Mind-bending Experimental Thriller (click blue "v" at below-right to view)

Rating: 9/10 (30 August 2019)

There seems to have been a consensus (there's no way I can see to search user reviews, such as for the word 'evidence', and only one 'hit' came up for the search on Google "teddy daniels andrew laeddis anagram evidence", so I can't be absolutely sure how strong this consensus is) that Andrew Laeddis is who the protagonist really is, in the film. Well, playing 'the devil's advocate', so to speak, and wondering what really establishes this, we can look to a number of sources, for specific evidence and basically ask where was, and what is the burden of proof, which establishes such? Although we are all aware that this has nothing to do with actual reality, in the fictional world of this movie, I dare posit, people would not want to underestimate the chances that a sinister cadre of individuals is wielding a great deal of power, and that America is, ultimately, no better than its two greatest foes of the twentieth century. I will cut straight to the chase. "Andrew Laeddis" was a term that first surfaced in the observable plot by the character whose identity is debated as being either "Teddy" ie. Edward Daniels, or Laeddis himself. Basically, come the plot's climax, viewers see a coincidence as overwhelming evidence that Teddy is a construct of the mental patient Andrew Laeddis. That coincidence being apparently that not only is "Andrew Laeddis" an anagram of "Edward Daniels" but "Rachel Solando" is likewise an anagram of "Dolores Chanal". The questions that might otherwise be at the heart of the story, or its interpretation, seemingly becomes reduced to the issue of whether or not these names actually are anagrams. However, according to the plot's other alternative, should we fail to rule this out, all that was needed was to construct an anagram of "Dolores Chanal", who is the deceased (according to whichever interpretation one embraces) wife of the protagonist, to replicate what would be a sole anagram-relationship between the names of Edward and Andrew. Perhaps, it's considered somewhat valid, also, that Daniels is a known name and Laeddis, if plausible, is much more akin to a construct of an author (in fact a Linkedin search for the name 'Laeddis', today, only provides one individual by the name Laeddis, "Mr Laeddis" with one connection, not that it affects the fictional world necessarily, but it could be considered to be something that might be viewed as contributing to the likelihood of any reality in a fictional world that has many similarities with reality, such as WWII if based on a fictional island off Massachusetts). Leading to the an interpretation looking at the validity of Laeddis the 'firebug' as related by who was plausibly Daniels being a constructed name, in the fictional world, for a person who somehow became a building manager at the apartment Daniels lived at, if he wasn't there when Daniels moved in (something the film doesn't reveal). Thus, the vision of Laeddis (played by Koteas) sitting in the chair that Dr. Naering was, if only a vision of either Teddy's or the delusional Andrew's himself, properly identifying what would be Laeddis' arson which would have been what took the life of Dolores. Why the individual who would be going by the name Andrew Laeddis would have done this is another concern. Someone somehow in league with these doctors who, of course, freely enter and exit Shutter Island, unlike the character played by Di Caprio. So, if we move on from the question 'why attempt to ensnare Teddy Daniels?', and fail to be hung up there, we can wonder about other questions, including 'If it was necessary, if so many people were involved in the deception of who would be Teddy Daniels, the war veteran, to do what is attempting to trick him at all?' meaning 'they seemingly could have just lobotomized him?' Well, that ostensibly might have to do with Dr. Cawling's views of trying to be humane, if not being genuine, being what he hopes to project to the outer world, which would include trying to convince Daniels he was insane, to imprison him before he tried to communicate with staff, which would mean, for him to be lobotomized. Therefore, it would have nothing to do, in this scenario, with whether Laeddis ;'the firebug' was there at all, that the 'clue' ostensibly left by who originally seemed to be Rachel Solando was part of what would be the ploy to convince Daniels of his own lack of sanity, or his being someone he wasn't, or at least convincing the workers of such. Going from there, Sheehan might have begun to play the role of Chuck, joining Daniels, sometime before they embarked and before the film began. Otherwise, we would have to believe Chuck was somehow intimidated, or coerced, after his disappearance into playing the role of a psychiatrist named Sheehan who had supposedly existed prior to that point. Hence, when Daniels followed a trail of Laeddis who has been sent to Ashecliffe, which led to him 'doing some checking on Ashecliffe', it would have been by intention that Daniels' was drawn there, to see if Laeddis was still there. It might also explain why someone who turned out to be as dangerous as George Noyce reportedly did was let out of Ashecliffe in the first place, meaning, that would have been done to further the involvement and curiosity of Daniels in Ashecliffe, which he ostensibly became interested in after the disappearance of a man who burned down his apartment building which killed his wife. All of this, again, would have to do with the idea that Daniels was sought after by the forces represented by the psychiatrists and leaders at Ashecliffe before Daniels had lost his wife, and before he began inquiring about Ashecliffe, of course. Leading to their connections with the Germans, with the recollections of Daniels about Nazis serving to remind viewers of who may have cause of use whatever resources they possess to neutralize who they see as a violent person, which he's oft accused of being, throughout the film (and he admits to 'murder' when involved in the killing of the German Dachau guards). That idea of his being pursued and neutralized in this manner seems, out of the two, more plausible, overall, than believing it was a coincidence which the doctors realized that Andrew Laeddis was an anagram of Edward Daniels, then utilizing that fact to create this attempt to cause Daniels to surrender by admitting he was Laeddis. Finally, according to this thread, Rachel Solando was a fabricated name, and although Daniels has a real, not imagined, encounter with her, ostensibly the-former-Dr.-Solando-patient-Rachel-Solando in the cave. Ostensibly, a co-conspirator, Solando was hoping, theoretically, to be found by the protagonist. After such, she makes points made to convince him not to be lobotomized, because the psychiatrists ostensibly want to have a record of having lobotomized as few patients as possible, since lobotomies are falling out of favor. Finally, it would be the case that whether or not lobotomized, a different story is told to the outsiders if anyone asks what happened to Daniels, the encounter in the cave also happened to illustrate how this would be done to Daniels: "your friends colleagues and family will say, 'he has cracked, and who wouldn't after what had happened?'"