I think Psycho started it.
The difference between
Shutter Island and
Psycho is that the psychiatrist in
Psycho that supplied the exposition wasn't the antagonist and didn't have a stake in the experiment that was separate from Teddy/Andrew's well-being. That is major because it makes Cawley and Sheehan
unreliable expositors - they would lie to further their own agenda, prove their theory and not lose everything they have "built". That's a major difference that needs to be noted.
Then there's Memento, Fight Club, Machinist, and loads more.
We get used to certain patterns in films (and everything). Isn't it possible that
Shutter Island activates these patterns, so rather than interpreting the narrative thoughtfully and critically, we simply see what we are expecting to see?
How much of our understanding is confirmation bias?
http://www.science20.com/sarah_harrison/do_we_only_see_what_we_want_see_experts_dont_notice_gorilla_their_midst-116822http://brainstormpsychology.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-confirmation-bias-and-seeing-only.htmlSome people claim they could predict the ending based on the trailers. These people aren't interpreting the movie, they are most likely seeing what they expected to see. Trailers certainly can be misleading.
I also wonder if the marketing and promotion prejudiced the early reviews. It seems that they were always subtly pushing the idea that Teddy was insane and the doctors were good guys from even before the film was released.
I dunno... Maybe Shutter Island should have been a conspiracy.
I'm never really sure what people mean when they talk about "conspiracy". This is the government we are talking about. They are breaking the laws and rules the citizens expect them to enforce. Who is going to call them to account? Shutter Island is run by the top law enforcement department in the country - the Justice Department. In other words they have loads of power to abuse on unwitting individuals who are denied access anyone who could help them.
We know the government did a whole lot of unethical, illegal mind experiments and other human experiments. No conspiracy was required. The experiments were carried out by high profile, reputable professionals. Major hospitals and universities were involved. Even though a whole lot of people were involved, these experiments weren't public knowledge until the 1970's. How did that happened? Surely there were people like Teddy who had suspicions. What happened to them? Why didn't some of the "conspirators" become whistleblowers?
Also, we shouldn't forget that these people for the most part rationalized that what they were doing was for the greater good. They were doing it for their country's security and sometimes the law needs to adapt.
Probably, some did try but they probably couldn't prove anything or were discredited - maybe they were labeled insane? Disappeared? Committed "suicide"? That seems likely, but proof would be hard to come by since the records were mostly destroyed and the rest is still classified or heavily redacted.
Actually, most of the "conspirators" wouldn't even understand what they were doing. Just doin' their jobs. People would have limited information - no more than was needed to carry out their roles. Some knew very well what they were doing, like some of the doctors, scientists and professors that designed and implemented the experiments, but since they were doing something they knew was wrong, they were unlikely to ever go public. Their reputations would be damaged, they would be civilly liable and possibly face criminal charges - so they wouldn't talk. Plus, they would be afraid to talk. The government has a lot of power to keep information from the public.
In a place like Ashecliffe, I doubt the guards and orderlies knew what they were really doing. They would be told only what they needed to know to carry out their roles. It is unlikely that the nurses would be fully informed either although they may well have had questions or misgivings about some of the things they were asked to do. I think Nurse Moreno in the movie seemed to not be completely comfortable with lying to Teddy, for example. The employees also seemed afraid of Dr. Cawley. Maybe they were afraid they would lose their jobs or worse. Since the government is giving the violators an illegal pass because of "national security", the ones in the know would not be afraid of the government or law enforcement holding them accountable. As long as the public didn't find out they were probably going to be ok.
So the "conspiracy" angle is the same no matter why they are doing the experiment - whether they are trying to get him to see reality or brainwash him into believing he is someone he is not. Makes no difference because the experiment is just as unethical no matter why they are doing it.
We
can know that the "role-play" is unethical because it violates many counts of the Nuremberg Code. In fact, the design of the experiment makes it unethical because experiments require informed consent and the role-pay depends on Teddy thinking it's real, so he can't be informed.
Dr. Cawley puts Teddy on notice that he would fight anyone who tried to take the valuable thing he had built on the island away from him. He didn't want the public to know because the public doesn't understand valuable things in their own time. (I can't recall the exact quote). If they are doing ethical, legitimate research on human subjects, what's to not understand? Nothing. No reason to hide, no reason for the extreme secrecy and isolation. However, since they are doing things that are unethical and even illegal on a fairly large scale, anyone credible threatening to go public with their suspicions would be a threat that the government would go to great lengths to neutralize. It is realistic then that Teddy would be a target given his suspicions. Is this the real reason they consider him "dangerous"?
There are plenty of important details in the film that most people discount as irrelevant noise, when in fact it points to what they are really doing - like the fact that Teddy is unable to contact the mainland. That makes Shutter Island the controlled environment necessary for thought-reform/brainwashing. The isolation supports Teddy's suspicions. That is a big deal.
Most viewers never consider that the doctors say that if they don't succeed with Teddy they will be discredited - that is a major conflict of interest with the subject of their experiment. How can we know if they are doing the experiment for his benefit or if they are using him without his consent to prove their theory and not lose everything? How can Teddy see for himself that they are not doing unethical experiments when they control the environment he is ostensibly searching? They aren't going to let him find experiments. There are numerous clues throughout the film that point straight to Shutter Island being a "black site" for unethical human mind experiments.
I keep thinking that a lot of the people who are disappointed in the movie would like it better if they let go of their preconceived understanding and saw the movie from a new perspective. Instead of seeing a lame cliche of a film, they might see something original and unique.
Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.
reply
share
taticat
8 years ago
Just one point - the role play was not an experiment, it was a type of therapy. As such, it is exempt from certain requirements. Even if Ashecliffe were going to want to play it safe and get IRB approval, the cost/benefit risk would most likely earn their approval, provided any overt risk of physical harm was minimised. At a time when a lobotomy was imminent, no IRB or other Ethics board would disallow any reasonable attempt at treatment/therapy. To do so would open up the institution to far greater liability if, for example, a relative later felt that a lobotomy (which is irreversible) could have been avoided were a suggested role play to have been allowed, or something similar. Even treatment with experimental drugs (like some pre-FDA approval stage treatment) would be preferable to permanently destroying a man's brain and would likely be green-lit. It may not seem like it now, but even back then there were many physicians and psychiatrists who felt that the lobotomy was a barbaric step in the wrong direction. So my point is that the role-playing was not so outlandish an idea.
reply
share