Shutter Island : The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**

The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**

So, let's just answer the question first and then discuss the why.

Is there brainwashing in Shutter Island?

No, there is not.

How do we know there is not?

Well, first you need to ask yourself what would they be brainwashing DiCaprio's character to believe. Most people answer this question by saying they are brainwashing him to "accept a new identity."

OK, so the next question you would ask if that is your answer is what identity do they want him to accept? Now, this is where you run into a big problem.

Most people would answer, if they believe the "brainwashing" idea, that they are brainwashing him to think that he is Andrew Laeddis. This is entirely not possible and makes no sense based on what we see in the film.

The story puts right in front of the audience this question of identity and gives you two options for who the character is, Edward Daniels or Andrew Laeddis. Now these anagrams are in the story for the specific purpose of raising the identity question...this is why Dennis Lehane created the anagrams.

So, we have right there in the fiction a choice of who DiCaprio's character is. We also know that in the film there is a "cutting edge role play" taking place and that this role play supports only that the DiCaprio character is Edward "Teddy" Daniels.

So, let's look at the idea that maybe this is where the fiction is going. Is it showing doctors attempting to use thought reform to alter the identity of the main character?

Now, if we are going to think about "brainwashing" or thought reform, as the better name for it, in a realistic way taking place in the film then we need to look at how this would be accomplished.

The key would be to constantly support and reinforce the ideas/thoughts you want the target of the "brainwashing" to accept. The only identity the role play supports is "Marshal Teddy Daniels" because this is how all of the "role players" and doctors refer to him. So, we are DEFINITELY NOT seeing an experiment to make him think he is Andrew Laeddis. The only identity the role play would reinforce in terms of some sort of brainwashing would be "Teddy Daniels."

So, if you believe there is "brainwashing" going on and it is meant to get him to accept an identity then the only identity that could be is "Teddy Daniels."

This means the Andrew Laeddis identity would be his actual identity and the trauma we see in the film of the death of his wife and children would be the real trauma that made him susceptible to this "brainwashing" experiment. I mean you would need to provide a pretty huge reason in your fiction for a person to be susceptible to accepting a totally new identity. This would require a subject with giant issues and that would have really good reason not to want be who they were. So, in a "realistic" sense the subject would be hand selected specifically for how screwed up they already were and the potential for their trauma or self-loathing to specifically make them a good subject for an identity change.

Obviously "brainwashing" has never been used to completely alter a person's identity to get them to accept a new one. This is complete fabrication used only for movie plots. You see doing this would be pretty much impossible. So, while it is a fun plot for a film, it can't be accomplished. There are no studies or texts written about altering a person's identity through thought reform and that is because it does not work that way.

It is not how the human mind works either. This is why thought reform is the better term to use because "brainwashing" makes it sound like you can "wash a mind clean of memories and thoughts and start anew."

This is just not possible and is a fictional idea. So, we know if this film is attempting to show a "brainwashing" plot to alter a man's identity we are dealing with pure fiction.

Now, this is not to say that you can't use this idea in fiction, obviously you can and it would make for a possibly fun and exciting story...but it would be purely a flight of fancy.

To be continued...

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**


this role play supports only that the DiCaprio character is Edward "Teddy" Daniels.

Don't you mean a true role play happening means DiCaprio is really Laeddis, or am I missing your point.


Is it showing doctors attempting to use thought reform to alter the identity of the main character?

And before that, is it showing doctors making ghosts out of patients at all?? Cave Rachel tells Teddy that is happening, but no patients are unaccounted for and no zombies are roaming the lighthouse when he gets there.


This means the Andrew Laeddis identity would be his actual identity and the trauma we see in the film of the death of his wife and children would be the real trauma that made him susceptible to this "brainwashing" experiment.

Based on this, one could better say that means the DOCTORS turned Laeddis into Teddy with brainwashing for some dumb MKUltra program test. And now we see them fixing him. Not supported whatsoever in the movie of course, but when did that matter to the Brainwashing groupies on here...


it would be purely a flight of fancy.

and shoe-horning it into a film where it doesn't exist is purely a flight of lunacy



Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**


Don't you mean a true role play happening means DiCaprio is really Laeddis, or am I missing your point.


Well, I am examining the idea there is brainwashing in the film and if there was how that would work within the way the story is built and structured. Obviously, I state at the start that there is no brainwashing in the film but the rest of the post is considering a way to look at the film as if there is.

Fiction should be interpreted and analysed based on what is actually in the film and not what a reader or viewer feels they can insert into the work. What I see when I have interaction with people here about the film is they insert a lot of things that are not in the film into it so that they can justify their "version" of the story.

However, the film is very strictly structured to support only certain things. That's how the author of the story created it...he specifically says "You can't pull a single string or the entire fragile house of cards will collapse."

So, along with "brainwashing" what I am looking at here is the idea that there are two "versions/interpretations" of the story and that an audience can interpret it in two different ways. So, if this were true, and I have not got to addressing it yet, the stories would essentially mirror each other and so what is shown in the film would work in favor of both "versions."

We know, for example, that the creator of the fiction specifically sets up a question of identity in the film and gives very specific and dramatic information about this identity question. The creators of the fiction also very specifically answer this question. We know by the end of the story there is no "Teddy Daniels" and that DiCaprio is actually Laeddis.

However, answering that question alone is not enough to "prove" to everybody that there is no brainwashing in the film because if there was the character would have to be Laeddis as well. And the entire Laeddis backstory would make sense if you were attempting a fictional "brainwashing" yarn in the same way it makes perfect sense to the character himself creating the "Teddy Daniels" identity as a way to avoid his trauma.

In either "version" DiCaprio's character would need to be Laeddis because in both cases the character would be accepting the "Teddy Daniels" identity to escape his past trauma. There is no "version" of the story where he is not a heavily traumatized individual. I am sort of surprised the people that want to say there is "brainwashing" in the film never argue this point.

This makes it funny that there is a "TiT" theory because the film spends it's entire running time examining DiCaprio's character and exposing to the audience who he is. That question is answered over and over throughout the film.

The film entirely supports, and goes to great lengths to do so, that our main character is Andrew Laeddis and "Teddy Daniels" is an invention.

Now, this is where we run head on into one of the key questions people bandy about here...

If one identity is an invention, who invented it?

Lehane came up with the anagrams to put this identity question right in front of his audience. So, who created the anagrams and the "false" identity...which we know is "Teddy Daniels."


And before that, is it showing doctors making ghosts out of patients at all??


If we are seeing "brainwashing" the doctors created "Teddy Daniels" to take advantage of a very damaged man and turn him into a relentless "hunter" of whatever his target is. In this case the entire "role play" is designed to support his "Teddy Daniels" persona. This is plainly obvious in the film. That would make sense to a "brainwashing" plot. Turning him into a "Teddy Daniels" type would be useful because he would chase his "goal" in whatever assignment they gave him. Going by the "change his identity make him a useful soldier" to them idea.

It would not make sense in a "brainwashing" plot that the doctors created Andrew Laeddis because there would be no point in doing this and as "brainwashing" it would not work and be an incredibly stupid plot. Plus they never do anything in the film to convince him he is Laeddis. If all they want to do is "lobotomize" him they already have him on the island, unarmed, and could easily do so. It is obvious they are not worried about anybody looking for him or coming after them for doing what they are doing so there is no point at all in going through a "role play" to get him to confess he is Laeddis and he killed his wife.

If what they wanted from him was a "confession" then this is the dumbest, most over the top film ever made, because they would not need to go through the "role play", following him around the island, seeing how he might react to each little scenario, to "get a confession."

I mean you have an unarmed man, on an island, he is vastly outnumbered, and you want a confession from him. So, you do a big "role play", I mean how dumb is that idea? That makes no sense and is idiotic. You involve like a hundred people in something you could do with a couple.


Based on this, one could better say that means the DOCTORS turned Laeddis into Teddy with brainwashing for some dumb MKUltra program test.


Well, that seems to be where the "brainwashing" believers seem to feel the story is going. However, nothing in the film relates to, points to, shows in any way, anything to do with the MKUltra programs. There was no part of MKUltra where they were attempting to "brainwash" or "hypnotize" or "sleep program" people into believing they were an entirely different person. That is a stupid idea so in "real life" they knew to rule that out as idiotic. If they wanted to make a story about the MKUltra programs I think it would make a great film...but that's not the story Lehane wrote or the one Scorsese filmed.

However, as this is a fictional story could Lehane come up with an outrageous and ridiculous "brainwashing" plot and have doctors attempting to entirely erase a man's identity and give him a new one...sure...it is fiction he can do whatever he wants. That's why they call it fiction.


and shoe-horning it into a film where it doesn't exist is purely a flight of lunacy


Basically, yes, it would make this a poor story. The "brainwashing" plot, if there was one, should have a point and be supported by what takes place in the story. It is not, which is an issue for people that believe that is taking place and come here to post about it.

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**


And the entire Laeddis backstory would make sense if you were attempting a fictional "brainwashing" yarn in the same way it makes perfect sense to the character himself creating the "Teddy Daniels" identity as a way to avoid his trauma.


Not sure they both make perfect sense. (and I realize you are playing devil's advocate to start with the assumption they do and then explain why they don't.)

Laeddis the wife killer creating the heroic alter ego & anagram Daniels makes perfect sense.

But why would the doctors think it makes sense to try to convince the heroic Daniels that he is wife killer Laeddis? Isn't that a harder sell, whereas the optimal "identity reassignment" protocol - if there was such a thing - would look for an easier acceptance route.

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**


But why would the doctors think it makes sense to try to convince the heroic Daniels that he is wife killer Laeddis? Isn't that a harder sell, whereas the optimal "identity reassignment" protocol - if there was such a thing - would look for an easier acceptance route.


Yes, the doctors would not be attempting to make him believe he is Laeddis. The way the "brainwashing" plot would need to work is they have already "brainwashed" him that he is "Teddy Daniels" so the film begins with him as "Teddy Daniels" fully transformed. We never see the "brainwashing" in the film and so what we are seeing, if you are considering the "brainwashing" plot, is the test to see how well their "brainwashing" has worked.

"Teddy Daniels" would be the "useful" identity to them. So, the "role play" would be essentially a test, to see if he has accepted the "Teddy Daniels" persona. One they would need to perform before they could send him out into the world. So, they give him this mission to find the "missing" patient and at the same time include in the mission things that could trigger him to relapse into his actual identity. All part of the test. So, the anagrams would be a way to trip him up. They obviously connect to his real identity and his wife...and in the "brainwashing" plot all of the trauma of his wife killing his children and him killing her would be his actual backstory...just as it is in the "prevent the lobotomy" story.

You see, in order to "flip the switch" on the story and claim that there are intentionally "two versions" and we are watching both of them simultaneously you need to account for everything that is in the fiction and have it work both ways.

You can't say stupid things like "Maybe the anagram names are misspelled." or "Maybe there was sleep programming going on." or "Maybe the doctors are magically inserting very specific dreams in his head." or "Maybe they are hypnotizing him." or "Maybe they are drugging him with cigarettes and fake aspirin." or of course "The Nuremberg Code is being violated so the doctors must be evil!"

Those kind of comments are the work of people desperate to make what they want to see fit with their own "version" of the film and who have no understanding of what they are talking about.

You need to look at what is specifically in the story and determine how those pieces work.

So, in whatever "version" you are attempting to "verify" you have to account for the anagrams, account for all his dreams (THEY ARE A HUGE PART OF THE STORY), account for his visions and hallucinations, account for all the conversations that are going on in his head that the film visualizes, and account for his memory of the day he came home and found his wife had murdered his children.

The lazy and stupid thing to say is "The doctors inserted that in his head." because that is not in the film. This leads people into what is basically an asinine string of "maybes" and "what ifs" that are totally ridiculous.

