Details that support Teddy/unethical experiments and don't fit Andrew
Things that support Teddy/Unethical experiments.
I've noticed for some time that while people tend to think that the movie itself supports Andrew, it is actually the opposite. What the movie SHOWS supports Teddy, though most people give primacy to what the doctors TELL Teddy in the tower. I think that's mostly because the audience expects a mystery movie to explain itself and it appears that the doctors fulfill that role. However, the doctors are unreliable antagonist characters that can't be verified any more than Teddy can.
The things that appear to support Andrew ("clues for second viewing") are ambiguous details that are also consistent with Teddy/unethical experiments. However, the opposite is not the case. There are many details as well as major parts of the narrative that aren't consistent with the idea that Teddy is really Andrew or that the doctors are practicing in good faith.
These are off the top of my head. I'm sure there will be other things I'll remember or someone else can add. Some of these things I focused on the first time I saw the film. Since Teddy/unethical experiments is supported by what the film SHOWS, it can basically be understood on first viewing by those who know the significance of certain details.
1. This is a big one. When the doctors confessed to what they called a "role-play", I remember thinking, "they ARE doing what it looked like they were doing!" The doctors lie about what the role-play was for. It can't show him reality because there is no reality for him to see - it is all simulation. The "role-play" is really the way to make a person mentally unstable - not the way to get a person to see reality. And what do we see in the movie? - Teddy becomes more and more anxious, agitated and unstable until he is psychotic and actively hallucinating in the lighthouse.
Arguments against this are weak rationalizations. The rationalizations persist even after the psych consultant was put on the spot by a reporter who has a pet peeve about how mental illness is portrayed in movies. Dr. Gilligan, who had until that point been promoting the movie as realistic and historically accurate, finally agreed with what I'd been saying all along - that the "role-play" was the opposite of what would really be done and "nonsense" as therapy. So, why people keep arguing as if the "role-play" is realistic and logical is bizarre.
"Psychodrama" was an early theory - but unless psychodrama is "nonsense" and "the opposite" of what should really be done, that's out. Same with cognitive behavioral therapy. Legitimate therapy isn't "nonsense" and the "opposite" of what should really be done - so there isn't a good argument to support the "role-play" as therapy.
2. The role-play is itself an abusive and unethical mind experiment that clearly and unambiguously violates the Nuremberg Code. That is totally relevant to the plot since "Andrew" is said to be delusional about unethical experiments, and Teddy suspects unethical experiments. Since the "role-play" is unethical - Teddy isn't delusional and his suspicions were correct.
See another thread for a convoluted rationalization of why the "role-play" isn't brainwashing therefore unethical experiments are irrelevant. Unethical experiments don't have to be brainwashing, so there is that. But the "role-play" is "brainwashing" also known as thought reform/re-education/rape of the mind/coercive persuasion. Anyone who is interested can look it up and see that the "role-play" pretty much follows all the steps that have been identified in brainwashing.
Those two points above aren't ambiguous. Those are facts of the film that a lot of people miss, but once they are pointed out, there really isn't a way to make the role-play be anything other than what it really is - an abusive and unethical mind experiment that would confuse a person about reality and make him mentally unstable - just what we see in the movie. Those points do not require that we know Teddy's identity or back story because the "role-play" is what it is no matter who it is done to or why the doctors claim they are doing it.
3. There is an entire scene that establishes a key point that most viewers don't take into account. That is the switchboard scene where it is established that Teddy can't contact the mainland. That is a HUGE clue about what is really going on. Isolation and control of information is a fundamental to thought reform - that's why the communists used camps and prisons for "re-education".
The only argument I recall about this fact of the film is that it is a red herring to make us suspicious. It is not a red herring because it is a critical clue to what they are really doing - plus, we are never shown that Teddy or any of the prisoners ever have access to the outside or information not controlled by the doctors - no visitors, mail, attorneys, clergy - not a hint that the inmates have access to the outside at any time. Only if a person has already decided what the conclusion is can he call anything a red herring. However, if we understand what that detail means we know that it is strong support for the idea that they are doing unethical experiments. We would also know that the ones who are in control can't be trusted to tell the truth.
There are a few other things that show how isolated they are. Kearns and Billings are both institutionalized and think they are safe from nukes for some reason. They also say things that indicate that they don't have access to reliable news and information which tells us that this is a characteristic of the PLACE, not something set-up just for Teddy/Andrew.
