"Take Shelter" (Nichols, Shannon, Chastain, Whigham, Baker, Hamilton & Mixon) Movie Trailer:

http://recordinglivefromsomewhere.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/take-shelter-nichols-shannon-chastain-whigham-baker-hamilton-mixon-movie-trailer/

“Plagued by a series of apocalyptic visions, a young husband and father questions whether to shelter his family from a coming storm, or from himself.”

Running with the natural chemistry they displayed in 2007′s Shotgun Stories, which garnered some serious praise from the legendary Roger Ebert, helmer Jeff Nichols and all-around bad-ass Michael Shannon partner up once more, for what looks to be one hell of a movie. Winner of the 2011 Cannes Film Festival’s Critics’ Week Grand Prix.

On a side note, look out for Jessica Chastain, Shannon’s co-star here, who figures to blow the eff up in the next few months (at least critically), with leading roles in this bad boy right here, Terrence Malick’s The Tree Of Life, and Holocaust revenge thriller, The Debt.

Thoughts?

Can't wait.

Some guy says, "So, what? The point was that he predicted that storm at the end?"

Fucking awesome. Thanks for that.

Still, the acting was top notch and it was an interesting story. Just wished I didn't know the storm was coming.

The great thing about the dream sequences is that even if you KNOW they are
dream sequences you can't help but feel the dread.

It does a great job of showing how precarious even a middle class life can be
if you make one or two financial missteps. Recall that he DOES have pretty good
insurance but would not have gotten his daughter's cochlear implant covered if
they didn't luck out and find someone who knew which number to call to get it
approved.

I honestly would have liked this movie no matter how it ended (or even if
someone had spoiled the ending before I watched the film). The fear that anyone
in the world can betray you, even those you most care for, is put on the screen
very convincingly. When Samantha (Jessica Chastain) says "This is what it means
to stay with us" in that final shelter scene you understand it intellectually
but can't help but side with Curtis (Michael Shannon) and feel "but what if it's
not over."

One of my favorite lines of the movie (which got some knowing laughter from the
entire theatre):

"That IS the co-pay."

Awesome on an allegorical level, awesome on a character study level... just awesome.

Don't need to say more here. Just go see it.

Awesome movie with some astounding performances by Shannon and Chastain. Yes nothing much "happens" for a while but IMO it creates an ever stronger sense of dread. If there was any justice this would be this year's Winter's Bone Oscars-wise, but I have a feeling that's not gonna happen

I got so tired of telling folks to go find this movie.
With award seasons looking as weak as it does, there's a chance this could do pretty good.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

I need to spend a little more time marinating on the ending though. I've seen the ending criticized a little by some (Ty Burr, for one), but I think it works. I just haven't had the time to really sit down and think about all the different interpretations...

Great movie though. Shannon deserves to be recognized for what he did here. I was a little miffed at the fact that his "THERE'S A STORM COMING!!!!" moment at the Lyons dinner was met by an outburst of laughter by the audiences I saw this with, though.

I should say off the bat that I fucked up and should've named this the best movie of the year. I can't say enough good about this movie. Drive might be my favorite of the year... but this was the best.

So I see what people are saying about the paranoia and the isolation playing a large role in the visions. Obviously there is the dog first, then strangers, then Shea Whigham, then Jessica Chastain. They aren't *all* everyone-vs.-me, but pretty close. So I can see how those of you that reached the conclusion you did got there.

However.

I'm not convinced that it's *that* up for debate. The final "vision" (if you believe it is one, which I don't) is framed and executed very differently in a number of ways than the others.

- it is the only vision in which the others see the storm before Curtis does (we see Samantha walk out onto the porch, and the daughter is the one who draws Curtis' attention to the storm).
- additionally, it is the only vision in which someone other than Curtis and his daughter acknowledge the storm. I know that some of you think this is the point, that Curtis needs to know his wife is on his side...
- ... but she's pretty clearly on his side from well before then, and he knows it. She comes back after he totally fucks up his daughter's surgery by getting fired, she's firm but stays with him, and after he goes totally monkey shit at the Lions Club dinner, she takes his hand and rubs his back as they leave which, forgive me if I'm wrong ladies, most women would struggle to do in front of the entire town that their husband just told would all die soon.
- the perspective subtly switches toward the end. We stop hearing and seeing the storm along with Curtis-- we're now with the wife and daughter in hearing and feeling and sensing nothing while Curtis is freaking out. This is then reinforced by the ending, in which the daughter and the wife see the storm before Curtis does.
- the final moments aren't focused on Curtis from a visual perspective at all. They're focused almost entirely on Sam. We see her walk out, we see a quick shot of Curtis pick up the daughter to run inside, but then we spend more time with Sam-- we see her reacting to the storms, we see her see the oily rain on her hand, and the final shot has Sam front and center, not Curtis. He says, "Sam?" She says, "Okay." Then follows him. So visually, it doesn't make sense that the ending is about a big transformation in Curtis, otherwise the camera would have spent way more time on him rather than his family members.