Oddly, or perhaps fittingly, I don't see any of the "brainwash" crew attempting to do that. Instead they babble about MKUltra (not in the film) or ramble on about the Nuremberg Code, or say "This must be about this because doctors did experiment on people in real life." as if that proves something. It is utterly hilarious. These are all the sort of general traps that people that don't understand the work will fall into when they attempt to interpret it.

The way to begin is with the identity question that Lehane put at the center of his story. Yes, that is there for a reason and the reason is we are meant to consider his identity. Once you have discovered the answer to that question then you can begin to attempt to make the other pieces fit.

So, why do we see his children outside the window in his first dream? Why do we see the gazebo and pond where his wife drowned their children outside the window in the first dream?

Well, it's not because the doctors can make him see exactly what they want him to see in his dreams. That's so dumb I can't believe somebody would say it.

We see that because he is Andrew Laeddis and that is what happened to him. And you can make that work either as he is attempting to block those things out or that the doctors were trying to block those things out in their attempt to turn him into "Teddy Daniels."

The kids and the pond are "outside the windows" because they are intentionally being forced outside. In both cases "brainwashing" or "trauma" (which actually comes into play on both sides of that coin) he does not want to remember that. In the "brainwashing" version you could say that it symbolizes the doctors wanting to push those memories away but they are still there "lurking outside the windows" and that's why we are seeing them in his dreams. The memories are not totally gone. Which actually is how the human mind works...memories don't disappear they just are buried somewhere.

Everything like this in the film though only works if he is Andrew Laeddis as Lehane intended. If you "pull that string" and try to make him "Teddy Daniels" the house of cards...just as Lehane said it would...collapses.

You would think the "geniuses" on the "brainwashing" crew would have figured this out but seems not. Some are too blinded by Nuremberg Code and can't see a damn thing.

As you said, I am playing Devil's advocate here, so I won't go into explaining how every scene could work in both ways. I have a feeling that would just be a bad idea.

The film is a thriller, a beautifully made Hitchcockian thriller, and that is what it is whether you think it is about "brainwashing" or a man that has buried who he is so he does not have to remember the tragedy his life became.

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**


The way the "brainwashing" plot would need to work is they have already "brainwashed" him that he is "Teddy Daniels" so the film begins with him as "Teddy Daniels" fully transformed. We never see the "brainwashing" in the film and so what we are seeing, if you are considering the "brainwashing" plot, is the test to see how well their "brainwashing" has worked.


Gotcha now. I didn't realize that made sense to anyone else. I wrote it above as a new revelation to me. I believe the TIT crowd has always believed the brainwashing was of a real Teddy into thinking he is patient Laeddis. (Hence the Teddy is Teddy acronym.)

But the TIT crowd should change to LIBITTU (Laddis is brainwashed into Teddy, then undone). It still doesn't fit good filmmaking norms versus what is shown on the screen, but not as outrageously illogical as TIT.

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**

Well, the identity question in the film is answered and answered loud and clear. That's important to consider. Nothing in the film works if he is "Teddy" because nothing in the film would then make any sense whatsoever. I mean I would not call Lehane the greatest writer on the planet but he is very good and certainly very competent so he would not bungle a story to that degree. Nor would Scorsese film something that would be that awful.

I think there are very few people that think he is actually "Teddy Daniels" and mainly I just think they have just missed some things in the story. Which I think is not that surprising because the story intentionally and in a good way leads people down a lot of blind alleys.

Probably if people read the novel they would understand the story a bit better. In the film version the anagrams are less obvious because they don't put them in front of us until the end of the film. Which is why I think people create goofy explanations for them.

In the novel though the anagrams are always in front of us not to mention in the novel his sons names are Edward and Daniel which explains his connection to that name. The film changes the sons names to Simon and Henry I think because they may have felt that better hid the secret of his identity.



But the TIT crowd should change to LIBITTU (Laddis is brainwashed into Teddy, then undone). It still doesn't fit good filmmaking norms versus what is shown on the screen, but not as outrageously illogical as TIT.


Yes, obviously I agree the story works best as Lehane wrote it, although I admit I love the film much more than the novel. That seems a rarity, that the film is better than the book, but in this case I think it is. I just think the balancing act Lehane had to pull off in novel form was much harder to sustain and had to be entirely done through text whereas the filmmakers were free to use many more avenues to tell the story. The anagrams being a great example of how they work much better in the film than they ever could in a novel.

And I do believe even though you can flip much of the film to work as the doctors doing something nefarious there remains several things that would need to be rewritten to truly create a good "brainwashing" version.

The film has much more going on as a film about a man that is mentally ill and what I really like is the comedy that comes out on multiple viewings of the film. There are some very funny moments between "Teddy" and the doctors and role players that did not play as comedy at first. It's a very multi-layered picture that tackles a variety of aspects of the human condition and behavior.

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**


Obviously, I state at the start that there is no brainwashing in the film but the rest of the post is considering a way to look at the film as if there is.


Obviously, you aren't biased. Obviously, you'll be fair and no confirmation bias will ensue. Obviously.



Another 🎉SPECTACULAR🎊 example of your profound lack of self-awareness.



Maybe if you paid attention to the truth sometimes it would illuminate how self-deceptive you are. I think you need some higher wattage truth bulbs.💡💡💡💡💡



Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**

uh-oh

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**


uh-oh


It does give the impression that she is not well, doesn't it?

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**

All of the movie's characters' family names exists in real world such as Cawley, Sheehan, Breene, Kearns, McPherson etc. except for Laeddis



Lehane came up with the anagrams to put this identity question right in front of his audience. So, who created the anagrams and the "false" identity...which we know is "Teddy Daniels."



Now, Lehane could also have made the story which has a US Marshal named Andrew Laeedis who comes to Shutter Island to investigate a case of a missing patient and is also looking for his wife's killer named Edward (Teddy) Daniels only to see at the end that he himself is Edward Daniels and that Andrew Laeddis is a fictional name that he made up. It would have made far more sense.

But Lehane did not do it this way. He didn't, Veritas, he didn't! This alone is a big give away of how the writer and the film-makers laid out the hints.

Dr. Cawley came up with that weird spell of 'Laeddis'. Infact Laydis is a second name which exists in real world. Teddy could have been looking for 'Andrew Laydis'. If you pay attention, there is more weight given on the enunciation of the letter 'y' whenever Teddy or Dolores says 'Laydis'/'Laeddis'. Dr. Cawley, in his desperation, jumbled the letters, added a few more and made it 'Andrew Laeddis' and showed to Teddy that its the exact 13 letter words. Teddy wasn't even bothered to look at the board, though.




Retard... Pussy... Sinister_prig

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**

Look, man, I don't want to argue. Basically, I would just ask that you consider this (which I just typed in a post above to someone else) because it is central to what you are discussing in your post. It is fine to suggest the doctors came up with the anagrams but forget about the spelling thing. Lehane is the guy that created the anagrams and no he did not misspell anything.


The way to begin is with the identity question that Lehane put at the center of his story. Yes, that is there for a reason and the reason is we are meant to consider his identity. Once you have discovered the answer to that question then you can begin to attempt to make the other pieces fit.

So, why do we see his children outside the window in his first dream? Why do we see the gazebo and pond where his wife drowned their children outside the window in the first dream?

Well, it's not because the doctors can make him see exactly what they want him to see in his dreams. That's so dumb I can't believe somebody would say it.

We see that because he is Andrew Laeddis and that is what happened to him. And you can make that work either as he is attempting to block those things out or that the doctors were trying to block those things out in their attempt to turn him into "Teddy Daniels."

The kids and the pond are "outside the windows" because they are intentionally being forced outside. In both cases "brainwashing" or "trauma" (which actually comes into play on both sides of that coin) he does not want to remember that. In the "brainwashing" version you could say that it symbolizes the doctors wanting to push those memories away but they are still there "lurking outside the windows" and that's why we are seeing them in his dreams. The memories are not totally gone. Which actually is how the human mind works...memories don't disappear they just are buried somewhere.

Everything like this in the film though only works if he is Andrew Laeddis as Lehane intended. If you "pull that string" and try to make him "Teddy Daniels" the house of cards...just as Lehane said it would...collapses.

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**


Lehane is the guy that created the anagrams and no he did not misspell anything.



I'm not denying that. He had his character misspell the name given the logic that such a weirdly unreal family name was to be used for a non-existent person of the story whereas he used real world names for all the characters who exists in the story.


So, why do we see his children outside the window in his first dream? Why do we see the gazebo and pond where his wife drowned their children outside the window in the first dream?




Teddy did have a summer lake house and an Apartment. I'm not denying that.

And I don't see children playing outside the window. I could hear noises of Children playing outside his apartment. So, that's like common thing in the world.



Retard... Pussy... Sinister_prig

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**


And I don't see children playing outside the window. I could hear noises of Children playing outside his apartment. So, that's like common thing in the world.


OK, well you missed that then. Maybe you were watching the film on a device with a small screen. If you go back and have a look at it you will see the two boys and the girl playing outside of the apartment window in his first dream. It's there if you want to have a look at it.

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**


OK, well you missed that then. Maybe you were watching the film on a device with a small screen. If you go back and have a look at it you will see the two boys and the girl playing outside of the apartment window in his first dream. It's there if you want to have a look at it.


Those were just street kids. Nothing of that Indicates that Teddy is Andrew.



Retard... Pussy... Sinister_prig

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**

So, they were making the film and had two little boys and a little girl in the same style dress as his children run around outside the window in his dream just because they were meant to be "street kids?"

That was just a random thing, that's really how you see that?

OK, I guess we have come to the end of that discussion.

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**

There are kids outside the window. I noticed that when I was scouring the film for details that support the Andrew story. There are three kids playing in the street.

I do believe that I was the one to first see that and mention it on the board, so you are welcome, Veritas. I think that is the best evidence for Andrew in the whole movie because the kids aren't being watched and they are playing in traffic indicating that are endangered. The kids could be wearing the clothes of the kids in the picture, but it is hard to tell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncc8jtfSsTU

The other thing is that the green dream "resets" - it begins again when the record spins. The music is coming from a phonograph that looks like the one at Cawley's house suggesting the influence is related to the event earlier in the evening. Dolores appears after the reset, but we see the kids before it resets - they appear simulataneously with the music. The music starts when the dream starts. One way to look at it is that the reset marks when the dream starts to be influenced by the external stimuli. So if the kids appear before the reset, it could increase the likelihood that the kids are appearing from his unconscious before he is influenced.

I think that dream, because it happens on the first night, still has a lot of information that reflects reality and some that reflects external stimuli and suggestions. The best explanation I can come up with for the spinning record is that it represents times when Teddy is being covertly influenced or hypnotized, for lack of a better word. By that time in the movie, we have seen the spinning record at least three times - on the ferry and at Cawley's house. So, he has already been influenced. Of course, if he has been there two years, who knows how many times he has seen those pictures?

When Teddy goes to sleep (except in the cave) we see a close-up and flashing lights. I have always thought that indicated some sort of sleep programming. Dr. Estabrooks, the one who claims to have created multiple personalities to become spies and assassins, said that it was easy to hypnotize someone who is asleep.


...this is one recognized method of producing the trance, namely by changing normal sleep into hypnotic sleep. The skilled hypnotist can generally take the sleep-walker or sleep-talker and shift him directly over into deep hypnotism without either the knowledge or the consent of his subject.


