‘Take Shelter,’ a film palpably spiked with despair and fitted with an
eerily appropriate title, paints an intoxicating portrait of a man attempting
to cope with an anguish so intense that his psyche forces him to externalize
this pain. Combining a subtle grittiness
with a darkly fantastical edge, the film allows a portrayal of anguish that
amalgamates drastically different film genres without losing an ounce of
pathos, profundity, or intensity. The
film follows the lead character, played frighteningly right-on by Michael
Shannon, through his agonizing attempts to differentiate between reality and
his own delusions, simultaneously grappling with the fact that the line between
the two is fine, bizarrely thrilling, and inscrutably disturbing. Structured
upon a beautiful, unrelenting barrage of mise-en-scene that gracefully
oscillates between ‘reality,’ ‘dream state,’ and the amalgamation of the two,
the film embraces the concept of blending reality and dream state/hallucination
to the point where the two become a single, cohesive narrative that questions
the entire concept of reality. The
filmmaker embraces this concept, however, with a grace that allows the viewer a
more personal and versatile reading of the film, more so than a movie like
‘Black Swan’ allows, which focuses intently on delivering a fairly didactic,
blunt, and brutal psychological ‘mindfuck,’ more so than a meaningful parabol
for a character’s loose grasp on reality.
Rather, 'Take Shelter' allows the viewer to lose track of what is real
and what is not in a more subtle, gritty and realistic way (For example; most
of the lead character's panic-inducing episodes are quickly interspersed with shots
of this character choking in his sleep). ‘Take Shelter’ is less of a mindfuck,
and more of a diegetic playing field of sorts, in which many viewers are able
to project their own existential questions and insecurities into the
narrative. Jarringly different from the
average psychological thriller, ‘Take Shelter’ allows the viewer to (in a
painful, intertextually ironic way) take shelter in the narrative of the film.
The film is a
distillation of anguish. It is a grim yet refreshing, purified bottle of chaos.
It is pain injected into mis-en-scene, hopelessness injected into a man’s
facial tics, flinches, stares, blinks, and looks of emptiness. It is sorrow injected into every bone,
ligament, and nerve of an unrelenting narrative. Proceeding with a surprisingly grabbing tone
and story, considering the slow pace, ‘Take Shelter’ provides the viewer with a
raw, painful, and awe-inspiring look into the conquering of a distinct fear –
the fear of the indefinite.
The images of the film are fantastical enough
to startle and horrify, but subtle enough to genuinely confuse the film's
diegetic reality with hallucination.
This oscillation between real and fantastical, and the subsequent
integration of the two, suits the narrative of the film perfectly, following
the story of a man attempting to confront the startling truth that he may be
schizophrenic. However, the film
presents his disturbing, apocalyptic visions with a robust understatement that
allows for a spacious insecurity; a certain paranoia for both the lead
character and the viewer that these visions may not be traced to a genetic
Schizophrenia, but rather to something more fantastical and otherworldy (Yes,
the apocalypse!). However, one of the
most sincere and disturbing aspects of this story are that both realities for
the lead character are equally dark, disturbing, all encompassing, and
destructive. If diagnosed with
schizophrenia (like the lead character's mother in the narrative), he will be
taken away from his normal life, his job, his wife and his children to be
institutionalized, and if it is the apocalypse, than the world is simply
over. Either option for the lead
character is hellish, stealing away his entire life, livelihood, and
happiness. His family - his sole source
of happiness - will be taken away from him.
Differing from most
portraits of anguish, the title character's pain in 'Take Shelter' is not
precisely pin-pointed to a certain trauma or agony from his past. More simply, concisely, and (in my opinion),
more existentially sincere, profound, and universal, his inescapable anguish
stems simply from his inability to accept his waking life, the basic pain that
accompanies it, and the sorrow that he witnesses around him. This anguish forces him to visually
externalize his need for escape with apocalyptic visions (and the viewers thank
you!!!). The visions all seem to have
one thing in common; they force a distinct and impending necessity to
escape. In a sort of quest for escape or
abdication from his life, Michael Shannon’s questionably disturbed character
strives to elude the present moment by focusing his energy on saving his
future. In this way, he neglects his life.
By consistently looking forward, and always focusing on destruction, he
is unable to live in the present, and is unwilling to live in the future (a
theoretic impossibility anyway). With
this equation of metaphysical escape fairly perfected, Shannon’s character is
somehow able to neglect all of his duties by presenting himself with a story in
which his duty is to save himself and his family. By focusing on these
‘delusions,’ however, his life and his mind become counterproductive,
presenting a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
This is where the true nature of the film sets in; is Shannon fulfilling
his true ‘duty’ to live his life in fullness and to protect his family, or is
he completely escaping any sort of duty by allowing a façade of the same scenario
to monopolize his life? In other words,
do Shannon's 'delusions' present him with a noble mission, or an illusory
‘mission’ that might more appropriately be described as a surprisingly graceful
descent into madness? OR, option three
is my favorite: Is there any fucking difference? Touching upon the aforementioned dark reality
of the story, there is no good end to any of this. Viewing the story through a 'Law of
Attraction' paradigm, does Shannon's focus on destruction lead him to
destruction and/or personal apocalypse? Can
the lead character truly find sanctum outside of his own mind, if the illusion
of sanctum is within his mind?