4. Dreams are from the unconscious so, it really doesn't make sense that Dolores calls Teddy "Teddy" in the green dream and all the other times she appears before the "flashback" of the lake. If Teddy is defensive about being called "Laeddis" and if he is writing himself notes to remind him who he really is, then his real identity isn't buried all that deep in his subconscious. Since Dolores never knew Teddy, why would she call him "Teddy" in his dreams and hallucinations? From a writing standpoint, they could have had Dolores not call Teddy by any name until the "flashback". That Dolores calls him Teddy is strong evidence for Teddy and against Andrew.
I've never seen an argument on this point. I think mostly they "recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities." I think they just ignore this detail. This happens a lot. People just don't consider details the support Teddy - and you can tell they NEVER considered it because it doesn't advance the Andrew story.
5. Teddy never meets the definition of being delusional in the movie. We can't verify anything that happened before the movie starts, therefore it would be wrong to say he is delusional about himself. He is also not delusional about unethical experiments because delusions are strongly held beliefs, not "guesses". Any suspicions beyond his "guess" he learned on the island. Then, they really are doing unethical experiments because the role-play is unethical. So his "guess" was right - not delusional.
No one does anything with this detail at all. It is ignored. People think Teddy is delusional, not because he is shown to be delusional, but because the doctors said he was delusional.
6. If Teddy is playing out his delusions, then the role-play should match his previous patterns. So, why didn't he think Noyce was at Dedham? Why did he never think he was on the mainland or show any sign that he wasn't oriented to place? How was he delusional about a woman in the cave if he had never been to the cave? Delusions and hallucinations aren't the same thing. He didn't believe there was a woman in the cave until he saw her there. If they were really saying that it was true he was always delusional about a woman in the cave, then why didn't we see him believing he would find a woman in the cave before he got there?
Most people claim that the woman in the cave is a hallucination. However, Teddy always knows when he is hallucinating, so she doesn't fit the pattern. Since he had never been to the cave before, we can assume he never hallucinated a woman in the cave. If he believed there was a woman in the cave before, that would have been a delusion. Delusions and hallucinations are different.
7. Teddy says they are trying to make him crazy or think he's crazy - and he is right. I believe they are making him crazy with the destabilizing mind game, but if you believe the doctors, you have to admit that they knew that taking him off his Thorazine would cause a worsening or return of his psychotic symptoms - either way they knew he would be mentally vulnerable when they TOLD him the supposed truth in the lighthouse.
This detail is ignored or rationalized.
8. Cawley definitely lies when he claims that no experiments in the lighthouse meant no unethical experiments at all. He even claimed it was “impossible”, which, of course, is not true. We know now that they really were doing unethical mind experiments and Cawley would have known that if he was working for the government and consulted by intelligence agencies.
I’ve never heard a defense of this. Its ignored.
9. Why does Cawley use the generic name “chlorpromazine” for the drug he claims Teddy was on for two years when he used the brand name Thorazine when he told Teddy about the drug that was just approved? That looks like he was trying to deceive Teddy and didn’t want him to know he was referring to the same drug.
this one gets rationalized in a way that adds nothing to the Andrew story.
10. Teddy doesn't have the "flashback" after he collapses in the lighthouse. The flashback happens after he collapsed, and they took him to the cell. He has the "flashback" in the cell, not the lighthouse. There is some tricky editing that makes it look like the collapse is the reaction shot for the flashback, but we know he is in the room when the flashback ends. The first close-up and voice as the fallback ends, is of Sheehan, not a reaction shot of Teddy. In fact, before we see Teddy we have another close-up of Sheehan and a close-up of the nurse, distancing Teddy from the flashback even more. When we finally see Teddy, he is in a shot with Cawley, Sheehan, and the nurse making it even less personal. He is reacting to an injection by rubbing his arm. There is a syringe on the nurse's tray, indicating he was given an unknown drug - was he under the influence of drugs during the "flashback"? He was certainly under the influence of drugs when he confessed.
There is no reason to not edit this like a normal POV scene would be edited if that's what it is really supposed to be. The other POV scenes are edited traditionally with the exception of the first memories of the commandant at Cawley's house - a known false memory.
I can’t think of any reason for the unusual editing other than to associate the “flashback” with the idea of psychotic phenomenon and with Sheehan and Nurse Rachel and put distance between the “flashback” and Teddy.
I don’t think that I have ever heard any argument for how the unusual editing advances the Andrew story.
11. After the “flashback” Teddy says he doesn’t remember his other loops when Cawley was the only one who tried to help him (or whatever he said). Cawley doesn’t care, he just goes on talking about Andrew not relapsing. Cawley never talks with Andrew about his raw feelings about the trauma he just recalled. This only supports the idea that the experiment wasn’t for Teddy/Andrew, it was to keep Cawley from being discredited.
