Dances with Wolves

April 26, 2008

Dances with Wolves (1990) *****

Directed by Kevin Costner

Every frame of Dances with Wolves drips with the fact that this was Kevin Costner’s labor of love. Dances with Wolves would easily make my list of the top ten most visually beautiful films I’ve ever seen (maybe even my top five!). This is the third Costner performance I’ve seen lately after Field of Dreams and JFK and I have to say that Costner is becoming one of my very favorite actors. Unfortunately, Dances, Fields and JFK are really the only movies of Costner’s that are important for a film buff to see. Even if this is the last Costner film I ever see (which I’m sure it won’t be) I will still have an affection for him because of the three excellent films mentioned earlier—the best by far being Dances with Wolves.

This film is close to four hours!!! I had to watch it in pieces, but yet, when I turned it back on, I was almost immediately drawn emotionally back into it, mostly because each and every shot is so beautiful. Costner has really only directed three movies, and maybe I can understand why. Costner’s patience and attention to beauty and detail must make it impossible for him to be satisfied with a short schedule and limited resources. I do hope he directs more, because Dances with Wolves is absolutely one of the best directed films I’ve ever seen.

It’s stunning! Visually gorgeous! Absolutely breathtaking! Yet, on the story level, this film is almost equal to its aesthetic achievements. The first two hours of the film are better than the last two hours. Don’t think that is a criticism at all. The last two hours are better than ninety percent of the movies I’ve seen.

The beginning of the film shows that Costner is a surprising hero when he survives a suicide attempt by riding his horse through the gunfire of the Dixie soldiers during a civil war battle. Lt. John J. Dunbar as a reward is allowed to be assigned anywhere he wants. He chooses an assignment in the frontier since he has always wanted to see the frontier. He arrives after the last of the men abandon the fort since the army is not supplying them. Basically, Dunbar is stranded with nothing but his journal, his horse and a wolf that keeps showing up. Dunbar names the wolf “Two Socks.” This Indian-like name shows the viewer that Dunbar has in him the potential to break through the barriers and become one with his Indian neighbors.

And that is exactly what he does. It doesn’t happen quickly. As a matter of fact, almost an hour and a half is spent with the slow and frustrating process of becoming one of them. This integration may never have happened had it not been for Stands with a Fist (Mary McDonnell). She was taken as a young girl after the Sioux murdered her family. They raise her not as a captive, but as one of them. Because of Dunbar, she is forced to speak the language that she bottled up for so many years. In the third hour of the film, we see the emerging love story between Dunbar, now called Dances with Wolves, and Stands with a Fist. The love story could have weakened the movie had it not been for the fact that the love story is intermingled with a plot about a neighboring Indian tribe warring with the Sioux. Dunbar’s hidden stash of rifles saves the lives of the members of this tribe.

The end of the film is also extremely well done. The Sioux move their camp since the white men are nearing their frontier. As they are leaving, Dunbar returns to the fort to get his journal only to find that the army has taken over the fort. The rest of the film is very frustrating and disturbingly powerful. The soldiers are acting like savages and the Indians are, in comparison, the civilized ones. Of course this point was going to be argued in a movie like this—that’s no surprise. What is surprising and exhilarating is how well it is argued. I completely bought the actions of the soldiers. They weren’t caricatures of evil. They were understandably bad men.

The same believability goes as well for the Sioux. They are not portrayed as perfect. Yet, their actions in the film are consistently believable. Given the circumstances throughout the film, I absolutely believe this story would be possible. Of course, some of the circumstances themselves are stretching it a bit (a convenient white woman who conveniently speaks English who conveniently just lost her husband). With a film as unpretentious and glowing as Dances with Wolves, it earns the right to be judged by its spirit and its purpose. On these aspects and on the aspect of its visual achievement, Dances with Wolves goes down as one of the very best cinematic pleasures I’ve ever encountered!