His book is on line in a few places, I believe.
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hubbard-the-hypnotist7.htm

Also, Teddy saw the chart they allegedly made up for Rachel, and could have very well seen the pictures in the chart. We know he zones out when he sees Rachel's picture and don't know what happens except whatever it was seems to have given him a headache. Because he was thinking about the case when he went to sleep, he may very well have been thinking about endangered children - maybe that was where the dream was going before it reset. Also, the kids playing in the street may not be the kids in the picture, but those are the only other kids we know about except the ones at Dachau - either the death train or stripped pajamas.






Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.

The dreams…

Personally, I really love the dream sequences in the picture. I think they are wonderful. What I really enjoyed is that when I saw this in a theater for the first time although I saw the kids running around behind Dolores I did not think anything of it. The camera does not focus on the children playing but the set up is such that nothing is moving outside that window except the kids. Specifically so you do see them but shot, tellingly when you see the film again, so that Dolores is in front of the window...between/blocking the view (which is meant to be the DiCaprio character's perspective) of both the viewer and Andrew. So, not only are the children outside the window but Dolores is what stands between Andrew being able to see his children. Here she faces him, confronting him with a liquor bottle.

Also like how first we see the children outside the apartment window and then we see the pond, shrouded in darkness, outside the second window...placing both of these things on the outside but at the same time connecting them. At the second window, with the darkened gazebo and pond, Delores faces away from Andrew...looking out the window and her back embers until he embraces her and suddenly she is wet and bleeds from the gunshot wound we don't yet know about.

The first dream tells us a lot about the characters but not the first time you watch it.


I think that is the best evidence for Andrew in the whole movie because the kids aren't being watched and they are playing in traffic indicating that are endangered.


Well, that first dream is vital to the story because it is setting up the ending of the film. It virtually tells Andrews entire story in that single dream but cleverly without allowing the audience to connect to what happens until the end of the picture. The kids are not actually playing in traffic. They are just near parked cars on a dead end street.

Re: The dreams…


Delores faces away from Andrew...looking out the window and her back embers until he embraces her and suddenly she is wet and bleeds from the gunshot wound we don't yet know about.


You really don't know how to interpret art and analyze movies. The dream scene is followed by the scene where Teddy wakes up to see water dripping from the ceiling and falling right on his hands. The wetness on Teddy's hands in reality was making him feel blood on Dolores' belly in his dream. It's not a gunshot wound. This scene of water falling on Teddy's hand has no other significance. Its a deliberately added scene to induce a rational thinking in audience's mind but as must be expected by Scorsese, many of the brainwashed viewers like you would simply 'label' the blood as gun shot wound!

If that scene had no particular significance and if Teddy was Andrew, the film-makers could have chose to have Teddy waking up simply by the sound of thunder followed by Teddy looking out of the window to check the storm whilst the orderly showing up.

The movie drops enough hints for any rational thinker to analyze what's the truth beneath the surface.



Retard... Pussy... Sinister_prig

Re: The dreams…


The wetness on Teddy's hands in reality was making him feel blood on Dolores' belly in his dream. It's not a gunshot wound. This scene of water falling on Teddy's hand has no other significance.


Mindnumbing. 😞

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: The dreams…

Of course, you are right.

A a couple of additional points:

There are several times when Scorsese could have shown something to support Andrew and the doctors, but instead he does the opposite like in the final scene when he shows that he is not dangerous, no one is scared of him, and he isn't tormented by his memories. What we are shown in that scene is the opposite of what we should be seeing if the common understanding is what Scorsese meant as the ultimate interpretation.

The biggest problem for me about the bleeding abdomen and everything else that supports Andrew on second viewing is that there is NO WAY that scene suggests that Teddy shot her in the abdomen unless we already know the end. Then in retrospect, that bit of ambiguous data means that Andrew shot her. The rest of the dream that supports Teddy gets dismissed for no reason except that the details support that he is Teddy and Dolores died in a fire. The details in the movie don't add up to Andrew.

Also, any imagery from the Andrew story that sneaks into Teddy's thoughts and dreams before the lighthouse doesn't mean he is Andrew either, because it works both ways. He would also get images if they were suggesting certain ideas to him while he was asleep or at some other time we don't see. The gazebo doesn't mean the lake story is true, either. When it shows up in his dream it also supplies an alternative for how he saw the gazebo in the "flashback".

When people construct memories - true of false - they fill in details, confabulate, and the details can come from other memories. When Teddy imagines the lake scene, he could have included the detail of shooting her in the abdomen because he had a memory of her bleeding from the abdomen from the dream. The water dripping is the immediate cause - the blood isn't in the novel, it is only water in the dream. The blood is a Scorsese addition, so, there you go. If he is being brainwashed, the mental images he has earlier may be the source of the images that turn up in the "flashback". It would work in both directions.

Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.

the details don't support the doctors

Look up Solando and Chanal - those names are rare to non-existent, too - you might be able to find a tiny number of people with these names, but they are probably quirks of spelling. If you google Laeddis, Chanal, and Solando the vast majority of hits will be the character names, not real people.

All the names that I recall are relatively common except three of the law of four names. That's a red flag. Three red flags. 🚩🚩🚩

Also, if you were writing the anagrams and wanted it to be believable that a man created an alter and gave him an anagram name, wouldn't you have had Marshal Laeddis show up to investigate instead of Marshal Daniels? It wouldn't have changed anything except make the anagrams somewhat more believable instead of less believable.

What about the nicknames? If the anagrams were important to the character, wouldn't he have anagrammed the name the alter used? Andrew should have been using the name Edward, not Teddy. Do you think it is less believable that he gave himself an anagrammed name then called himself by a nickname? I think they even talk about it in the book about how he uses nickname Teddy, they lampshade it - instead of Ed or Eddie - or why not Ned? It isn't that it says anything definite, it is just one more reason to doubt that could have very easily been written in a way that at least didn't make it less believable.


Teddy wasn't even bothered to look at the board, though.


"FOCUS!" - Cawley sure did think it was important, even if Teddy didn't. The writing and direction made it clear that Teddy wasn't connecting to the anagrams at all. All he did was look at the note that said Law of Four before he went to sleep that first night. But he never made any connections himself and the fact that the doctor set up the stagy draped board in the tower indicates that the doctors didn't think he would make the connection either and that's why they set up the board to show him what it meant. Just another part of the doctor's "reality" that Teddy didn't see for himself.

The line about loving the law of four, Cawley's reaction to the doctor's comment, and the staged draped board explaining the law of four connect the doctors to the anagrams. That isn't offset by anything that shows Teddy is connected to the law of four - we don't see him write the note, we don't see him reacting to the doctors comment, we don't see him showing any particular interest or thinking that the law of four has to do with anagrams (I think that is just so lame, law of four = anagrams of two names? ) It could have been written at least in a more neutral way, but it is written in a way that conflicts with the doctors' story.








Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.

Re: the details don't support the doctors


Look up Solando and Chanal - those names are rare to non-existent, too - you might be able to find a tiny number of people with these names, but they are probably quirks of spelling. If you google Laeddis, Chanal, and Solando the vast majority of hits will be the character names, not real people.


Chanal is very much ab existing family name. And there are many.

Solando is almost like non-existing.



Also, if you were writing the anagrams and wanted it to be believable that a man created an alter and gave him an anagram name, wouldn't you have had Marshal Laeddis show up to investigate instead of Marshal Daniels? It wouldn't have changed anything except make the anagrams somewhat more believable instead of less believable.


That's the whole point I expressed in my post. Why would Lehane give his central character a name which is totally weird and non-existent whereas he chose real names for all of the rest of his characters ? He is an intelligent writer and its obvious that even he would know that if he have to tell a story about doctors treating a delusional patient, Laeddis is actually Daniels outcome is much more sensible than Daniels is actually Laeddis! But he didn't do that way.






Retard... Pussy... Sinister_prig

Re: the details don't support the doctors

Personally, I don't understand why you guys think that they wanted you to watch the film and then go home get out your computer and Google all the names in the story and then to take guesses on which characters were "real" based on the frequency that name occurs in a Google search.

That's pretty absurd. No good writer would attempt to do this. Writers like to have everything in the story that you need to interpret it...not make you go to Google to check spelling of the character names.

It also has nothing to do with the film or story. It's like you are saying you think the people that created the fiction wanted you to become detectives yourselves and investigate them. Honestly, that does not make any sense.

In the novel he chooses Edward Daniels for his name not only because it is an anagram for his real name but also because his sons are named Edward and Daniel. Nobody is trying to trick you with the names. They are in the story because Lehane wanted to use a bunch of classic devices in the novel. He spells the names exactly as they are spelled in the film.

In the film the anagrams are easy to keep out of your view because the people are just saying the names rather than having them typed on the screen in front of you. In the novel Lehane's primary way of keeping the anagrams from being discovered (by the small fraction of people that in the midst of the story would attempt to even look for anagrams) is by referring to his main character as "Teddy" rather than Edward. This keeps the anagrams from being in front of you and "Teddy" can be short for Edward or Theodore so he's just hiding the names as best he can. Plus a lot of the time the characters are just referred to by their first names. So, why if you just see the name Dolores on the page would you think to create an anagram with the name Rachel or Solando?

Also look at how the names are all introduced in the story. Where do they come from?

They all come from DiCaprio's character! That is no accident. That is a clue that is IN THE FILM and it ties right in with all the other clues that are in the film. Laeddis is introduced to the story by him. No doctor, no role player says it. We first hear it in his head, then he blurts it out questioning a patient, then Chuck asks him who it is and then he, DiCaprio's character, tells him a whole story about who Laeddis is on their way out to the graveyard.

Laeddis comes entirely from him. Not something you may notice on your first watch but you will notice it on successive watches of the film.

Also, DiCaprio introduces the name Rachel Solando to the story. It is something that again will slip by you as you are wrapped up in the mystery and atmosphere of the story but it is done intentionally.

He does not look at the chalkboard in the lighthouse and yell "That's not even how you spell Laeddis!" because he knows how Laeddis is spelled because he knows the name so well. Instead he yells "My name is Edward Daniels!" because he does not want to be reminded he is really Andrew Laeddis.

He yells "My name is Edward Daniels!" because that fits with the anagrams, the information is coming directly from DiCaprio's character and the people that created this film (Scorsese, Lehane, Kalogridis) expect you to notice that fact. They are not trying to trick you with the anagrams. They did not want you to go and Google search all the names to see which ones occur more frequently...THEY PUT ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU IN THE STORY.

That's how good storytelling works. They don't want you to have to sit there with your laptop open while the film is playing searching Google for frequency of names, or with the Nuremberg Code in your lap scanning for violations. Or with the health code in your lap looking for violations like some obsessed public official.

No, they want you to enjoy and be engrossed in their story and they give you all you need right there in it to sort it out. They want you to pay attention to the film and the story...not be distracted by your laptop.

I mean come on guys, really...they are telling you this wonderful ripping yarn that is jam packed with all sorts of mystery, suspense, and atmosphere and you really believe what they want you to do is press pause or put the book down to whip out your laptop and search for frequency of the names in the story?

Really?




Re: the details don't support the doctors

Yeah, there are all sorts of little things that wouldn't be definitive, but they should add up to lean toward Andrew if that's the way it is being written, but it looks like every time one of those occasions presents, the writing and direction push it to Teddy instead. That surprised me because I thought it would be more balanced if it is supposed to be ambiguous. Turns out that almost nothing supports Andrew - since the details aren't definitive on their own, it is easy to dismiss or rationalize the details away if a viewer is committed to the idea that he is Andrew - which is what they do.

Chanal seems like an alternative spelling of Chanel. It doesn't seem to be very common in the US. http://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=chanal.

