Talk:Shutter Island (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ashecliffe

Boston Globe says that the title of the film is Ashecliffe. Requesting a move. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Move complete. Any questions, let me know. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that more recent news is still referring to the film as "Shutter Island." I don't know if Ashecliffe is still the working title.--Skywarp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.125.36 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, it's kind of confusing. If people go to Shutter Island, though, they can be led here. Also, Shutter Island (film) redirects here. How about we stick with this title for now until we can verify from the filmmakers themselves what the title will be? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter is referring to it as Shutter Island 25 Feb and 26 Feb -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Google News Search shows that Ashecliffe is used, too. I think that it would be preferable to stick with Ashecliffe because normally, films would take their names from their source materials. This is a highlighted exception, not at all a rumor. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To update about this, all the March, April, and May headlines about this film being produced in Massachusetts has titled it Ashecliffe. This is pretty much the film title barring any changes down the road. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Update from the Boston Globe: "Martin Scorsese can't make up his mind. Initially, the famed director was calling his next movie "Shutter Island," which is the title of the Dennis Lehane book on which the film is based. But while Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, Michelle Williams, and Max Von Sydow were shooting the movie here, the title was switched to "Ashecliffe." Now, the name's been changed again..." I would suggest staying with the status quo until it is clear that one title or the other is the final title. The lead section reflects the dual nature in the meantime. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Steven Knight

Screenwriter Steven Knight was added to the article per Variety, apparently culled from Baseline Studios Systems. However, Google News Archive Search reveals no mention of his involvement in headlines. If something comes up, post the headline here, since it would be nice to clarify how Steven Knight took over from Laeta Kalogridis. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Celina Murga Account Copy Right Issues

There have been some accusations that I posted some material on Wikipedia without permission from the owner to obtain rights to the information. Well, I would only like to say that I, Bryan Angarita, owner of this account Born365, took information from a Total Film Magazine article and arranged and summarized it in away that would be suitable for Wikipedia. I did not steal the words that I wrote, those words came directly from me and I have witnesses, who saw me toil over my summary of that account for the three hours that it took for me to assemble it. These accusations are false, and although legally I may not "own" what I wrote, I will not allow any body else to take credit for what I created. And I all I have to say, is that if those assholes who took the rights to my count would be so nicely as to take off these false charges and allow the information to be publicated for the world to see, I would greatly appreciate it. Nothing more, nothing less, thank you, sincerely Bryan Angarita. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Born365 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 June 2009

First, please review WP:NPA and WP:Civil. Disagreements on Wikipedia may happen, but referring to those with whom you disagree as "those assholes" is not appropriate on this site. When questions about copyright are raised, it is proper for other editors to blank or remove the material pending investigation. Second, on investigation, I believe that evidence supports your assertion that the material was published by you first. It was published in the linked blog ([1]) on the same day, but your initial placement of the material was subtly different from that external site, and as you edited it here it became more like that external site. Generally, when material is pasted from elsewhere, it starts verbatim and moves away. (See [2]; note that originally on Wikipedia the text said, "a 1962 film directed by Orson Welles adapted from a novel by Franz Kafka. Scorsese says references to The Trial include". This was altered to read, "a 1962 film directed by Orson Welles adapted from the novel by Franz Kafka; he says references to The Trial include". The external site uses the language placed on Wikipedia a half an hour later. Minor changes here are also present in the external blog.) I think given this evidence, that the text is usable. I understand your being upset that your work has come under this cloud, and I am sorry that sometimes these things happen. People frequently copy from Wikipedia without giving us credit, and I think that's probably what happened to you. But do remember, please, to assume good faith with other contributors. It's essential to keep the project working smoothly. Checking these concerns out is pretty important to avoiding legal troubles for the project. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Celina Murga's Account of Filming on the Set of "Shutter Island"

Investigation suggests that Wikipedia published this before the blog did. (See the section immediately above.) Accordingly, I have restored it to the article. Please note that I'm not expressing any opinion on whether the material is appropriate for inclusion here for other reasons or whether it should be altered to bring it inline with various policies and guidelines. I simply believe as an uninvolved administrator that evidence supports a conclusion that the text is free for our use. Thanks to the contributors who brought up these concerns. We all know that, unfortunately, a good bit of material is pasted on Wikipedia, and we do need to investigate when this seems to happen. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, thank you very much, I apologize for the inapropriate comment reffereing to those people who accused me of anger. I thank you however for dealing with the situation so smoothly, in a way such that no one is hurt, nor condemned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Born365 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's way too much information in this section. Short summary and link if it's really important, but it completely overwhelms the rest of the article. Please prune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.221.229 (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception

Guys we can't add a % reception, using Rotten Tomatoes as a source before the site actually gives it a % score. For it to get a % score it needs to have at least 5 review tallied and it currently only has 3, so you can't say it is 100% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes if the site still says N/A! Thanks. talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

Well now we have that. But we also have a huge number of critics, so I suggest removing rotten tomato as it adds no real value to the section. The quotes from well known critics are far superiror. RT is just a meaningless number, while the quotations give depth as well as readability to the reception section. In addition it should be consindered to remove the oomska (or what it is called) reference, as it is not really a useable source (wiki cannot quote minor websites & opinions). I'll make the changes for now, reverte if you have better arguments. 77.11.162.147 (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Why was the oomska reference removed? It contained genuinely new info - nobody else had pointed out the Wizard of Oz reference. It reflects badly on Wikipedia that someone can come along and delete useful info, particularly when that person does not have much of a command of the Enhlish language: " In addition it should be consindered to remove the oomska (or what it is called) reference". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.25.15 (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Because content needs to come from reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 22:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The source *is* accurate. Having watched the film again, I can confirm that the quotation (re. Wizard of Oz) is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.25.15 (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the 'oomska' article - if you read it - has obviously been written by someone with knowledge of Scorsese. And many critics have indeed noted all the film references in 'Shutter Island'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.215 (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I also point out, for all those who refer to the oomska article as 'unreliable', that (whether it's reliable or not) oomska is not a 'blog'. Where do people who cannot even tell whether a website is a blog or not get the nerve to call other people 'unreliable'? Seems to me the article in question is informative in general and, in particular, contains pertinent information (the Wizard of Oz reference) which was not noticed by more 'reliable' sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.215 (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Similarities to other movies

Did anyone else observed the uncanny similarity between this movie and "Crazy as Hell" (2002). The plot is almost identical with a highly delusion protagonist going to mental institution/island, a flashback of dead wife/child and even the ending except for the character of Satan in 'Crazy as Hell' (which I agree is far inferior with respect to direction, screenplay and character development).

Also, this movie is similar in plot (if not the theme) to Wicker Man and the ending is a deja vu of Memento.

Can we include these in the wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.160.191 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a movie, but there are also quite striking similarities to the plot of Silent Hill 2. --167.206.73.125 (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Even the introduction of the main character is identical - both of them are introduced by their reflection in the mirror. Silent Hill 2 has almost all the elements that are present in this film as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.146 (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who's seen The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari will quickly figure out what's going on. Didn't any reviewer remark on that? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Summary

The summary was nice to have, but I wish that the ending was not stated on the page. I want to see the movie and now I already know the ending, which is unfortunate. I know that it is based on a book, but some people have not read the book yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.54.132 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:SPOILER: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." Cirt (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it hurt to have a "Spoilers follow" banner? I did not expect the ending in the next paragraph, and it has ruined the movie for me as well. 71.174.247.150 (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, from WP:SPOILER: "Wikipedia has previously included such warnings in some articles on works of fiction. Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers." Cirt (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the plot needs to be rewritten with the actual plot not just the ending - describing each turn of events and in the final paragraph stating the twist eg. like the synopsis for The Sixth Sense (Imagine if the second paragraph of The Sixth Senses's plot synopsis started with "After his death as a ghost"!). I personally had the film spoiled for me when I came here - the "Teddy" really catches your eye. While the ending does change the entire plot, it is still an ending and should occur at the end of the plot synopsis. It doesn't make all that occurred before the ending invalid and not worthy of describing. 130.102.158.15 (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

