MovieChat Forums > Shutter Island (2010) Discussion > Did anyone also think this movie attempt...

Did anyone also think this movie attempted to explore DIFFERENT OPINIONS of society?

posted 6 months ago by TheMan18 (13047)
1 reply | jump to latest

On some and other matters like shown here. As in, SPOILERS...

After we discover the twist anyway.

The police and law et all thought Leonardo Di Caprio's character warranted an arrest and legal punishment for what he did, even though his wife SPOILERS - murdered his children, and not fully take into account his distressed state and him also possibly pressing the gun trigger button under distressed circumstances, maybe even "accidentally" rather than intentionally... But still, they didn't pardon him for that, well, law being very systematic here and whatnot.

Then they had those in medical experiments who apparently performed lobotomy on his character, again, not being probably entirely fair and whatnot, but still... Having very strong stances of their own.

And then... Although it may be in his imagination, but maybe such stances DID happen and occur in the world of this movie and life, but you had an inmate who strongly and angrily shouted that because she drowned her kids, she deserved capital punishment for it and whatnot... But he also had very politically incorrect OTHER thoughts like saying something about folks of black skin generally being inferior to white men and whatnot, his words of course, and he didn't feel doubt, shame or remorse that such a statement would be considered racist and offensive (and then there's the time setting of the 1940s for such events) and he will be seen as a "bad guy" for this who will or could be showered with shame afterwards.

So its like, in this movie also, we have seen very different opinions and stances and nobody universally or unilaterally came to an agreement and also no one was seen as a victim or a villain alone solely, besides the dead children perhaps, and the movie even talked about how almost everyone including but not limited to men (the main murderer or murderess in this movie turned out to be a WOMAN) has it in them by "nature" to be violent.

And there's even a question of fantasy and reality as Di Caprio's character suffers a mental breakdown and invents new life for him almost like Bill Pullman's character did in David Lynch's "Lost Highway" (1997) or also a little, albeit differently, to what Guy Pearce was going through in "Memento" (2000). Except in the latter SPOILER CASES - the women killed or had their lives ended were mostly if not fully INNOCENT and the SPOILERS - woman here was guilty of child murder that MIND YOU, even if she wasn't killed, she would be punished legally and, but oh well, murder perhaps is still not the answer and is still wrong but then who knows what would happen in those places EXCEPT... Oh well, you can see about DIFFERENT STANCES AND OPINIONS here... Including for such strong matters as say, err, VIOLENT CRIME.

[–] TheMan18 (13047) 6 months ago

And although, I've read replies, some viewers saw what happened to Di Caprio in this as "two wrongs don't make a right" (but is it REALLY like that, does it matter and have ACTUAL distinction, can it be understood even if it IS the case, and again, WHO OR WHAT DECIDED ANY OF THIS?), for instance, by the inmate character who was all like "She drowned her kids, she deserved to die.", it was never seen like that at all.

But in law and morality then, are there REALLY like some things that are known and are like that irrespective of what others think, and that moral standards apply not JUST even though MOSTLY AT LEAST to INNOCENT people but guilty criminal ones of any say gender and state including in something universally serious as murder?

And do you think law is and was always correct that it punished not just selfish criminals who only hurt and even killed innocent victims for often very self-centred and inexcusable reasons but also various degrees of vigilante ones including like shown here and also OTHER movies with more obvious examples, but then again, why was for instance SPOILER - Charles Bronson's character not legally punished in the first 1974 "Death Wish" movie and its sequels? Especially since police apparently had PROOF he WAS responsible, even if he took out bad people mostly, like criminal elements of society? (But that is also mostly still illegal, for one.)