As to the names Rachel and Laeddis, the writing seems to be pair the names. Like when Lehane refers to them as "twin terrors" (Twin Towers/terrorism?). In the green dream, the names are paired in the idea that "she's here" (Rachel) and "so is he" (Laeddis). I really can't see that the dream is consistent with a daughter "Rachel Laeddis", the other time the names are paired when Teddy wakes up in the cell and says Rachel Laeddis is his daughter. "Rachel" and "Laeddis" are entities that are on the island. The names connect "Andrew" to Teddy's real past - so the name Rachel Laeddis (a name invented by the doctors) connects the girl in the picture to the dead child at the death train and Teddy's real traumatic memory of that dead child.


The name Andrew is an anagram of "warden" - if anagrams are important, then maybe we should pay attention to that one since The Warden doesn't have another name.

Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.

Re: the details don't support the doctors

I think it is interesting you feel nothing supports Andrew when the entire story and every clue only supports Andrew. I think one of your huge mistakes is you focus on the doctors and what they say and think people "take the doctor's side" but the truth is almost all the info that he is Andrew comes from him and is running all through the film. It is set up much of the time, like the first dream, so you can't connect it on your first watch but it is all there.

The focus in the film is exploring DiCaprio's character and his identity is central to that.

So, my question for you is, taking specific examples from the film, what in the film makes you believe it pushes toward Teddy?

On the anagram thing...just because Lehane used anagrams to deal with the central character's identity it does not mean we are supposed to go and create our own anagrams for everything in the picture. That's amusing but no the film is not attempting to link Andrew and the warden. Although DiCaprio's character and the warden do have much in common based on the conversation that takes place in the jeep.

Re: the details don't support the doctors


I think it is interesting you feel nothing supports Andrew when the entire story and every clue only supports Andrew.


It is not true that "every clue supports Andrew". It is quite the opposite. The reason you think everything supports Andrew is confirmation bias. Because of confirmation bias, everything will always fit Andrew whether it does or not. We have pointed out many things that point more to Teddy than Andrew. If you can't see it it's because of confirmation bias.

If you can rationalize something to suit your opinion, that’s not the same as that detail supporting your opinion. For example, Teddy tells Cawley (after the "flashback") that his memories of his previous loops haven't returned. Cawley brushes that off - isn't interested. He just goes on pressing Teddy to not "relapse" so they won't be discredited. That is a major details for a few reasons.

* It should make us doubt the flashback - if his traumatic memories returned, why wouldn't his less traumatic memories of them trying to help him not return? Seems to me the less traumatic memories should have returned before the horrible memories that caused him to dissociate.

*Why does Cawley not care about his persistent amnesia? That makes it seems like all he wants is the confession and that he really doesn't care about Teddy's well-being.

* Teddy seems to believe that Cawley tried to help him even though he can't remember. Is the flashback the same - something he believes (temporarily) that he can't remember?

* It bolsters the case for brainwashing - they brainwashed him to believe the Andrew story but didn't brainwash him to remember anything about the past two years.

* He doesn't remember because he hasn't been there for two years so there is nothing to remember.

I have brought that up before. The idea that Teddy doesn’t remember the past loops, doesn't support Andrew or the idea that the doctors are treating him in good faith. That's a fact. But what Andrew believers will say is "well, we shouldn't expect all of his memories to return, yada, yada. “

Once it is written, all the things the line implies is part of the story. It has to be considered. If you don’t take into account the implications of that line, you are ignoring strong evidence for Teddy. It is like the evidence that was written to support Teddy might as well not be in the story at all. If you ignore the implications by claiming (for no good reason) that we shouldn’t expect all his memories to return, then that’s confirmation bias.

As far as why that line is in the film (because you know what the writers intend, right, Veritas?) it isn’t there to provide information that doesn’t advance the narrative. There is no reason to write it in if the implications are irrelevant. We don't need to know that "Oh, we shouldn't expect all of his memories to return”. A line with considerable implications for the story becomes extraneous noise, not because it's noise, but because it conflicts with a common opinion.

It’s undeniable that the line about not remembering introduces all those other implications into the story - EVEN IF IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT WE SHOULDN’T EXPECT ALL HIS MEMORIES TO RETURN. It’s not definitive, but it makes the doctors look bad and undermines the veracity of the "flashback". In other words, that line, which is very strong support for Teddy and against the doctors, is ignored along with everything that line implies. That's what happens with confirmation bias - cherry picking details that support the opinion and ignoring the rest.

If you put that information back into play, Teddy's story gets stronger. This happens over and over again - alternative explanations for ambiguous information are ignored and solid evidence in support of Teddy is rationalized away. This thread is an attempt to rationalize away the significance that the role-play is unethical. That isn’t reasonable. This thread is all about rationalizing away information in the movie that doesn’t support your bias.

I have given a lot of thought to why so many people miss the obvious - that the role-play is unethical and can’t do what the doctor claims. Unfortunately, I entered the conversation after most people had chosen sides and weren't open to alternative ideas. The stronger the facts that supported the other theories the more hostile those who believed in the doctors would get - and there was considerable backfire effect where the better the evidence against the Andrew story the more firmly people would dig in. Opinions polarized.

There have never been answers to critical questions that have to be true for the Andrew plot to be viable.

*If I ask you how you (or anyone who assumes the Andrew plot is true) know the doctors are telling the truth you will not be able to answer. Scorsese even says that you just have to "go with it".

*If I ask you what details in the movie establish that Teddy is Andrew you will not have an answer. You'll probably have a biased interpretation of something ambiguous that can also support Teddy - maybe support Teddy even more than Andrew. But you will only see it as supporting Andrew. And all the stuff that supports Teddy will be dismissed for no good reason.

I asked those questions ^ over and over and just got rude responses. Those questions made people who were overconfident in their opinions uncomfortable. The fact is that the film provides no more way to know if the doctors are telling the truth than it does to tell if Teddy is telling the truth.

So how do you know that the Andrew story is true? You can't. You just have to go with it and ignore a lot of the movie that doesn't fit that story.

See, the details of the film don't add up to the Andrew story at all. If the doctors didn't provide an exposition no one would be able to come up with that story from the information we were shown before the lighthouse.

There is a story that can be identified without an exposition. This requires assessing all the information in the movie and seeing what it adds up to. We can do this without any character explaining it to us just like we would do if we were watching a romance or any other non-mystery. Actually, if a person understands the significance of certain details, he/she can understand the film on first viewing. They won’t be able to tell who Teddy really is or know what the experiments are for in a specific way (you can’t tell if they are creating “ghosts” for example) because that information is not in the movie. But they should be able to see that the doctors misrepresent the destabilizing “role-play” and recognize that it violates the Nuremberg Code and see how the game affects Teddy - the first time they see the film.

The details don't add up to Andrew. They add up to unethical experiments. Teddy is most likely Teddy, but we can't know that for sure. What we can know for sure is that he is the subject of an abusive mind experiment and that is the story - how the experiment affects the protagonist.


I think one of your huge mistakes is you focus on the doctors and what they say and think people "take the doctor's side" but the truth is almost all the info that he is Andrew comes from him and is running all through the film.




Huge mistakes? Not me. I have thought about this from all angles. I have been fair. I don't think you have done the same. I know you haven't. A long time ago a rabid Andrew/good doctor believer admitted that he had to interpret the details according the the “plot". The "plot" is supplied by the doctors' exposition. That is confirmation bias. At least he admitted it. His HUGE mistake was assuming that a movie had to have an exposition, so since there was only one exposition, he thought he had to believe it.

Your comment that "almost all the info that he is Andrew comes from him and is running throughout the film” is incorrect. At most you are referring to AMBIGUOUS INFORMATION that doesn't support Andrew any more than it supports Teddy. The information that supports Teddy is conveniently minimized or ignored.


Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.


Funny how all the stuff that is deemed irrelevant and minimized is the stuff that supports Teddy unless it can be twisted to support Andrew.


The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.


Unless we take the cave woman’s story as an alternative exposition, which I don’t since there is no way to verify it same as the other backstories, the Andrew story is the only explication that’s articulated. That is the explication that is supported on second viewing by confirmation bias. That’s the famous second viewing effect - where viewers see everything in a way that confirms the doctors and miss certain important details like the fact that the role-play is unethical and the fact that we are shown how mental abuse affects a person.

I looked for evidence for Andrew and actually believed I would find it - but it just isn't in the film. I thought it would probably come down 50-50 Teddy and Andrew, but it doesn't. Everything in the film either supports Teddy or leans toward Teddy with the possible and very very minor exception of the kids in the window in the dream. That's it. So, the BEST evidence for Andrew, the kids in the window, doesn’t support Andrew to the exclusion of Teddy.


Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence.


overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. That must be why you think I have made a "huge mistake" when I haven't. You are over confident because your bias makes you blind to the merits of other opinions.

You took the easy, obvious route, no thinking required - just blindly believe the unreliable exposition put into the mouths of dishonest characters. No questioning anything - just assume that the doctors are telling the truth and - - - -

*Ignore that the doctors have no evidence for some reason that is never explained. The evidence they have is made up or could very easily be made up. They even stoop to misrepresenting what Noyce said in the transcript. They set up Nelson to be overpowered by Teddy so they could use that as evidence that he is violent. Why are they making up evidence when there should be tons of real evidence available? That detail needs an explanation - and since we are not given one in the movie, the only reasonable way that the lack of evidence can be explained is that they don’t have evidence because it doesn’t exist. This can be identified on first viewing.

*Forget that the role-play is unethical and makes Teddy crazy - even if he is Andrew and they took him off his meds the role-play is still unethical and they were making him crazier. Again, something that can be seen on first viewing.

*Forget that Cawley is absolutely dishonest when he claims that no evidence of experiments in the tower meant that it was IMPOSSIBLE that they were doing unethical experiments at all. He lied for a self serving reason - that was a very bad thing to do if they are trying to get him to see reality for himself because they are telling him that something that is obviously false (unreal) is true(real). We can see this on first viewing, too.

*Forget that they didn't stop the experiment when it was clear that it was life threatening - why? Because if they stopped they would be discredited, so they risked lives to further their personal ambitions. This is also something that we can know after the first viewing.

*Forget that the final scene shows no evidence that he is tormented by his memories, no evidence that he is violent and dangerous - the reason they gave for why he would be lobotomized. Forget that not only does the scene not give a clue to these things that are commonly believed, BUT THE FILM SHOWS THE OPPOSITE. We can see this on first viewing.

*Forget the fact that the doctors had to know they were lobotomizing a sane man because he remembered what his option was and what would happen if he failed to comply. When he "relapsed" in the past, he didn't remember his previous "treatment". Once he stood up to go with Naerhing, everyone should have known he was "sane” if he was really Andrew. We can see this on first viewing.

And forget all the other little details that support Teddy - like the dream that shows that Dolores died in the apartment fire and that she calls him “Teddy" in the dreams. That's in the dream, too, and it SUPPORTS TEDDY, NOT ANDREW. And what do you do? You focus on a couple of ambiguities that don't necessarily support Andrew at all - the details work for Teddy, too. But confirmation bias makes you ignore the details that support Teddy and focus only on the biased interpretation of ambiguous information.

continued


Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.

Re: the details don't support the doctors


For example, Teddy tells Cawley (after the "flashback") that his memories of his previous loops haven't returned. Cawley brushes that off - isn't interested. He just goes on pressing Teddy to not "relapse" so they won't be discredited.


That is not what happens in the film. I'd be curious to hear you describe this scene. Cawley says nothing at all about being discredited as he sits on the bed with Andrew. Not one word. Cawley tells him they broke through once before...ONCE 9 months ago...but then he "reset" going back to his "Teddy" delusion. There is no emphasis on the doctors being concerned for themselves being discredited. ZERO. Not in the film. "Teddy" does not say anything about his memories not coming back. He says he does not remember the breakthrough nine months before. This is not amnesia nor would that be a concern in the situation shown in the film. This would be a symptom for a man blocking out a traumatic past by creating a new identity for himself. The concern as they talk after the flashback is does he acknowledge who he actually is and why he is there. There is no talk of previous "loops" either...one breakthrough, 9 months ago. Period. So, this is the second and sadly in the film last time they got through to Andrew.