HE DOES NOT RELAPSE INTO DELUSION IN THE FINAL SCENE. INSTEAD, HE PRETENDS SO THAT THEY WILL LABATOMIZE HIM SO THAT HE WILL NOT HAVE TO LIVE WITH WHAT HE'S DONE. REMEMBER WHAT HE SAYS AT THE END? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.215.221 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That is made clear in the article already. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that maybe instead of him being crazy the whole movie, that the people were tricking him all along and that in the end he knew he wouldnt be able to get off the island anyways so he let them lobotime him. So he didn't kill his wife, she actually died in the fire but he went along with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.66.170 (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a legitimate point here. I thought it was apparent that Teddy thought he was crazy, but there is NOTHING in the film that proves that he wan't right the whole time. This is perhaps the most powerful point of the book/film, and it needs to be included in the plot summary.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 10:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The theory is actually discredited, but quite subtly. *SPOILER ALERT* It's where the doctor asks where all the secret facilities are. It's shown quite clearly from the cinematography that there is NO PHYSICAL ROOM in the lighthouse; the rooms are small and cramped -- almost closet size. So, the "inescapable conspiracy" interpretation makes no sense. OTOH, consider the line about living as a monster or dying as a good man. He says it AFTER he makes sure he's sealed his fate. This is an indication of self-sacrifice: He knows he can relapse, so he willingly goes to his doom rather than risk regressing into a monster. However, I note this interpretation is not on the page.24.95.90.102 (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He was definitely crazy. The scene in the lighthouse he shoots the doctor, but moments later it is revealed that was part of his imagination. This was meant to show him snapping back to reality. Also, the idea that his a doctor could pose as his partner is ridiculous. In real life he would have met his partner before arriving to the island or, at the very least, would have been able to confirm him as a police officer somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.78.12 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I partly side with Wikipedia in reference to the fact that this article should mirror an encyclopedia article as closely as possible. There should be no spoiler warnings. However, I do believe that although the author of the original plot summary probably had good intentions, this summary is not sufficient due to the fact that it dedicates most of the summary to describing the ending. I very much wanted to see the movie (as many people who have probably come to this page have) and reading the ending so early on and so abruptly completely ruined the movie for me. I only suggest that someone who has viewed the movie and wishes to write a new summary please try to dedicate more of the text to the description of the movie and not to the ending, if he/she feels including the ending is warranted. I personally believe that it is not. I believe that most people who view this page come here hoping to learn more about the movie with hopes to see it. This however is just my opinion. Any input from others is wanted and would be interesting to hear. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.153.249 (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, a lot does take place in the last few minutes of the movie. Misplaced intentions are not the responsibility of an "encyclopedia article"; what you wanted was a review, of the sorts you could find on a more dedicated site like Rotten Tomatoes. I personally don't think knowing the ending spoils the movie; it's not the sort of film that relies on the twist. But personal preferences aside, it's impossible to summarize the movie objectively while omitting the ending when so much happens at the end. "Soylent Green" is a good example.24.95.90.102 (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I ALSO AGREE THAT THE ENDING SHOULD NOT BE STATED. IT RUINS IT AND THERE IS NO SPOILER WARNING... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carousel1039 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia allows for spoilers does not mean that it is the right thing to do. Perhaps several years down the road it will make sense, but while the film is still in theatres it is completely unnecessary and mean-spirited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimGrinningGuest (talk • contribs) 01:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

However, it would be highly inappropriate and unencyclopedic to exclude part of the plot, especially the crucial ending. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 05:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be possible to allude to the ending without destroying it for someone who has not seen the film. I could understand if it was a multi-paragraph, full synopsis; but it is a very brief overview where it seems as if two-thirds of the content is there simply to ruin the ending for those who have not viewed it yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimGrinningGuest (talk • contribs) 18:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Really most f the problem is that — and I can't believe I'm about to say this — the summary here is too short. I frequently look up movies I haven't seen yet on wiki and I generally read only the first couple of paragraphs so I can get the gist of the setting, tone, etc. And most of the time that works fine; you get an idea that goes above the annoying blurbs often put out by studios that essentially tell you nothing. But the heaviest spoilers don't really come into play until about halfway through your average 500-700 word summary. So since I'm on my way to watch this flick now, I'll add the summary to my to do list and get something with a few more paragraphs in there sometime this weekend. Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I took a cue from the page for The Sixth Sense and alluded to there being a twist ending at the beginning of the paragraph where the ending is revealed. This gives more information on the nature of the film, while also allowing a reader to stop reading if they feel the following information may hinder their experience in subsequently seeing the film. I believe this is a reasonable compromise that takes Wikipedia policy and common sense and courtesy into consideration.

