We’re on a script-reading frenzy of late and just finished, Martin Scorsese’s ‘Ashecliffe’ “Shutter Island.” “The Departed” director and Leonardo DiCaprio obviously reunited last year in Massachusetts for the filming of the psycho-thriller based on Boston writer Dennis Lehane’s novel, “Shutter Island.”
The Good:
We recently read Laeta Kalogridis’ script and were left troubled. Let’s back up. By the time we got to page 80, we sent a note to The Playlist team strongly urging them to read this thrilling, fast-paced and gripping page turner, it was that good. A meat and potatoes no-nonsense crime thriller “Shutter Island,” was an amazing read (at least initially). Set in the 1950s about two Federal Marshalls (Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo) who are sent to a psychiatric hospital for the mentally insane to investigate the mysterious escape of a dangerous female patient (Emily Mortimer), the script is one of the most taut, tense page turners we’ve read in recent months.
The Gist: Set on an island (Shutter Island) in the middle of a hurricane, the hospital is named Ashecliffe and its chief doctors (Ben Kingsley and Max Von Sydow) are veiled and baleful wardens who run a methodical ship with extraordinarily strict rules and inordinate security measures. The hospital is strangely above the purview of the Federal Marshalls and what laws are chief seem to be an unprecedented mix of Mental Heath and Federal Department of Prisons. Something sinister seems to be afoot… [ed. note there is no way Kingsley and Von Sydow will not be absolutely perfect for these juicy roles]. One hint, there are a lot of dream sequences in this thing.
The Bad: However, when we got to the end of the 130-ish page long screenplay, we sent back another note to the team and rescinded our endorsement (a mild spoiler coming, but it’s still very, very vague). Now those who have read the Lehane book — like this guy — are fully aware that the film comes with a pretty big twist, but we were unaware of it and we have to say it didn’t floor us — in fact it left us with a bad taste in our mouth. It wasn’t quite, “it was all a dream!,” but it wasn’t fantastic and sort of reminded us of a M. Night Shyamalan ending. No, it’s not that bad, the third act is the reveal and not the last ta-daa! scene like Shyamalan loves to do, but it felt like a pretty Hollywood-like twist. Let’s qualify that: it’s not predictable (though the seeds are sown) and when it comes you are a little wowed, but we were also disappointed, because you were hoping for more.
“Shutter Island” will make for an excellent thriller, but it’s a roller coaster ride – as in, you’ll squeal, delight and love the experience, but once you’ve seen it, you’re probably not going to put it on repeat viewings. Some obviously love roller coaster suspense rides, and maybe will absolutely love it — Scorses will obviously craft an an amazing ride — but in film, we find these types of narratives make for a great one-time experience, but don’t have a lot of longtail resonance. We were hoping for something deeper and possibly something that would be a key piece of 2009 Oscar-bait, but it doesn’t feel like that’s in the cards. The tone seems off. We could see perhaps an actor or two scoring a nomination, but like Lehane’s “Gone Baby Gone” (which is similarly structured with its twist),
We may get to a deeper script review soon (which is difficult because you can’t say a lot without risking a spoiler), but we wanted to spit this out and our disappointment now.
“Shutter Island,” hits theaters October 2, 2009 and also features key appearances by Michelle Williams, Jackie Earle Haley, Elias Koteas, Patricia Clarkson, and character actors John Carroll Lynch (Marge’s husband in “Fargo”) and Ted Levine (Buffalo Bill, the killer in “The Silence of the Lambs”).
I was a bit worried about how the twist would be handled in the script. It works in the book because there is so much emotion in the way Lehane describes things, that the ending, while still a bit Twilight Zone-y no doubt, worked on a higher emotional plane and didn’t make me feel jipped. I think a lot of it is going to be dependent on the performances and directing (probably not a problem with the personnel). That emotion is really going to have to come through so the audience doesn’t feel completely ripped off.
You nailed it. I felt jipped. The story is so fucking good for 3/4 and then…
i will again, reiterate, i bet it’s going to be an incredible thriller, but…i guess my expectations were higher with Marty onboard. I can’t see something like this at the oscars. The dream sequences remind me of Peter Jackson (the non-academy Jackson films) and in tone, the only thing i could remotely compare with Scorsese is… Bringing Out The Dead?
Yeah, the big flashback near the end of the book with the revelation about his wife (trying to remain spoiler free here) made me tear up when reading it, and it wasn’t cheap, it was just painful and real…if they can pull that off in the film, it will make the twist not only easier to take, but more believable.
I agree Scorcese is an odd choice to direct. The only thing I can think is that he’s a huge Hitchcock fan (thinking of that commercial/short film he made last year) and maybe wants to make this a sort of tribute. That said, I’m glad he did it cause, like I said, you need a hell of a cast and a great director to pull this off so it isn’t just another M. Night Shaymalan vehicle. I can see some Bringing Out the Dead…maybe a bit of Cape Fear too. But honestly, it seems more like a ’70s Brian De Palma film than anything Scorsese has done.
Yes, Cape Fear, that’s another reasonable comparison in tone. Obviously “Asheclife” is nothing like that, but when you’re looking for an example that even remotely resembles the material… that’s a decent fit.
If anyone can take a flawed script and bring it to a new level that’s Scorsese (I would say the same thing about Ridley Scott). So… I wouldn’t judge this one by the script alone.
Last anon. I flawed script is a flawed script. it’s sort of like saying an masterful architect can build a masterpiece out of flawed plans, maybe he can, but the foundation if already fucked up.
BUT back to your point. My issue is not a flawed script. It’s not flawed at all. It’s a fantastically written script. The problem does not lie in the adaptation, but lies in the conceit which the book relies on.
What I’m saying is the original story is a pretty flawed and sort of built around a cheap, gimmicky concept.
The Playlist, I didn’t read the book or the script, you could be entirely right. But, you know, I will watch Marty’s flawed masterpiece over some perfectly constructed and neatly told story any day.
P.S. I think a lot depends on the performances, too.
It absolutely depends on the performances, but again, the script is not flawed! It’s great!
The fundamental problem is with the story itself.
I have to kind of agree with you guys. I actually worked on this film from March 2008 – wrap in July and while on set had the chance to scoop the paperback version, and then after that the script right one after another… all i can really say is, Marty is one of the best filmmakers of our time, and if anyone can pull off telling a good story without going the too-often traveled Hollywood route… he'd be one of them. Throw in some authentic sets, top-notch cast, a production team full of Oscar winners especially a legend like DP Bob Richardson (look him up), and I think perhaps this film has a shot at an Oscar nod. It's Marty's attempt at a psych thriller period piece, hopefully with a Hitchcock/Orson Welles feel to it… considering all these elements… anything is possible. I did feel similarly dejected around pg. 80 too tho… do you think all the anagram-code business shouldve been in the screenplay?