I don't go to movies about psychiatry expecting an accurate, unvarnished take on the subject.
Haven't you tried to defend your opinion with arguments about why the role-play makes sense as therapy? I know others have because that is why I mentioned Dr. Gilligan. If you believe they are doing therapy, go right ahead, but don't try to argue that it makes sense and don't try to argue that nonsense with me, because my opinion is a realistic interpretation, not a nonsense one.
As therapy, the role-play is "nonsense". 👎 As an unethical mind game to make a man think he is crazy, it is dead-on accurate.👍 So, when Teddy says in the lighthouse, "You're not going to make me think I'm crazy" or in the screenplay, "You're not going to mind-f##k me out of this, Doc", that is exactly the way to mind-eff a person and make him think he is crazy - AND IT WORKS - it gets Teddy to think he is crazy, so he is more willing to conform. That's all "brainwashing" is.
As far as real life goes, it isn't as if the "role-play" is nothing but "nonsense". It really IS something - and that something isn't therapy to get a person to see for himself what is real, it is the way to make a person mentally unstable so they will be more likely to accept beliefs they would not accept otherwise.
There are two sides to the dramatic conflict. The doctor's side where Teddy is Andrew and Teddy's side where the doctors are doing unethical experiments and trying to make him think he is crazy. The role-play is nonsense as a way to get a person to see reality for himself, but it is an epic mind-eff that would make the sanest person crazy - at least temporarily.
It isn't about accepting Hollywood movie nonsense as therapy. It is about the movie giving us basically two choices, and most people picking the nonsense understanding supplied by completely unreliable characters over a realistic one that could be arrived at by actually assessing the film. The film supports Teddy's side. Nothing in the film supports the doctors' story. Nothing.
Evidence of the role-play being in effect since the ferry is not evidence that the doctors aren't doing unethical experiments. Evidence that he has been there two years is not evidence that they are telling the truth because he could have been there two years as the subject of an unethical mind-eff that's messed with his memories. There is no evidence for the Andrew story at all - the film itself provides no more affirmative evidence for the doctors' story than it does for Teddy's original memories and beliefs, so why do you choose one over the other?
I know why I picked my side - I call the "role-play" what it is - an unethical mind experiment. I also know that the doctors can't be trusted because they are maintaining an information controlled environment where they decide what everyone else has to believe - Big Brother
1984 style. Orwellian.
'
The novel is ambiguous - more ambiguous than the film according to me. Lehane said he wouldn't even tell his wife if Teddy was Andrew or not. Teddy's identity may be ambiguous, but the fact that the "role-play" is the way to make a person crazy is not ambiguous at all. No matter who he is, one thing we know for sure is whatever is going on there, "it's bad."
This is a very simple article that explains what we see in the film. I believe I have posted this link or others like it.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brainwashing.htmModern research into "brainwashing", which goes my a lot of names, began just where the woman in the cave said. With the American POW's during the Korean War. A few prisoners apparently defected to communism and the US and other western countries wanted some of that sort of influence, too, so they began doing all sorts of "mind control experiments. These are the experiments that Teddy suspects.
For the part of the audience who recognize that Teddy may be suspecting experiments that really did happen, then it is totally reasonable to suspect that they are doing these experiments on Shutter Island given the isolation, excessive security and staff for so few patients, the secrecy and Cawley's fear of the public learning what he is doing, and a Naziesque doctor who would let the prisoners drown without batting an eye. We are told early in the film that intelligence agencies consult Dr. Cawley - and Teddy's question about why intelligence agencies would consult a psychiatrist are never answered in the film. They didn't need to spell it out for me. I knew why intelligence agencies were consulting with psychiatrists in 1954 - they were doing mind control experiments that were often illegal and unethical. If we are aware of the historical context, then we know better than to let the doctors exonerate themselves.
I am not making excuses but explaining what we would reasonably expect to see.