I like that. If no one objects to keeping that element, I'll include it when I do the rewrite. I have a rough outline now that includes more events from the middle of the story. I estimate I should land at around 450-500 words. Based on the notes I've got so far, I think the twist ending blurb will probably land a little earlier, relative to the story, than it did for the Sixth Sense. So that will give people even more time to back out. I wonder if there isn't a genre that could be included in the article lead sections that would allow for the twist ending wikilink. While I think it makes a good compromise, it also makes for a bloody awkward sentence. Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, just wanted to add my tuppence as I contest the ‘plot’ as outlined on the wiki entry (that’s what this talk function is for right, to avoid page editing wars??). I’d like to offer my contribution based on three details firstly as a person who has seen the film, secondly as a person who has studied neurobiology, neuropsychiatry, and social psychology as pathways in my degrees as a medical anthropologist (BSc, MSc), and thirdly and perhaps most crucially as a person who has looked at Lehane’s original text, i.e. the novel. We have proposed that the film is what might be described as ‘A Brilliant Mind meets The Sixth Sense’, whereas I would propose it is far more ‘Angel Heart meets The Manchurian Candidate’. The wiki seems to say that Teddy is REALLY Andrew, and the poor old patient has a serious mental illness that renders him within a delusional/hallucinatory world which Dr. Cawley (Kingsley) manages to demonstrate and allows Teddy/Andrew a short period of insight. The initial problem with this analysis is the illness that is proposed for Teddy. It most closely corresponds to what the DSM IV (admittedly a more modern tome than 1954) would designate Dissociative Amnesia (300.12) or Dissociative Fugue (300.13) which are both considered psychosocial defense mechanisms against psychological trauma, and might well be associated with the proposed attempt by ‘Andrew’ to combat the terrible memory of the death of his children and his murder of his wife. However the degree of delusion and/or hallucination demonstrated by ‘Andrew’ and required altered state of consciousness would require a mental illness with primary neurochemical basis and/or the use/introduction of a psychoactive drug. While both Dissociative Amnesia and Dissociative Fugue might incur a secondary imbalance of neurochemistry through a ‘nocebo’ effect, the primary aetiology would be considered psychosocial. The key scene for me in the film is where Teddy and Chuck/Lester speak in the mausoleum about how Teddy thinks he has come to the island under his own motivation for a broader investigation of a sinister mind control program, whereas Chuck reveals ‘that’s what you were meant to think’ (paraphrased); for me the film is clearly a comment by Lehane on the MKULTRA project initiated by the CIA. One of the commentators within this talk option reiterates what Dr. Cawley (Kingsley) says in the lighthouse when he asks ‘where are the Nazi experiments?’, I’d propose that in the context of the film, the whole island is; the island does not need to resemble a medieval torture chamber, Hadamar, Bergen-Belsen or Auschwitz to justify the analogy. However enough inference about what the film means, Lehane in his book makes it very clear about what is real and imagined. The novel opens with a prologue; it is a couple of pages long and takes the form of an entry in the journal of one Dr. Lester Sheehan dated 1993. It speaks of Teddy Daniels not Andrew Laeddis, indeed it only refers to Andrew Laeddis along with Rachel Solando as ‘twin terrors’. It also speaks of Teddy’s arrival by boat at the island, as well as the duration of the episode of the book as ‘those four strange days of late summer 1954’; the inference is that Teddy’s arrival at (accompanied by Lester/Chuck?) and subsequent stay on Shutter Island is for a period of 4 days, not the multiple months of ‘treatment’ which are ‘suggested’ by Dr. Cawley. I’d really like you guys to buy the book, and perhaps change the wiki entry so it more fairly represents the ideas, themes and influences that were at play for Lehane in his creation of his narrative, and subsequently not mystify the political by reducing the work to a tale of Teddy’s/Andrew’s mental illness.--Nehustan (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read the book. I came to the same conclusion there. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you explain the prologue?--Nehustan (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean the sort of diary entry from Dr. Sheehan (other editors who haven't read the book can read the prologue on google books if they'd like to weigh in)? I don't see anything in that contradicts my conclusion. It certainly does not assert that Teddy was actually Teddy (not Andrew) or that the concept of his delusion (the MKUltra related experiments) is real. And even if it did, this is not the book we are summarizing, but the film. The plot summary is now a synthesis of mine and others' work. But when I first wrote it, I did originally leave the last paragraph somewhat ambiguous as to whether or not Andrew was faking relapse (this is no longer the case per a discussion with another editor below). I only did this because it seemed to be a point of debate. At no point is the movie ever really vague on whether or not the delusions are delusions. The book was, as I recall, more open about this third possibility. For the movie, however, including it in the plot summary would be original research unless notable, verifiable source discussed the topic.Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Then there is obviously different versions of the prologue as the version I have clearly identifies the character as Teddy, calling Andrew a 'terror', outlines the arrival on the island by Teddy, and a period of 4 days not the months he is SUPPOSED to have been there. I will admit that the excerpt in the prologue doesn't give the plot of the book away, but would you REALLY expect a novelist to spoil his own book? As to your statement 'It certainly does not assert that Teddy was actually Teddy' I disagree, it does precisely that.--Nehustan (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds in line with what I read but a different interpretation of the words; my take has always been that Sheehan was going along with it in telling the story in hindsight because of the complicated nature of Andrew's case and therapy. I always felt that saying it was ironic that "Teddy" didn't like lies was really the biggest thing from that prologue, given that the man's illness had him lying to himself. Sheehan referring to Andrew as Teddy does not, in fact, equate to Sheehan confirming that Teddy was a real person and not a delusion. It is a possible interpretation but not a confirmation of that as fact. Which, ultimately, is what this all boils down to, interpretation. Which is why the ideal thing to do is stick with a "just the facts please" approach. And finally, this is all moot as none of this applies directly to the film's plot summary. If you want to take up introducing this angle to the plot summary of the book, that might be another matter. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the person above - for example, when referring to someone with multiple personality disorder, people will often refer to the name of the person they are behaving as at that time - when they were letting him live out his fantasy, he was Teddy - they called him by that name, so they probably found it easier to differentiate between Teddy and Andrew that way. So I think the diary entry still makes sense in terms of the insane theory. As for referring to Laeddis as a 'terror' - that to me is probably once again differentiating between the two people he can be - Laeddis can be a terror, but Teddy is a calm, clever cop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.133 (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reworked Summary

