Shutter Island: Humanistic Denial and Truth
The battle between reality and fantasy portrayed on the big screen.
Recently, I re-watched Martin Scorsese’s mystery/thriller Shutter Island. The movie certainly impresses on the account of a twist ending, but also of deep thought into the identity of one man. Shutter Island’s ending finishes one story and seemingly starts a new one, giving a new perspective to re-watch the film. The protagonist creates an atmosphere of mystery and suspicion only for his perspective to be subverted. Further, his struggle that he faces within the film hits much closer to home than what is originally experienced through a casual watching of the film. Andrew Laeddis reveals an essential characteristic of human nature when encountering the truth; he shows the attitude of humans when they encounter the truth: conditional denial.
Conditional denial needs explanation and defining before going any further explaining the film. I want to use this to my advantage to help explain the human condition. The two words apply both to people in general. People throughout all time have denied the truth at some point. I believe it fair to say people will deny a truth claim told about themselves or the world around them, whether in knowledge or ignorance. Denial would be holding a belief in spite of truth claims. An example would be along the lines of the “Mandela Effect.” Nelson Mandela was believed to have died in the 1980s, yet he actually died in 2013. Many who believed he died in the ’80s responded with a denial of his reappearance in later years. Individually, conditional denial reveals itself ingrained within the human person when their stake of moral purity becomes endangered.
The conditional describes how a person goes about acting within their denial of said truths. Whatever physical or mental methods they use to ignore or deny the truth, they attempt to further bolster their own beliefs in their arrogance through methods. For the classic “Flat Earther,” they will use websites, communities, and false information to back their own beliefs. Their condition lies within the action through their communities and arguments.
All this to say, conditional denial is when someone denies truth through certain methods, thoughts, or actions. These being known as their personal conditionals. This could also be on par with unwarranted skepticism, but that should be for another topic. Now, onto the film.
Conditional denial reveals the line between fiction and reality.
Andrew Laeddis, The Man The Myth The Legend
Andrew Laeddis aka “Teddy” Edward Daniels, (Leonardo Decaprio) begins his journey of encountering the truth the moment the film begins and doesn’t end until his decision on responding to the truth by the end of the film. Andrew Laeddis, “Teddy” Daniels’ real name, is called onto a fake case to investigate the missing patient, Rachel Salondo (an anagram for Andrew’s deceased wife at Ashcliffe Penitentiary). He is accompanied by his new partner, Andrew’s Doctor, Chuck Aule (Dr. Sheehan played by Mark Ruffalo). They come to the penitentiary on behalf of Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley). Dr. Cawley and Dr. Sheehan are role-playing, creating a fictional world throughout the island just for Andrew. All of it in order to help Andrew avoid being lobotomized and to finally cure him of his mental illness.
Andrew’s mental illness stems from the rejection of his ex-wife’s, Dolores Chanal (Michelle Williams), murders of his three children. Andrew responded by murdering her. The event was all too traumatizing for Andrew to handle, so he created a fake identity of Teddy Daniels to take his place. Andrew uses Teddy Daniels to constantly blame himself. Teddy also blames others, revealing his rejection of guilt in trade for his own innocence.
His blaming can be seen when he calls the patients prisoners because they have done horrible things and are criminally insane. His blaming of Andrew Laeddis for starting the fire that killed his wife reveals how Andrew sees himself: an ugly, disfigured, and a violent man. Andrew doesn’t want to be associated with that sort of guiltiness; he’s a man who wants to be innocent. Andrew’s ignorance stems from his rejection of what happened two years ago to his family. His conditional may be a special case, but it provides a clear example of how most people deny the reality of their moral impurity.
He created a new perspective, a life shaped like a movie with him as the innocent protagonist.
Andrew’s rejection of himself shows that he wants nothing to do with the truth. Throughout the movie, Andrew sees presentations of who he really is and what he has done. Though, he chooses to dissociate himself from it. That’s why he sees his wife Dolores and his daughter Rachel; he knows who they are and what he’s done. He just doesn’t want to face that reality. Dr. Sheehan explains Andrew’s condition the best: “We’re telling you the truth. Dolores was insane: manic depressive, suicidal. You drank, stayed away, ignored what everyone told you. You moved to that lake house after she purposely set that city apartment on fire.” Andrew’s response is an outright denial: “you lie!” Andrew wants to reject the truth Dr. Sheehan presents in trade for innocence.
The goal of both Dr. Cawley and Dr. Sheehan is to prevent Andrew from going through lobotomization. Dr. Cawley states his and the institution's purpose clearly, “We treat them: try to heal, try to cure. And if that fails, at least we provide them with a measure of comfort in their lives, calm.” Both doctors want to see Andrew cured of his delusions, the result of his conditional denial. The method they use helps Andrew to face the truth. Andrew has other plans when it comes to the truth, but soon encounters the big question: to pursue the fiction of innocence, or face the truth and its consequences.