What we would reasonably be expected to see if
Teddy is Andrew is actually the true "intention" of the creators is to show Teddy the evidence because that is the only way the audience will see the evidence given how this film is organized around Teddy's awareness. If you don't see evidence, then you have to have some reason to think it exists. Some reason from the film, not some scenario you make up because you have already decided to believe the doctors. Why do you believe the doctors since they have no evidence? Teddy is a prisoner and doesn't have access to evidence that would show they are lying. We can't expect any evidence for Teddy's side because it is narratively impossible given he is a captive of his accusers.
However, the doctors are agents of the federal government so they could have any evidence they needed. Where is it? They had pictures of three unknown kids. They had no problem pulling out that "evidence" or the "intake form" or the dumb draped anagram white board - none of those things are evidence. Why didn't we see a picture of Dolores that would show she died at the lake and not in the fire? It should have been in the stack with the kids pictures. It would have added a few seconds to the film. The pictures of the boys never connected with Teddy. Teddy connected to the picture of the girl, but that's because she reminds him of a real child he saw at the death train. Why not flip to the one picture that we know Teddy would connect with - a picture of Dolores? If Teddy is going to say they made it up, why not show him stuff that would be harder to make up than the anagrams, intake form, and three pictures that have no connection to Teddy at all? Like a thick two year old chart, old medical and military records for Andrew Laeddis, witnesses for such a notorious crime? There is a lot of stuff they could have shown him, yet they rely on easily made-up crap and call that evidence. Teddy in the film can reality test just fine. He would have accepted real evidence.
The OP implies that the doctors would have shown "Teddy" newspaper articles, court records, and so on, and I was explaining why there's no reason to assume they would.
Yes, there is a reason to assume we should see actual evidence - the audience needs it even if you think Teddy doesn't. Anyway, if evidence is missing from a film that we would expect to see then there needs to be an explanation suggested for why they have no evidence. They suggest nothing. The best interpretation for the fact they have no evidence is that there is no evidence. There is a line from Chuck about how there was no chart, just the intake form. Why that line except to establish the possibility there is no chart? There is a stack of crime scene pictures that should have included a shot of Dolores which would have made more of an impact on Teddy and the audience than the pictures of the kids, but we don't see it. Those things need an explanation otherwise, the best explanation is there is no chart because Teddy is not a patient and there is no picture of Delores because she died in the fire and not at the lake.
As for us as viewers, we don't need that sort of evidence to make up our minds--and even if the movie did present it, I have a feeling you (and perhaps the OP) would still question it, claiming the documents could all be faked, etc.
The audience DOES need the information. It is odd you think you don't need it. Why do you believe the doctors when they have no evidence? Why do you presume they are telling the truth when Teddy has no way to defend himself or verify what they are telling him? How do you know that they didn't simply successfully brainwash Teddy? There is no way to know provided in the film. You just believe the doctors. Why? Do you know why you believe them when the film provides no way to know if they are telling the truth? Why do you accept their word for it?
I knew that Teddy was isolated and the that other patients were institutionalized - they were in an information controlled environment - a point emphasized by the switchboard scene where Teddy couldn't get a call out to the mainland. That's a big deal because it establishes the first criteria for thought reform. Given that everything we see in the film shows that they are doing unethical "brainwashing" experiments, then NO WAY would I ever accept what the doctors say without reliable proof.
I was shocked when the film ended, because I kept expecting someone from off the island to show up and explain what was really going on. The only way the doctors could have resolved the story without a reliable third party would be for them to acknowledge that what they did was unethical and illegal - BECAUSE IT IS UNETHICAL AND ILLEGAL NO MATTER WHY THEY ARE DOING IT. I thought we were going to find out that they were "brainwashing" people back to normal who had already been damaged by other experiments. That would have been the only way to justify doing what was the known way to make a person mentally unstable. It would have been unethical, but would have been preferable to lobotomy or assassination for "disposal problems" - subjects who had been damaged by other unethical mind experiments.
You're so into all this 1950s brainwashing-conspiracy stuff (which, for the record, has never been proven) that you're reduced to selectively quoting Lehane, Scorsese, and Dr. Gilligan to support your case while maintaining that they're all lying about the overall film (since all three have endorsed the conventional interpretation you refuse to accept). So what are you going on about "lack of evidence" for? It doesn't seem to matter much to you.