“Andrew” seems to believe Cawley about the past even though he can’t remember it. He has even confabulated a theory about how Cawley was the only one who tried to help him. This casts doubt on the “flashback” as a memory - real or false. It could be Teddy’s imagining or guided imagery with Sheehan telling him what to imagine - which would explain why Sheehan is the first thing we see after the “flashback" ends.
This is rationalized as “we shouldn’t expect all of his memories to return”. There is no consideration of the implications and the rationalization doesn’t advance the Andrew story one bit.
12. Final scene has several details that aren't accounted for in the Andrew plot.
Teddy is calm and cooperative, no one is scared of him at all, and he is NOT dangerous, which is the reason they said he would be lobotomized, not because he was crazy - Cawley would actually LIKE for him to keep his fantasies.
Teddy says he doesn’t know what they are doing, all he knows is that it is "bad". “Andrew” is not happy with his cure. He thinks what they are doing is bad. Why would “Andrew” say that if they helped him? Even if he couldn't live with his memories, how can he be a “good man” knowing that he was discrediting the good doctors and keeping them from helping others in the future?
Teddy was shown as tormented by his memories of Dolores throughout the movie. However, there is no sign that he is tormented by his memories in the final scene. In fact, he never looked calmer or more serene. Why would Scorsese show him as THE OPPOSITE of the way he should be for the Andrew story to make sense?
If he is submitting to the lobotomy for selfish reasons, why does he not talk about anything personal in the final scene - why does he only talk about the PLACE? Why does “this PLACE makes me wonder” if he is making a selfish choice? Along these same lines, why is the final shot one of the lighthouse accompanied by ominous music? Doesn’t that say that the PLACE is bad - just like Teddy said?
All of the doctors had to know that he was sane because he remembered what would happen if he didn’t conform. Scorsese says that Sheehan definitely knew he was sane. So, why does he call him “Teddy” as he walks away. That's the last line of the film, which makes it seem significant, too.
The way the final scene is interpreted is a masterpiece of confirmation bias. Not one single detail in that scene supports Andrew, or supports the ostensible reason he submitted to the lobotomy, or supports the claim that he would be lobotomized, not because he was crazy, but because he was dangerous. HE IS SHOWN AS THE OPPOSITE - it isn't even ambiguous. So, the interpretation of entire final scene is confabulation of what must be true for the Andrew story to be true and every detail in the scene is ignored altogether. The details of the scene aren't even considered in the common understanding.
The only thing I have heard is rationalizations that mean absolutely nothing to the story. There is nothing in the final scene to support the idea that Andrew faked a relapse because he couldn’t live with his memories. He isn’t dangerous and he isn’t tormented by his memories - he was shown to be the opposite of the way he should be according to the Andrew story.
Just to be clear - these are points that support Teddy only. These details don't support Andrew at all - they won't be included on any list of 'clues for second viewing". Some of these details are neutral about Andrew, but supportive of Teddy/unethical experiments. Other details conflict with the Andrew story altogether.
This is the information in the movie:
1. Ambiguous information that can support Teddy or Andrew.
Because of confirmation bias for the Andrew story supplied by the doctors, the ambiguous information is always seen as supporting Andrew only. For instance, whenever Teddy has a dream or vision of something from the Andrew story, it is always used as "proof" that he is Andrew. People miss the fact that he would also be having images of the kids, etc, if they are brainwashing him. We would see the same thing with a successful brainwashing that we would see with a cure.
2. Information that supports Teddy/unethical experiments but is neutral as far as Andrew. This might be something like the switchboard scene that shows that Teddy couldn't get a call out, but it looks like Andrew and the other inmates can never call out - it is an information controlled milieu for both Andrew and Teddy.
This type information is generally ignored or called a red herring because it conflicts with the idea that the doctors are acting in good faith. This information doesn't advance the Andrew plot.
3. Information that supports Teddy/unethical experiments and actually conflicts with Andrew/good faith treatment.
This would be something like Dolores calling Teddy "Teddy" in his dreams and the fact that the role-play experiment is itself unethical. This information is not accounted for - it is ignored unless someone else brings it up and then it is rationalized away. It adds nothing to the Andrew story at all.
A lot of details in the film are never considered because they don't support the Andrew theory, not because they are not important. These details usually support Teddy and/or conflict with the common understanding that Teddy is Andrew and the doctors are acting in good faith. I can't think of anything in the movie that is inconsistent with the unethical experiments/Teddy interpretation. All the details have a place. This isn't true of the common interpretation where there are loads of details that don't fit so are never considered.
Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.