Andrew’s character development truly flowers when he encounters his wife in his dreams and through his delusions. Through these moments, two choices are presented before Andrew. One decision is provided by his delusions and paranoia. The hallucinations of Dolores exemplify his decision: “Get out of here Teddy, this place is going to be the end of you,” and more evidential “You need to find him, Teddy. You need to find him and you kill him dead.” The death of “Andrew Laeddis” symbolizes the denial of any semblance of reality and truth. It symbolizes the death of truth.
The other decision is provided through the imagery of his dreams and the guidance of his doctors consistently telling him the truth. His dreams are all fragments of his former life mixed together. Dolores has embers coming from her back because she was the one who tried to kill herself in the apartment fire, stating, “let me go…” Andrew blames himself through his daughter’s words of not being able to save her. This is evident when he is the one who places his daughter underwater while Rachel Salondo, representative of Dolores, stands next to him. He has to make the decision, believe in the hero who did nothing wrong, or admit the monster no better than the Nazi’s of Dachau.
Truth and fiction fight within Andrew.
Andrew’s guilt and self-blame lie in his witness of the brutal treatment of the people at Dachau. Andrew sees Rachel Salondo (Dolores) and his daughter in the pile of dead bodies in a dream sequence because he blames himself for letting them end up the same way as those in the death camp. There was nothing he could do for the people at Dachau, so him and his fellow troops killed the Nazis by lining them along the fence. There was something he could do for his children, but he did nothing. He sees himself no better than the Nazis who could have never done such a horrific act.
Andrew’s Decision: Confession
Andrew expresses his decision between the two but does not fully commit until the very end of the film. This expression comes from blowing up Dr. Cawley’s car. He conversates with his dead wife, who asks him to not go because it will be the end of him, that is, the end of Teddy Daniels, and the end of the fiction. Andrew’s response is one of a man in search of the truth, and it comes through the symbolic expression of his tie given by Dolores: “I'm sorry, honey. I love this thing because you gave it to me, but the truth is it is one fucking ugly tie.”
In this moment Andrew expresses, for the first time throughout the film, his own determination to find and embrace the truth.
From here on, Andrew remembers and finally embraces the truth. He meets Dr. Cawley and Dr. Sheehan who explain everything in the lighthouse. The scene of what really happens plays for the audience as Andrew remembers what happened and remembers his real identity. Andrew’s witness to his wife’s mental illness and the death of his children become a breaking point for Andrew. The final snap occurs when he shoots his wife. The blood on his hands symbolizing Andrew’s personal guilt of both his wife and children’s death. That was the moment he began to blame himself. The lighthouse is the moment he embraces the truth; a moment too strong for him to stay conscious.
Andrew confesses to both Dr. Cawley and Dr. Sheehan his guilt. He states that he blames himself for his children’s deaths because he never got his wife the help she needed. He also confesses the truth: “My name’s Andrew Laeddis, and I murdered my wife in the spring of ‘52.” Andrew’s situation was both traumatic and true. Ultimately, he attempted to escape truth by conditional denial.
Andrew’s lobotomization is not the doctors’ failure, but rather Andrew’s opportunity and choice of “calm.” Andrew is a very smart and dangerous man. After admitting the truth, he understands that. He plays a facade of Teddy Daniels one last time to Dr. Sheehan in order to lobotomize himself. His reasoning is summed up under his last line, “You know, this place makes me wonder… Which would be worse, to live as a monster or to die as a good man?” Andrew could choose to live with the truth, but he understands that at any point he could regress back to Teddy Daniels and hurt somebody. His choice of lobotomy means that he can live the rest of his life with that “measure of comfort: calm.” He will die never being able to hurt anyone again.
Encountering the Truth and Our Responses to it
Identically to Andrew, many of us become guilty of broken morality at some point in our lives. Whether we are guilty of the lies we tell, the relationships we have ruined, or the people we hurt, we attempt to escape the many hardships and mistakes we make. We often recognize the mistakes we make and immediately place ourselves in an innocent position. We willfully deny and become ignorant of our personal decisions and attempt to justify them. Our methods, tools, or stories we make up in our heads are ways we attempt to keep our innocence: our conditionals.
Andrew exemplifies humanity's broken nature of demanding innocence where none presents itself. A man wants to be free from the blood on his hands; a man who wants to be known as the hero and not the villain. However, Andrew faces reality. He recognizes his denial and the condition he uses to proclaim himself innocent, though, it was neither easy nor comfortable. Andrew finds that after accepting the truth, lobotomy is the only way.
It’s important for us to recognize our own denial and conditionals and face the truth. And what we do after accepting the truth matters, too. We must find a way to peace, a way of reconciling our guilts. Thinking of these things reminds me of the psalmist from so long ago and how they responded to their guilt: “When I kept silent, my bones became brittle from my groaning all day long… Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not conceal my iniquity” (Psalm 32:3,5). For those who admitted their wrongdoing and brokenness (sins), their guilt was steeped in trust, trust that the one who hears their confession is faithful to deliver them from guilt and make them pure. Today, this still rings true for the human condition: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).
We can’t endure our conditional denial forever. Someday, we must face the truth of our own guilt and respond to it accordingly. The question then presents itself: how will you respond?
Thanks to Jacob Keefover and Tyler Smothers