Thousands of government-sponsored experiments did take place at hospitals, universities, and military bases around our nation. Some were unethical, not only by today's standards, but by the standards of the time in which they were conducted. They failed both the test of our national values and the test of humanity. The United States of America offers a sincere apology to those of our citizens who were subjected to these experiments, to their families, and to their communities. When the government does wrong, we have a moral responsibility to admit it. President Bill Clinton October 3, 1995.
Well, yeah, it has been proven the CIA did (do) unethical mind experiments. There is a ton of congressional testimony (Church Committee) and even some declassified records. The CIA has even settled lawsuits related to tesing on unwitting subjects. We even know that then CIA director Richard Helms ordered the records of these "unproven" experiments destroyed in 1973 - Where do you get your information?
One thing that I have long suspected is that most people just don't get the historical context, and don't know that Teddy's suspicions that the government was doing unethical mind experiments were consistent with real history. Since the records were destroyed we will never know how extensive the experiments really were. Those who are unaware of the truth will be far more likely to make the mistake of assuming that Teddy's suspicions are paranoid rather than justified and far more likely to be duped into believing that the role-play nonsense is therapy rather than the unethical destabilizing mind game it really is.
In a movie where the central mystery concerns unethical mind experiments and the ONLY experiment we see takes up the entire plot - and it
is an UNETHICAL mind experiment - then it is not some outrageous "conspiracy theory", but a valid interpretation of the film unlike the conventional understanding which is simply letting a couple of guilty characters who have been established as unreliable tell you what is going on. Turns out that what they say is nonsense and if that's all there is to the movie, then it is nonsense as well. The film is a serious film if we just recognize what is going on and don't take what the doctors say at face value or what those involved with the film say at face value either because what they have said in public statements doesn't fit with the film they made. If you believe the doctors, then the movie has brainwashed you. If you accept the things those involved with the film have said about the film and never compare what they say with the film itself, then you are continuing to allow yourself to be brainwashed. There is no therapy in
Shutter Island, only a destabilizing mind-eff to make a man think he is crazy.
Even Scorsese said that one of the questions he was asking with the film (art asks questions rather than answers them) was "Who do we believe in films?" What characters do we believe? He obviously knew that the audience would have to decide who, if anyone, they were going to believe, and if you believe the doctors, well, you just have to go with it, because Scorsese isn't going to even try to justify they they are the ones you should believe in his film. That's Teddy's story, too. Who is he going to believe if he has no way to verify what he is being told? Will Teddy let the authority tell him what is real and true? Or will he reject them as arbiters of the truth altogether - because, if someone tells me something and won't let me verify it, then that might be a good reason to think they are lying. Teddy probably figured that out by the time we see him sitting on the stoop in the final scene.
You know, a lot of people thought they had this film all figured out and have not reacted well to finding out how much they missed and misunderstood. They didn't think it through and disparaged those who saw through the genre formula as "conspiracy theorists". Believe what you want to believe, but know that all you are doing is blindly accepting the word of unreliable characters and not actually interpreting what the film shows. The film supports Teddy's suspicions of unethical experiments not the doctors doing good faith treatment.
Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.
reply
share
kylopod
9 years ago
Haven't you tried to defend your opinion with arguments about why the role-play makes sense as therapy?
My position has been that within the context of the movie, it makes sense that the doctors would have resorted to this measure. That doesn't mean I'm arguing it would work in the real world.
I know others have because that is why I mentioned Dr. Gilligan.
And let's look at the full context of Dr. Gilligan's remarks, since they don't support your views the way you're claiming. According to the following article:
It is Dr. Cawley's treatment that is nonsense. Cawley attempts to shock Teddy out of his delusion by enabling him to act it out in glorious detail. This, apparently, is the exact opposite of what would actually happen. According to Gilligan, the therapist's task is to encourage the patient to face reality "and help him to mourn his losses".
