Wednesday, 27 June 2012

Shutter Island at a repertory theatre in Montreal


Trying to get through a busy schedule and our hasty lifestyle, people of this present society escape to theaters to forget their problems and the life they live. Cinemas have become a haven that shelter us and let us submerge into a reality constructed by a visionary director, weather it be one that is passionate or just getting by the given script (a industrially generic director). Never the less, we all are accustomed to the usual Famous Players, Guzzos, and other mainstream cinemas. In this semester’s “Introduction to Film” class, given this assignment, I attended a repertory cinema and viewed Martin Scorsese’s “Shutter Island”. I had already seen this film at a Guzzo on its opening night because the preview had caught my attention. When I realized that this film is also being screened at a repertory cinema I decided to watch it once more to see if the experience altered my feelings about the film itself.

            I chose to attend Cinema du Parc, which gave me a sort of culture shock. The venue was a lot smaller and compressed compared to the spacial grandeur that is offered by Hollywood picture screening theaters. The cinema also had a mezzanine gallery containing works that can be classified in the world of cinematic visual art. This was an opportunity to broaden my artistic horizons and kill two birds with one stone since I had the privilege of viewing a work of art (the main film) and seeing photographs in a mini gallery before hand. The hall of the screened movie was somber and gloomier than the habitual ones I’ve previously sat in. Dim light washed the room. The rows of the seats were closer together and I personally felt compact and more to myself. The feeling was much like being a part of a pack of sardines except for people weren’t representing the sardines in this simile; the seats were. The room wasn’t even half capacitated. With the emptiness of this hall I experienced individualism. There was no pressure to change your facial expression according to the audience’s reaction (not that I personally do). You were basically emotionally unaccompanied. The film evoked your sentiments and you were forced to think, suffer, undergo crude emotions, and let the atmosphere alleviate your cinematic experience.

            The cinema really reflected the film in a way. This foreign atmosphere was mysterious to me. Dark and stuffy, it made me feel like Leonardo Dicaprio in the moving picture, in a place surrounded by people I wasn’t used to being around.  This film starts off much like any other Hollywood one would, with a storyline that seems usual, and previously used by other directors. As the film progresses though you see that Scorsese has made a work of art. The decor and staging is incredible and full of dramatic potential. The story is set in 1954, where a martial named Teddy Daniels and his new partner Chuck arrive at a mental hospital on a secluded island of New England. Shutter Island is located on an old concentration camp that was converted into a psychiatric institution for the criminally insane after the war. The story starts off usual and we can assume we know what will happen. Even if the actors are renowned and easy to identify with, they seem to give a different and more passionate performance in “Shutter Island”. The cinematography clearly doesn’t go unnoticed. Scorsese’s mise-en-scene is undoubtedly thought out and has a tremendous impact on the viewer. This is particularly seen in the scene where Dicaprio places all his deceased children in order of height and Scorsese gives us a “bird’s eye view” medium shot that is kept for quite a few seconds.

The strongest scenes of the film are dream-like. These are numerous scenes of vivid flashbacks.  One consists of a female corpse along with a young girl and several other victims of war all frozen together that is monochromatically painted with a cyan color. Another is one of Teddy Daniels’ frequent nightmares where he re witnesses his wife dieing in the fire and she slowly disintegrates in his arms while standing in a sort of ash-rain. These scenes, although beautiful, provoke the viewers  and force them to feel. Paranoia is also a psychological disorder constantly present in the narrative and is embodied by the light and shadow, which stimulates the spectator’s imagination. The director establishes a grey area between reason and madness and we are sometimes (I’d say often) unable to distinguish reality from fantasy. On the topic of sound, Scorsese does make great use of it non-diegetically, although not in a cliché fashion. It enrobes the film perfectly and respects its themes.

After the film had ended, I came to the conclusion that repertory cinema isn’t a pastime or some place you go to simply “do something tonight”. This was an experience that drifted from the spacious halls, comfortable seating, and wide variety of snacks and accompaniments. People who attended repertory cinemas were there to pay for something worth watching and thinking over. They were individuals and not a bunch of teenagers uniting just for the sake of going out. It was refreshing to see a storyline that wasn’t expected and completely foreshadowed by its previews. The experience at the repertory cinema compared to a commercial theater was that the viewer was expected to have the film as a focal point and not their surroundings.

No comments:

Post a Comment