Take Shelter Post-Release

I think you nailed a lot of potential shortcomings for this film. I was able to skate by paying only lip service to these ideas and conflicts, but what you say is true regarding this film's somewhat questionable structure.

Still, I thought it was pretty nightmarish and intense for most of its runtime. And Michael Shannon, man... best performance of the year, hands down. He and Chastain are pretty brilliant in this, and their relationship is the emotional fulcrum of the movie, so that's kinda what I keyed in on. I think a lot of people think of Shannon as this crazy-eyed madman, and it's almost a punchline to see him take a role like this, at least on paper. But he plays this character with such wounded masculinity, and completely reasonable insecurity. I found the family dynamic to be absolutely heartbreaking.

JMulder, you nailed the issue I had with the film too, in a much more eloquent way than I could.  I also thought the end was a letdown. 

That said, the dream sequences contain some of the most unnerving scenes I've seen this year.  That scene with the wife in the kitchen with the knife had me literally breathless. 

I liked the way Nichols tied everyday occurrences (both natural and societal) that increase our anxiety to apocalyptic visions.   I really felt for Shannon's character, particularly in that sad, desperate moment when he mutters to himself "is anyone seeing this?"  But then, at the Lions Club dinner, when he explodes, it seems like it's going to be cathartic, but something surprising happens-- he puts us back on the outside.  He's not the Ray Kinsella of the apocalypse.  He's a raving, fire and brimstone preacher lunatic fuck.

Ultimately, if I was going to hang my hat on the ending making any kind of statement about anything, it's that we can be delusional as long as those we are with share our delusions.  But that is a 3 am thought.  And I have to admit my initial reaction was similar to the ones above that imply Nichols didn't have a real ending, so he just kind of did both potential endings back to back. 

Still, I really want to like this movie.  So many of the details leading up to the ending felt so right. Apart from that one "hey your husband's insurance is really great, we'll do your kid's procedure in six weeks" cue he was about to get fired, that is.  And Shannon and Chastain gave the two best performances of 2011 that I have seen to date.

My interpretation of the ending:

After his oyster supper freak out, his family is looking at him the exact same way everyone else in the community.  They're all on the outside.  His wife makes a conscious choice to step to him, and away from the horrified expressions.  They exit alone, but together.

Then, when the next storm hits, they immediately go into the fallout shelter, no questions asked.  Granted, there was a tornado siren going off; and eventually they convince him to leave, but something about them huddled together with the gas masks made me feel like it was more than just mere caution.  It was a disturbing image.  (Also, the little girl is recently deaf, which means her struggle to communicate is being highlighted.  Pretty much every bit of information she gets comes directly from her parents.)

When Curtis sees the psychiatrist, the doctor says he needs to "Seriously commit to some treatment."  Curtis responds "You mean I have to leave my family?"  He's thinking about his mother.  He's thinking about how distant he is from his brother.  He doesn't want that to happen to his family.  He's already stated he is doing everything he can to not leave, and tied that to his need to take the loan out and build the shelter.  That is why Samantha accepted it.  So... is he really going to get help?  Is he really going to go to a facility and be committed like his mother; for who knows how long?

There's the interpretation that the end is a dream.  That the storm is his illness, and that the family is ready to fight it together.  There's the interpretation that the storm is real, and whether they live through it or die, they're going to face it together.  But I would suggest a third possibility.  That the movie has not been a question about the nature of the storm, but the nature of family.  The real human question is not "is the storm coming?" but "will the family stay together?"  I feel like the movie is saying the family will not break apart.  Not for anything.  Samantha has made the choice, and the little girl is unable to make the choice for herself.

In the end, they're on the beach.  Curtis makes a castle out of sand while his wife cooks in the kitchen.  His daughter adds her little contribution on top of his.  It cracks slightly, but stays together.  She looks up, and sees the storm coming.  Samantha comes out of the house, looks at Curtis, and says "Okay."  I feel like one interpretation of all of this is that Curtis (a man who the film makes a point to say never goes to the church service with his wife and her family) has indoctrinated them into his own worldview.  That even sharing what could quite possibly be a delusion together is preferable to being alone.  And possibly even that all these structures the film has shown us: hospitals, banks, treatment facilities, schools, insurance companies, small businesses, etc... with all their flawed bureaucracies, schedules, and harsh economic bottom lines, are just as fragile. Held together only by our acceptance of them.

Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain, their relationship, and the effectiveness of the dream sequences barely hold this together enough for me to call it "okay."