Unfortunately, the film's plot depends entirely on Cawley's exotic roleplay experiment, so that was that. Gilligan says that the story as told requires "the willing suspension of disbelief". He comforts himself with the thought that it can at least be seen as "a kind of metaphor for psychosocial methods of treatment as opposed to damaging the brain". Not to worry; elsewhere he seems to have won a victory, given that in the film – unlike the novel – Cawley's non-invasive treatment succeeds.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/jul/22/hollywood-mental-blockWhat Dr. Gilligan is saying is that
the movie itself is unrealistic in its portrayal of psychiatry. He's not saying there's some hidden meaning that makes what the doctors are doing make sense in a real-world context. In other words, he's saying nearly the opposite of what you're arguing, yet you selectively quoted him to support your case while omitting the rest of his comments which don't fit your views. That may be a good strategy if you're running a political campaign and Dr. Gilligan is your opponent, but it doesn't instill much confidence in your intellectual honesty.
For that matter, here's what Lehane had to say about the "die as a good man" line which wasn't in the novel:
"Personally, I think he has a momentary flash. To me that's all it is. It's just one moment of sanity mixed in the midst of all the other delusions."
Lehane is interpreting the line differently than Scorsese, who has said that it means Andrew knows who he is and is voluntarily submitting to the lobotomy. But let that pass. For present purposes, my point isn't to get into the debate over what the final line means. It is simply to point out that
both Lehane and Scorsese have stated--explicitly--that Andrew is Andrew and that his "Teddy" persona is a delusion.For the record, I am not of the opinion that the creator of a work is the final authority on the work's interpretation. It's a tricky question. (Years ago I read an intriguing essay by a philosopher pondering the question, specifically in reaction to the Dumbledore-is-gay controversy among Harry Potter fans.) The creator may be trolling us, or may be engaged in self-deception as to what he or she intended while producing the work. Additionally, if we're talking about movies, the different people involved in the production (writers, directors, actors) may not all reach the same conclusions.
But here we have both the novelist and the director--and the psychiatric consultant--all affirming the conventional interpretation which you claim is false. The question I have is--why? It's one thing to be cryptic about what the movie you've made means, it's quite another to deliberately lie about what it means and go out of your way to mislead the public. Why would they do that? What possible purpose does it serve? Are they afraid someone's going to take
them away to an institution and do experiments on them because they were trying to blow the lid off the scandal? Part of me has the strange feeling you're going to say "yes."
reply
share
gleamy-jog
9 years ago
In the context of the movie it makes sense that they are doing unethical mind experiments, since that is what Teddy suspects and for those who recognize it, that is what they do in the only experiment we see.
My point is that you are choosing an unrealistic understanding over a realistic one.
I didn't say that Gilligan said there was any "hidden meaning". There is no hidden meaning to me. It is right there for all to see if they know what to look for. The movie itself is an unrealistic portrayal of good faith psychiatry, but a realistic portrayal of an unethical mind game and "thought reform" in the style of communist "re-education" and "brainwashing.". I never made any assertion that Dr. Gilligan said it was an unethical thought reform exercise. Everyone involved with the film has avoided saying that like they are contractually bound to not say what it really is. That's really bad for Gilligan because he is stuck having to make public statements that mental abuse represents "psychosocial methods" of treatment that is somehow better than psychosurgery, which should make him cringe - especially when they call him the model for the abusive Dr. Cawley.
Still, there are basically two ways to see the film - the unrealistic way where the unreliable characters provide the exposition - this is the interpretation that is marketed to the mainstream audience - or the realistic way where the role-play is labeled what it actually is - unethical mental abuse that made a man mentally unstable - that is what the film actually shows. The "role-play" made him crazy, it didn't help him see reality for himself. That is impossible.
Because brainwashing is such an invasive form of influence, it requires the complete isolation and dependency of the subject,
The fact that we know Teddy can't contact the mainland or anyone who could help him is strong evidence of brainwashing and bad faith.
which is why you mostly hear of brainwashing occurring in prison camps or totalist cults.
It is easier to maintain control of information is a prison, prison camp or an isolated island with no access to radio or television or even newspapers.
