I think Scorsese was just trying to spark the whole reality vs. non reality theme within the film with that technique. There were a lot of great small moments in the film, another one for example is how Mark Ruffalo’s character fumbles with his gun when asked to hand it over and eventually just hands over the whole holster as opposed to DiCaprio who swiftly and easily is able to release his gun. Another one is how Chuck holds up a pair of MEN’S shoes when they are in Rachel Solando’s room.
I’ve heard some people call the glass thing a “continuity error” which I find pretty ridiculous because i can’t imagine why they would even shoot her without the glass in hand if it wasn’t intentional.
please stop trying to analyse this…
I didn’t notice that one. But there were really a few montage “mistakes” there, maybe it was intended by the director.
Yes I saw this! I thought I imagined it. Thank you. I’m not insane.
No you’re not insane but Decaprio is. The film is full of those continuity goofs which is Scorsese’s way of cluing us in that Teddy isn’t right in the head from the beginning. If you see the movie again check it out, I lost count of how many times goofs appear.
I’ve read that Schumaker and Scorsese choose the best takes, even if it means continuity errors.
Thing is: a water glass NOT BEING IN SOMEONE’S HAND WHATSOEVER (which if replaced would make those three shots “regular” or normal) is a bit much for just a this-take-is-better decision.
Maybe that inconsistency (and others) are meant to show how each scene in the movie can be interpreted in two ways: either Teddy’s insane, or he’s not.
Good observation.
Ha!
That is crazy, I haven’t thought about that since the end of the movie, which I was disappointed in and kind of gave up thinking much about, but, yeah, I remember thinking to myself…“THAT IS THE COOLEST.” It is practically subliminal, and, in my opinion, examples of Scorsese at his best in that movie (even if it didn’t add up). It was just such a seamless moment. So smart, and so good, it really doesn’t matter in your experience of the moment that the glass isn’t there.
Reminds me of all the continuity errors in editing in GOODFELLAS, and the poll taken amongst filmmakers in which “feeling/emotion” ranked higher than all the other technical things we expect from splicing (“continuity of time and space”, “sight-lines”, etc…)
If those things are intentional, then it is incredibly condescending to viewers.
Doubt Scorsese would patronize those in the rear pews of the low church….
Yes,
To refer to this as a CONTINUITY ERROR is totally missing the point…YOU DO NOT FILM A SHOT IN WHICH THE ONLY ONSCREEN PROP IS MISSING WITHOUT DOING IT ON PURPOSE. Okay? The continuity department wouldn’t just get fired, they’d get shot. Okay?
And don’t listen to Sekzee, Raysquirrel. Thanks for bringing this up. This is a really, really interesting example of a clear formal visual decision by a thoughtful filmmaker…exactly the type of stuff I vote we pay more attention to on this forum instead of endlessly arguing vaguely about our opinions on entire oeuvres of filmmakers. 90 percent of the conversations here could as easily be about cheese as they are ostensibly about movies.
EG:
" ‘X’ is amazing!"
“No way. ‘X’ is NOT amazing. ‘Y’ is amazing!”
“You’re stupid for not liking ‘X’. And ‘Y’ blows.”
“Roquefort is amazing!”
“No way. Roquefort is NOT amazing. Tallegio is amazing!”
“You’re stupid for not liking Roquefort. And Tallegio blows.”
" TWO LANE BLACKTOP is amazing!"
“No way. TWO LANE BLACKTOP is NOT amazing. Svankmajer’s ALICE is amazing!”
“You’re stupid for not liking TWO LANE BLACKTOP. And Svankmajer’s ALICE blows.”
This was one of my favorite touches to the movie. Scorsese used this and similar techniques to disorient the viewer. Think of the scene in A Clockwork Orange where they’re sitting at the table and with every angle change Kubrick purposefully moved the place settings around to throw the viewer for a loop.
RaySquirrel
Anybody notice this scene in the film Shutter Island. Mark Ruffalo hands a woman a glass of water. The woman drinks and puts down the drink. But if you looked at the three separate shots, Mark Ruffalo does hand the woman a physical glass of water. Second shot, the woman makes the motion of drinking a glass of water but SHE IS NOT HOLDING A GLASS. Third shot, she sets down a physical glass. Next to the glass there are two water rings but there are no other glasses on the table.
I immediately noticed the second shot my first time watching the film. But a friend of mine who did not watch the film with me, though it was important enough to bring up the third shot. He did not notice the second shot.
What do you think Scorceses was trying to do with this shot?