Charlie Wilson's War

April 26, 2008

Charlie Wilson’s War (2007) ***1/2

Directed by Mike Nichols

I didn’t see Charlie Wilson’s War in the movies. I think that ten years from now, I may look at that fact and be baffled. I am quite possibly among the top 50 biggest West Wing fans on the planet. Not a single day goes by where I don’t watch an episode. It’s gotten to the point where I can’t fall asleep unless I hear the familiar voices of the actors lulling me off to dreamland. What does the West Wing have to do with Charlie Wilson’s War? Why, Aaron Sorkin of course whose screenplay we see in the movie. Sorkin was responsible for creating the West Wing and writing most of the episodes during its first four seasons. Sorkin is also responsible for one of my favorite movies of all time—A Few Good Men. I’ve loved his other series—Sports Night and Studio 60 on Sunset Strip even though they were not successful. The American President was a delightful Sorkin-penned movie. So, I was overflowing with excitement as I began to watch Charlie Wilson’s War. Oh yeah, it contains two of my very favorite actors—Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks.

So what did I think? Well, I was entertained and I enjoyed the movie. It was well made and Philip Seymour Hoffman absolutely deserved his Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination. What did I love about the film? Yep, you guessed it—Sorkin’s dialogue. No one is able to write such smart and romanticized conversation. One moment can be extremely funny but the next can catch the viewer off guard with powerful, emotional intensity. No one has more fun with their screenplays and on the same note, no one can write a transition into heavy drama better.

What didn’t I love? Well, I didn’t love either Tom Hanks’ or Julia Roberts’ performances. It takes a certain ability to do justice to Sorkin’s dialogue and unfortunately, Hanks and Roberts don’t allow it to reach its potential in the same way that Hoffman was able to. Interestingly, the one movie actor that I think did the very best job with Sorkin’s dialogue was Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men. Sorkin requires his characters to be outwardly confident but inwardly unsure and in pain. Cruise can be cocky with the best of them. Hanks and Roberts didn’t go far enough, especially Hanks who almost loses himself in the character. Neither gave “bad” performances. They were just disappointingly average.

The film centers around Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson in the 1980s. Hanks plays Wilson who is a drunk and a womanizer. He’s got some serious character flaws, which is pointed out to him by none other than the President of Pakistan. He makes it his personal mission to get the United States government to supply the Afghan people with proper weapons to fight off the Soviet communists during the Cold War. The Afghanis are pretty much helpless and the Soviets are being exceptionally cruel, forcing these people to live in refugee camps, flee their homeland and even harm the children so the adults will be too preoccupied to fight. Two people for different reasons keep pushing Wilson along in his cause which is of course ultimately successful. These two people are wealthy conservative Christian Texas socialite Joanne Herring (Roberts) and low-level CIA operative Gust Avrakotos (Hoffman). I love how Sorkin made fun of the fact that the guy’s name was Gust.

Anyway, that’s pretty much the whole film. It varies locations between Las Vegas, Texas, Washington, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Some sequences are quite impressive. Some are a bit heavy-handed (such as a sequence involving Afghanis successfully using their new found weapons against Russian helicopters flown by pilots that want to talk about their girlfriends).

Yes, Sorkin’s dialogue does push an agenda. On DVD commentaries, he often says that he’s not really presenting an overly slanted political viewpoint, but come on. We know he is and it’s obvious in this film. The most haunting part of the film lies at the very end. Wilson makes an argument and loses. We know what may have been the consequence of this and the other ways we did not support the Afghani people after the Russians pulled out.

Nichols, Roberts and Hanks did adequate jobs in Charlie Wilson’s War. This isn’t Sorkin’s best work, but it’s definitely high quality stuff. Hoffman does it justice. When I watch a film by Hitchcock or Bergman, I am sad that they will not be making any more films than what already exists. Sorkin, whom I love just as much, is still alive and working hard. Woo hoo!

The Omega Man

April 25, 2008

The Omega Man (1971) **1/2

Directed by Boris Sagal

Let me tell you. I wasn’t thrilled to find out that the latest Filmspotting Marathon was going to be 70s Sci-Fi. I don’t really like sci-fi as much as other genres and I argue that science fiction gets better as special effects get better. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule—Star Wars being the most obvious. So over the next six weeks, I have to watch such cinematic non-gems as The Omega Man, The Andromeda Strain, Silent Running, Soylent Green, Logan’s Run and The Man Who Fell to Earth. I’ve never seen any of these films all the way through (I have seen parts of The Man Who Fell to Earth and I remember it as unbelievably strange!). So, The Omega Man had a lot riding on its shoulders. This is really my doorway into 70s sci-fi. So am I any happier now that I have to take this journey?

