Skip to main content

You're gonna fit right in. Everyone in here is innocent, you know that?

The Shawshank Redemption
(1994)

(SPOILERS) The Shawshank Redemption’s reputation has become so ubiquitous – still number one on IMDB – that it’s inevitable, having been the underdog out of the gate (a poor box office performance, no Oscars from its seven nominations, but subsequently the top rental of 1995 as word of mouth exploded), that it’s now commonly dismissed as overrated. It’s impossible to counter such a claim, except to note that Shawshank’s a victim of being a “universal” tale, accessible in a manner relatively few modern movies are (there’s little sex, violence or swearing, the occasional instance of male rape aside); it has the robust, conservative air of classical Hollywood, of simpler times and the unbesmirchable values of aspiration and hope, but without oft-accompanying, off-putting cloying sentimentality. So yeah, Shawshank’s overrated to the extent that it isn’t the best movie of all time, but when it comes to “likeable” movies, it has little competition. You probably have to go back to the days of Frank Capra for serious counter bids.

Not that I have any strong beef with some of the criticisms launched at Shawshank; it just isn’t the kind of film where we they hold weight. Yes, Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) is a rich white guy, but isn’t it always thus with King’s protagonists? We should just be grateful he isn’t also an author. And fair comment, the prison is a remarkably unthreatening place, as long as you avoid the showers and laundry. But I don’t think the proceedings would gain anything by dialling down the inmates’ camaraderie and upping their shiv quotient. It’s the film it is because it operates with the restraint it does.

Slant Magazine, in its tenth anniversary reappraisal, sought to slate the picture through attacking its perceived audience, the “sensitive straight man” (“Beaches for straight men” is an admittedly impressive slight) and inevitably cites Oz as an example of how you should do prison (because all depictions of incarceration are required to be equally responsible, starting with Stir Crazy). I can’t really disagree with its less contentious (read: bleeding obvious) points – although the author doesn’t seem to register that Red was written as Irish and then Morgan Freeman was cast in the role – but the desire for it to be a film it expressly doesn’t want or need to be (of panning away from Andy being raped, “The irony here is that prison is a spit-and-polished fairy-tale for Darabont, who would rather linger on an old man feeding a worm to a sick little bird than confront us with the humanity of an unjust world”) means the writer fails to recognise what it is (that there are other ways to tell a story than through merciless confrontation), levelling the charge that by not bringing the most brutal, uncompromised version of reality it is undermining those elements (“violence, rape, manhood, and male bonding”). It’s an inflexibly specious argument, one whereby there could be little variation or potential in the presentation of art, guided as it would be by a rigid code of verisimilitude that squeezes out of it the very aspirational quality that is at the film’s core. There is no real hope, so movies should always reflect this.

That said, I can sympathise with some of the other criticisms; while I wouldn’t say I find Freeman’s comforting tones a chore, the narration isoften superfluous, merely reinforcing what’s patently obvious. And there’s a tendency to build the mythic hero veneration of Andy a little too much, such as in the bet placed on which new prisoner would cry during the first night (“He never made a sound on the first night”) or Red’s charitable interpretation of Andy’s motives for offering his services/getting his friends beers during the tarring of the roof: “I think he did it to feel normal again”. I’m less convinced. He clearly made the calculation, if he’s as bright as we’re supposed to believe, that he could capitalise on his skill set, and only nearly comes a cropper because he’s too emboldened by his innate feelings of superiority (as he later is when he accuses the warden of being obtuse). The beer part is just gravy.

Frank Darabont cites the narration as ensuring Stephen King’s voice is retained in the adaptation, which is a reasonable defence. Mostly, it’s become pretty much the definitive use of Freeman (such that Clint’s cynical re-enlistment of the actor in the same capacity in Million Dollar Baby finally earned him an Oscar, a decade later). Ironically, that was in the Supporting Category, because his nomination here was as lead, surely mostly because of the narration; it’s Andy, after all, who is the protagonist in the sense of motoring the plot, while Red is mainly the passive observer.

Shawshank’s a long movie, of course, but then, its designed to unfold over the span of years. On balance, I think Darabont makes the right choice in not going overboard with makeup – too long for there not to be changes in faces, but not long enough for there to be drastic ones – but the counterweight is that you never really feel two decades have passed for the characters. In terms of content, though, the one area I think the picture could have done without is the convenient proof of Andy’s innocence showing up. It’s too tidy, and I prefer the ambiguity of leaving the audience to decide whether he did it or not.

Mostly though, in response to critiques of the picture’s fidelity to truth and realism, I’d counter that this is absolutely a fantasy movie, regardless of Red informing us “prison is no fairy-tale world”. Darabont straight up says as much (“It’s classic myth figure stuff. He comes, he changes the place, and he goes” he noted of Andy; it’s the difference between a Shane and an Unforgiven, if this were a western); you may as well criticise Star Wars for lack of fidelity to the Apollo space programme. Broadcasting Mozart to raptured inmates, commonly railed against by those disinclined towards the picture’s flights of fancy, makes it abundantly clear what sort of film this is, if you hadn’t hitherto realised. The tale’s twists merely underline this: that the variant posters always remain intact through decades of searches, that no one ever opens Andy’s Bible, that he somehow manages to seal the poster from inside the hole when he finally bolts; they’re conjuring tricks underlining the type of movie this is, one that conspicuously doesn’t operate in a world of plausible cause and effect, but where one steadfast man is able to outwit those who would be the death of him.

In its way then, The Shawshank Redemption is not so far from the actual Best Picture winner of its year, Forrest Gump. Both offer bittersweet hope and perseverance against the odds, emphasising the value of self-belief, with an untouchable, enigmatic enabler at their centre, one who enriches the lives of those around him. Red tells Andy that “Hope is a dangerous thing”. It’s certainly dangerous to attempt a movie where it endures intact, as you’ll more than likely find yourself inclined towards the pitfalls of unwarranted sentimentality and cynical manipulation (I know, because those are charges I’d level at Gump); successful navigation of treacherous territory may explain why the response to the picture is relatively sopronounced. As Darabont notes, people “view the basis of Shawshank as a metaphor for their own difficulties”. Realism just wouldn’t cut it in that regard.





Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

You’d be surprised how many intersectional planes of untethered consciousness exist.

Moon Knight (2022) (SPOILERS) Now, this is an interesting one. Not because it’s very good – Phase IV MCU? Hah! – but because it presents its angle on the “superhero” ethos in an almost entirely unexpurgated, unsoftened way. Here is a character explicitly formed through the procedures utilised by trauma-based mind control, who has developed alters – of which he has been, and some of which he remains, unaware – and undergone training/employment in the military and private mercenary sectors (common for MKUltra candidates, per Dave McGowan’s Programmed to Kill ). And then, he’s possessed by what he believes to be a god in order to carry out acts of extreme violence. So just the sort of thing that’s good, family, DisneyPlus+ viewing.