One of the criticisms that has been thrown at Shutter Island is that, compared with some of Scorsese’s previous work, it feels somewhat trivial. I suspect that the reason for this criticism is that Shutter Island is very much a genre film and that genre happens to be the Thriller. Film critics, particularly British and American film critics, have always taken a slightly condescending view on the Thriller.
Hitchcock honed his craft making thrillers and some of his best work e.g The 39 Steps, North by Northwest, was in this genre. Yes he is considered one of, if not THE greatest director of all time now, but it hadn’t always been like that. In fact it wasn’t until the French critics/filmmakers of the Nouvelle Vague started championing Hitchcock as an auteur, that he began to get the full recognition his talent deserved in the countries in which he had made his films. For a time he had been considered a highly competent technician, good, but not up there with your John Fords and William Wylers. I believe that this was down to his tendency to make thrillers or horror films or a mixture of both (which in a way, many thrillers are). Can a film which just purely sets out to entertain and provoke a visceral reaction be considered great? the simple answer for that is yes, take a look at the previously mentioned Hitchcock films and others such as The Third Man, The Usual Suspects and maybe even Shutter Island.
In Shutter Island Scorsese presents us with a character who may or may not be an unreliable narrator. I, like many people who have or plan to watch this film, had already seen the trailer before seeing the film. I’m not sure how involved Scorsese was in the construction of the trailer but for many people, including myself, it gave a distinct impression of what the twist would be. In a way, this actually improved my enjoyment of the film as even when I was sure I had the twist sussed, I felt certain that there would have to be a twist within the twist. In the end there wasn’t, and what I had suspected from the trailer did indeed turn out to be correct. This did not prevent me from enjoying the journey though and that is the key to the films brilliance; Shutter Island is a thriller which doesn’t rely on a mind-blowing twist to provide entertainment it does so through the intricacies of its story and through Scorsese’s artistry as a director. From the opening sequence in which we approach the island on a boat this aforementioned artistry is immediately apparent. Scorsese uses a slow tracking shot combined with some brilliantly foreboding music to emphasise and stretch the approach to the island. It is the kind the shot that may have been deployed by Hitchcock or Kubrick.
Scorsese’s brilliance is apparent throughout e.g in how the significance of Teddy’s flashbacks are revealed slowly, piece by piece. Memories, hallucinations and reality merge together as the film progresses. The film makes us unsure of what is real and indeed what real actually means. It is a brilliant exploration into the mind of a troubled character and is littered with cinematic references, particularly to Hitchcock. Of course, The acting is flawless. DiCaprio puts in one of his greatest performance as the trouble protagonist Teddy and is supported by strong outings from Ben Kingsley and Michelle Williams. But despite the top performances from the aforementioned stars, it is the lesser known Mark Ruffalo who steals the show as Teddy’s sidekick Chuck.
Although I have only seen Shutter Island once, I am sure it is a film that would benefit from repeat viewings. My only criticism is that the film uses unnecessary visual effects on several occasions that don’t seem to quite mesh with the atmosphere of the film. Nonetheless, despite the mixed reaction from audiences and critics, in the future Shutter Island could be recognised as one of Scorsese’s greatest films.
9/10
A brilliantly rich thriller that will stick with you for days after. Scorsese’s best of the century so far.