Well let me hold off my answer for now and simply talk about the film itself. I had a good time with The Omega Man. It is exploitative camp, pure and simple and I feel like it knew exactly how silly it was and embraced that. Sagal seems to know that his film is quite ridiculous and lame. Therefore, it’s hard to criticize and it’s actually easy to like. Yes, I guess I will say that I liked The Omega Man.

That being said, this isn’t a good movie. It just isn’t. As much as I can appreciate the “so bad its good” shtick, I simply cannot ignore that Heston’s acting is pretty awful (I have yet to see a Charlton Heston performance with any depth), the special effects and violence are laughable, the villains and their makeup are amateur, the suspense and thrills do not exist and the Christ/messiah imagery and dialogue is extremely heavy-handed.

The film’s best aspect is Rosalind Cash as Lisa, one of the remaining holdouts who saves Heston’s Robert Neville and eventually gives his life purpose. She introduces him to a man named Dutch (Paul Koslo) who lives with Lisa, Lisa’s brother Richie and other kids who have so far resisted the disease. Robert, who is the only human to have the antidote running through his blood, saves Richie from becoming a nocturnal bad guy by infusing his blood into the boy. The idea is that now Richie can use his blood to help the kids become immune. Lisa and Robert also have a little hot affair going on, which is quite interesting given that Lisa is black, Heston is not and this is 1971. The Omega Man is known for one of the earliest interracial kisses in film. I really do give the film credit for its courage and conviction to make an important social statement. Cash embraces her role and really lights up the film when she utters her silly dialogue.

The plot can be explained simply since it has been done over and over and over again—most recently in the Will Smith movie I Am Legend. Germ warfare between Russia and China (darn those Russians and Chinese) has resulted pretty much in the apocalypse. Just about everyone is dead or deranged homicidal half-life maniacs with white makeup, clear contacts, painted on sores and baby powder in their hair. Then you can fill in the rest of the details from above—Heston, antidote, kids, blood, etc.

So am I looking forward to the upcoming movies? Honestly, not really. I think the complete lack of ambition of The Omega Man was refreshing. If every other film shares this lack of ambition, then I believe it will get old quickly. Yet, if these films take themselves too seriously and don’t deliver a quality product, then I’m in for an unpleasant time at the movies. Yes, maybe I’m being a bit fatalistic and damning these films before even seeing them. Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised—I hope so! Unfortunately, the genre remains 70s sci-fi. Sigh.

Belle de Jour

April 24, 2008

Belle de Jour (1967) *****

Directed by Luis Bunuel

Recently reading Roger Ebert’s take on Truffaut’s masterpiece The 400 Blows, I learned that Truffaut (and others) helped usher in the New Wave movement in cinema. Not knowing the precise definition of this, I am going to guess that it means that film moves more towards the ethereal and dreamlike over the real and objective. If this is the case, then Belle de Jour definitely falls under New Wave. The film is gorgeously shot, wonderfully acted and extremely effective in its airy atmosphere and tone.

Whatever genre one classifies Belle de Jour as belonging to, it cannot be denied that this film is a masterpiece—and an extremely powerful one at that. Of course, if anyone really wants to study and experience all of the great films, he or she must be ready to deal with movies that explicitly deal with sex. Belle de Jour examines and presents ideas about sex from beginning to end and yet, there’s no actual nudity or sex at all during the film. Mostly, the camera cuts away right before the sex begins and follows with a scene that takes place right after the sex ends. The meat in the sandwich (no pun intended) in these sequences is completely left up to our imagination. Yet, what we are asked to imagine in this film is often pretty perverted and disturbing.

The unbelievably alluring Catherine Deneuve plays Severine, a sexually frustrated woman with serious masochistic fantasies who decides to try and be a prostitute at an apartment run by Madame Anais (Genevieve Page). Severine becomes Belle de Jour from the hours of two to five everyday. At first, she runs out before completing a sexual encounter. Yet, she returns and very quickly learns the depths to which she will need to stoop to in order to make it in this business. Right after she finally satisfies her first client, despite the fact that he is pretty creepy, she feels a sense of rightness and libidinal balance. This life works for her. Eventually, she becomes so attached to the life that she is willing to beg and service an old family friend in exchange for him keeping her secret. She’s not worried so much about her husband’s reaction. She is more concerned that she will have to give up her afternoon job.

