Joe Biden appeared on the Sunday morning talk shows last week to defend the Obama administration from Dick Cheney’s disgraceful attacks, which appear to suggest his earlier bloodlust has not yet been satisfied, despite everything his time in the White House accomplished. The current Vice-President had the opportunity to set out a genuine alternative to the war-first, don’t-even-ask-the-questions-later policies that Cheney had pursued; but regrettably did not. Instead, he actually seemed to play a game of ‘who has killed the most terrorists?’, citing the current ‘success rates’ against the Taliban. When Joe Biden is pressured to define success on the basis of how many human lives have been taken in a conflict in which open diplomacy has hardly been attempted, never mind exhausted, it’s time to lament.
Lamentation isn’t popular these days – we have large-scale memorials before the smoke from violent atrocities has blown away, funerals are called ‘celebrations’, and even the losers get a nice certificate when someone else wins an Oscar. We don’t do lament. So we have Martin Scorsese, former seminarian, cataloguer of the broken male psyche, and kinetic film-maker to thank for releasing his new film ‘Shutter Island’ at the beginning of the historic Christian season of Lent.
‘Shutter Island’, in which federal marshals investigate the disappearance of a patient from a secure institution on a windswept Massachusetts island in 1954, turns out to be a metaphor for what happens when an individual (or a country, or an era) becomes detached from the consequences of their actions; pretending to face trauma by burying it, and in that sense, it’s the ideal unofficial sequel to Tarantino’s ‘Inglourious Basterds’, a film that suggested enjoying really violent entertainment the reason we are willing to entertain real violence. ‘Shutter Island’ risks telling an unpalatable truth: that war is not clean, that the line between the ‘good guys’ and the ‘enemy’ is ambiguous, that the post-Second World War era shattered community bonds, and allowed hidden personal brokenness to reach epidemic proportions. So far, so depressing, but theologically this feels like a Psalm lamenting human selfishness and misdirection; cinematically Scorsese has constructed a vastly compelling ‘B’ movie fan letter, filled with entertaining performances (Leonardo di Caprio as the marshal Ted, Ben Kingsley as the institution’s director, and especially Michelle Williams as a kind of ghostly voice of conscience), extraordinary use of music, beautifully framed images, and ultimately a serious commitment to telling a story that, while set in a specific, disturbing location, is so universal that it could have profound meaning for anyone who approaches.
Why make this film? The answer comes over the end credits, as Dinah Washington sings a song that could have been taken from the deleted scenes in an ancient Hebrew text:
‘This bitter earth
Well, what fruit it bears.
What good is love
That no one shares.’
The song makes sense in the case of the main character in ‘Shutter Island’, but its use here is about more than Ted’s personal loss: it’s being played over the end credits to bring a lament about our culture to its minor-key crescendo. Who is responsible for our nation’s sins? You? Me? ‘Them’? How can we live with ourselves when the inaction or action of those we have elected leads to the pointless deaths of hundreds of thousands on another continent? ‘Shutter Island’ asks us to face ourselves, and not hide; and to recognize that accepting responsibility – that we are capable of being the ‘bad guys’ – we do not have to shred our own dignity. If the line between good and evil runs through each person, and not between groups of people, then even after we have faced our shared culpability in structural evil, we may see that there is good in us too. The film doesn’t present a solution, or at least not a palatable one; although it does suggest that merely making a decision to take one step out of the darkness is better than nothing. But the purpose of ‘Shutter Island’ is not to give us answers: it is to lament, which means that embedded within it is both a warning of what we can be when we lose sight of our interdependence as human beings, and, let us hope, a reminder that the purpose of lament is to prepare us for a new start.
Jett and I discuss ‘Shutter Island’ on Episode 112 of TFT, which will posted on the site soon.
[...] The Film Talk » 'Shutter Island': Scorsese's Lament [...]
[...] post: The Film Talk » 'Shutter Island': Scorsese's Lament Share and [...]
—Once promising, long rich and decades stale Martin Scorsese can find nothing
more compelling, relevant or essential to work on than over-cooked retreads of
B-movie plotlines? —in 2010? —huh?
Meanwhile, Boomer Hollywood at large has been shamelessly selling-out and
sucking-up to the most awesomely genocidal regime the world has EVER seen
—since the late 70's —and NOW our entire debauched economy is being
under-written by the same —even as the Boomers spin in psycho-pathic denial
or their own staggering legacy of 45 million exterminations of the unborn
—very largely dne in the name of 'convenience'.
—Ahhh -but STILL, Martin can't find the plotline.
—RIGHT.
NOT LOOKING GOOD KIDS
NOT LOOKING GOOD
Great analysis Gareth! Not sure if this means anything, but I noticed that “Shutter Island” can be rearranged to form “denials truths” and “tarnished lust”.
Lol! Anyway, your comments have convinced me to go see this lukewarmly recieved film.
Magnificent anagrammisation there, Duncan, if that is indeed a word…
I see The Guardian has published a blog post devaluing Shutter Island written by someone who hasn't seen it yet. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2010/fe…
It's astonishing that this article could be published when the author has evidently not seen the films he's writing about. Pressure from section editors notwithstanding, one might have hope that the paper would hold back from reviewing films before they've been watched. I do hope that the piece doesn't prevent people from seeing 'Shutter Island', which seems to me a film so rich with subtext that I was compelled to see it three times in the week since its release here in the US.
[Spoiler warning - but I've done my best to disguise it]:
On the one hand, 'Shutter Island' is a fantastically well-crafted 'B' movie homage, which will delight fans of Val Lewton, Alfred Hitchcock, and Sam Fuller alike; it also has a magnificent music track culled together by Robbie Robertson; but beneath the surface of gorgeous fun-shock there is something very substantial going on: ultimately it's about how 'the good guys' define themselves as such; and what they/we have to do to live with them/ourselves after they/we've won wars. It is, to my mind, perhaps the most political film Scorsese has ever made; and the one with most immediate contemporary resonance. I think it's one of his four or five best films; and I can't wait to see it again.
His fourth or fifth best film? That's a bold statement, Gareth! As for the article, I don't get this notion that Scorsese is some mediocre director, whose current work we tolerate, because he's given us gold in the past. I've seen the same accusations levelled against Ridley Scott, and I find it completely unjustified. The Aviator and The Departed were excellent films, and for all its flaws, I even enjoyed Gangs of New York. But more to the point, to hear this guy speak in interviews and DVD commentaries, it's obvious he adores movies, and would make them whether they made money or not.
…
Хм …
[...] guest film critic Glenn Kenny talks about a film that had a profoundly personal effect on him: SHUTTER ISLAND.Also mentioned on today’s show: Jett’s Original TAKEN post, Glenn Kenny’s blog [...]