Take Shelter

[Boner M]

Trailer (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/watch_trailer_clip_for_cannes_ critics_week_winner_take_shelt er_starring/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed)

Been hearing great things about this since Sundance; Nichols' Shotgun Stories was a promising debut.

[Ezee E]

I remember liking Shotgun Stories, but damnit, I don't remember a thing about it except that Michael Shannon was in it.

[Winston*]

Loved Shotgun Stories, and remember it pretty well.

[Boner M]

Great film, but I was content on Shannon's nightmares/hallucinations staying strictly weather-related rather than turning into The Crazies; the only real misstep in an otherwise sensitive and truthful portrayal of mental illness. Fortunately those scenes only appear in the early stages and subside near the end. Loved the final scene, which I imagine will be divisive.

Favorite shot: the closeup of gallons/dollars digits on a gas pump display escalating at different speeds. Can't remember such an image being utilised so effectively.

[Winston*]

I liked the final scene in retrospect, but found it cheap in the moment.

[lovejuice]

I liked the final scene in retrospect, but found it cheap in the moment.

Just watched it. Perhaps I'll eventually feel as you do, but at the moment, it seems like a very poor conclusion.

Aside from that, what a wonderful film! Really disturbing. The pressure was so unbearable that I had to get off the theater halfway, and called my friend to ask about the ending. The bastard didn't spoil me. :lol: So I gritted my teeth and stuck to the end. (Note: it's not that bad for many people, but the movie might hit me on the right spot.)

[Wryan]

Fantastic film. I kept thinking, "Am I sure these supporters are actually actors?" Everyone in the film is wonderful. Writing, directing, Shannon and Chastain are almost overwhelming. I did not like the final scene.

I felt that it undercut the power of the rest of the film. (Frailty has a similar ending, but strangely I felt that one worked much better there.) I liked the mystery of it, the down-to-earthiness, the smell of the dirt and sweat and panic. I don't really know what they want me to think about the ending. Too on-the-nose for me. Plus they are pretty damn far from their shelter, so I'm guessing they're gonna die? I did like how the storm in his dreams caused people to act strangely (someone mentioned The Crazies before, or The Happening, god help us) and that this is what he was mostly concerned about--protecting his family in an uncontrollable and almost unimaginable situation.

Lots of beautiful subtlety in the film, but Shannon's "big" scene is just perfect, too.

[ledfloyd]

Loved the final scene, which I imagine will be divisive.
like wryan, i feel like it undercuts the rest of the film, particularly the truthful portrayal of mental illness.

overall it's a well conceived and acted film that i feel could've been helped by a director with a better understanding of mise-en-scene. as the framing/shot selection/et al is pretty run of the mill.

[MadMan]

When I finally rented and watched The Guard there was a preview for this movie, so I'm eager to check it out at some point. I imagine that Michael Shannon is great in this, and that the Academy ignored his performance just like they completely overlooked Sam Rockwell in Moon back in 2009.

[Lucky]

Was truly enjoying this film. Then, the last scene hit. Now I have no idea what it's trying to say.

[Henry Gale]

Was truly enjoying this film. Then, the last scene hit. Now I have no idea what it's trying to say.

In the end, you can look at it any way you want. Literally, taken in the reality of the film, an actual storm works as a relief for Shannon's character and his family that all of their suffering was worth it to let them and everyone they know prepare themselves for something major to come, whether or not it's the same sort of storm he saw in his dreams. Chastain even seeing them same oily / muddy rain in her palms that Shannon did in the opening sequence shows the most direct link to his premonitions.

Then you can also see it as another dream or metaphoric epilogue of what's to come for the family in terms of Shannon's mental health. His wife and daughter can now finally see what he's suffering from, and they pull together to protect one another from whatever anyone and anything around them may end up trying to come between them.
Not to say those are the only two ways to look at it, but those are the ones I can imagine work best. I'm comfortable with either of them being the definitive interpretation, but luckily the film is constructed in a way that doesn't make that decision for the viewer.

[DavidSeven]

Cheap. The ambiguity is just a way to give emotional gratification to the plebs while not completely pissing off the snobs i.e. having that cake and eating it too. If I'm not going to give Spielberg slack for pulling that crap, then Nichols doesn't get any either. Bad ending.

[Henry Gale]

Cheap. The ambiguity is just a way to give emotional gratification to the plebs while not completely pissing off the snobs i.e. having that cake and eating it too. If I'm not going to give Spielberg slack for pulling that crap, then Nichols doesn't get any either. Bad ending.

But it's not as if the whole film hasn't been from the unreliable perspective of Shannon's character (I can think of maybe two scenes without him), struggling to grasp what is and isn't real. We're to accept that he may be experiencing early stages of schizophrenia just like his mother, but if the last thing we see in the film also aligns with what his dreams have been leading him to believe in addition to that possible mental state finally overtaking his better judgement, then I don't see how that same ambiguity is cheap if it's a direct result of the character's own uncertainty.

[Lucky]

You know, I have to disagree with the ending being ambiguous...

...because before the final revelation, they show Chastain in the kitchen by herself cooking chili dogs. All of Curtis' other dreams were in first person. That chili dog scene felt too elongated and deliberate to not mean something.

Also, his dream inhabitants never recognize the storm elements. Remember the dream with the coworker and how he didn't hear the thunder? The fact that his daughter recognized the storm first seems like a deliberate point to indicate that this is indeed reality.

I like your interpretation, Henry. I'm more satisfied by this movie after I slept on it. It's actually quite heartwarming in a twisted way.

[Yxklyx]

Great film! I loved the Ending. That last bit was a Coda and not really the Ending. I'm ambivalent about that.