It's just over 500 words but I'm sure it needs copy editing. I left in the twist ending wikilink, brought in some other wikilinks that seemed to make sense, tried to explain the critical events a bit better, reworded the last bit so it wasn't an exact quote, and pulled out ALMOST all of the interpretative stuff like "seems to" and the like. The only interpretation I left in was the last bit about it being unclear if he was faking since that seems to be a point of confusion. Honestly, I'd rather end it after "live as a monster or die as a good man" but I see why people think it's important to note it was ambiguous. I intentionally skipped over the smaller details like Chuck at the bottom of the cliff and the migraines. They really weren't critical to explaining the overall story. But it's short enough now that some of that could easily be put back in if others think it's more important than I did. Have fun and happy editing! Millahnna (mouse)talk 11:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought we didn't need links to cast in the plot section if an article had the cast link sufficiently in the infobox and cast list. Which is why I removed all of the cast links in the plot summary when I updated. So now I'm confused because the BearPaw (who's been around longer than I), is adding them back in. Did I have the wrong idea? Honestly, I've been told three different things by three different long standing editors since I've been here. Need some clarification. Millahnna (mouse)talk 20:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just went with the consensus I've gotten from longer term WP FILMs peeps and removed the excessive cast linking. Also added Leonardo's first name back to his parenthetical since his was the only one with just his last name. Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I proposed the following addition to the plot summary at the end, in order to highlight the significance of Teddy/Andrew's last line which I regard as an important and final twist in the plot: "This closing remark could be seen to imply that the treatment was successful and Andrew has in fact managed to escape from his delusional fantasies, accepting the truth. However, unable to tolerate it, he chooses to be lobotomized, opting for a peace in ignorance rather than despair in his newfound realization of the truth." - this was deleted when inserted into the article, the reason cited as it had no reference. I would like to point out none of the other points in the plot summary section are referenced, why does this one need to be? I appreciate that to an extent this final point this is open to interpretation and could serve as a piece of opinion rather than description of the plot. I can therefore can understand why some would view it as not appropriate for the synopsis section of the article, however this is a plot point that's meaning has been left deliberately ambiguous and should not be overlooked. I feel it needs highlighting and i think i have made it clear in my phrasing that this is just one possible, but quite compelling, explanation as to the significance of the otherwise unexplained and confusing closing line. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.113.123 (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Our policies of WP:V verification and WP:OR original analysis come into play. Plot points that are specifically presented can be directly from the primary source: "John drives his car into a tree." "Shelly stabs her puppy with a knife she stole from Tesco" - but interpretations and anyalysis of things that are NOT explicity presented in the film ("his silence suggests .... " ) need to be provided by third parties. Active Banana (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, is there not scope for a separate 'analysis' section in this article, which would function to highlight these vague areas of the plot and explain their possible significance in relation to the overall story.

