, the system is genius, for any protests against it are seen as evidence of its truth!

Many reviewers claim at the end that “the twist feels both expected and convoluted.” (USA Today), but that’s exactly the point.  Additionally, the common accusation of Scorsese’s use of cliché cinematics and plot points is also exactly the point. It’s the mundane and unremarkable things that affect our perception most centrally.

The New Yorker review states: “Yet for all the tension of Teddy’s plight, and despite our suspicions that he may not be the sanest soul around (“Pull yourself together,” he says into a mirror in the opening shot), nothing really seems to be at stake here.” But what I’m saying is that that’s not correct. It is the audience’s very sanity on the line. For once we realize that we have been led to believe a man is insane simply because of repeatedly being told he is, what ground does that leave for our own sanity?!

The NY Times review at least addresses something like my interpretation at the end:

“There are, of course, those who will resist this conclusion [that Teddy’s insane], in part out of loyalty to Mr. Scorsese, a director to whom otherwise hard-headed critics are inclined to extend the benefit of the doubt. But in this case the equivocation, the uncertainty, seems to come from the filmmaker himself, who seems to have been unable to locate what it is in this movie he cares about, beyond any particular, local formal concern. He has, in the past, used characters whose grasp of reality was shaky — or who stubbornly lived in realities of their own making — as vehicles for psychological exploration and even social criticism. But both Teddy’s mind and the world of Shutter Island are closed, airless systems, illuminated with flashes of virtuosity but with no particular heat, conviction or purpose.”

But again, they are simply so sure of their interpretation that Teddy is in fact insane that they entirely miss that it is never definitively established! Further, I’m not saying that it is precisely the uncertainty of his sanity that is the issue. Rather it is the ability of the narrative to strongly shift our perception of Teddy. In fact it is precisely the fact that the film ends with a very strong indication that he is insane (an interpretation that seems nearly universally accepted) that they miss that it is the very process of sanity that is what is shown, not an outcome.

Understanding the film as I have laid out also lets us discover deeper moral messages from the film, in particular regarding the moral memory of WWII. The reality shift in Teddy’s character also implicates his memory from the war. The narrative of his daughter asking why didn’t you save me served as a stand-in for the Holocaust victims throughout the film. But as I’m suggesting, we shouldn’t look at it as a simply analogy. Rather, I believe it is asking us to question our understanding of the truth of the history books. Do we really believe we went to war to save the Jews? Or was it because of our own inherently violence nature? As the island’s security chief says to Teddy at one point something to the extent of: “It always comes down to can my violence beat your violence.” The doctor’s suggest that Teddy may never have murdered the Nazi guards and it is in fact a constructed memory to displace his guilt over killing his wife. But if we resist the doctors’ conclusion, then what does that leave us for understanding his WWII memory? I think it’s the uncertainty here that implicates moral guilt as a source of social memory, and asks us to more fully attend to the malleability of both.

I also came across a Psychology Today blog post about the realisticness of the movie’s depiction of psychology and mental health. The post descries the film’s final scene revelation of Teddy’s insanity as unlikely. The

“Final Scene: Are we really to believe that the likable and accomplished Teddy (no prior history of mental illness on top of a clear pattern of resiliency), goes crazy from a familial trauma, then repeatedly breaks through his delusional mindset during treatment, only to revert back to crazy mode like a music CD stuck on repeat? Although individual differences and the delicate, volatile blend of genes, environment and personality can make the prognosis of persistent illness an erratic, sometimes chronic endeavor, the stuck-on-repeat ending does not make sense”

They’re right that it doesn’t make sense. But what they don’t go on to postulate, is that perhaps that’s because it was a fiction constructed by the doctors! It’s not out of the realm of possibility that the film isn’t depicting a false understanding of insanity, but rather that it questions the very process by which it is established!

That’s my read. Whether you buy it or not is up to you, but I bet if you came away from the film feeling satisfied in Teddy’s insanity, then perhaps you were more a part of the film than you realize. Perhaps the reveal of the film isn’t about Teddy, but about us.