The agent (the brainwasher) must have complete control over the target (the brainwashee) so that sleep patterns, eating, using the bathroom and the fulfillment of other basic human needs depend on the will of the agent.
Certainly this is the case with Teddy. He is dependent upon his captors for everything - what he eats, drinks, smokes, wears, shelter - everything.
In the brainwashing process, the agent systematically breaks down the target's identity to the point that it doesn't work anymore.
They didn't help him see reality for himself. They broke down his Teddy identity to the point that it did not work anymore. That's what we see in the movie.
The agent then replaces it with another set of behaviors, attitudes and beliefs that work in the target's current environment.
Teddy is NOT allowed to live in the environment where he is held captive. Although Teddy is the "good man", the authority will only allow the monster "Andrew" to survive. If he refuses to be "Andrew", he will be lobotomized.
While most psychologists believe that brainwashing is possible under the right conditions, some see it as improbable or at least as a less severe form of influence than the media portrays it to be. Some definitions of brainwashing require the presence of the threat of physical harm, and under these definitions most extremist cults do not practice true brainwashing since they typically do not physically abuse recruits. Other definitions rely on "nonphysical coercion and control" as an equally effective means of asserting influence. Regardless of which definition you use, many experts believe that even under ideal brainwashing conditions, the effects of the process are most often short-term -- the brainwashing victim's old identity is not in fact eradicated by the process, but instead is in hiding, and once the "new identity" stops being reinforced the person's old attitudes and beliefs will start to return.
So, even the fact that Teddy reverts back to Teddy after he is apparently brainwashed into believing he is Andrew is consistent with the idea that he was brainwashed and not "cured". Cawley must have been failing - his theory was probably that he could brainwash a person permanently - but that appears highly unlikely. Once the pressure was off, Teddy returned to his baseline beliefs. That's what would happen in real life - Cawley may not have know it in 1954, but we know it today. Like Teddy said, you can't remove all of a man's memories.
I know what those guys have said - they always make statements as if the Andrew interpretation is THE way to see the movie. I have theories about why they do that, but the point is that
they can't make the movie different from what it is in extra-textual statements. I've seen one interview with Lehane where he privileged the political meaning of
Shutter Island over the personal melodrama. Scorsese doesn't want to talk about it at all. Have you never heard of the "intentional fallacy". Creators can lie about their work. They can create things that didn't actually say what they intended to say. It has long been accepted that authors don't decide what their work ultimately means - the readers do. But film criticism still keeps trying to guess at the creator's intentions rather than assessing the work on its own terms. Most people who watch the film will NEVER know what these guys said about the movie.
The Andrew narrative is weak because it relies solely on claims made by unreliable characters. Unreliable charecters can't provide reliable exposition. They should not use an indentifiable unethical destabilizing mind game to represent good faith therapy - and the fact that it is fiction doesn't make it ok. That would be like using a cat to represent a mouse in a film and then expecting everyone to ignore it was a cat and believe it was a mouse because some dumb character says the cat is a mouse. That is weak story telling.
There is no way that you could go back over the film and figure out the Andrew story based on what comes before the lighthouse. No way. That was a common criticism - the "exposition" did not arise naturally from what came before it. If you don't believe the doctor's Andrew story, then it is much easier to see what is really going on. They are doing unethical mind experiments just like Teddy suspected. We don't know for sure who Teddy is, but that doesn't actually matter because Andrew could be the subject of the unethical experiment same as Teddy.
It is simply to point out that both Lehane and Scorsese have stated--explicitly--that Andrew is Andrew and that his "Teddy" persona is a delusion.
But the MOVIE DOESN'T STATE IT EXPLICITLY, and that is the only thing that matters. They have also acknowledged that some people will see it differently, so they know that it isn't explicit in the film itself. And I don't even care who he is because that's not what the film is about. The film itself consists of the "role-play" and coercion to get Teddy to admit to being Andrew. That is an unethical mind experiment and the only thing we can know for sure.
The question I have is--why?
This is why. And it is NOT what you think. Ambiguous movies that require the audience to think for themselves are not big box office. What Lehane thought was valuable about his novel was that it had a totally unreliable narrator (a demented Sheehan 40 years later), and was ambiguous on several levels.
