The Burning Issue # 5 - Scorsese's still got it

Has it become cool now to slate Martin Scorsese? Now first of all I respect the opinions of Shutter Island'sreviewers who were very clear about their objections to the film and made a convincing case about why it didn't move them on a dramatically emotional scale. So much of the negative feedback however has focused on such overblown minor details that in essence have no real impact on the quality of the film itself. Take this obnoxious paragraph from The Independent's John Walsh as a prime example:

It's awful. It's not just full of ridiculous clichés of 1950s movies (when a psychiatrist routinely used to appear, like in Psycho, to explain the oddness of the human mind), it features the most enormous "twist" seen in the movies since Shyamalan's The Village.

Okay, for a start Psychois not a film from the 1950's. Let's get that right to begin with, and secondly the scene in that film with the psychiatrist is kind of called for seeing as the character Norman Bates is being analysed in an asylum; the manner in which we see the psychology come into play with Bates harbouring thoughts in his mother's voice is one of the most chilling endings to a horror film I've ever seen. Also John, did you happen to watch Shutter Island to its completion or did you just form your overall opinion as soon as you saw Ben Kingsley emerge on screen? If you had seen the film from beginning to end you would understand that the role of the psychiatrist is anything but random and actually ties the whole story together. And again, you realise right that the film is taking place on an asylum - would it not make sense for psychiatrists to be involved? Other reviews have described DiCaprio as portraying nothing more than a generalised anguish and that he is only a lightweight performer. Once again it seems that people are just unable to admit that the annoying pretty boy who plagued screens in the mid to late 90's has emerged into one of today's top actors. It's this sort of nitpicking and looking for excuses to dislike the film that has annoyed me during the past week of reading reviews. A fairer account of the film comes from the New York Times where the reviewer argues that the dramatic stakes are not raised at the most convenient moments and that the film is a little too overclogged with red herrings and confusion. This is a perfectly valid argument for arguing why the film is flawed and though I disagree I can understand the point being made. But then you have other reviewers complaining about the film because in the opening scene the sky and ocean backdrop looks artificial. Gees, how hard do you have to concentrate to pick up flaws like that? Is it really that important? Jason and the Agronautslooks pretty damn artificial by today's standards but that doesn't mean it doesn't excite the imagination as much as it did decades ago. Don€™t let anyone convince you otherwise. Shutter Island is brilliant. It features a phenomenal lead performance by Leonardo DiCaprio who has emerged into the actor he promised to be when he was the young Oscar nominated child star and in my personal opinion it rivals his spot on performance as Howard Hughes in The Aviator. He shows such range in this film and handles all the big emotional scenes with real panache and a fine sense of control that is very hard to truly master. Then there is the brilliant script €“ cracking dialogue, wonderfully executed twists and turns and an engaging psychological development surrounding the lead character.

It is Scorsese however who makes this such a thrilling ride. Visually it€™s one of his most impressive films as he crafts such a haunting and moving atmosphere in a film that is paced to perfection. Some of his direction is a little overcooked but the general terror that always lurks beneath the surface of the film is so convincingly portrayed that such niggles are soon done away with as you find yourself fully caught up in the well developed tone. When considering Scorsese's direction, something else from the Independent review that annoyed me is when the reviewer stated that "this is not what we go to Scorsese for"€“ what the hell does that mean? If the man had done his research he would realise that rarely is the experience of watching a Scorsese film the same as the one before. How is Alice Doesn€™t Live Here Anymore anything like After Hours? Or Taxi Driver anything like The Age of Innocence? There might be some important underlying themes that regularly crop up within his movies but barring a few examples every Scorsese film presents a different type of viewing experience. In the conclusion the reviewer cites some recurring minor complaints and in the big picture they are really inconsequential. So you didn't understand why some rats were pouring out of the cave - big deal, it hardly made that great an impact on the overall scope of the film. Then there are critics who seemed to have completely misinterpreted the genre of the film they were watching. Kate Muir from The Times for example describes the film as being too melodramatic. Now I don't want to give anything anywhere here but if you reflect on the plot and the film's setting the melodrama is not only valid but also essential in explaining the film's psychological explanation near the end of the story. When you realise the motivation of the protagonist you fully understand why everything has been so overblown and chaotic and thus it makes complete sense and works in well with the plot. Now don€™t get me wrong, the film is not perfect€€. yes some of the sequences in particular the flashbacks are quite laboured and often the philosophy doesn€™t feel so natural coming from the character€™s mouths. But to be honest I don€™t really care about the odd elaborate camera movement when the arena is so well handled and the film does such a masterful job of absorbing you into its world. Nor do I care about some forced moral discussions when I am too busy having my mind blown with the brilliant unfolding storylines. I had a great feeling about this film when I first watched the trailer last summer and I€™m very glad to say that it fully lived up to expectations. Forget about losing the plot. This is Scorsese's best film since Goodfellas and while it may not be close to being a masterpiece I'll be surprised if I view five films which I like more throughout the remainder of the year. For the first time in far too long I've seen a film which I'm desperate to go back and watch again. This is how cinema should make you feel.