Every article about a film has room for a "critique" section! - The issue is finding (a) professional reviewer(s) that discuss the film and its contents. If analysis / interpretations can be found in [[WP:RS|reliable sources], we can use them. (note that we need to present "pro" and "con" commentary in roughly the proportions that they are presented in reliable sources. Active Banana (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Release date

Supposedly it was released 19 February (Friday). I saw it yesterday (Saturday 20 February) at my local theatre in Nowheremuch-ville, Australia, where it's been showing since Thursday 18 February. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a citation. (Btw, the cinema is not for sale; the name of the city is Sale, Victoria.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Film role?

How is it Leo's biggest in the box office? What about Titanic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.210.153 (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's his biggest premiere. Titanic brought in $28,638,131 [3] its opening weekend while Shutter Island brought in $41,062,440 [4]. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

storylining

• I would suggest to add an analysis on the page. Especially the family lines are interesting.Finally Tedd/Ladd lived in 1952 with his wife and three girls. In shutter iland there is one daughter(patient/prisoner) missing. Rachel is shown in three ages and urged for killing her children and he searches her.

Real Ladd's wife drownd three. Scorsese chains the murdering in this way. Projections of the main figure, his imago is worked out and the recipient thinks it#s real in fiction. But it's imaginative or subjective in the story.[borrowmay]marvellous gramar. The history bgrd tells inhuman experiences of the protagonist, his memory, a soldiers or a marshall's profile mixes family and professional pictures.Unbearbable violence destroys him and the others. Folio Macbeth! Has anybody kidney problems?--188.100.205.28 (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Clues for ending

I like the idea of that section a lot, even though no other similar movie has one that I know of. Mainly, it appeals to me because of how much of that stuff I had to cut from the plot summary for length and readability reasons. But I'm not sure that someone isn't going to come along and delete it for not being encyclopedic; there's nothing similar on any other similar movie I've looked up. However, in the event that it does stay, I'd like to give it a better title (but can't think of one) and maybe trim it down a bit to some of the bigger hints. Thoughts? Millahnna (mouse)talk 05:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a well-written section, but some of the explanations seem a bit subjective; furthermore, doesn't this section make the movie a lot less ambiguous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.234.24 (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree about the subjective, which is sort of what I was thinking in terms of pairing the section down. I'd like to find a published source that discusses the clues so that 1) the section is referenced (because right now it has a fan site feel to it, even though many of those clues are perfectly valid) and 2) there's some basis for trimming them to a more reasonable length. I haven't had any luck so far because, I suspect, the movie is still too new. I'm thinking about copying the whole thing to my sandbox so that I have it for later; I figure much like with The Sixth Sense, eventually it will be older enough that some viable source will discuss that sort of thing. Regarding it making the movie less ambiguous; I'd say the end is still ambiguous since whether or not he is faking the delusions seems to be a point of debate amongst many. I'd also say that since the twist is given in the plot summary it may be a moot point. I feel like that sort of falls under the spoiler guidelines in some way. Millahnna (mouse)talk 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Millahnna, but I think the description of the ending was far too subjective to be considered accurate, and also feels slightly misleading to me. I personally didn't get the idea of a cryptic ending at all, I think the scene at the lighthouse and the subsequent flashback of the death of his kids removed any doubt that Teddy was in fact Andrew. Also the vision of the little girl in his dreams which was in fact his daughter, and the dialogue between "Teddy" and George Noyce were more unsolved mysteries which only made sense when we find out the truth. I had to remove the conjecture from the plot description. Other viewers might agree with your theory about an open ending, but I don't think it belongs here. Indorock (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I personally agree that it was made clear that he was faking. I had originally left it more vague since there seemed to be some debate. Happy editing. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite the complaints of a need for a spoiler alert, I saw the movie and came here to see what the ending was. I saw the movie and really do not know how it ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.40.226 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

weird perspective?

• In the beginning of the film, the camera works on a mediative perspective.Fast movements lead from figure to figure, something Scorsese never done in other films I remember. I thought it over and may be it#s the perspective

of Rachel, the dead. She watching her father the marshall' til he transformes into the patient wearing white. These lines between the real figures in fiction and the imaginative ones are tensefull build up. Not just a neurologic zoo!So he enlightenes a system of relations and the paranoic system either.The historic line settled as a grounding in function of a battery, which changes idalism into direct violence, works well.There are marshalls in reality who are not chained and act on such paradigmas normally. May be I overinterpretate....--Danaide (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC) --94.220.247.71 (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)