shutter island

I am sure very much that many spectators, likewise it him has happened to a few critics, are going to remain much messed up before a proposal as Shutter Island. And not because what Martin Scorsese counts in her is much removed from his personal universe and from his habitual topics (although Laeta Kalogridis signs the script alone, the work of the Italian American is evident very much at the time of taking the novel of Dennis Lehane to its own domains), but because it gets overturned in a generic playing that is much thought to betray the expectations of the public, to take them for surprise offering them something different from what they were hoping to see. His work has been compared to that of Hitchcock, and although it is true that there is a similar work with the tension, and with the medidísimo rhythm to which information is provided to the spectator, I believe that the similar one turns out to be much more suitable with the work like producer of Val Lewton for the RKO.
It is difficult to speak on the movie without throwing spoilers to skillful and sinister, because really there is nothing in the staging of placed Scorsese free: everything has a dramatic function and, in some moment, it plays some role inside the plot framework (in fact, the sure well attentive spectator who can foresee where the shots go: the Italian American does not want to cheat anybody, only it pretends). The director plays very well his letters, and handles with tremendous skill all the multiple cinematographic modality that the history suggests him, especially the series thrillers B and the histories of Gothic terror. Although in the last years his movies seems to have lost this energy espídica, uncontrollable, that usually characterized him, the increasing classicism of his framings does not prevent him from transmitting an increasing oppressive, suffocating sensation, which reaches levels paroxísticos in the last compases of the length.
If the criminal intrigue of Shutter Island does not have too much force it is, simply, because it is not the most important of the movie. His absolute center is his protagonist interpreted by Leonardo Di Caprio, who does not stop being a transposition to a figure in the correct side of the law of the anti-heroes loaded with complexes of fault that so much there has always liked Scorsese (a little that is imputed mistakenly, certainly, his collaboration with Schrader). As Travis Bickle, Teddy Daniels is a man traumatized by his warlike experiences, in this case during the Second World war, hence also it turns into bearer of a clear suppressed anger. That the Italian American limits to the minimum his habitual violent starters it does not mean that the history that it counts turns out to be less impactante, not less horrifying: it is necessary to be very cynical not to feel a chill during his last sequence.
I would like to be able to speak about psychological disorders, and of how these affect the personages who populate the movie (I will only say that, inside the different interests of both artists, they are much lynchianos), but he would need to reveal too much of what in her happens. I will only say that, inside my humble knowledge on this matter, it seems to me that Scorsese reflects them with tremendous brightness, especially thanks to a splendid cast and ajustadísimo.
P.D. Nothing better to extend and to tint opinions than to throw a glance to the criticism of Shutter Island of the whole authority in psychology like Roberto Alcover Oti, and to the habitual clairvoyance of Diego Salgado.