So if you think it's a vision and it's about Curtis coming around to realizing his family is on his side through the fire... I just want to hear more about why you felt strongly that the ending was a vision. Nichols does do a clever thing or two I suppose to present the possibility of ambiguity to those who want to debate it (in particular, the shot of the oily water on Sam's hand is relatively fast compared to the shot length when Curtis is noticing it, to give it a "was that oily or wasn't it?" vibe if casually looking)... but I'd like to hear more from those who gave it a different read.

I'm not saying it's impossible to read in other ways, since that'd be dumb-- I just enjoyed watching it looking for this other perspective the last time around (in particular, seeing all of the paranoia stack up in his visions) but still couldn't put together why Nichols would've shot the ending like he did if the final storm was truly a vision.

Okay. Enough rambling.

I fucking love this movie, by the way.

that last storm is NOT a vision. how is a vision being reflected on the god damn glass of the sliding door? to be more accurate about its vision-ness!?!! no

all the symbolism points to the reality of the unavoidable storm/doom being away from his home:
-the black birds in an odd formation: symbolic of travel/migration
-the strangers who grab them in his nightmare from the car: symbolic of again, being away... people (or place) he cannot see or know harming him and his daughter
-his wife wet in the kitchen near the knife: symbolic of her finally being "drenched" in his trauma and experience. the knife is not the harm she is going to inflict on him, but the harm they may both face

that last scene is not about his wife finally being with him, she was already "with him". take for instance the the scene at the community dinner. most wives would lose their shit, but her expression showed she was beginning to realize he was going through something very profound, and she needed to be by his side. By the time they take shelter she agrees to the gas masks and tries her best to comfort him and their daughter. when she asks him to open the shelter, it's also about him trusting her and the daughter, so that they are all in it together.

by the time they make the trip they are one unit, but the dread he was sensing--that was always about harm beyond his self preservation, comes. like you said earlier the over-arching theme is that some shit is just unavoidable. i also think the film is an indictment of how and what we classify as a person being mentally ill/disturbed, but that's another conversation

but even if that was Nichols' design, it doesn't work for me as well as the mental illness angle. Curtis never being sick, a true apocalyptic storm coming, the lesson(?) that we can't stop what's coming to us...that's not the story I got attached to. parts of it are great as a double allegory, but I choose to see the ending as it pertains to how I enjoyed the film.

it's just a storm that's going to change their lives, possibly kill them. and it still doesn't make null & void that this IS ALSO a film about mental illness: how it's dealt with on an intrapersonal level and how society classifies/stigmatizes those that are considered to be mentally ill.

from what i've read heard and also believe from watching, is that the allegoric / metaphoric aspect is that the storm (the visions and the real one) in the film is symbolic of the pending economic crisis and changing of the tide (socio-cultural) within America in itself. It's the reason why so much detail was given to what was being financed by his work as manual laborer: his daughter's hearing, the cars, the loan for the shelter.

but you take what you want from it. it's a centuries old argument about the artist's intent and what we the viewers perceive and construct from their productions

so Curtis had visions of a storm coming (call it apocalyptic or deadly, but the raining oil clearly indicates the supernatural) and it came. if that's true, it glosses over his supposed battle with schizophrenia -- he apparently wasn't having delusions, just premonitions of a real event.

as I see it, Curtis becoming mentally ill is as real and dangerous as any real storm that would threaten his family. here's a family man, living an honest life, stricken by an onslaught of harrowing dreams. he realizes he has a hereditary link to mental illness, and suddenly he's not sure how much longer he might remain sane. all of this drives him into a panic, and the very thing he fears -- losing his family -- is coming to fruition by his own hand, for reasons he cannot explain. a figurative storm is coming, nothing he can do will stop it, and everything he holds dear is at risk (the economic collapse ties into this as well).

*that* is more interesting than having visions of a supernatural catastrophe which actually come true. if the movie's theme is that "we cannot stop impending destruction / shit is unavoidable", what's more unavoidable a mental illness? one that might cause you to lose your family?

