MovieChat Forums > Take Shelter (2011) Discussion > Why do you need to complicate things?

Why do you need to complicate things?


The man has nightmares about a huge storm and thick yellow rain falling from the sky. He wonders if he's crazy or not the entire movie, then both his wife and his daughter see the incoming storm, yellow rain starts falling from the sky and the wife basically admits he was right. Why do you need to complicate this?

It's really NOT an open ending. Here's an open ending: they all see the storm, they look at each other, it starts raining. Not yellow stuff, just plain water. The movie ends. Maybe that's just a regular storm and he's crazy. It's open to interpretation.

Here's another open ending: he's inside, at the window, a few steps away from his wife, who doesn't see what's happening outside. He sees the incoming storm. Is he imagining it? The daughter is outside, playing in the sand, her back against the storm, so she hasn't seen it yet. He looks at his wife in horror, trying to find the words. She looks worried at him and says: "What?". The movie ends. Will they also see the storm, or is he imagining it? Or maybe it's just a regular storm. It's open to the interpretation.

These are open endings. The director could have chosen to go with either one, or something similar, yet he decided to end the movie by giving you all the clues that the guy was right. The most definite one is the thick yellow rain, which implies that something unusual, out of the ordinary is going to happen. What more do you need?

reply

The narrator is unreliable. He could be hallucinating, he could be dreaming. There's no way to know if it's really raining yellow rain or not.

reply

There is no narrator in this film, do you even know what narration is?

reply

The viewer is seeing things that nobody except the protagonist can see, when it starts raining yellow in the end we can't be sure if it's another one of his hallucinations or if it's the real deal.

The viewer shares the perspective of the protagonist, therefore he is the narrator.

reply

That is not what a narrator is. As I said, this film has no narrator. Also at the end, his wife and child clearly see the storm so it was real.

reply

He believes his family can see the storm but we cannot be sure what he sees is real so there's no way to know what really happened.

Again, we see what he sees and there's no way to know if what he sees is real or not. How can you be sure the last scene is not another hallucination? You can't.

reply

Yes we can, in the last scene the focus shifts from him to the wife were she sees the storm and we see the storm reflected on the mirror which means the storm was real. It really isn't complicated, I'm not sure why you are creating a storm, no pun intended, out of nothing.

reply

Us seeing his wife seeing the storm could mean the protagonist has lost the battle against his illness and lost his sanity for good. You have yet to provide any arguments that confirm that the storm really happened. There's a chance it did but we can't know for sure.

reply

That is bullshít. The cinematic language tells us it is so, we are seeing the scene from the wife's point of you. You seriously have zero understanding of how film works. Sorry for you.

reply

You claim it does but you can't provide any evidence to support this fact.

Here's how it works buddy: you're claiming that your interpretation is the only correct one and therefore the burden of proof is on you. Provide evidence to support your claims or stay quiet. All I see from you is big talk but no reasoning and no arguments. "Cinematic langauge tells us it is so" good one, I don't agree otherwise we wouldn't be havin this discussion and if that line is the best argument you got to support your claims then I'm gonna have to ask you to stop wasting my time.

reply

More like I'll stop wasting mine because you have zero understanding of how film actually works.

reply

[deleted]

@Blackermetalisk

So we can't actually be sure of ANYTHING that is happening in this movie because everything could actually be a hallucination of the protagonist, is that the way you want to interpret this film for yourself?

reply

Give it up already.

reply

This is correct. Cinematic language is the key here. The twist of this movie is that after the protagonist has accepted that he is mentally ill, his family discovers that he was right all along.

reply

It's still his dream/hallucination but with a small but significant difference compared the rest of the film where only he could see what was going on. So:

1: Him seeing the storm tells us that yes, he is still crazy.
2: Him seeing his daughter and wife acknowledge the storm tells us that no, he is no longer alone in his struggle

It's an extension of the final session where his wife agrees to help him. That session changed the nature of his hallucinations.


reply

None of that makes any sense.

reply

The director almost gives it all away. Maybe that helps?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KXBfiphgDE

"Open to interpretation" he says but IMO he is just being polite. If his visions of a storm were an actual prediction of the future with specific details like the color of raindrops then he would actually be a very skilled psychic / clairvoyant.

But then that would leave the question: what about all his other visions? Wouldn't they have to come true as well? Would his wife eventually come after him with a knife? Would someone steal his child?

I don't think so but it would of course make for an intense finale ;-)

reply

^^^ Bingo. That's exactly why I loved this film. The POV is unreliable and can't be taken as the absolute of the film. Doesn't mean the ending is X,Y or Z but it forces us to question everything.

reply

How is the point of view unreliable?

reply

There is no narrator in this film, do you even know what narration is?


God what a dumb response. Do YOU even understand basic literary terms? Unreliable narrator doesn't necessarily mean there is a guy talking over the whole movie. This isn't Goodfellas you dope.

reply

You fúcking imbecile, that is EXACTLY what a narrator is, someone talking. Fúck off.

reply

Jeezuz you must be one of these twits that spent your entire life on social media and never actually READ anything. Every day on IMDB, i encounter someone ever more stupid than they day before. Today its YOU.

reply

And I always encounter some imbecile who has no idea about the most basic concepts in cinema.

reply

I'm Sorry, but how are people actually arguing this?? The OP is totally, 100% correct. The POV clearly switches to the wife who notices the yellow rain. Completely independently of her husband.

The visions throughout the entire movie were from HIS POV, at the end it switches to hers, which it has not done at any other point leading up to that. It's basic cinema language, I don't understand how people could in anyway call the ending open ended???

The storm itself may not be the apocalypse, the world may not end, but the wife sees it, it is there and the rain is yellow, she wants to get the hell back to the bunker.

End of story.

Also, what an incredible film. Absolutely fantastic.

reply

Exactly.

reply

[deleted]

This ending could not have been clearer.

reply