Shutter Island was first attached to Wolfgang Petersen and Columbia Pictures, and they wanted an unambiguous ending which Lehane did not like.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2003/06/09/shutter-island-ending-shutteredWhen Scorsese became involved, he was able to find a way to appease the money people who wanted a straightforward mystery by keeping the ambiguity, but also constructing the film according to classical filmmaking standards and familiar tropes so that the doctors would APPEAR to supply the necessary exposition that would make the film accessible to a mainstream audience. Even before the film was released, they were saying things that supported the "Andrew" story - like Dr. Gilligan was the model for Dr. Cawley for the screenwriter. I don't think that Lehane had any hero psychiatrists in mind when he created the character - he seemed to use Ewan Cameron and Harold Wolff for models. So, I take that Gilligan was the model for Cawley as part of the marketing to prejudice the audience favorably towards Cawley.
The Andrew story is so weak that the only way they could pull it off was to prime the original audience - early critics and reviewers - to first see the film as a genre thriller - the trailers and early publicity definitely sold the film as a genre mystery - and many people thought the trailers actually gave away the "Andrew" twist ending. I never saw any publicity before I saw the film. I got that information from people who posted to this board.
They just aggressively kept selling the Andrew story because that was the movie that was going to please the studio and make the big international bucks. It is not uncommon for those involved with a film to be contractually bound about what they can say about it - I did see an early interview with Schoonmaker where she was afraid to say anything about the film because of her contract. Basically, no journalist asks them any hard questions - the hardest questions I've seen asked of Scorsese were from Scheikel, and he answered some things that didn't make great sense and also kept changing the subject. Scorsese didn't want to talk about
Shutter Island with someone who was going to question him too deeply and not just "go with it". He says things like "Andrew" goes to the lighthouse to wipe his "false memories". Isn't it supposed to be his TRUE memories? And he says that The ferry scene never happened - that's my understanding of what he said - that he wasn't literally on the ferry - but then he never says where he was if he wasn't on the ferry. And he says he goes to the lighthouse to get his memories wiped - but wasn't that an important part of the "role-play" that no lobotomies were in the lighthouse?
But, there is an artistic reason to not tell the whole story, too. Most people who buy tickets just want to be entertained. They can accept the doctors' story as the exposition of the film and be happy with it. Some people will not do that - they will realize that the doctors' story is not supported by the rest of the film. Lehane said of his novel that it was ambiguous - although many people think that the ending is clear, it isn't, and Lehane said he didn't mean it to be. By not explaining it to the readers (audience), they are forced to work it out themselves. That is the value, and that is where the legacy of the book and the picture will rest - in the discussion people have in the years and decades to come.
The Andrew story is not good. It is too unrealistic, unsupported and illogical. The film I see is special and unique. It is much superior to the movie they talk about in interviews. That's a bad movie - Scorsese says maybe it's a bad film - and the Andrew story
is pretty bad - dishonest and doesn't work for me and a lot of other people. That's the best reason for an artist not to talk about his work - it might be better than they intended.
It is actually bad form for writers to explain their work - it is called authorial trespass - gay Dumbledor being a good example. If is isn't in the book, then it doesn't matter what she says in interviews. And it doesn't matter what Lehane and Scorsese say in interviews either because if they say things that can't be supported by the movie itself or are CONTRADICTED by the movie itself, then they are trying to alter how people think of the finished work by unfairly influencing them - only some people won't be influenced. By talking about the lame-assed Andrew melodrama they are actually NOT talking about the actual movie they made, so, in that sense, they are avoiding authorial trespass. But they are still showing a mighty contempt for the intelligence of their readers and viewers.
Consensus opinions change over time. Lehane said that his goal was to write something that wouldn't be understood for 10-20 year after it was released. He didn't mean for it to be immediately obvious. Since he is pleased with Scorsese's adaptation, I think it is safe to assume that the film's meaning wasn't meant to be immediately obvious either. I think we are 12 years from when the book was released and 5 years from the film's release. Time will tell.
Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.
reply
share