The film, on one
level, structures itself as a story of a man’s conquering of fear by
externalizing it into a storm shelter, subsequently becoming engrossed and
obsessed with it. As we all know,
however, our minds can make our fears real with the blink of an eye, the shock
of a synapse, or the tap of a finger, and the title character’s anguish is the
real devastation of the film. Michael
Shannon, the notorious scene stealer and modern-day face for on-screen insanity
and anguish, allows room, graciously and gracefully, for the real leading
character of the film: Anguish. Though
slow at points, the film’s despair is unrelenting, allowing the story to subtly
affect, disturb, and move, even when one is not expecting it. The film also allows for a coup de gras of
anguish, as Jessica Chastain painfully shocks the mood of the film to the point
of submission, delivering despair with a distinct swagger, a sharp sadness with
an edgy optimism, and a confusingly stable outlook on an altered state of mind
(anyone still with me?).
The film's
'fantastical' imagery tap-dances on the serrated border between beautiful and
horrific, allowing the cinematography, tone and mise-en-scene of the film to
strike a sincere balance between otherworldy and tantalizing mundanity. I have to elaborate on this 'mundanity,'
because the film is anything but, however the film utilizes a sense of normalcy
(that might otherwise border on 'mundane') to startle the viewer with its quick
and pulse-racing segments of poetic instability. And this is how the film works so perfectly;
it integrates a certain horrific fantasy into a seemingly normal and slow
narrative, creating a synergy of moods that creates an unrelentingly painful
film. It is graceful, slow, torturous,
quick, beautiful, and moving. It is
abstract with a touch of realism, and vice versa as the narrative
proceeds.
While the true pathos in the film is found in the performances of Michael
Shannon and Jessica Chastain, the cinematography and editing of the film both stand
out quite a bit. The shockingly quick,
yet often very slow pace of the film's editing allows a jarring, startling
effect that initially serves to differentiate between ‘delusion’ and ‘waking
life,’ while Michael Shannon provides a smoothing yet painful and seemingly
unceasing agony to the narrative that serves to startle, providing a
consistency for the film at the same time.
In a strange way, the lead character’s psychological imbalance provides
a jolting, agitating and shocking effect for the narrative and the viewer,
simultaneously serving as a consistent factor, emotion, tone, and plot-point
for the narrative, ironically allowing a smoother viewing of the film. In this
way, the viewer (or at least me) is subtly affected by the film, slowly being pushed
into a state of cinematic, blissful, and diegetic agony and paralysis more so
than simply being shoved into a plate of ‘fucked up,’ like most psychological
thrillers these days (Cue Winona Ryder stabbing herself in the face
relentlessly with a nail file - and yes, I will be consistently using 'Black
Swan' as an example of opposition, as is suitable for its title). In other words, the film is perfectly
consistent with its inconsistency.
In contrast to the overt psychological, apocalyptic thriller that I
expected, I found myself ‘taking shelter’ in a profoundly more paralyzing,
affecting story of a man attempting to differentiate between reality and his
own delusions, providing more of a personal apocalypse rather than the
modern-day 'zombie-thriller' – Shannon's character amalgamates his despair,
hopelessness, and angst into a more externalized version of his own
apocalypse. Now I hesitate to use the
word ‘Externalize’ in relation to the lead characters’ apocalyptic visions,
because it brings the entire concept of the film into question, a lot of which
is based on the fundamental question of what is within the mind, IE
‘hallucinatory,’ ‘not real,’ etc., and what is 'reality.'
Frame by frame, second
by second, 'Take Shelter' agitates and affects like a pulsing vein speeding
into panic; a palpitation of sorrow, a bomb cloud in slow motion, and a bone
crack in reverse. The film affects with
a tone similar to a peaceful drizzle bursting into a thunder cloud. Although void of clichéd images that
generally horrify, this film is not for the faint of heart. It might bore some, thrill others, depress
many, horrify a few, and yes - make a certain filmmaker extremely happy to see
a beautiful film in a year lacking cinematic sincerity.
Having said all this, Michael Shannon is a front-runner for BEST LEAD ACTOR
(other nominations: Jessica Chastain for BEST LEAD ACTRESS, and the film for
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY, BEST PICTURE, BEST EDITING and BEST DIRECTOR.)
I will be posting my final list of Oscar nominations in the very near
future (IE before the official Oscar announcement on Jan 24th).