It should make us doubt the flashback - if his traumatic memories returned, why wouldn't his less traumatic memories of them trying to help him not return? Seems to me the less traumatic memories should have returned before the horrible memories that caused him to dissociate.


Once again you are not making any sense. It is traumatic for him to have to confront what happened to his wife and children. This is what is in the film. He had been attempting to bury that past by becoming "Teddy Daniels" and so it would be expected as he wakes up after his collapse that he would not recall what took place nine months previously because he had been attempting to forget/block that out for nine months.


Why does Cawley not care about his persistent amnesia? That makes it seems like all he wants is the confession and that he really doesn't care about Teddy's well-being.


Because he is not dealing with a man with amnesia, he is dealing with a man that is suffering from a trauma that causes him to suppress past memories by creating a new identity for himself. The problem with Andrew is not amnesia it is his entire family is dead and he blames himself for this. Cawley and Sheenhan are not soliciting any confession they are asking him if he knows who he is and why he is there. Again you are inserting things into the film that are not in the film. The doctors have no need of a "confession" that's so absurd it seems like you are attempting to make me laugh.


Teddy seems to believe that Cawley tried to help him even though he can't remember.


No, Andrew does remember that Cawley is his doctor. Who he is. What happened to his family. His memories of who the doctors are have returned. That is what is shown in the film. His memories are returning. This is exactly what that scene shows.


It bolsters the case for brainwashing - they brainwashed him to believe the Andrew story but didn't brainwash him to remember anything about the past two years.


When do they "brainwash" him to believe his "wife had an insect living in her brain", that she could "feel it crawling around", that she made a previous suicide attempt which should have tipped him off she may be a danger to their children? When at any point during the role play do they attempt to convince him he has kids? That he murdered his wife? That she murdered his children? You expect us to believe that Cawley is doing this throughout the role play without ever having any of his role players bring any of this up but BOOM...he snaps his fingers in the lighthouse and suddenly he has DiCaprio's character brainwashed to believe all this stuff they never even say to him a single time?

What are you going to say that all this "brainwashing" took place at some other time that they never show in the film but we should "suspect" it happened because you like the idea? This would of course be once again attempting to insert your own nonsense into the film that is not in the film.


He doesn't remember because he hasn't been there for two years so there is nothing to remember.


OK, now you are going to say he has not been there for two years...that's pretty laughable. First, was not it you that argued that the reason the images of the children were in his mind was because...and again this is not in the film...that they have been showing him the pictures for two years? Second, if you are going to claim he has not been there for two years are you saying when he arrives on the ferry this actually is his first meeting with the doctors?


Ignore that the doctors have no evidence for some reason that is never explained.


Actually, the doctors up until they get to the lighthouse are not where the evidence is coming from. The "evidence" for the audience is that the doctors have photos of the three children we see in his dreams and hallucinations THROUGHOUT the film. So, you need to account for the doctors having photos at the end of the film that show the children we were introduced to in the film BY ANDREW. In HIS dreams, HIS hallucinations, HIS memory. So, the only thing you could say to account for this is that the doctors somehow put these children in his head along with a very specific memory of finding them dead in the pond.

Then of course there are the anagrams which you lamely attempt to dismiss as "misspellings."

Unfortunately for you, THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE MOMENT IN THE ENTIRE FILM THAT SHOWS THE DOCTORS DOING OR EVEN SUGGESTING THEM DOING ANY SUCH THING. During the entire role play they speak of Laeddis as a SEPARATE PERSON, never tell him he had kids, never tell him his kids are dead, never tell him he murdered his wife and they certainly never mention a word about ANY of the stuff Andrew says about his wife when he wakes up from the flashback.

So, again WHEN DID THEY BRAINWASH HIM TO BELIEVE ALL THIS? When does this happen in the film? Where is it shown? Just name one single time during the role play where they tell him the story he recalls in the flashback.

You just fiddle about with "well a spinning record could mean" or "well flashing lights could mean" or "maybe they showed him the photos of the children at some other time" or "they could have been sleep programming him" I mean that is all utter nonsense. Not in the film...you THINK things are "suggested" in the film so you can jump to some conclusion.


Forget that the role-play is unethical and makes Teddy crazy - even if he is Andrew and they took him off his meds the role-play is still unethical and they were making him crazier.


It is not unethical in the context of the fiction because they are attempting to prevent him having to be lobotomized. Also the audience is not supposed to know what the "role play" is for 90% of the film. You are judging it as unethical because you are attempting to state that in "real life" it would not be allowed. Right, but this is "reel life" not "real life."


Forget that the final scene shows no evidence that he is tormented by his memories,


You must not have watched the film. He refers to Dr. Sheehan as Chuck to clearly indicate he has returned to his "Teddy" delusion. Being "Teddy" is all about the fact that he is tormented by what happened to him.


Forget the fact that the doctors had to know they were lobotomizing a sane man


He is not sane. He calls Dr. Sheehan "Chuck" indicating he is once again delusional...and therefore a danger to violently pursue his invented investigation.


And forget all the other little details that support Teddy - like the dream that shows that Dolores died in the apartment fire and that she calls him “Teddy" in the dreams.


There is no dream that shows she died in a fire. There is the first dream that introduces the fire and water aspects of his delusions. In the first dream the audience is meant to think he is "Teddy" at that point so of course they are not going to have her call him Andrew in the first dream...that is laughable. Keep in mind, that is not actually his wife...it is his dream...so it is just a conversation taking place in his mind...so it is all him talking. It is meant to tell us about him and it goes hand in hand with the flashback he has at the end.

Re: the details don't support the doctors

Every last point you make STARTS with an assumption that the doctors claims are true. You still don't seem to know that when other people don't start with your assumptions, what you say based on those assumptions won't have any weight. It's annoying. I'm not even sure you know what you are doing.

You can discuss the film only from one point-of-view - I don't think there is anything new to say about that point-of-view - hasn't been since the day the film came out. All you do is believe the doctors and then watch the movie again and confirm what you have already decided to believe. Any information that doesn't fit is ignored - you can't even consider it because you would have to be willing to entertain the possibility that the doctors aren't what they pretend to be, and you aren't open to that. Ambiguous information is ALWAYS understood in a way that confirms the doctors, and you don't even recognize that it is ambiguous. That's the way it is with confirmation bias.

🔴The movie you see has "therapy" that is nonsense and the opposite of what they should be doing. I don't think you knew this when you formed your opinion, and haven't been able to adjust your opinion in light of new information. That's must be why you keep arguing nonsense as reasonable therapy. There is NO CONCEIT introduced in the film for when it is ok to ignore what things really are. There is no rule for having to accept what is opposite and nonsense as true and real for the film. That would even be bad in a dumb genre film.

In a movie where the ideas of truth and lies and reality, fantasy and delusions are central, you can't decide what is real for the movie to make it conveniently fit into your belief. You don't stop there, either. You criticize anyone who doesn't distort reality the way you do - I have no obligation to solve your dissonance. Your opinions lack logic and common sense.

🔴The movie you see ignores critical aspects of the film such as the historical context and the FACT THAT THE ROLE-PLAY IS UNETHICAL - .

I can call the game what it really is - in a movie where the protagonist is charged with being delusional about unethical experiments and where the antagonists are suspected of doing unethical experiments, THE FACT THAT THE MOVIE SHOWS ONLY ONE EXPERIMENT AND IT IS UNETHICAL - is a relevant detail. Any movie that expects the audience to make the rationalization you describe is a bad, bad movie. Suspension of disbelief can only go so far and this is WAY TOO FAR. How can you claim that they wouldn't expect the audience to know relevant history and science, and then claim that they would expect the audience to make this twisted rationalization?

I'm sure they expected that a large percentage of the audience wouldn't recognize what was going on. They counted on it because it had to work for the mainstream audience as a genre thriller. That doesn't mean that the film is stupid, only that a lot of the audience isn't going to know what they have to know to understand what's going on and aren't going to make the effort to think about the details in a way that runs counter to the explication they expect in a genre film. You keep posturing and arguing this genre plot as if it was serious and denigrating serious and realistic interpretations as if your silly genre film was better than an actual realistic interpretation. You are very devoted to your wrongheadedness.

🔴Your movie gives the protagonist an imaginary disease that doesn't account for his symptoms. Mental illness is too central to the story, even the Andrew story, to not be given any consideration.

🔴Your movie is a ordinary genre film where viewers have to accept a lot of unrealistic and illogical details.

The movie I see requires no suspension of disbelief at all. I can account for everything in the movie INCLUDING DETAILS LIKE THE EDITING and the SPINNING RECORD. You mock those who attempt to interpret those details that YOU HAVE NEVER BOTHERED TO CONSIDER! Do you think that good filmmmakers don't have reasons for their choices? That they put in meaningless drivel? To understand those details would require interpretation, not looking for ways to confirm a story that the film doesn't establish as true.

The movie I see is more realistic, smarter, requires no suspension of disbelief is logical and intelligent. It is original. So, why would anyone ignore a really good serious film and replace it with a trite genre movie? I don't even think it works as a genre movie for those who see the logical problems. Why is your bad movie superior to the good movie I see? This sort of thinking seems like Orwellian doublethink to me.

From wikipedia entry on doublespeak:


To know and not to know,
to be conscious of complete truthfulness [that the roleplay is unethical] while telling carefully constructed lies [this thread that attempts to rationalize why something isn't what it really is] ...
to use logic against logic,
to repudiate morality while laying claim to it,
...
to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all,
to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of [self] hypnosis you had just performed....”

“ The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them...
To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them,
to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary.
Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink.
For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality;
by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge;
and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."


And that's what you are doing when you rationalize that it is irrelevant that the "role-play" is UNETHICAL when the entire movie is an unethical experiment, and it's realistic resolution. HOW CAN YOU DO THAT???? What's wrong with you?

P.S. And you don't know what amnesia is. If Teddy/Andrew can't remember something he has amnesia - amnesia that can't be explained by trauma - unless they were traumatizing him when he had his previous "breakthrough". Did they wipe his memory of the previous "breakthrough" when they reset so the "role-play" could coincide with the hurricane? You think that makes sense?




Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.

Re: the details support the doctors

Actually, there is no need to make any assumptions the information comes from DiCaprio's character not the doctors.

The elephant in the room you keep screaming over is still this:


When do they "brainwash" him to believe his "wife had an insect living in her brain", that she could "feel it crawling around", that she made a previous suicide attempt which should have tipped him off she may be a danger to their children? When at any point during the role play do they attempt to convince him he has kids? That he murdered his wife? That she murdered his children? You expect us to believe that Cawley is doing this throughout the role play without ever having any of his role players bring any of this up but BOOM...he snaps his fingers in the lighthouse and suddenly he has DiCaprio's character brainwashed to believe all this stuff they never even say to him a single time?


You claim they "brainwash" him to believe the Andrew story...when? Where is it shown in the film? The role play does nothing to "brainwash" him he is Andrew. Never pushes that at him in any way. So, where is the brainwashing?

Where is it IN THE FILM?

And no, cutting and pasting descriptions of brainwashing that you found on the internet is not answering that question.

How does a role play that only supports him being "Teddy Daniels" brainwash him to believe he is Andrew Laeddis?

How?

This has nothing to do with the doctors or what they say to him in the lighthouse. It has nothing to do with watching the film more than once. It is a simple logic question with regards to the story.

Let's see if you can answer it.

Re: the details support the doctors

You are not getting it.

BRAINWASHING DOESN'T WORK THE WAY YOU ARE SAYING.

