TAKE SHELTER (no spoilers)

[moviePig]

Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. In TAKE SHELTER,
he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could call SHELTER
"flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics liked SHELTER quite
well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Bill Anderson]

And yet you've piqued my curiosity enough that I want to see it. Just
the right amount of detail this time, Pig.

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog

[nick]

So did you consider Take Shelter to be a legit capture of the
zeitgeist (a comment I heard about it earlier today) or as I might
have mentioned here and there (favorably), a long Twilight Zone
episode?

[moviePig]

[no SPOILERS here, but some of their kissing cousins]

(I saw and even read a bit of that earlier discussion, but I've given
up on fighting with Google to reanimate such.) Afaics, it's SHELTER's
length that turns it from TZ episode to existential klaxon horn. And
I can't say that it fully worked as either for me. (Seldom head-over-
heels for TZ, btw.) I liked so many of this movie's particulars, even
identifying with *every* character's pov (good writing), that I'm
somewhat annoyed not to have received a meatier takeaway. Actually,
as its psychological progenitor, I'd probably nominate THE RAPTURE...

[moviePig]

I knew it. I blabbed...

[nick]

I have one plot-related question that doesn't really go into any major
spoilage but it's something I didn't understand watching Take Shelter
(taking into consideration it is a long, slow film and my mind might
have wandered at some crucial point.)

s

p

o

i

l

e

r

Okay, so Shannon's character is building the storm shelter with
equipment he's "borrowing" from work and with the assistance of his
worker's mate, or whatever you'd call him. Anyway, Shannon then goes
to his boss and says he's become uncomfortable working with this guy,
so this guy is let go. Of course, the first thing this guy does is
squeal about what Shannon's been up to with the construction equipment
and Shannon gets fired, making a wreck of his badly needed health
insurance. Why does Shannon go to his boss to begin with to get rid
of this guy, when he should have known this is what would happen?

[moviePig]

i
s
h

Best I can do is that Shannon knows he looks nuts, and is pushing
people away to keep them from a better -- and more interfering --
view. Just as when he gave up on his brother, he did it as "quietly"
as he could manage. He tried to hide his own instigation, but the
boss spilled the beans when reassigning the guy ...and apparently even
attached some blame to the move.

[Bill Anderson]

Now I've seen it and while I've read the rest of this thread, I think
I'll respond here because it'll keep things simpler.

Who is this movie for? Who might enjoy watching little more than the
dread developing and the portents portending and on and on again and
again with one crazy dream after another separated only by halting,
pausing, ever-so-slowly-delivered dialog? And all this effort to what
end? What's the point? Things fall apart, the center cannot hold, and
Yeats said it all perfectly in far fewer words with nary a special effect.

Pig, it'll be OK with me if in the future, at least when the movie
sucks, you dial back on the interesting details.

[moviePig]

But now I have to castigate us for joining the puppies-and-lollipops
crowd. If this movie had gone in the opposite emotional direction, I
bet we might be praising its "human spirit". Anyhow, just to
acknowledge the martyr's perspective, here's Ebert's 4-star --
http://tinyurl.com/6tr62z2 (even if he does seem to have a crush on
Michael Shannon).

[Bill Anderson]

On 4/22/2012 3:59 AM, poisoned rose wrote:

> Bill Anderson<billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Who might enjoy watching little more than the
>> dread developing and the portents portending and on and on again and
>> again with one crazy dream after another separated only by halting,
>> pausing, ever-so-slowly-delivered dialog? And all this effort to what
>> end?
>

> I previously wrote: There's a lot of "more of the same, more of the
> same, more of the same..." before any major plot developments arrive.
>
> Similar to your complaint.

I should have acknowledged your post. So I'll just ask, "What major
plot developments?"

SPOILERS


The tornado and the trip to the storm shelter? The long, slow,
drawn-out, interminable decision to go back outside? The decision
finally to see a real psychiatrist? Or how about that final scene? Are
we sure it wasn't just another one of his dreams? There's certainly no
indication that it's not. And if they're really about to be swept away
by that big Atlantic storm, what difference does it make?