I like Take Shelter, A LOT, but Nichols either compromised the movie with the ending, or inadvertently made a masterful film while aiming for a tepid one.

that's the angle YOU want, AND THAT'S FINE.

the tension of the angle you describe is exactly what i felt knowing its a damn real storm at the end... aint nuthin tepid about when the shit hits the fan you're going to have to drastically change your life

and oil in the rain is not a marker of the supernatural. it's exactly what's happening to areas affected by the BP oil spill. we deal with the reality of chemicals in our air every day, it's called pollution.

and that doesn't undermine the mental illness angle either. mental illness is a industrial era medical classification. it does not mean it is the correct assessment of what if happening in people's minds because we find it to be deviating from the norm. Shannon's character can be the "crazy" bum yelling on the corner of sunset and cahuenga about the return of jesus, or the indigenous Shamans who predicted the end of their world before the Europeans arrived.

and this is why the film is great, it works on so many different levels, allowing us to discuss our various interpretations

I googled to see if he had any published thoughts and found this:

"(The ending) is specifically designed to be ambiguous. What's funny and interesting to me — and not to sound too cocky about it, but I really do think it worked — is everybody talks about the specifics of what's happening in that scene. And to me, the specifics don't matter that much. And I'll explain.

"What is happening, what is going to happen, all that is just fun to talk about. But what's important to me is that these two people are on the same page and are seeing the same thing. There's several interpretations of where they're at. And that's great. But as long as they're seeing the same thing I think there is a resolution and the possibility of hope in the film."

Like I said, I felt that little things he did and certainly the way he structured the film left me feeling like he wanted folks talking about it. It's interesting to hear that he doesn't find the specifics matter-- he clearly knew that the rest was working so well that he wanted to give the apocalyptic ending viewers enough to work with to build their argument, since the mental illness vision ending viewers were going to see it their way regardless due to the emotional build they felt.

I disagree with some of astralblak's points above, specifically the point about it being just a really bad storm-- I think the reads are it's either a vision or apocalyptic storm, I'm not convinced there's an in-between established in the film-- but I appreciate the further evidence he brings.

Furthermore, I don't think the arrival of the apocalypse necessarily means Curtis isn't mentally ill. He's clearly seeing and experiencing things that aren't there for the first part of the film, so I can't justify an argument that he's the only sane one. I think there's an argument to be made that at least those who are paranoid and crazed about "the end" are prepared for what's coming. They have a clarity regarding the impending collapse of society that sane people entrenched in the day-to-day might not. It might make Curtis' delusions correct in the long run, but I don't think it makes him not crazy. If that makes sense. Those guys that are saying "THE END IS COMING" on the side of the road are *technically* right, after all-- they're just deemed crazy by us until the moment the end arrives.

I will say when I showed it to my students this past weekend, there was a big debate about whether he was crazy or not, with some convinced he wasn't: "he saw the storm, then there was a storm, end of story."

It is pretty reassuring to see that Nichols was going for a level of ambiguity, and the part about the possibility of hope is especially fascinating, because while I think the apocalypse arrives at the end, I'm not left totally crushed and destroyed and hopeless about the human race like I am at the end of, say, We Need To Talk About Kevin.

But, personally, I think what he's saying fits with what I was originally saying in here last week.

The "storm is real" folks have correctly pointed out that Curtis' wife was supportive of him throughout the movie, and that is indisputable, but I think the key difference in the last scene is that Curtis had finally explicitly "let her in" to his world. The important change isn't in her character - she always wanted to help - but in his, because he had now opened up and was willing to accept her help. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the scene preceding the final "storm" show Curtis seeking professional help with his wife by his side? That was the turning point. I just love the poetry of him no longer having to "weather the storm" of mental illness alone.

The movie isn't exactly fresh in my mind. I'll need to watch it again to look for some of the specifics of the last scene that you guys have pointed out. Frank, is it possible that the camera spent more time on the wife and the daughter in the final scene because it was the first time they were seeing "the storm" from Curtis' point of view? I don't know...again, I'll have to re-watch.

I sort of come down on Will's side that if the storm is real, it changes way I'd interpret the whole first part of the film. It would basically mean he was a prophet, wouldn't it? So, was he right to move his dog outside, because there was a possibility it would attack the family? Was he right to build the storm shelter, since the storm he imagined actually came?

>"But as long as they're seeing the same thing I
>think there is a resolution and the possibility of hope in the
>film."

To go back to Nichols' statement, if the storm was real, apocalyptic or otherwise, I wouldn't see much possibility of hope in that. Curtis had visions of massive storm that was going to kill people, his vision came to fruition, and, the end? I think the fact that Curtis is finally actively letting his family in to his world to help him weather the storm of his illness fits a lot more in with that possibility of hope. Yes, storms will continue to come, but as long as Curtis and his family are "seeing the same thing", it will be easier for Curtis (and his family) to cope and make it through.

You guys with an opposing viewpoint might be right, but I think there is too much substance on this side of the argument to discount it entirely.

Again, I need (and can't wait) to re-watch the movie.

>The "storm is real" folks have correctly pointed out that
>Curtis' wife was supportive of him throughout the movie, and
>that is indisputable, but I think the key difference in the
>last scene is that Curtis had finally explicitly "let her in"
>to his world. The important change isn't in her character -
>she always wanted to help - but in his, because he had now
>opened up and was willing to accept her help. Correct me if
>I'm wrong, but doesn't the scene preceding the final "storm"
>show Curtis seeking professional help with his wife by his
>side? That was the turning point. I just love the poetry of
>him no longer having to "weather the storm" of mental illness
>alone.

True, but Curtis is honest with her starting way before that, when he confesses why he's been acting erratically. He also has her on board when she comes back after the firing and after the Lions Club. It just doesn't seem like he's "on his own" even before the consulting scene before Myrtle Beach.

I will say the moment in which he acknowledges he can't do it and hands her the key to very actively help him is a crucial moment, and very well may qualify as a turning point from her active participation in them trying to have a normal life to her active participation in them trying to help him since he'll never have a normal life. There is a shift there, and maybe that shift provides justification for your take.


>The movie isn't exactly fresh in my mind. I'll need to watch
>it again to look for some of the specifics of the last scene
>that you guys have pointed out. Frank, is it possible that
>the camera spent more time on the wife and the daughter in the
>final scene because it was the first time they were seeing
>"the storm" from Curtis' point of view? I don't know...again,
>I'll have to re-watch.

I think if it was, Nichols would have still made Curtis the focus of most of the frames, and he's not. He's not even looking at Sam or the daughter as they see the storm, and he's the last one to notice the storm.

>I sort of come down on Will's side that if the storm is real,
>it changes way I'd interpret the whole first part of the film.
> It would basically mean he was a prophet, wouldn't it? So,
>was he right to move his dog outside, because there was a
>possibility it would attack the family? Was he right to build
>the storm shelter, since the storm he imagined actually came?

You don't have to be a prophet to see that shit is falling apart in this country. Everyone acknowledges throughout the movie the economic recession. However, the family still plans a vacation, the church members believe they're safe, the hagglers at the market try to get laborers to sell their work for less than it's worth knowing their backs are up against the wall.

I realize this is referring to the allegorical apocalypse and somewhat dodging the question, but I think it's an important angle to consider.

As far as the literal visions and apocalypse... it's hard to say. "Prophet" seems to imply he was certain it was real and that he wasn't crazy, when really he's not sure of it at all. He's also having visions of doom even when they're unwarranted-- he's out of touch with reality and his predictions and feelings aren't always accurate. He's definitely mentally ill... it's like I said above, the streetcorner doomsayer WILL be right eventually, even if he's obsessed and paranoid and out of touch with societal norms.
>>"But as long as they're seeing the same thing I
>>think there is a resolution and the possibility of hope in
>the
>>film."
>
>To go back to Nichols' statement, if the storm was real,
>apocalyptic or otherwise, I wouldn't see much possibility of
>hope in that. Curtis had visions of massive storm that was
>going to kill people, his vision came to fruition, and, the
>end? I think the fact that Curtis is finally actively letting
>his family in to his world to help him weather the storm of
>his illness fits a lot more in with that possibility of hope.
>Yes, storms will continue to come, but as long as Curtis and
>his family are "seeing the same thing", it will be easier for
>Curtis (and his family) to cope and make it through.

But I see the apocalypse at the end and I still feel... even if not hope, that same sense of togetherness, that theme of the-American-family-trying-as-a-unit-to-fight-off-collapse, etc. They may not be able to make it, but their bravery in facing it and trying to work together to avoid it is admirable. I might even say the film finds the innate human desire to press on with family life despite impending doom admirable as well. So I do understand that sense of hope even if I think... it won't end well for them, lol.

>You guys with an opposing viewpoint might be right, but I
>think there is too much substance on this side of the argument
>to discount it entirely.
>
>Again, I need (and can't wait) to re-watch the movie.

I think the more I talk about it that it's hard to fully remove one's self from the literal or the allegorical read. We can prefer one to the other, but Nichols has woven them together so tightly that it's hard to say "full doom and gloom" or "full hope." He's not sane, but he might still be right.