I HAVE NOT AVOIDED THIS QUESTION.

YOU MUST THINK YOU HAVE A POINT, BUT YOU DO NOT. YOU MAKE NO SENSE.

Brainwashing doesn't work the way you are saying. They have to first gain his trust and break him down to make him suggestible. OF COURSE THEY WILL CALL HIM TEDDY until he is sufficiently debilitated. The whole point is to make it seem like the target is making his own choice. THEY CAN'T BRAINWASH HIM IF THEY START CALLING HIM ANDREW RIGHT OFF THE BAT BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE FOR AN ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONSHIP and Teddy would resist them.

They aren't supporting him being Teddy Daniels - they are calling him by his name. They can't call him Andrew at first. That is common sense. They have to establish rapport. If they call him Andrew when he believes he is Teddy he will think they are crazy or become suspicious of them and then not take their suggestions. He is tough to break.

Anyway, trust and rapport is the key to erciksonian hypnosis which is what it appears that Chuck is doing:


Erickson maintained that it was not possible consciously to instruct the unconscious mind, and that authoritarian suggestions were likely to be met with resistance.


So they can't just call him "Andrew" before his mind is ready (sufficiently weakened) to accept it. In the meantime, Chuck, mainly, gives him ideas that they later will claim are his delusions and and suggestions that keep the "role-play" moving forward.

I think that truth and lies and fantasy/delusion is mixed up. Not everything that the doctors claim is false and not everything Teddy believes is true.

* The doctors are more likely to be causing his psychotic symptoms than PTSD or dissociation - DID isn't associated with adult trauma - BUT IT IS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPERIMENTS TO MAKE MIND CONTROLLED SPIES AND ASSASSINS. DID is also a mental disorder that is known to be iatrogenic - IT CAN BE INDUCED - purposely or accidentally.

* Teddy's emotional vulnerabilities would be exploited - a "way in" - to manipulate him. So, it makes sense that he have a "guilt complex" and unresolved grief over Dolores death, PTSD from the war, problem drinking and depression. These are not the problems that the doctors say he has - it is the way they get to him.

*I believe that Dolores probably did have a mental illness that Teddy ignored or minimized and that leads to his excessive guilt. I also think that there is a good chance she burned, and Teddy is in denial about that. It's possible that she set the apartment fire, but unlikely because that is such an uncommon way to suicide. Out of everything he said in his confession, the only part that rings true is the part about Dolores and the bugs.

* They brainwash him and give him suggestions throughout the film - first they break him down during the "role-play" and when he is good and psychotic and can't tell what is real and what isn't, that's when they threaten him with a lobotomy and tell him what he has to attest to if he wants to avoid permanent brain damage. That's not therapy. PERIOD. It is coercion and coercion never cured anyone of mental illness. That is EXACTLY the way "brainwashing" communist style works.

Brainwashing doesn't work the way you are saying. They have to first gain his trust and break him down to make him suggestible. OF COURSE THEY WILL CALL HIM TEDDY until he is sufficiently debilitated. The whole point is to make it seem like the target is making his own choice. THEY CAN'T BRAINWASH HIM IF THEY START CALLING HIM ANDREW RIGHT OFF THE BAT BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE FOR AN ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONSHIP. There would be no rapport and Teddy wouldn't accept their suggestions.

They break him down during the role-play. He becomes progressively more unstable. By the time he gets to the lighthouse he is scared, agitated, hallucinating and defenseless. That's when they threaten him and tell him what to believe.


This has nothing to do with the doctors or what they say to him in the lighthouse. It has nothing to do with watching the film more than once. It is a simple logic question with regards to the story.



Yes, it does have to do with what they say to him in the lighthouse. They have to break him first. Then they will assault his identity. THEY AREN"T REINFORCING TEDDY - they are calling him by his name because to do otherwise would set up an antagonistic relationship. For example, Teddy easily took Chuck's suggestion to go to the lighthouse to find Laeddis. He was influenced by Chuck's suggestion that he was targeted - that they were looking into him.

After Teddy talked to Noyce, Teddy didn't trust Chuck so much anymore. He stopped taking Chuck's suggestions - like he wouldn't even take the intake paper. The role-play gave them time to break him down. They gave him unknown drugs, too. It gave them time to put ideas into his head - not all of these times do we see since they are doing something covert.

I'll say it one more time:

Calling him TEDDY is NOT REINFORCING anything, because that is the name he goes by. To do otherwise would prevent rapport and trust. However, it is DISHONEST and a MIXED MESSAGE if he is Andrew, and they are calling him Teddy - because it would lead to more confusion. The role-play is about suggesting to him ideas they will later use in their coercion in the lighthouse. It gives them time to debilitate him which will leave him more vulnerable to the really abhorrent suggestions that he is Andrew and he killed his wife.



Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.

Re: the details support the doctors

Actually, you are the one that appears not to understand a great deal. With regards to "communist style brainwashing" this is not what is shown in the film nor would that "style" work to "brainwash" a man he was somebody else. That however, is entirely beside the point because it is not even in the film.

More to the point is the FACT that during the role play they never mention anything to him about him having children, his wife being mentally ill, his wife murdering his children, him murdering his wife, his wife having an insect in her head crawling around on her brain...none of that is mentioned to him or at any point even suggested to him.

It's not about calling him Andrew from the start, nice attempt to deflect there but that won't work, it is about them doing ANYTHING AT ALL to make him believe any of the Andrew Laeddis story pertains to him.

Of course if he was "Teddy Daniels" and he walks off a boat to meet them for the first time they would not call him by another name. You are only making me laugh with that nonsense.

They also don't do anything to "gain his trust" that never happens. In fact what is in the film is he is suspicious of everybody at the hospital and of the entire place from the jump. The film itself promotes suspicion from the viewer with everything it does because they are attempting to make the viewer feel DiCaprio's paranoia and suspicion.

He even is suspicious of "Chuck" it appears beginning with the gun handover as they enter the hospital grounds.

Third, he does not "grow more psychotic" as the role play goes on. He is unstable right from the get go as he collapses at the beginning of the film in Cawley's office. What throws him off is Cawley mentioning to him that the missing patient murdered her children...not any drugs, not any hypnosis, and certainly not any "brainwashing."

The reason that throws him off, which we don't know at that point in the picture, is his wife killed their children and that was not part of his invented investigation. Cawley adds that to the role play to make him confront his emotions. It throws him again when he confronts the nurse playing Rachel Solando.

He has bizarre dreams, hallucinates, and has conversations in his head with his dead wife throughout the role play. He only adds one new wrinkle to his delusion as he goes along...the woman in the cave...and that is a reaction from his encounter with Noyce...who again reminds him he is Laeddis.

So, he is not in any worse of a state when he finally reaches the lighthouse. The big moment in the picture that Scorsese inserts is when DiCaprio attempts to murder Cawley. In the novel when he picks up his "gun" it is a squirt gun and when he fires it at Cawley he just sprays water at him. In the film Scorsese inserts loud gunshots, blood, and gives us SPECIFICALLY the DiCaprio perspective of this shooting...including lifting the gun in the hand perspective shot from Hitchcock's Spellbound.

Why does he do this? Is it to show that the character is being hypnotized? No. Is it to show us that he has fallen under Cawley's spell? No. Is it to show us that Cawley has "gained his trust" and now can "assault his identity?" Ha, absolutely not. That is so stupid I can't believe somebody would suggest it. He just attempted to murder Cawley so the doctors certainly DO NOT have his trust.

At that moment in the lighthouse he is at his peak of NOT TRUSTING the doctors. Scorsese also knows he has much of the audience at that point not trusting the doctors...that has been the entire point of the exorcise up to that moment.

He uses that moment of firing the gun to BREAK THE SPELL of the film. He blatantly shows you, not tells you through the doctors words, he SHOWS YOU what DiCaprio's character is seeing is not real.

That's why the gunshots in the film are so loud. He is literally attempting to snap the audience out of "Teddy's" spell. It is beautifully done.

There is no hypnosis. No gaining of trust. Cawley does not use any magic words or sleep programming. None of that happens. None of it. They don't "break Teddy down" either. If the guy were a marshal investigating a missing patient none of what takes place in the role play would "break him down."

That is outrageously ridiculous. The role play would not be a "trust building" exorcise for "Teddy" that is asinine. And if the woman in the cave were "real" and a "role player" as you have stated then that little bit of "role playing" would certainly NOT be helpful in "gaining his trust" or "breaking him down" it would only make him more likely to rebel against the doctors and convince him they are evil.


Re: the details don't support the doctors


As to the names Rachel and Laeddis, the writing seems to be pair the names. Like when Lehane refers to them as "twin terrors" (Twin Towers/terrorism?). In the green dream, the names are paired in the idea that "she's here" (Rachel) and "so is he" (Laeddis). I really can't see that the dream is consistent with a daughter "Rachel Laeddis", the other time the names are paired when Teddy wakes up in the cell and says Rachel Laeddis is his daughter. "Rachel" and "Laeddis" are entities that are on the island. The names connect "Andrew" to Teddy's real past - so the name Rachel Laeddis (a name invented by the doctors) connects the girl in the picture to the dead child at the death train and Teddy's real traumatic memory of that dead child.




The whole concept of law of 4 is nonsense. Teddy wants to stay away from his real identity and yet he keeps a note of his Law of 4, I mean for what ? To remind himself that Edward Daniels is a fictional name he made up by using 13 letters out of his real name ? And that Rachel Solando is a fictional one derived from his wife's name ? Once he have formed a firm belief that he is Teddy, why would he even want to keep a 'hint' ? Who on Earth would do that ? As Doctor Cawley claims "Notice anything these four names have in common? It’s YOUR law of four."

Seriously, the Andrewists are the truly brainwashed creatures, deprived of rational thinking. Scorsese succeeded in brainwashing such feeble little minds and his subjects are now taking honour in labelling anything and everything as part of Teddy's insanity.



Retard... Pussy... Sinister_prig

Re: the details don't support the doctors


Teddy wants to stay away from his real identity


Wait, what??

Wouldn't he just pretend he's a bachelor sumo wrestler named Igor then?



yet he keeps a note of his Law of 4, I mean for what ? To remind himself that Edward Daniels is a fictional name he made up by using 13 letters out of his real name ?


Yes, for when he's psychologically ready to deal with the emotional devastation



And that Rachel Solando is a fictional one derived from his wife's name ?


Of course! Now you got it!


Once he have formed a firm belief that he is Teddy, why would he even want to keep a 'hint' ?

Bread crumbs to lead him back to reality when he can deal with it. He doesn't want to forget that his children existed entirely, but right now he's overridden with guilt that he didn't protect them better.


Who on Earth would do that ?

The fictional lead character in Shutter Island.

In the Boston part of Earth.



Re: the details don't support the doctors

The Law of Four is unrealistic and bad fiction. If the doctors came up with the Law of Four, that makes sense - they are doctors, not writers. If it is supposed to be true in the movie, then the film itself is weak. The Law of Four is an eye-roller for sure and wouldn't be written into a serious fiction. If the doctors wrote the Law of Four, the movie is saved!!!

This is one of those things that really doesn't work if you think about it. Teddy never thinks he is Andrew and Andrew shouldn't know about Teddy if he is "insane" because his alter wouldn't be a conscious choice. So, who would have left the note?

There is no reason to leave breadcrumbs back to himself, because if he is ready to come "back to himself", he wont need breadcrumbs, he will just get better. Also, why he would he need to leave a cryptic note to himself? Just say Teddy is Andrew and Rachel is Dolores. No Law of Four required. Note that if Andrew was "cured", the anagrams didn't help him get back to reality. He never connected with the anagrams at all. Cawley thought they were a big deal, but Teddy never did - ever. That alone is enough for me to say that the anagrams are really only connected to the doctors, not to Teddy - he finds the note and looks at if before he goes to sleep. That's it. The doctor loves the law of four and Cawley must think it is very important to make it so cetral to his dramatic set up in the lighthouse and his insistence that Teddy "FOCUS!"