By that point I sure didn't care because the movie is all premise and no
payoff. "Hey, lets make a movie about a family guy who is overcome by
dread that something awful is about to happen!" And so they did, and
thus he is at the beginning and thus he is at the end, and that is all
there is.

[Bill Anderson]

So Ebert liked it, huh? Well how about that. Good for him. He says,
"Nichols builds his suspense carefully." Actually Nichols carefully
built my desire to reach through the screen and drag the words out of
the actors mouths. "Get on with it, you people!" Can't help it, it's
just my nature to prefer movies in which something happens.

[Bill Anderson]

On 4/22/2012 3:48 PM, poisoned rose wrote:
> Bill Anderson<billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> So I'll just ask, "What major
>> plot developments?"
>>
>> SPOILERS
>
>
>

> Well, I meant the point when his visions finally started becoming a real
> problem, getting him fired, getting sent to a shrink, etc.
>
> Personally, I don't think there was much question that the apocalypse at
> the end was real. Maybe I'm wrong. But it was the first time we saw his
> wife perceiving the same calamities he saw.

If by "real" you mean movie real, fiction real, then maybe. But it
couldn't be real life real, because these days no apocalyptic Atlantic
storm could hit Myrtle Beach without days of advance warning. If that
storm is supposed to be interpreted as real, then it's supposed to be
interpreted as supernatural, and I'm really not buying that.

Still, I don't know for sure what we're supposed to make of the final
storm, and checking the commentary track on the Blu-Ray revealed only
that Jeff Nichols, the writer-director, got cute when it came time to
talk about what it meant. Basically said he'd leave it up to the
viewer's interpretation. So why not be logical? The little girl had
been perceiving the calamities inside the dreams all along, so why not
give mom a turn? There is nothing in the final scene to indicate that
if the movie had continued a minute longer Dad wouldn't have wet the bed
again.

I suppose interpreting the final scene as a dream truly relegates this
movie to being a total waste of time. Well, yes, exactly.

[moviePig]

> >http://tinyurl.com/6tr62z2(even if he does seem to have a crush on

> > Michael Shannon).
>
> So Ebert liked it, huh?  Well how about that.  Good for him.  He says,
> "Nichols builds his suspense carefully."  Actually Nichols carefully
> built my desire to reach through the screen and drag the words out of
> the actors mouths.  "Get on with it, you people!"  Can't help it, it's
> just my nature to prefer movies in which something happens.

In trying to formulate an appropriate reaction to this movie, I even
tried to remember how I felt about the acknowledged milestone,
REPULSION.

[moviePig]

On Apr 22, 4:43 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 4/22/2012 3:48 PM, poisoned rose wrote:
>

> > Bill Anderson<billanderson...@yahoo.com>  wrote:

A non-literal interpretation is that the family is now reunited -- in
its outlook on life. The facts of their situation haven't changed,
but everyone's gotten the Pessimist Manifesto memo.

[Bill Anderson]

In the dreams the little deaf girl sat at the window watching the dirty rain, saw the birds, got pulled out of the car window, maybe more.

[Bill Anderson]

On 4/22/2012 10:45 PM, poisoned rose wrote:

> Bill Anderson<billan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> In the dreams the little deaf girl sat at the window watching the dirty rain,
>> saw the birds, got pulled out of the car window, maybe more.
>

> Oh, OK. Well, I don't think the wife entering the picture for the first
> time is something to be just shrugged off.

I'm not shrugging it off exactly. We all have developed a sense of how
movies work; we've seen this sort of thing before; we just assume in a
movie like this that the suspense is building to a payoff. In this
movie it's perfectly natural to assume that the final storm is a
supernatural payoff: he was right all along, Armageddon really was
imminent, the world is ending, only this gifted man saw it coming, and
we're supposed to be impressed or entertained or inspired or something,
whatever, that's a reasonable interpretation.

