Research into how mental health is portrayed in film.

(Shutter Island, Martin Scorsese, United States, 2010, Paramount Pictures)

This film follows delves into the mind of one Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio), a US marshal who has been given the task of finding an escaped mental patient (Rachel Solando) on shutter island. We share in his experiences and observe the action from his perspective, this becomes increasingly uncomfortable as the film twists and turns towards its jaw dropping finale.

From the very beginning, an unmistakeable feeling of unease is projected onto us, the guards are on edge and the feeling of trust in the institutions explanation of the situation is rapidly depleted, something isn’t as it seems. Subtle clues are given to the true nature of events, from staff dialogue and mannerisms, to inmate interactions and a federal marshal stumped as to how to remove his gun from its holster.

It is through Teddys dreams that we learn of his deceased wife, again a subtle hint is given to the true nature of her death, this comes in the form of blood pouring from a gunshot wound in her abdomen. This contradicts Teddys own explanation of her death, that of an apartment fire, caused by one Andrew Leaddis, who just so happens to be a patient at this very institution. But this is surely coincidental?

Shortly into the film, Rachel is found by staff, bare foot and unharmed. The raging storm outside seems to have had minimal, if any effect on her well being whatsoever. Which begs the question, where had she been? The guards themselves said that nobody could survive alone on the island in such a storm, but here she is, miraculously unharmed. This adds to Teddys growing concerns, who is now convinced he and his newly acquired partner are being lied to.

As the film gathers momentum, certain imagery is placed on screen for us to decipher. Take for example another of Teddys dreams, we are shown the image of a woman we know as Rachel Solando, along with a little girl, both deceased on a pile of bodies in a Nazi extermination camp. Now this references Teddys time in the war and the horrors he witnessed and experienced, we are to believe that this girl was one of many Jewish bodies ingrained in his mind, surely an indication of the blame he places on himself for not being able to save them in time. This is echoed by the now awake girl, she says “You should’ve saved me, you should’ve saved all of us” which is immediately surpassed by a scene in which Rachel is seen surrounded by the bodies of her three dead children (this was referenced earlier in the film), however, the young girl from the camp lays motionless at Rachel’s feet, her face clearly visible for the audience to see. Something doesn’t add up, why are these people of no relation being accredited to each other within his mind?

Teddy and his partner Chuck venture into ward C, this is where all of the most violent patients are held. Teddy is convinced that Andrew Leaddis resides in that ward, as he goes in with the intention of revenge during the chaotic aftermath of the storm. Alas, Leaddis isn’t there, however, an interaction with institution patient George Noyce reveals the very place they could be holding him, the lighthouse! Teddy sees this as an opportunity to prove his theories, if he can get into that lighthouse, he’ll be able to expose the institution for what it really is. All the while, visions of Dolores are appearing to Teddy, begging him not to enter the lighthouse, as it would be the end of him.

Fast forward and we find Teddy climbing the lighthouse stairs in a panicked and determined frame of mind, clearing rooms one by one, in a manner that you’d expect from a man with his military background. Each room empty until he reaches the top, the door flies open to find Dr. Cawley sitting at a desk, awaiting his arrival.

Now is where the twist is revealed. Teddy, the man we believed was a federal marshal, is in fact Andrew Leaddis, a patient at this very institution. This whole ordeal was concocted by the Dr and his staff as a final attempt to bring Teddy back to reality. Chuck, in reality, is Dr Lester Sheehan, assigned to watch over Andrew as the roleplay experiment ran its course. Earlier George said, “This is a game, all of this, is for you” which gave Andrew, along with the audience, the truth of the situation. However, we, just like Andrew, refused to believe it.

The reality is, this was created in Andrews mind as a coping mechanism to deal with his past. The girl seen earlier, was in fact his daughter (Rachel), one of his three children, all drowned by his wife, who was a manic depressive and had suicidal tendencies. Andrew blamed himself for their deaths, as he ignored his wife’s mental state by staying away and drinking heavily. Upon finding his children drowned in the lake by their house, Andrew reluctantly shoots Dolores in the chest, killing her. This is the unsettling truth that Andrew hides from. This is Andrews last chance, his training makes him too dangerous to be kept amongst the other patients, he either accepts the truth, or gets lobotomised.

The Dr’s manage to convince Andrew of the truth, this is however twisted into a cliff-hanger ending. It is the next morning and Andrew is sitting with Dr Sheehan, Andrew calls him Chuck, this leads to the realisation that he has regressed, the staff have no other option but to perform the surgery. Just before Andrew is lead away, he turns to Dr Sheehan and says “Which would be worse, to live as a monster, or to die as a good man”, this sets off alarm bells, is he faking his fantasy in order to end his own suffering? I like to think he did.

Now I’d like to point to the subtle clues, throughout this picture Andrew has a problem with water, water leaking onto him, the shower, the ocean. This is because his children were drowned, all water is a reminder of that and he cant stand to be around it.

We slowly see Andrews fictional character of Teddy stripped of everything that makes him who he his. His gun, clothes and entire persona are taken away by the finale, leaving only Andrew.

I point out these clues as I believe that this is a brilliant story telling technique, to tell the audience what the reality of the situation is without blatantly shoving it in their face. I wish to do the same thing with my independent film, instead of my leading character just blurting out that he suffers from anxiety and depression; his surroundings, mannerisms and actions will tell the audience everything they need to know. Knowing when to reveal certain information to the audience in order to achieve the greatest emotional response will be key.