Intentional Amb

I think Shutter Island is is incredible, but not because of the plot, premise, pacing, acting or any of the other things that usually define a great film. Truth be told, I found it enjoyable, but certainly not in the same universe as Scorsese's best. I do think, however, that Scorsese has created the first film which truly shows the level of detail and mastery of film making that would be required to execute on Hollywood's Lynch-esque failures at revolving a film around intentional ambiguity. Shutter Island is not the film that accomplishes this, but it does show what it would take to create a film with a layered mystery that the viewer would really have to figure out through deep study. I threw a lot out in this paragraph, so let's break it down.

Intentional Ambiguity - The 101 Films. One of the easiest examples of this is "Limbo" ending, an artsy film that I'm about to spoil because, if you didn't see it by now, you aren't going to. Essentially, the movie ends right before most films would, in that it doesn't answer the key narrative point of the film, specifically whether the main characters are going to be rescued from a remote island in the Alaskan wilderness. The quick version of the ending is that, after being stuck on the Island and fretting about whether they'll be rescued, a plane spots them that is piloted by a man who will either rescue them or kill them. Roll credits. Will he rescue them? Will he leave them to die? The director never says. Limbo is more of a "character study" about the individuals and their relationships, so it doesn't matter, but we see that sort of ending pop up quite frequently in films where it is the central premise. People then have heated discussions in restaurants after the movie and message boards years later debating "what really happens" after the credits roll. They'll go back and watch the film over and over looking for clues, often finding conflicting evidence or simply grasping at straws.

People do, however, love a good mystery...and the idea that there is one embedded in a movie for them to figure out is a huge draw. From the Blair Witch to Lost in Translation, people will debate hourlessly to try and "solve' the mystery.

Intentional Ambiguity - The 501 films. Enter David Lynch. He makes "mysteries" that are so convoluted and filled with so many "clues" that he has essentially become a parody of himself. As is the case with all things, The Simpsons did a great job of showing the level of near-insane confusion he introduced in Twin Peaks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkOewABZGtw

I wrote a college thesis on Lynch's Lost Highway titled "Lynch Mob: Failure in the critical interpretation of David Lynch's The Lost Highway" where I attempted to argue that the reason the movie made "no sense" is that you couldn't view it as a linear narrative, and that the movie actually had to be divided-up into scenes that represented the "real world", as well as scenes representing one or two "dreams" and then a series of scenes that were essentially parallel universe metaphors for the "real world." The problem that I've come to accept is that, no matter how much I may like Lynch's films, he just isn't a good-enough filmmaker to execute on his vision. Lost Highway clearly had parallel "universes", but the problem is that they all happened simultaneously, they had no continuity, they had no consistency. I'm sure in Lynch's mind there was distinction, but he couldn't translate that to film in a manner that allowed viewers to dissect his clues to put it all together. You may _think_ a scene is only happening in the "dream world", but David doesn't really drop consistent clues to let you make a reasoned argument. Even when he does, other scenes will drop clues that contradict these other clues, and the viewer is then forced to try and search for _another_ level of clues that tie these inconsistencies together.

It is a fun exercise, it is certainly a mystery, and it certainly makes one think, but the problem is that it would take a truly genius filmmaker to "pull it off." Part of the problem is that a film of these types takes a certain level of trust between the director and the audience...trust that the filmmaker did have a conscious vision for how it all ties together, and poured over each shot to ensure consistency of this vision. A single mistake and we lose that trust with the Director. Lynch, unfortunately, has never actually earned that trust. From Twin Peaks to Lost Highway to Mullholand Drive, we are left with a clear sense that he's trying to give us a mystery we can solve, but he is so scatterbrained and inconsistent that he is unable to execute...leaving us with nothing more than a giant dancing with a unicorn under a street light, as in the clip above, because it "looks cool" and "will confound the audience with mystery."

Back to Shutter Island: The internet is aflame with people debating what "really happened" in the movie, which somewhat blows my mind, since I simply can't fathom how anyone sees ambiguity in the film. Scorsese's film is so tight, and each detail so perfect, which when tied with the fact that he spends the last 45 minutes of the movie literally spelling out the "twist", there just doesn't seem to be any doubt what happened. It is clear he wasn't _trying_ to make the film ambiguous...he had a story to tell (based off a book), and the story had a twist, but he didn't want the audience to go home debating what happened on the Island. Sure, he didn't literally show every detail of what played out or have our (unreliable) narrator give a monologue aSo, how does lub, but that is solely because he is a great director who didn't need to.

That being said, the reason this film is so incredible is that his film making techniques show how a talented director _could_ create a film with the ambiguous "mystery" people want. I don't want to spoil the movie, even though you need watch little more than the trailer to know that the movie is going to boil down to an "is he" or "isn't he" question. That said, due to the level of trust Scorsese has built up with his audience over the years as a great director, it is astounding the detail he built into each shot to prove his "twist" from the opening of the movie.

Tiny details, such as the choice to use a bluescreen for certain shots seems odd, and if we were watching "The Room" we'd laugh. But knowing Scorsese, and once you know the reality behind the movie, they are brilliant. Most viewers won't know or care, but for those looking for an "intentionally ambiguous mystery", they provide a consistency of vision that is hidden into the fabric of the film that provide clues without obfuscating them. This is one example, but the movie is filled with them. One character has water dripping from her in a scene in a fire, which seems out of place, at least until one "solves the mystery", at which point it is incredible. Mens ties are just a piece of fashion, until one in a million viewers notices one odd inconsistency, which, again after knowing the mystery, allows for an amazing clue and consistency on repeat viewing. Each line of dialogue, even the ones which seem like "filler" on a first viewing, tie together the mystery. From that perspective, it is masterful film making.

Unfortunately, the "twist" itself isn't mysterious, nor was it intended to be. But someday someone with the talent of Scorsese will apply himself to a "Lost Highway", and after years of suffering through Lynch, we will finally get the great, ambiguous film that can be "solved" through much analysis and repeat viewing. Until then, I look forward to exploring the mysteries of "Hot Tub Time Machine."