The Blu-Ray of this film... is gorgeous, btw. Strong recommendation for purchase.

what a great "lil" movie this was and how Dumb the Oscar voters are

end rant

wait, some please respond to my Chastain acting post below!

is there another actor/actress you can think of to have as many prominent roles in film as Jessica Chastain within one calender year. yes films are roughly made over 1-3 stretches, but cotdamn:
Tree of Life
The Debt
Take Shelter
The Help

and Texas Killing Fields, Coriolanis, and Wilde Salome which i haven't even seen are listed on IMDb as well

AND she has 6 MORE lined of for 2012. Directors love this woman obviously

also do y'all think she fine?

>also do y'all think she fine?

yes.


http://theyesyesyalls.com
http://facebook.com/theyesyesyalls
http://reverbnation.com/theyesyesyalls
http://twitter.com/shamelessplug

“It can be left ambiguous as long as a moment inside of that ending is specific, which is when these two characters look at each other,” Nichols said at the Toronto International Film Festival in September. “That has to be clear. If I miss that, then anybody can say this movie . . . didn’t fulfill its promise. as long as that’s intact, you’re free to interpret the end however you like.”

I agree with this general notion.

to me, in that he didn't have mental illness but in fact had been having visions throughout. the final scene was real and his wife finally realised everything he foresaw was real. Maybe i misunderstand the above discussion you guys have had on this but its pretty simple to me.

Anyway i agree with you on this as film of the year and looking at the oscar noms its odd that shannon didnt get one. I too really liked drive but similar to when i first saw a history of violence was somewhat confused with what seemed like unneccesarily graphic violence. this took it down a notch or two

fucking fantastic.

oh and the discussion that went on in this post about it?

fucking fantastic as well.

oh and know what blew my mind?

the day after i watched it, i caught 'groundhog day' on tv and realized that michael shannon was the husband in the couple bill murray gave wrestlemania tickets to.

http://mlkshk.com/r/4863

mind. fucking. blown.

but yeah...amazing movie. such a shame the oscars didn't take notice. and if they did take notice they're idiots for not putting it up for nominations. at the very least for michael shannon.


http://theyesyesyalls.com
http://facebook.com/theyesyesyalls
http://reverbnation.com/theyesyesyalls
http://twitter.com/shamelessplug

If the storm is real then I think takes away from the rest of the movie and diminishes it.

However, it is *shot* differently than the rest of the visions/dreams but I agree that it represents his family 'being a part of it now.'

Also - there's a possibility he never goes on vacation. It doesn't make much sense to me that he can go on vacation but then AFTER that he has to 'spend time away from his family.'

Just checked this on Demand (either Encore or Starz); a remarkable film with stunning visuals, pacing and brilliant, poised performances. If you haven't seen this, you need to get on it.

To me, the film is about how mental illness, specifically Curtis' disorder, can destroy a life if it is not dealt with. I never once thought it was some supernatural thriller about the end of the world, especially coming from a director who made something like Shotgun Stories. Not that it's impossible, or that Nichols can't grow and do something like that, I just didn't see it that way.

People who are saying his wife was with him the whole time and thus the ending isn't about her "finally standing with him," I sorta disagree. She was definitely supportive of him throughout the movie, but only because she loved him, not because she truly understood the depth of his illness or that she really had much hope for him in the long term. I wouldn't have been surprised if she DID leave him at some point during the film. But I think by the end of the film, she finally had a decent understanding of what might be going on in his mind (going to the psychiatrist WITH him), or was at least more hopeful than ever that he could overcome his illness in time (making him open the shelter at the end). I think her seeing the oily rain at the end is more of a symbol of her understanding him better, finally (since he specifically told her that detail earlier in the film). She was scared and confused when he first told her about the rain, but at the end she finally "sees", or understands, what his fears are.

In my opinion....

Wasn't expecting this to be so sad but I'm glad I finally gotta chance to check this out. I hope Shannon & Chastain get a chance to work together again. Great chemistry between the two of them & Whigham is always a nice addition as well.

Fantastic flick focusing on the frustrations of mental illness. Good to know the ending was left ambiguous since I'm still not quite sure how I feel about it. I do think it conveyed a nice balance of hope & trepidation with the theme though.

The acting, dialogue, score, cinematography etc in the shelter sequence was top notch. Can't recall when I last saw a scene so effectively riveting.

I guess I'll give Shotgun Stories a second shot now. Anyone seen Mud?