Why is this movie so compressed? This guy goes crazy over the course of, like, two weeks. There's no escalation at all, and it's completely uninvolving. Within each dream there's a great sense of dread, but that isn't sustained throughout the story. Nothing about the breakdown feels authentic. I think the problem is that, since we're seeing this all from Shannon's character's perspective, there should be some real ambiguity as to whether or not this stuff is all in his head. There kinda isn't, even with that ending (which, if not meant to be a dream, is some real Outer Limits bullshit).

I also feel like Nichols comes at the psychosis from completely the wrong angle. I get it, the Apocalyptic visions stand in for the man's anxiety over losing his family. Except that the psychosis is the reason he would lose his family. So... what, this is fear itself being the only thing to fear? End of the world anxiety infects our culture in so many ways, how could they not find a way to tie in the very real dangers of the world? Every single bad thing that happens to Curtis happens as a result of his hallucinations, but what brings them on in the first place? It's supposed to be stress, but I didn't get the vibe that anything about his life, even his daughters deafness, was putting any particular stress on him. Is it simply the knowledge that his mother went bad at the same age that he is now? Okay, a fear of repeating the sins of the past would be a valid route to take, and adding a self-fulfilling prophecy spin on it would make an interesting statement on the nature of our anxieties. But I still feel like the hallucinations really just exist to create a conflict and thus are just an excuse for the story. So, like JMulder said, it only signifies itself. Which is kind of weak.

Some great observations up there. Not a lot to add on those thematic topics; the note-perfect performances carry it. No offense to the excellent Fassbender, but the Michael that got shafted in this year's awards orgy was Shannon.

My family's been through enough hard financial times (with another merger/layoff threat on the way)  that I found that aspect of the film pretty gut-wrenching. Interestingly, I just watched Win Win yesterday, and while obviously completely different, the two films make for an interesting juxtaposition on the realities of what today's families need to get by.

I interpret the ending like I interpret the dream at the end of No Country for Old Men, except rather than a description of the dream we literally get a dream (or a vision). But like someone else said, this is a happier version, because at least the family is together and everyone understands what is coming. At the same time, in some ways, it's a highly pessimistic ending because it could be seen as a sad acknowledgment of the illness coming back, no matter how hard they all work on it. It's the right kind of ambiguous ending for me. 

Also, I'd be curious to hear what people think about this compared to Melancholia. I think that movie tackles a lot of the same themes, but this one is far superior. 

From my perspective, the movie had escalation.  Curtis' paranoia crept further and further into his inner circle.  From strangers, to his dog, to his best friend, and then even a dream about Samantha.

Also, I think the nature of his anxiety was about more than just losing his family.  But even if that was the core issue, I don't really see it as a problem.  It's not like people with severe issues haven't been known to manifest their greatest fears because they can't stop obsessing over them.

Yeah, I don't get the escalation claim at all. Also, he's not "going crazy." He has a severe mental illness and he endears himself to the audience in all the proactive ways he tries to deal with it. The sad truth is, the guy is afraid of an outside source coming to destroy the family. But somewhere in his head, he knows that the "outside source" could be an "inside source" (very telling that the dog is the first thing that attacks him in his first dream, and that usually, his visions take place inside his home...and it's strongly hinted that at one point, he dreams about his wife being violent). The tension mounts as the dreams become scarier and move from "outward" threats but more inward threats, all of which point to the fact that Curtis himself is the real threat to the family. In that sense, his visions are true, which is another reason why I don't see the ending as a cheat.

Not sure how the ending can be interpreted as another dream sequence. All other dreams in the movie are shown purely from his perspective or with him as the significant target. The last scene clearly shows the perspective of the wife as she notices the color of the rain on her hand etc.

For me this does not take anything away from the film either. It's not a movie about one man's madness but it's about a civilization's madness. The person who doesn't go to church and is not influenced that way (the father's blind ignorance is pretty clearly shown at the dinner table scene) is given messages about an impending doom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thatsallfolks 

 

For me this does not take anything away from the film either. It's not a movie about one man's madness but it's about a civilization's madness. The person who doesn't go to church and is not influenced that way (the father's blind ignorance is pretty clearly shown at the dinner table scene) is given messages about an impending doom.

Huh? It's absolutely about one man's madness. Because he doesn't go to church, he's chosen to preach to the ones that do about what is coming? That's stupid.

If the last scene is not a dream sequence, is the movie still about one man's madness?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thatsallfolks 

If the last scene is not a dream sequence, is the movie still about one man's madness?

If the last scene is not a dream sequence, then the whole movie is one big fake out, which makes it a failure of a movie. It becomes a 90 minute fake-out. Tilight Zone episodes would have a better structure.

