That would render making the film pointless, as thats the whole point of the story.
I dont think this film is an example where the central premise deviates too wildly from the source material.
Shutter Island
- Thread starter J1234
- Start date
That would render making the film pointless, as thats the whole point of the story.
I dont think this film is an example where the central premise deviates too wildly from the source material.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 24,290
*spoilers*
I haven't seen the film but I was given the book by someone that suggested I read it.
I'd read a few posts from this thread so I knew something was up but not what, I'd read about someone being unsure of their gun (I now know this was Chuck).
So I had guessed that something was rotten and thought that Teddy would be forced to stay on the island, that someone would either portray him as insane or drive him insane, but had no idea what would actually happen, it was a surprise to me and I thought the book was excellent. It being 5.37am and me having just finished reading is testament to this I suppose.
I'm definitely interested to see the film now, but I suppose I will be watching it in a totally different mindset to everyone else in this thread as I know precisely what happens.
Obviously I have no idea what the film's like but from the book I can't see how people could guess the plot. From the book I guessed something stunk, but it's obvious all the way through, you also realise Chuck's not what he seems as soon as Teddy does, but the actual twist was not what I expected remotely. I thought possibly I had it sussed but I was off the mark.
Then again, I am a person that goes into films and books with no intention of guessing any twist, I don't tend to try and second guess films or books because it takes the fun of out it in my opinion, so maybe I'm the wrong person to ask. I make no effort whatsoever to second guess films, if I ever do it's by accident.
I haven't seen the film but I was given the book by someone that suggested I read it.
I'd read a few posts from this thread so I knew something was up but not what, I'd read about someone being unsure of their gun (I now know this was Chuck).
So I had guessed that something was rotten and thought that Teddy would be forced to stay on the island, that someone would either portray him as insane or drive him insane, but had no idea what would actually happen, it was a surprise to me and I thought the book was excellent. It being 5.37am and me having just finished reading is testament to this I suppose.
I'm definitely interested to see the film now, but I suppose I will be watching it in a totally different mindset to everyone else in this thread as I know precisely what happens.
Obviously I have no idea what the film's like but from the book I can't see how people could guess the plot. From the book I guessed something stunk, but it's obvious all the way through, you also realise Chuck's not what he seems as soon as Teddy does, but the actual twist was not what I expected remotely. I thought possibly I had it sussed but I was off the mark.
Then again, I am a person that goes into films and books with no intention of guessing any twist, I don't tend to try and second guess films or books because it takes the fun of out it in my opinion, so maybe I'm the wrong person to ask. I make no effort whatsoever to second guess films, if I ever do it's by accident.
quoting spoiler for truth
If this ISN'T the way the ending was meant to be interpreted, then the ending was rushed and in no way as powerful...
I think it MIGHT be open to interpretation whether or not they realised he was just pretending to still be/have reverted to being mad, but given what Ben Kingsley's character said, I can't imagine he would let them lobotomise him if they thought that was possible, out of sympathy for him being unable to cope with the truth even though he accepts it as the truth, as the whole film was him trying to prevent his lobotomisation.
If this ISN'T the way the ending was meant to be interpreted, then the ending was rushed and in no way as powerful...
I think it MIGHT be open to interpretation whether or not they realised he was just pretending to still be/have reverted to being mad, but given what Ben Kingsley's character said, I can't imagine he would let them lobotomise him if they thought that was possible, out of sympathy for him being unable to cope with the truth even though he accepts it as the truth, as the whole film was him trying to prevent his lobotomisation.
Last edited:
Then please explain how IT WAS supposed to be interpreted?
Also, got a link to the director / writer telling us what conclusions we are supposed to come to at the end of the film?
the Continuity really anoyed me... the camera switches 5 or 6 times and each time there's a massive and obvious error
When Teddy talks to George Noyce, George's right hand grips the bars when the camera focuses on Teddy. When the camera focuses on George, his right hand is continuously scratching the top of his head
thought the film was rubbish...
When Teddy talks to George Noyce, George's right hand grips the bars when the camera focuses on Teddy. When the camera focuses on George, his right hand is continuously scratching the top of his head
thought the film was rubbish...
Bump!
I've only just got around to seeing this. Thought it was great, and I love the sane vs insane debates. One thing I noticed however, they seemed to over use, or poorly use the green screen. There were many scenes where I noticed it looked very fake, not something I'd expect from a modern film.
I've only just got around to seeing this. Thought it was great, and I love the sane vs insane debates. One thing I noticed however, they seemed to over use, or poorly use the green screen. There were many scenes where I noticed it looked very fake, not something I'd expect from a modern film.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,563
- Location
- Warwickshire
SPOILERS, OBVIOUSLY
Also, when he bends down to his daughter at the end, her arms are at her sides, then suddenly when the camera is panned in, they're folded on her chest.
Anyway I enjoyed this film immensely. Even though I guessed he was nuts fairly quickly, as many have, I thought the acting and feeling of desperation was top notch.
Same. There's no way this was an accident or a result of a small budget or something. I thought it was either what you say, or to create an artificial or fake feeling, to reflect the situation that 'Teddy' was in.
Also, when he bends down to his daughter at the end, her arms are at her sides, then suddenly when the camera is panned in, they're folded on her chest.
Anyway I enjoyed this film immensely. Even though I guessed he was nuts fairly quickly, as many have, I thought the acting and feeling of desperation was top notch.
It was so rubbish I just thought it was done on purpose as a nod to old films
Same. There's no way this was an accident or a result of a small budget or something. I thought it was either what you say, or to create an artificial or fake feeling, to reflect the situation that 'Teddy' was in.
Last edited: