MovieChat Forums > Shutter Island (2010) Discussion > Teddy is an innocent man.

Teddy is an innocent man.


What is he guilty of exactly? As Gleamy-Jog has pointed out in his posts, being in an institute for the criminally insane, then he would be not guilty by reason of insanity. Teddy is not a threat to society, and a strong case would be made that he performed a mercy killing on his wife, or even for self-defense.

The only real monster is Doctor Cawley, who uses the barbaric technique of lobotomizing his patients instead of helping them.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

He is guilty of murdering his wife. No matter what state of mind he was in, he is still guilty of killing his wife. Innocent by reason of insanity doesnt mean that the person didn't commit the crime, its just that they can't be sentenced like normal people who are in thier right mind. At the end of the day, thier still guilty of the crimes they commited. Teddy kllled his wife, period. That will never change regardless of what frame of mind he was in at the time of the crime.

Still Shooting With Film!

reply

No matter what state of mind he was in, he is still guilty of killing his wife.


Responsible, yes, but not guilty. My sources tell me: "People who are adjudged to have been insane at the time they committed a crime are neither legally nor morally guilty."
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/pleading-insanity-a-criminal-defense-case

Teddy kllled his wife, period. That will never change regardless of what frame of mind he was in at the time of the crime.


Yes, because she killed his kids. I hardly see how it makes him some vicious monster that is a threat to society. Also didn't she practically beg him to kill her? Not to mention that she had already killed three people. Who knows if she could have attempted to do the same to Teddy.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

Responsible, yes, but not guilty. My sources tell me: "People who are adjudged to have been insane at the time they committed a crime are neither legally nor morally guilty."
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/pleading-insanity-a-criminal-defense-case

Maybe you should look up the definition of guilty:

"culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing."

Responsible for a specified wrong doing. So responsible is the same exact thing. You yourself even stated "responsible, yes". The bottom line is he killed his wife, period. Its a wrong doing and he is responsible for the act, hence he is guilty, period. He is not guilty in a court of law, but he is absolutely guilty of the act itself. And I don't know why your bringing up criminal defence lawyer's. Again, my statemeny had nothing to do with him being found guilty in a court of law. He is guilty of the act, not guity in a court of law. 2 completely different things, but still guilty nonetheless.

Again, the bottom line is that Teddy is guilty of killing his wife. He will not be found guilty in a court of law, but he is absolutely guilty of the act itself.

Yes, because she killed his kids. I hardly see how it makes him some vicious monster that is a threat to society. Also didn't she practically beg him to kill her? Not to mention that she had already killed three people. Who knows if she could have attempted to do the same to Teddy.

Sorry, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. His kids were already dead. Its not like he killed her while trying to defend them. There was absolutely no need to kill her. Sorry, but thats simply civilized society. We don't condone the killing of people unless its a life threatening situation. Imagine how the world would be if we allowed that sort of beahavior.

Still Shooting With Film!

reply

Darnit, I thought you were an agent of the free.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

[deleted]


He's a trained soldier and US Marshal who reacts violently to any suggestion that he might be Andrew Laeddis


Yes, because these doctors allow him to run around an island acting out this fantasy of him being a detective, and forcing the idea on him that he is this guilty monster that committed this horrible wrong. Not to mention the psychotropic drugs and general creepiness of these doctors and the island itself. His behaviour is not exactly surprising. Really, what kind of idiot psychiatrist expects any other reaction when he directly tells a patient "you drank stayed away, ignored what everyone told you, moved to the lake house after your wife went bat sh!t insane." Yes, real smooth doc.

We can safely assume that his delusions began after the incidents at the lake house and that he was committed due to reasons of his insanity and violence.


Can we? The only episode of violence the doctors mention is him killing his wife, something which is entirely understandable under the circumstances. The only logical explanation is he was committed for that reason only, and the doctors are merely holding him to perform this weird *beep* on him.

Did you miss that the whole point of the film is Dr.Cawley and Dr.Sheehan trying to avoid the lobotomy by trying to help Andrew?


Ok, but who orders the lobotomies? Dr Cawley could very well decide to not drill into Teddy's brain couldn't he? He is the head doctor after all.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

[deleted]

So could you clarify,do you think Andrew is a real person or do you think Teddy is real? Either way both really are detectives,either way both have fought in the war.


I believe that Teddy is really Andrew. I believe that he created this alternate identity to cope with his past.


At no point is anything forced on him


They force the idea on him that he was entirely responsible for what happened to his family. Chuck basically directly confronts him about his mistakes, and causes him to lash out, almost as though he was deliberately provoking Teddy-Andrew. They bombard him with guilty thoughts when he already shows remorse for what he did, I would say these ideas are forced upon him in an unnecessary fashion. In addition, the entire role playing scenario is conducted without his knowledge or consent.


I don't think the doctors are creepy at all.The atmosphere is.


You don't think the doctors and staff are creepy in how they keep patients in rusty cells with no clothes in Ward C? Or how they leave the most dangerous patient on the island to go running around attacking staff and other patients with no supervision? Or how one guard literally tells a mentally ill man that he wants to sink his teeth into his eye? Something is very wrong with Ashecliffe.



Well this is explained in the film too,he reacts angrily to suggestions that he is Laeddis because his subconscious won't allow him to believe it.His Teddy persona is an invention of his own.


You can't get an insane man to believe he is insane by shouting at him that he is really someone else. That is just stupid.




There are plenty of visual clues as to how people see him,you can actually hear other patients saying they are scared of him.Watch Dr.Sheehan around him when he becomes angry he steps forward as if to restrain him.He attacks Dr.Naehring,he attacks Dr.Cawley,Noyce tells him "you did this" about his injuries,he becomes angry and aggressive at several points,he attacks the guard at the lighthouse and so on...

You don't think that kind of behaviour is dangerous?


Of course it's dangerous, and the doctors and staff are only ever shown to reinforce this dangerous behaviour, by reinforcing his delusions and allowing him to run around an island full of crazy people on his own with no supervision or protection. Several times hey provoke him or allow him opportunities to react with violence due to the nature of the role play. Does this sound like sound psychiatry to you? In addition, they allow him to withdraw from his medications over the course of the "treatment" to the point that he actually begins hallucinating seeing a woman in a cave. Do we treat insane people by withholding their medication from them? The doctors actually have every little interest in Teddy's well-being.

beep* do we see the doctors do to him?


Basically guilt tripping him, messing with his mind, not giving him his medication, and allowing him to run around the island in an ethically dubious experiment assaulting patients and staff.


He explains that a lobotomy is the last resort,he doesn't want that to happen but his hands are tied because those above him are demanding it.


Lobotomy is a disgusting and insane practice.



~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

[deleted]


The word 'bombard' suggests repeated pounding,it just doesn't happen that way in the film,it really doesn't.At the point of the reveal Andrew is still in denial,how can he be showing remorse?


The ending in the lighthouse. Doctor Sheehan and Cawley are "bombarding" him with unpleasant facts and image (pictures of his dead kids). Trying to pound into a mentally unstable man's head that he is a monster that got his family killed, and abusing his guilt about how his dead children talk to him. I just don't find this kind of psychiatry therapeutic or safe either. The entire experiment is flawed from the outset, and culminates in the ineffective breakthrough (or shall we say reinforcemnt) of Teddy's psychological problems.

And I think the fact he is shown to pine for his dead wife and even act visibly traumatized over the idea of having kids that died shows that he is remorseful for whatever happened in his past. But instead of being consoled for this, he is demonized.


On the point of consent,we don't know because the film doesn't show us either way.However it does tell us that Andrew had had previous breakthroughs when he may have consented.It's also possible for a family member or even a doctor to give consent by proxy if they think it's in the best interest of the patient


Well we are never given enough information to know if Teddy or a family member consented to the experiment. What we do know is that, as Gleamy-Jog has pointed out in other posts, the experiment breaks just about every aspect of the Nuremberg Code and frequently places Teddy/Andrew and others in danger of death or grievous physical harm. The experiment itself seems more like a brainwashing technique than it does legitimate psychiatry.

.I hate to say it but I think that's just what these places were like back then.


So you're agreeing that the Doctors and staff are acting ethically questionable, and that Ashecliffe doesnt seem too safe for mental health patients?

saying that Andrew was "not a threat to anyone" now you admit that he is.


He's only dangerous because he is encouraged to be by the doctors. They are trying to make him believe that he is some horrible, violent lunatic by reinforcing his behaviour and evepn rewarding him for attacking people. We cannot believe this is how Teddy would be on the outside in society with proper care.


Well I know the use of role play/psychodrama is a very real method so I'll have to say yes.


I don't think this particular role playing experiment would be approved by any reasonable doctors. Psychodrama usually takes place on a stage or confined, controlled environment and under supervision to allow participants to safely reenact scenarios. Also I'm not sure how effective it is for hallucinating persons to be unknowingly brought along for the role play, when they can't even tell reality from fantasy. Is this effective psychodrama? What is this supposed to accomplish exactly, other than making Andrew believe he is really Teddy and that he's being lied to?


I just don't know what it is your trying to say.Is it that you don't like the film because you don't think it's realistic?


No less realistic than many of the experiments and brainwashing that have taken place at psychiatric institutions in the US.

.The guilt he feels,I believe,is not for killing his wife but for neglecting to help her.This caused him to create the "good man" persona of Teddy.I believe that probably happened almost immediately.


This is one of those movies where each theory has enough evidence to support them. I think it's possible that Andrew is being made to believe he was a US Marshal. Maybe in reality he never even had kids, and his wife really did die when the apartment burned down. A lot of variables, but the truth could go either way.


Can't say I'm a fan of it myself,


Id say that's a bit of an understatement. Andrew/Teddy is a victim of medical malpractice.





~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

This particular movie is great when understood by normal people, but really sucks when described the way you and Gleamy misinterpret it. 


Can you make a new movie that fits your tin-foil-hat theory better? 

reply

What you don't understand is that Dennis Lehane and Scorsese tricked you (the audience) into siding with the doctors and believing that Teddy is a violent loony. You have been duped by a triple twist, and think that any other viewpoint is "insane." Congratulations.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

Of course. Hey, make that movie where your silly interpretation makes sense, ok?

Can't wait for it! 

reply

Except there are certain undeniable facts that prove the interpretation at least partially correct. What you fail to comprehend is that rah theory has sufficient evidence to support it. But don't let reality force you to take your head out from between your knees.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

Except you're wrong. But now you've shown you can't even make a movie where your silly interpretation makes sense.

Good to know!☑

reply

[deleted]

reply

It's amazing how you manage to talk so much without really saying anything. Was this a learned behaviour, or is it in your genes?

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

^true irony











Irony is good in movies. Are you sure you don't want to give a try at the sensible tin-foil-hat script ?

reply

The movie does a poor job of showing us "he went insane". What did he do for them to come to that conclusion? Because he killed his wife after she murdered his kids wouldn't mean he was insane, only that he lost control of himself for a moment and committed a crime of passion

reply

The movie does a poor job of showing us "he went insane". What did he do for them to come to that conclusion?


It's the friggin premise of the movie that the events at the lakehouse overwhelmed his conscience and he created an alternate identity to not have to seep his soul every day in those memories. It's not a legal question of guilt, it's his own moral judgement of himself, ffs.

We don't need a five hour movie with extraneous scenes to spell that "conclusion" out.


reply

All OP is saying is that if the doctors treated Andrew like he did nothing wrong (which he really didn't, any sane man might have reacted the same) Andrew would not fee guilty and would not have the need to create the fake character Teddy. And that his insanity is the doctors fault for the aforementioned reason.

reply

reply

Well he did technically do wrong,he killed someone.That is a crime where I come from,it doesn't really matter how justified a person feels in committing murder or manslaughter,it is still usually punishable.

Remember that Andrew is incarcerated in an place for the criminally insane,which means he was already insane before he ended up there,which means he'd already created the Teddy character.He created the Teddy character because he felt guilty,not just over the killing of his wife but because he felt responsible for neglecting her mental illness which led her to murder the children. In short he feels guilty over the death of his children.

The doctors didn't create his guilt,nor it is their fault.The guilt is his own creation but he won't face up to that or forgive himself because he is not himself.


Sir Guy Grand-I like school of Rembrandt
Youngman Grand-St.Rembrandt's high

reply

2 Dazed are numbered - isn't it a "crime" EVERYWHERE in the world and not just where you come from?

reply

He killed his wife after his kids were already dead. That's not self defense or justifiable homicide. He then "splinters" reality and makes his own where he's another person and he never killed his wife and his kids weren't murdered. He was one the most violent patients at the hospital. Please explain what "sane" man would do any of this. Because it sounds like the epitome of insane. The kid of crazy like you people acting as though he was just a normal guy.

reply

Did you watch the same movie as everyone else? I don't think "mercy killing" means what you think it means. Andrew killed his wife. He murdered her. Yes, that is a crime and yes, it is wrong. Because of his frame of mind and subsequent mental breakdown he was sent to a mental hospital, as would happen today if not to prison. Because, again, what he did was ILLEGAL. He made zero progress at the hospital, was violent and seemed to only get worse. The course of action was a supposed extreme therapy trying to get him to face his reality. Which he finally does at the end and realizes he can't live with it. I guess the ending is open to interpretation, as the whole movie is...because that's how opinions work. But your delusion that he was innocent or just a normal guy is truly...well idiotic.

reply

It's interesting you highlight the word "illegal" in your post. If I had to identify a central theme in your post it would be the legality of a thing. Many people are judged through the eyes of society and the laws of that society. It's in the constitution of any country. A constitution serves to maintain peace and reduce suffering, yes? A single person can have his own constitution. A constitution for a group of people is agreed upon and forms a society.

Any constitution is a fabrication. It is something created in the mind as time goes by to cope with the environment the person or group finds himself in. Changes in the environment lead to amendments in the constitution. It is never permanent and always subject to appeal.

Was there a time when men did not need constitutions? Or are we genetically predisposed? Was there a time when we needed constitution and thus evolved the ability to create this level of thought and organization? These are questions needed to be asked.

To return to your thought, it seems you are judging a man's actions only through the prism of a constitution. I think it would be important for you to consider what lies beneath constitution and law that would drive a man to do the things Laeddis did. These forces seem stronger than any constitution could ever be but are limited to an individual. As the movie suggests, every man is capable of violence. It is the constitutions we create to avoid violence, as violence almost always is followed by regret and remorse. Therefore it seems man is in a constant state of duality, simultaneously seeking higher moral order while driven by primal instinct.

Considering all this, were Laeddis' actions wrong? How much of a choice did he have?

-------------------------------------
"You just stroke it all day. You're a hero!"

reply

I think you forgot to mention constitutions.

Sir Guy Grand-I like school of Rembrandt
Youngman Grand-St.Rembrandt's high

reply

Because, again, what he did was ILLEGAL.


You are correct.

But on top of that, the flawed argument that it is a plot hole that he is convicted is idiotic for other reasons. Like for instance, there is no reason to assume he would have asked for a legal defense of temporary insanity at the time of the murder anyway.

Andrew was a GOOD man. He was guilt ridden and decimated after the lakehouse. Why these posters assume Andrew would try to shirk his penalty just because they would look for legal loopholes shows they didn't understand the movie at all.

reply

As a slight joke question - could it also be that the people at the legal system and the mental hospital felt particularly bad about him having killed a woman, even if she herself was guilty of a serious criminal offense and that this makes her not a good person either?

Not saying they were "correct" to feel that way but was THAT even the main reason at all?

And with the whole storyline as presented here, was director Martin Scorsese trying to make a statement on men, women, possibly even children (because their mother killed them by drowning), law, mental institution, perception etc, and possibly even the boundaries between good and evil, as all these themes CAN be detected and seen in THIS movie, with all of this and what was he trying to say?

reply

Because, again, what he did was ILLEGAL

If someone is convicted criminally insane, then he would have been legally not criminally guilty at the time of the crime. It doesn’t matter whether it was illegal, he was unable to discern right from wrong at the time, which means the doctors reinforcing to him that he’s guilty of killing his family is just incorrect.

reply

If someone is convicted criminally insane, then he would have been legally not criminally guilty at the time of the crime. It doesn’t matter whether it was illegal, he was unable to discern right from wrong at the time, which means the doctors reinforcing to him that he’s guilty of killing his family is just incorrect.



Very nice point.

reply

The way the movie goes, we are fooled into thinking the main character is actually a U.S Marshal investigating a murder. It's not til the end we are shown that the majority of the movie did not happen. I have been told the narrative of the novel this is based on says that Teddy is Andrew from the start. But this movie's twist pretty well says the majority of the movie is an illusion of the main character and that it didn't happen as we saw it.

So some of the stuff the TC talks about did not happen. It's possible the scene with the naked guys in cells the TC later mentions, could have been an illusion. So therefore we the viewers can't even know what in the movie is part of Andrew's fantasy and what is true.

reply

Frankly don't even care what legal. That Bitch had it coming. You telling me if your wacko wife killed your kids. You wouldn't have a mental breakdown and possible do the same.

reply

2 bond, funny how 85% of posters here disagree, right?

reply