I appreciate the discussion and varying interpretations of the film.  I respect the validity of what some are citing as the films problems.  I personally choose not to concern myself with literal, dogmatic readings of character and narrative construction with a film like this.  To me, Take Shelter is very much a mood and think piece that deconstructs and respectfully gives voice to the fears of middle class married fathers.  It's about communication and being able to ask for help.  It's about trusting in your spouse to understand and help you with your insecurities.  It's about pushing forward every day while constantly worrying about losing the ability to provide for your family.  It's about managing the unshakable fear of environmental or financial collapse pounding at the worlds door.  These fears and concerns resonate with me on a very deep level.

So I suppose that's why I didn't really care whether or not the ending was a dream.  I really didn't care about any of the mental illness angle.  None of that junk about character arcs or satisfactory plot mechanics matters to me.  Take Shelter works for me because Shannon and Chastain are incredible and portray one of the more well rounded and believable couples I've seen presented in film.  They worked together like real people do.  Sure there was withholding, miscommunication and even anger, but they picked up the pieces and moved forward like in an actual relationship.  I also loved that the deaf daughter was never exploited.  Sure, the cochlear implant was an obvious narrative contrivance, but the girl never seemed like a miserable burden tearing them apart like she would be in a lesser film.  They both enjoyed going to her classes to learn sign language and genuinely seemed happy together as a family unit.

As for the film making, I loved it start to finish.  Some really nice transitions, very confident, naturalistic approach to the family stuff.  Those fucking dream sequences though, Jesus.  Dream logic and feel is so hard to pull off, and apart from David Lynch, this is the best I've seen it done.  Especially the one with faceless attacker pulling him and his daughters out of the truck after the accident.  I have had dreams exactly like that.  Chilling.  It's basically 35 year old dad anxiety porn, so as a 35 year old dad, shit worked for me big time.  But, I won't argue with any of the excellent points others are making about its shortcomings. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shloggs 

 

So I suppose that's why I didn't really care whether or not the ending was a dream.  I really didn't care about any of the mental illness angle.  None of that junk about character arcs or satisfactory plot mechanics matters to me.  Take Shelter works for me because Shannon and Chastain are incredible and portray one of the more well rounded and believable couples I've seen presented in film.  They worked together like real people do.  Sure there was withholding, miscommunication and even anger, but they picked up the pieces and moved forward like in an actual relationship.  I also loved that the deaf daughter was never exploited.  Sure, the cochlear implant was an obvious narrative contrivance, but the girl never seemed like a miserable burden tearing them apart like she would be in a lesser film.  They both enjoyed going to her classes to learn sign language and genuinely seemed happy together as a family unit.

 

I actually agree with this completely. The reasons for his visions are kind of secondary. The powerful point is that it connects to viewers because his fears are grounded in real, scary truths.

One of my favorite scenes is when he pulls over to watch that lightning storm. It's beautiful and he's enamored by it. His family is sleeping in the car and he asks out loud if anyone else can see what he's seeing. They can't, and if they could, they probably wouldn't pay much attention to it. We grow accustomed to nature, used to it to the point where we kind of take it for granted. But nature is indifferent, whether it's a literal storm, mental illness, or some other kind of uncontrollable disaster. We want to be able to control things, we like to think that the world is going along according to our plan, but the truth is much scarier, and that's the fear the film exploits. The movie criticizes an individual who is driven by this fear and need for control to the point where he becomes the destructive force, but also asks us to sympathize with him. And I do. That's the really crazy thing. Because at the end of the day, the world is a very scary place and there's only so much I can do to defend my loved ones from it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

I actually agree with this completely. The reasons for his visions are kind of secondary. The powerful point is that it connects to viewers because his fears are grounded in real, scary truths.

One of my favorite scenes is when he pulls over to watch that lightning storm. It's beautiful and he's enamored by it. His family is sleeping in the car and he asks out loud if anyone else can see what he's seeing. They can't, and if they could, they probably wouldn't pay much attention to it. We grow accustomed to nature, used to it to the point where we kind of take it for granted. But nature is indifferent, whether it's a literal storm, mental illness, or some other kind of uncontrollable disaster. We want to be able to control things, we like to think that the world is going along according to our plan, but the truth is much scarier, and that's the fear the film exploits. The movie criticizes an individual who is driven by this fear and need for control to the point where he becomes the destructive force, but also asks us to sympathize with him. And I do. That's the really crazy thing. Because at the end of the day, the world is a very scary place and there's only so much I can do to defend my loved ones from it. 

 

Great point that I probably didn't even notice cause I have such a problem with it myself.  The compulsion to control everything.  It's also a big part of his massive freak out at the town potluck.  He's infuriated because HE has the right way to deal with what HE thinks (therefore knows with absolute certainty) is coming. He wants to control his illness and he wants to handle everything on his own.  As soon as his comfort zone is threatened, he pushes away the factors that represent him losing any control or power (his co worker, his dog etc...) over the decisions HE has made for how to protect his family.