I'm just saying that in the case of this particular movie it's only our
sense of how a certain type of story works that leads us to assume it's
a supernatural storm. In fact, everything that preceded the final storm
would indicate he's having just another dream. All his dreams had at
least one thing in common: they were introduced to the audience as
though they were real. It was only as the dreams progressed that we
began to realize we were looking at products of his subconscious. So
what's a convincing argument that the final storm wasn't just another
one of Little Nemo's adventures in Slumberland? Myrtle Beach wouldn't
even be Mom's first appearance in a dream: remember how he encountered
her in the kitchen?

There's nothing in the final scene to indicate convincingly that it's
all real this time. We assume it's real because that's the scenario
that satisfies our idea of a spooky story. Seems lame to me.

[Janice]

Michael Shannon is the driving force in this movie, as if it had been
written for him. I can expect anything I see him in to be other than
usual... he is an intriquing actor. Shannon brings a believable depth
-- of struggle? of questioning? of witnessing? -- to all his
characterizations. His role in Bug was fascinating.

Besides the fact that the movie balanced its tension nicely between
the possibilities of prophecy vs. lunacy (I loved the bizarre flights
of birds), it was fun to look for analogies to Noah.

The story's psychological insight into a man's fear of not being able
to take care of or protect his family against the terrors of the world
and the unknown or even himself was, to my mind, beautifully done...
and would have sufficed, but there was icing on the cake... maybe it
was man being touched by the divine after all.

There was a question in the thread about why Curtis/Shannon would ask
to have his co-worker transferred to another group after borrowing the
company equipment -- it was because one of Curtis's dreams had been
about his co-worker's "face changing" and attacking Curtis. Like Red
the dog, the co-worker had to be moved out of sight because Curtis
felt threatened by him.

And also, as a by-the-way: the film expresses a believable vision of a
loving relationship between a husband and a wife.

I really enjoyed the film, felt empathy for the main characters, and
it seemed flawless enough for me.


~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[moviePig]

On Apr 24, 6:13 pm, Janice <janice_geran...@dixoncreekstudio.com>
wrote:

For some reason, I can't bring the co-worker dream to mind, but your
answer makes sense. Btw, those bird flights are real, and impressive.

[Bill Anderson]

On 4/24/2012 6:13 PM, Janice wrote:
> On Apr 12, 10:37 am, moviePig<pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
>> Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. InTAKESHELTER,
>> he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
>> unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
>> could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
>> as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
>> but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could callSHELTER
>> "flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
>> director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
>> Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
>> dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
>> although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
>> 30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics likedSHELTERquite
>> well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.
>
>
> Michael Shannon is the driving force in this movie, as if it had been
> written for him. I can expect anything I see him in to be other than
> usual... he is an intriquing actor. Shannon brings a believable depth
> -- of struggle? of questioning? of witnessing? -- to all his
> characterizations. His role in Bug was fascinating.
>
> Besides the fact that the movie balanced its tension nicely between
> the possibilities of prophecy vs. lunacy (I loved the bizarre flights
> of birds), it was fun to look for analogies to Noah.

Of which there were exactly...none. Noah and God were on a first-name
basis, and instructions on how to deal with the coming catastrophe were
specific, right down to the cubit. Noah got an instruction manual. The
guy in this movie was on his own, figuring out how to deal with dread.

>
> The story's psychological insight into a man's fear of not being able
> to take care of or protect his family against the terrors of the world
> and the unknown or even himself was, to my mind, beautifully done...
> and would have sufficed, but there was icing on the cake... maybe it
> was man being touched by the divine after all.

Maybe and maybe not. That's the problem for me; the movie is too timid
to take a stand. Concluding that there was substance to his
premonitions gives me no payoff, and concluding that he was nuts is
equally pointless. Either way, so what?