[Boner M]

Great film! I loved the Ending. That last bit was a Coda and not really the Ending. I'm ambivalent about that.
It's a coda and an ending; ie absolutely relevant to the narrative.

[Pop Trash]

It's a coda and an ending; ie absolutely relevant to the narrative.

Right, and I still don't understand at all how it undercuts or rug-pulls the original narrative. I think from the get-go Nichols is ambiguous about what is really happening. I took the final image literally and didn't find it to be too far fetched after New Orleans and Japan nearly being wiped off the face of the map.

[Winston*]

But it's not as if the whole film hasn't been from the unreliable perspective of Shannon's character (I can think of maybe two scenes without him), struggling to grasp what is and isn't real. .

Isn't the whole second half of the film from an observer's perspective?

[Boner M]

Right, and I still don't understand at all how it undercuts or rug-pulls the original narrative. I think from the get-go Nichols is ambiguous about what is really happening. I took the final image literally and didn't find it to be too far fetched after New Orleans and Japan nearly being wiped off the face of the map.
Definitely. Out of all the films dealing with broad free-floating anxiety in recent years, this one embodies it the most cannily on a narrative level.

[D_Davis]

Watched this last night. I liked it. Some of the symbolism is a little obvious, but that's OK. I think it works. Also, the performances and the music were fantastic. I loved the images at the end, but I'm not sure how to reconcile the rest of the film with the ending.

[D_Davis]

Then you can also see it as another dream or metaphoric epilogue of what's to come for the family in terms of Shannon's mental health. His wife and daughter can now finally see what he's suffering from, and they pull together to protect one another from whatever anyone and anything around them may end up trying to come between them.


I didn't think of that at all. Nicely done, and I like this a lot.

[Yxklyx]

It's a coda and an ending; ie absolutely relevant to the narrative.

Well, I see the story ending at the shelter with everything after that being part of an afterword.

[DavidSeven]

What's the difference? It's all part of the film and still affects our perception of the film's climax and buildup. We're only calling it the ending because it's the end of the film. I don't think anyone's opinion of it is going to be swayed by terminology.

My problem with the "coda" isn't that it's far-fetched. I agree that Nichols maintains a level of ambiguity throughout most of the film. That's what made the bitch-slap of reality at the film's climax powerful to me. The coda just undercuts the emotional effectiveness of that scene pure and simple. In any event, it's not my only (or even primary) problem with the film. Just didn't do it for me, and I found Shannon (who I normally like) too measured and deliberate in his performance. Did love the Chastain though.

[Qrazy]

The ending invalidates the rest of the film for me which was fairly belabored to begin with. At the end of the day I'd say it's quite a weak effort. It's basically a hybrid between Close Encounters of the Third Kind and A Woman Under the Influence but those films embraced their respective genres and narratives. If he's not mentally ill and these are visions then you need to tell us something about that and why he's been chosen and why that matters. Give us some content about God/faith, whatever to dig into. If he is mentally ill just end the film when he's opening the doors. It still wouldn't have been a great film at that point but it would at least have been more focused.

[dreamdead]

If he's not mentally ill and these are visions then you need to tell us something about that and why he's been chosen and why that matters. Give us some content about God/faith, whatever to dig into. If he is mentally ill just end the film when he's opening the doors.

You don't think the film casts him as an old testament prophet struggling to understand why he's been given these visions, or that he's basically a modern-day Noah? You don't read the whole church basement argument and overturned table as an echo of Jesus at the market, challenging the faithful who lack the faith to believe? Those moments to me resonate interestingly with core concepts of faith.

I'm frustrated by the film's general gloss in its ending, which doesn't say anything with definitiveness, but I do think the film approaches matters of faith with intelligence.

[Qrazy]

You don't think the film casts him as an old testament prophet struggling to understand why he's been given these visions, or that he's basically a modern-day Noah? You don't read the whole church basement argument and overturned table as an echo of Jesus at the market, challenging the faithful who lack the faith to believe? Those moments to me resonate interestingly with core concepts of faith.

I'm frustrated by the film's general gloss in its ending, which doesn't say anything with definitiveness, but I do think the film approaches matters of faith with intelligence.

Yes, it is an echo of that but there is no exploration of the ideas. The way the scene in the basement plays out he warns these people and then his family sticks by him, but if he is a prophet then he ought to struggle with his faith. What we see here instead is a man who has visions and then very rapidly embraces these visions whole-heartedly. He gets rid of his dog (giving what he believes to be a potentially vicious animal to his brother... nice guy!), he puts all his resources into building the shelter, etc. God tests one's faith. He did it with Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc. Even Jesus asks God near the end, 'Why have you forsaken me?' Here on the other hand the visions are so real that his struggle is not with his faith in what is coming but with precisely the opposite. He is asked to prove to himself and therefore to his loved ones that his visions are not real. This could have been a compelling inversion if the film committed fully to it but it doesn't. We also have no sense really of the spiritual arc of this man. In Bergman's Winter Light we have a priest who has his faith tested but retains it after a series of conversations which examine first why he begins to lose it and then how and why he is able to hold onto it. In this film on the other hand we just have a man making a mess of his family life via dishonesty and then going around dealing with things in a practical sense... building the shelter, talking to doctors, etc. He never has any real conversations which illuminate his struggle. The film is at it's best when exploring the emotional fallout of his actions between him, his wife, his brother and his friends but even then it is not a piercing examination of that which it has concerned itself with. The relationship the film has to the lower middle class and money problems is a point in the film's favor but again never really feels fully explored.

Personally I think the film definitively ends with his visions coming true and the insipid line 'okay'. I think there is enough evidence in the dream sequences and the difference between the final scene and those sequences to draw this conclusion.