Why is it a "law" - and what does four have to do with it? "Law" makes it seem like there is some specific rule - not just anagrams of two names. A law is a rule, what is the rule of the Law of Four? There is no law to that. It is just anagrams of two names. Laws are for something that recurs, not a discrete anomalous event in the life of a crazy person.

A lot of the audience was brainwashed right along with Teddy - but Teddy was subjected to days of mental torture, threatened and drugged. The audience was eating popcorn and Jujubes and drinking 32 oz Coca Cola. Teddy came to his senses pretty fast, it seems. He must have rested a while, woke up and said, "Wait a minute. They didn't have any proof that I am Andrew Laeddis or that Dolores died at the lake and not in the fire. Why can't I call the mainland and check this story out or get in touch with a lawyer? I know my rights!" Odds and Veritas et al - well its been 6+ years, and they are still brainwashed despite having been exposed to all the facts. I guess brainwashing isn't as powerful as belief perseverance.

http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Belief%20Perseverance


Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.

Re: the details don't support the doctors


There is no reason to leave breadcrumbs back to himself, because if he is ready to come "back to himself", he wont need breadcrumbs, he will just get better.


But the clues he leaves are what cuts through the fog of delusion when they are pointed out to him.


Like someone pointing out "Hey you are lost, but look at those breadcrumbs someone left as a trail guide. Let's see where they lead. Hey, they led right back to your house. You must have left them!" "Hey, you're right, I remember now. I left them before my temporary amnesia. It was me. This is my house the way I remember it. I did leave those crumbs."


If he could just get back home without them, he would. But he obviously needs them, which is why he left them.


Re: the details don't support the doctors


Teddy wants to stay away from his real identity and yet he keeps a note of his Law of 4, I mean for what ?


He does not want to remember what happened to his family but he wants to remember them. It is his way of keeping them with him while attempting to avoid all the pain. This is what made him slip into mental illness. In the novel his sons names are Edward and Daniel. He actually takes his son's names as his name.


And that Rachel Solando is a fictional one derived from his wife's name ?


And Rachel is his daughter's name. Yes, he is carrying his family with him in this way.


Once he have formed a firm belief that he is Teddy, why would he even want to keep a 'hint' ?


Because he loves his family and does not want to forget them. He still loved his wife even though she murdered their children.

So, can you tell me...

When do they "brainwash" him to believe his "wife had an insect living in her brain", that she could "feel it crawling around", that she made a previous suicide attempt which should have tipped him off she may be a danger to their children? When at any point during the role play do they attempt to convince him he has kids? That he murdered his wife? That she murdered his children? That she drowned them in a pond at the place they stayed in the summer?

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**

You are trying to muddy the water and distract from the question of unethical experiments. It looks like you think if you discredit "brainwashing" you are also discrediting the idea of unethical experiments. That's wrong. You can't discredit either because it is what it is.

I'm sure you see yourself as a good person, so it makes sense that you would be disturbed to discover that not only have you made a mistake, you have been defending abuse even if it is fictional. You don't make it better by doubling down and defending ideas that have been shown to be wrong.

You know, all this has been explained repeatedly, and you keep ignoring it. I think your beliefs are so firmly entrenched that you really can't grasp any ideas that conflict with your belief. I think alternative ideas are as invisible to you as Kearn's glass was to Teddy.


Is there brainwashing in Shutter Island?

No, there is not.

How do we know there is not?



I think that you are making this about "brainwashing" to avoid the basic fact that the role-play itself is unethical. Besides, those questions have been answered and it appears you have completely ignored those answers. If anyone answers them again, you will ignore them again.

Is the role play ethical? That is the real question. And we don't need to KNOW what the specific goal of brainwashing is as you claim, but is is always CONTROL. You have been told this before.

Does the role-play violate the Nuremberg Code?

Definitely. That question is the one you need to ask. That is an simple, appropriate question that can be answered objectively. The Nuremberg Code was the international standard for ethical human experiments in 1954.

The most critical point is that there must be informed consent.



Required is the voluntary, well-informed, understanding consent of the human subject in a full legal capacity.


Is there informed consent?


Absolutely not!


What does that mean to you that there is no informed consent?


Does the human subject have full legal capacity?

Not if he is "criminally insane".

THERE IS NO PROXY CONSENT, I'm pre-empting that bogus argument. Nothing like that is remotely suggested in the film. Experiments on children and mentally ill people are especially tricky and much care has to be taken to make sure the subject is protected. We see nothing to suggest that Teddy's interests are protected at all against abuse of power by the government.

Not only is there no consent, the experiment itself requires that the subject can't know what's going on. He has to believe it is true. DOCTORS AREN'T ALLOWED TO PUNK THEIR PATIENTS! That means that there is no more way that the role-play can be done ethically than Nazi freezing experiments where they saw how cold they could get a person before they die. The role-play Cawley confesses to doing on Teddy can't be done ethically. Period.

The role-play is unethical in its very concept. Looks to me like in a film where very little can be known for sure, they went out of their way to make it clear that the role-play was unethical.

The consent question is enough to make it unethical, but if you need more, they are also in violation of the other points, too. These are a few:


It should be based on previous knowledge (like, an expectation derived from animal experiments) that justifies the experiment.



Cawley said that the experiment on Teddy was a last chance to keep from being discredited. That means HE WAS FAILING. So what would he be basing his prediction for success if he has been failing?


The experiment should be set up in a way that avoids unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injuries.


Do you think they did this? What about the guard Nelson who was left alone with an unloaded gun when they knew that the most violent patient was on his way to the lighthouse to rescue his partner? Why should he be put in harm's way for Teddy's benefit without his consent?


Preparations and facilities must be provided that adequately protect the subjects against the experiment’s risks.


Did they do this? What about the cliffs? If Andrew was delusional about a woman in a cave, shouldn't they have expected him to go to the cave? Why wasn't he protected?


The human subjects must be free to immediately quit the experiment at any point when they feel physically or mentally unable to go on.


How can Teddy quit if he thinks its real?
What about when he tells Chuck he risked his life for him? Do you think he would have risked his life if he knew the truth?


Likewise, the medical staff must stop the experiment at any point when they observe that continuation would be dangerous.


How do you justify them continuing once Teddy and Billings tried to kill each other on Ward C? What about letting Teddy go to the mausoleum in a HURRICANE? Why did they continue after his serious headache? That began after the stress of the encounter with Rachel.

Teddy suspects that they are doing unethical experiments. How is it that the fact that the only experiment we see in the film is itself UNETHICAL doesn't matter to you and you don't think it should matter to anyone else?

Can you admit the simple and unambiguous truth that the role-play violates the Nuremberg Code? Because that point alone is enough to support my interpretation that Teddy's suspicions are correct - they ARE doing unethical mind experiments on Shutter Island. Can you admit that even if you chose to see it differently that it is valid that other people identify the role-play as unethical,because it really is unethical?

If Teddy thinks he is Teddy, how can they do the "role-play" calling him "Andrew"? They can't. They first have to gain Teddy's trust and they can't do that if they call him "Andrew" from the get-go. That is COMMON SENSE.

They aren't "reinforcing" Teddy if he is Teddy. They can't call him Andrew until after they destabilize him. That is when the new information will be introduced when his mind is weak. That is what we see in the movie. If he is Andrew, they have no business reinforcing a false identity. That is mental abuse.


Obviously "brainwashing" has never been used to completely alter a person's identity to get them to accept a new one. This is complete fabrication used only for movie plots. You see doing this would be pretty much impossible. So, while it is a fun plot for a film, it can't be accomplished. There are no studies or texts written about altering a person's identity through thought reform and that is because it does not work that way.



Obviously, Veritas? You sure make a lot of ill-informed declarations of "facts" you invented yourself. You don't have a right to your own facts, you know.

This guy says differently:


According to [George] Estabrooks, [hypnoprogrammer for US and Canadian intelligence] creating assassins depended upon “splitting” the subject’s personality, or making a “multiple personality,” through hypnotism. “This has and is being done. I have done it,” he said. “What has been done once can be done again. It is child’s play now to develop a multiple personality through hypnotism.”

By Estabrooks’ estimates, one person in five made a good subject for hypnosis; one in 20 would qualify as “excellent.” http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol36i2/page06.htm



I think he was saying this as far back as the 1940s, so it would have probably been what Cawley believed in 1954. I don't think he means change someone permanently to a different identity, but to create and alter identity that can be controlled.

Pretty much every description of brainwashing/thought reform/coercive persuasion/etc. says it is an assault on identity - just like they do to Teddy in the lighthouse after he is destabilized.

These are Liftons steps of brainwashing:




1)Assault on identity
2)Guilt
3)Self-betrayal
4)Breaking point
5)Leniency
6)Compulsion to confess
7)Channeling of guilt
8)Releasing of guilt
9)Progress and harmony
10)Final confession and rebirth

Each of thes­e stages takes place in an environment of isolation, meaning all "normal" social reference points are unavailable, and mind-clouding techniques like sleep deprivation and malnutrition are typically part of the process. There is often the presence or constant threat of physical harm, which adds to the target's difficulty in thinking critically and independently.http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brainwashing1.htm



You don't think it is interesting that the "therapy" to get Andrew to accept reality is just like Lifton's steps for "brainwashing"/thought reform?

That is what they do in the movie. The first part consists of "mind-clouding techniques" to break down the individual's will and make him more suggestible. They will NEVER make the suggestion that he is Andrew until AFTER they have broken him.

I'll say it one more time - IF HE IS TEDDY THEY AREN'T REINFORCING ANYTHING. They are just calling him by his name while they gain his trust and debilitate him. I know who I am. Calling me by my name is what I expect. If someone suddenly out of nowhere starts calling me something else, or telling me I am someone else, I'll think they are nuts. They will not be able to effectively influence me because I wouldn't trust them, and I'd also think there was something wrong with them.

You are right that brainwashing isn't as powerful as some would lead us to believe, but that is irrelevant to the movie because they didn't necessarily think that in 1954. I suspect that Cawley's theory had something to do with being able to make a permanent change in identity. Turns out he was WRONG, so it is realistic that he was discredited. Teddy himself says that you can't erase all of a man's memories, and he was right. That doesn't mean that Cawley wasn't trying to do that very thing.


...many experts believe that even under ideal brainwashing conditions, the effects of the process are most often short-term -- the brainwashing victim's old identity is not in fact eradicated by the process, but instead is in hiding, and once the "new identity" stops being reinforced the person's old attitudes and beliefs will start to return.


If he was brainwashed, HE WOULD "RELAPSE", or go back to his original identity and beliefs. They can't always be around to control him so to have practical value the new beliefs have to be permanent and predictable or they would have no use in the field. If Cawley's patients can stay brainwashed only while they are under his control on the island, then that's a problem - just a bunch of institutionalized, useless dependents. A person typically reverts to their original beliefs after the direct coercion or when they are removed from the controlled environment. Some fake it while the are isolated and imprisoned to get rewards and avoid punishment. Possibly a person like Kearns is cooperating for her own reasons, but she knows what's really going on well-enough to warn Teddy. That's how I read her, anyway.

If Teddy was brainwashed and coerced into confessing, it is realistic that he had reverted to his previous beliefs in the final scene. That is what we would expect.

You know, another notable thing is that you pull the "reality" card when it suits you. When asked to justify your own unrealistic opinions, you are quick to say "its fiction", but then you argue against other opinions as if reality matters - not that you actually know the facts, but you act as if the truth and reality matter. Don't you think that it needs to be realistic or have some identifiable conceit so the unrealistic stuff can at least have internal logic? Shouldn't you be consistent in the way you apply "reality" to the movie?



Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**


You are trying to muddy the water and distract from the question of unethical experiments.


No, actually I am doing the complete opposite of that and looking at the idea that there could be a "brainwashing experiment" taking place in this piece of fiction. Were that happening in the film then I suppose you could question the ethics of the doctors performing it.


It looks like you think if you discredit "brainwashing" you are also discrediting the idea of unethical experiments.


I am not attempting to "discredit" brainwashing and I have not addressed the "ethics" of these fictional characters yet. I am however addressing the plausibility of "brainwashing" being a goal of the doctors in the film. The question of the "ethics" of fictional characters in a thriller is not a place to start when analyzing the fiction. This would be a secondary item after examining the actual action and content of the fiction. You don't "discredit" the ethics or moral dilemmas of the characters when evaluating fiction because the author of the fiction will present these things as resulting from the action or content.


I'm sure you see yourself as a good person, so it makes sense that you would be disturbed to discover that not only have you made a mistake, you have been defending abuse even if it is fictional.


Ha, not at all. The entire idea of fiction is that you can defend or enjoy anything in it and doing so you are not condoning anything in real life. This is as absurd a statement as I have seen here and shows a complete lack of logic. Just have a look at pretty much any film by Quentin Tarantino and they are all about "enjoying things" that are ethically and morally reprehensible and taking the side of the characters that do these things. We can freely laugh at, mock, find entertaining anything in fiction...and doing so a person is not condoning this behavior in real life. You would be insane if that was how you reacted to fiction.

So, no people are not going to say "Oh, I am a bad person because of how I responded to a fictional story." I would say you are a little odd just for thinking that. Maybe that's how you react to fiction but I will say that's not good if that's how you feel.

Then of course it is important to point out the other obvious thing about that statement...a viewer or reader's reaction to a fictional story is something that is entirely separate from the story itself and has no place in evaluating the actual content of the fiction.

So, quite frankly, once again you are not making any sense.


I think that you are making this about "brainwashing" to avoid the basic fact that the role-play itself is unethical.


No, those are separate questions. If "brainwashing" was taking place then we could then ask if that was ethical or unethical. One issue with that question is we do not see if DiCaprio's character has consented to the "brainwashing" and this is important because if there is "brainwashing" in the film...he begins the film already brainwashed. If he was some sort of "special agent" for the government or was meant to be used as such and had been selected for this program specifically for his past trauma and the idea he would like to be somebody else...then it is possible what they are doing they are doing with his consent...and is therefore ethical. This is a film that intelligently hides ethical or moral motivations of the characters on the first viewing. Hence it is not putting the "ethics" of the characters at the center of the story.

The film does not boil down to a simple question of ethics or morals and if it did it would be a pretty lousy film. It is a far more complex work. So, there is nothing to avoid.


Is the role play ethical? That is the real question.


If the film were about a "brainwashing experiment to alter his identity" I would say the ethics of the "experiment" are never revealed. It would remain ambiguous because nothing about how DiCaprio's character came to take part in the experiment is revealed and the doctors never comment on what they are doing if they are "brainwashing" him. If the film is about helping DiCaprio's character so that he can avoid a lobotomy and perhaps prevent further lobotomies from taking place at the hospital and maybe even in other hospitals as well...then yes, it is revealed in the film the role play is ethical or as Lehane, Kalogridis, and Scorsese refer to it "heroic."

So, in reality the question of if the role play is "ethical" no matter which way you see it "brainwashing" or "prevention of lobotomy" is actually not very important at all...which is a sign of a more complex story.

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**


No, actually I am doing the complete opposite of that and looking at the idea that there could be a "brainwashing experiment" taking place in this piece of fiction. Were that happening in the film then I suppose you could question the ethics of the doctors performing it.


Why do you not mention the possibility of unethical experiments anywhere in this here pseudo-intellectual treatise, if I may use an oxymoron? Why haven't you got to the subject of ethics, "yet".

You are wrong about brainwashing as has been explained to you repeatedly, and you keep repeating the same debunked ideas again and again. But even if you were right about "brainwashing" you still can't honestly claim that the role-play is ethical or realistic as therapy.I'm saying even if you supported your point about brainwashing, which you don't, it changes nothing about how the role-play would really affect Teddy and the fact that it is unethical.

For your theory, you have to accept that what is really nonsense that would harm a person is therapy - which I'll concede could be the case in bad fiction, but it's totally unnecessary to misidentify the experiment when it can be understood realistically in a way fits into a much better movie interpretation than the one you are stuck to. It might help if you took some time to understand this. The movie doesn't have to be the Andrew story. There are better ways to understand the movie than the Andrew story.

If you interpret the role-play as what it really is, the movie is way better and makes far more sense without having to suspend disbelief at all to think that some "nonsense" that is the "OPPOSITE" of what should be done is some sort of cutting edge treatment that could get a person in touch with reality. That is silly.

Why would anyone misinterpret something to support a silly unrealistic movie when it isn't necessary? Why would anyone ignore a realistic interpretation in favor of something trite and inauthentic? Your attitude has always been that your unrealistic understanding is superior to the realistic interpretations - that you don't even try to understand, by the way.

Those with the realistic, authentic interpretations will not be convinced to dumb down so you can be validated. And, Veritas, that is exactly what you argue when you argue against the fact that the role-play is UNETHICAL and DESTABILIZING or try to claim that these facts are minor and don't matter. I doubt you could put yourself in my place and feel what it is like to have people tell you that you can't understand the movie unless you ignore or misinterpret the facts and major aspects of the movie itself to be able to understand it correctly. Can you imagine how strange that comes across? I don't think that you get that I understand the movie just fine without having to dumb down to do so.

I know you don't think it is trite and inauthentic because you thought the role-play really would do what the doctors claimed it would do - so you didn't have any disbelief to suspend when you settled onto your opinion. Those of us who knew what the role-play really was, saw a different movie than the one you saw. Those who understood what they were seeing can't deny what they know. Only in your world is less information superior to more information and solid facts.


I am not attempting to "discredit" brainwashing and I have not addressed the "ethics" of these fictional characters yet. I am however addressing the plausibility of "brainwashing" being a goal of the doctors in the film.



Your arguments defy the facts. What is important is the question of ethical experiments. You have no authority to insist that because you ignore the most important parts of the movie everyone else should too. You can call the experiment whatever you want, but it can't make it ethical or keep it from being harmful. You also CAN'T MAKE THE QUESTION OF ETHICS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE YOU SAY SO.

Why are you focusing on brainwashing instead of facing the ETHICS of the experiment, "YET?" Obviously, you think you have a good argument against brainwashing - its not right, but since facts don't matter much to you, I don't expect anything else. You have confidence. You will stick with this because it works for you.

You think you've proved that the role-play isn't brainwashing. You are wrong, but I'm taking about what you think, not the truth. I believe you are going to claim that you have proved it isn't brainwashing and then make a false equivalency between brainwashing and unethical experiments. That's what I think your game is. That's why you are spending so much time with your illogical "debunking" of the role-play being brainwashing.

You can't refute that the role-play is unethical, so you change the goal post to brainwashing. That's why you have been avoiding the ethics question with these irrelevant demands for details like the goals of brainwashing as if it makes a difference. I don't care if you think it is "brainwashing" or not. Call it whatever you want, it's still unethical.


My main point has always been the ethics. Ethics are important. The fact that the game is unethical changes the meaning of the movie in a fundamental way. Do you understand? I'm pretty positive that you don't.

Everything in the film that you now presume supports your opinion means something else entirely if you are honest about the role-play being unethical and destabilizing. Every detail you think supports your opinion means something else once we actually see that the doctors are liars and the role-play is unethical.

This is what I see you doing. I notice that you are trying to make use of reality in your arguments against brainwashing. I also notice some condescending nods to the idea that fiction doesn't have to be realistic - but your argument against brainwashing in the movie is based on data that you are presenting as facts. You base your opinion on supposed facts, and casually mention that people may not have to respect reality in when it comes to fiction. So, while those who think they see brainwashing in the movie might be accepting fictional interpretation as is their right, your opinion that there is no brainwashing is superior because it is realistic.

Then...

You make up some BS rules about how fiction should be analyzed and pull some idea out of your butt that character ethics shouldn't be assessed first in genre thrillers. You made that up. You don't even know that the movie isn't a genre thriller in most other interpretations, and besides it doesn't matter what order we evaluate the facts, they should all come out at the same place. This is you devaluing the role of ethics in fiction. You are wrong again, but that's another brick in your wall.

Then...

I think that you will try to create a false equivalency between brainwashing and unethical experiments. Then you will try to movie from a specific - brainwashing that you think you have disproved - to the general - that disproving brainwashing means that you have also disproved unethical experiments. It doesn't really, but you have at least established that the issue is minor rather than central and critical.

So...

You have shrunk the tumor of the ethics question and now you can do surgery.

In your mind you have established that the the question of ethics is minor. The question of ethics is so minor (in your mind) that by using using your own private set of rules about how fiction should be interpreted you can just ignore the fact that the role-play is unethical altogether - and you will insult those who do not agree. Basically, you would be playing the "it's fiction" card in a more sophisticated way, and concluding that we aren't supposed to see the obviously unethical experiment as unethical in THIS movie.

I think you have made similar arguments in the past. I believe that that is where you hope your latest made up facts will take you. No making up your own rules and demanding that everyone else follow them. No making up your own facts, either.


Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.

Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**


Why haven't you got to the subject of ethics, "yet".


Gleamy, if you read my reply to you, you would see I do get to the "ethics" question you are so stuck on. Go back and read what I said and you'll find several comments about the "ethics" question you have been blinded by.

I don't see the film as a simple ethics question the way you do. To me there is much more to it and the film certainly does not make the doctors ethics the big question in the picture.


My main point has always been the ethics.


Trust me, everybody reading your posts knows that.


I believe you are going to claim that you have proved it isn't brainwashing and then make a false equivalency between brainwashing and unethical experiments.


Not where I am going. The story is not set up to be about ethics or to examine the ethics of the doctors. I know you won't like that I said that but I am not dismissing your "ethical view" of it...that's still yours and you are welcome to sail off into the sunset with it. It does pose some interesting and difficult ethical questions about Andrew killing his wife and ties them to how in times of war we do things that may not be seen as "good" but we do them or make men do them and justify the acts because we are at war. I think that question of doing something "bad" for a greater "good" is in there and is interesting.

To say that the doctors motives are examined by the film though I would say is a mistake. The doctors motives are kept blurred for the majority of the picture and so, no, I don't think the film wants us to ask ourselves if we feel they are "violating the Nuremberg Code" and to judge the entire film by that single question. That's a bit simplistic and not what the story is after.


I notice that you are trying to make use of reality in your arguments against brainwashing.


I believe it is you that has stated that we see "realistic brainwashing" in the film...not me. Also I have mainly been discussing the film in terms of "what if" brainwashing were taking place. My point is that even if the film were about "brainwashing" it does not have to show realistic "brainwashing" for it to be about that. Just like it does not have to show "realistic" therapy for it to be about doctors trying to help a patient. It's fiction so it is not required to do this. The truth is the film does not show "realistic brainwashing" or "realistic therapy" which is part of why we are having this discussion.

In fiction what needs to be provided is PLAUSIBILITY WITHIN THE FICTIONAL UNIVERSE OF THE STORY. So, the question would not be is the film showing "realistic brainwashing" or "realistic therapy" it would be which does the fiction support as being more plausible within the world it creates.


Re: The Lighthouse - Brainwashing and Shutter Island **SPOILERS**

Top