>
> I really enjoyed the film, felt empathy for the main characters, and
> it seemed flawless enough for me.
>

I got really impatient during the film. I felt some sympathy for the
wife because clearly she loved her husband and he loved her and they
both loved the little girl and they were good people and their neighbors
were good too and everybody was basically good. Fine.

But either he was nuts or he was receiving warnings.

If he was nuts, well, that's an easy explanation and the movie really
doesn't make any point at all.

If he was receiving warnings, well, now the explanations are more
difficult. Who was sending the warnings and why, and what was he
supposed to do with his special knowledge which was really less
knowledge and more, "I have a bad feeling about this"? God told Noah
exactly how to prepare for the flood. If God was out and about in this
film, all He accomplished was to drive some poor guy crazy. I know God
moves in a mysterious way, but c'mon...do we really want to believe He'd
get His giggles by torturing one poor guy a few weeks before he tsunamis
us all to smithereens?

I think the movie failed. If I interpret the final storm as just
another dream, the movie is pointless vapor; and if I interpret the
final storm as the Apocalypse, I still detect no worthwhile meaning to
the exercise.

[Janice]

On Apr 24, 3:55 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
.

> On Apr 24, 6:13 pm, Janice <janice_geran...@dixoncreekstudio.com>
> wrote:
> > There was a question in the thread about why Curtis/Shannon would ask
> > to have his co-worker transferred to another group after borrowing the
> > company equipment -- it was because one of Curtis's dreams had been
> > about his co-worker's "face changing" and attacking Curtis.  Like Red
> > the dog, the co-worker had to be moved out of sight because Curtis
> > felt threatened by him.

.
> For some reason, I can't bring the co-worker dream to mind, but your
> answer makes sense.  Btw, those bird flights are real, and impressive.

When he first confessed to his wife about the dreams, he told her
about his most recent dream about his co-worker... it wasn't one of
the dream visualizations that the audience got to see.


~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Janice]

On Apr 24, 5:22 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.

> On 4/24/2012 6:13 PM, Janice wrote:
.
> > Besides the fact that the movie balanced its tension nicely between
> > the possibilities of prophecy vs. lunacy (I loved the bizarre flights
> > of birds), it was fun to look for analogies to Noah.
.
> Of which there were exactly...none.

When I mention the connection with Noah, I was thinking of parallel
moments such as when he tried to warn his neighbors, or explain it to
his wife and family, or even to just trust himself and his dreams --
after all, at some point even Noah must have had to make the choice to
believe that was God speaking to him, and not that he was having a
psychotic episode. Mystics always question their own sanity, it is
the only way to test the reality of their experience.

There are moments in this film that thrust us into the agonies of a
man's soul and ask the big questions -- what is real, and, who am I?

> > The story's psychological insight into a man's fear of not being able
> > to take care of or protect his family against the terrors of the world
> > and the unknown or even himself was, to my mind, beautifully done...
> > and would have sufficed, but there was icing on the cake...  maybe it
> > was man being touched by the divine after all.
.
> Maybe and maybe not.  That's the problem for me; the movie is too timid
> to take a stand.  Concluding that there was substance to his
> premonitions gives me no payoff, and concluding that he was nuts is
> equally pointless.  Either way, so what?

I am not going to try to convince you otherwise since you saw the film
from your own point of view and it didn't work for you. For me, it
wasn't as simple as is he crazy or is he not. I saw the subjects of
fear, and intention, and trust, and love, and the divine mind touched
upon in a wonderful script.

I thought it was perfect that Curtis found the courage to confront his
fears and open the door of the underground (!)shelter -- and while he
would not have done it for himself alone, he was able to do it for
those he loved. I can't tell you how many times I have watched men
cave into their fears and personal demons and not be able to step up
and make the changes necessary to keep a relationship (or themselves)
alive... and this carries exactly the same message. Hooray for
Curtis.


~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Bill Anderson]

And hooray that the movie worked for you. Every once in a while I'll
come across a movie that really works for me (Midnight in Paris,
anyone?) and I don't care what anybody else says, I know what I like and
I treasure a good movie whenever I can find one.