Ironically, Severine is able to be sexually satisfied with her husband once she becomes a prostitute. Actually, it can be argued that Severine did all of this for her husband. Though, she also had to satisfy her kinky and deranged fantasy life too. She imagines herself bound, stripped, beaten, muddy and sliced by a broken bottle. She doesn’t act these fantasies out with her clients, but she is required to act out equally bizarre fantasies, including acting as a corpse for a man who mourns her before pleasuring himself.

The ending of the film involves a client that threatens Belle and her husband and eventually does serious harm to one of them. The recovery which follows ultimately leads to an extremely satisfying surprise conclusion and foreshadowing of things to come. Because of the revelation in the final scene, we have to question all previous scenes to see which ones need to be viewed at a different level. Some scenes most likely are up for debate and interpretation.

Of course, Belle de Jour is not going to be everyone’s cup of tea. The disturbing nature of the film doesn’t end simply with the dark sexual encounters of the prostitutes. There is a young teenage girl that resides in the Madame’s house. Two scenes explicitly show that this little girl is actually another worker too. Some won’t be able to see beyond the uncomfortable subject matter. If the viewer does allow himself or herself to explore deeper into this film, he or she will be given a fascinating glimpse into sexuality at its most fundamental levels, especially female sexuality. Women seem to need to be in a place mentally and physically to obtain first of all, interest, and second, maximum sexual pleasure. Men are always interested in maximum sexual pleasure right now and as often as possible. Severine’s path to sexual pleasure is pretty extreme. Yet, one wonders whether the fantasy lives of most people are really all that less extreme. How exactly do you judge what sexual fantasies are right and what sexual fantasies are wrong? In one sense, they are all wrong and maybe, just maybe, in another sense, they are all right.

The 400 Blows

Sunday April 20, 2008

The 400 Blows (1959) *****

Directed by Francois Truffaut

Towards the end of The 400 Blows, we see the boy Antoine Doinel (Jean-Pierre Leaud) answering the questions that his female psychologist asks him. For the first time, we really get to know the special and good kid that Antoine is. We never see the psychologist, which is smart since Antoine’s face is never more expressive than when he listens to the questions and gives the answers. He’s definitely a smart and insightful kid who has never had anyone listen to him. Now that someone is listening, he has no problem answering.

The story is extremely simple. Antoine’s parents don’t like him. He was a mistake and after being passed around, he is forced to live with his selfish, nasty and cruel mother and step-father (played by Claire Maurier and Albert Remy respectively). At school, the teacher doesn’t like him either. Granted, Antoine’s not a perfect child, but his motives for acting out are completely understandable. His parents and teacher are painted with such broad strokes of ineptitude that they are obviously the ones responsible for this kid’s bad behavior, not Antoine.

His parents aren’t always mean, which actually makes this more difficult for Antoine. His mother at one point tries to get along with Antoine—of course, Antoine did see his mother kissing another man on the street earlier that day. His father takes Antoine and his mother to the movies after Antoine almost accidentally burns down the apartment. They really do get along very well after the film. Antoine obviously loves the cinema so that moment must have been pure joy for him.

Unfortunately, pure joy can make life more painful in comparison. Antoine begins to run away since he can handle neither home nor school. In order to try and make it on his own, he eventually steals a typewriter from his father’s office. He is caught and his parents decide to give parental rights over to a juvenile correction facility. Life at the correctional facility is of course no good and Antoine longs to be free—to escape in the way he is able while watching a film. He breaks out of the juvenile prison and in an absolutely amazing three minute long sequence, we see Antoine simply running towards the ocean. Once he reaches the ocean, he turns around and looks at the camera and the film ends.

Earlier in the film, he mentions that he wants to join the navy since he’s never seen the ocean. For probably the first time in his life, he is able to reach a goal. This film is an exceptional portrait of the oppressive reality of a child with no one to look up to or even to care about him. He is better than these people and needs to begin to start living his life, even if it’s at the age of 12 or 13.

When I type these reviews, I don’t read other reviews. I usually do that immediately after I’m finished writing and I don’t go back and change anything. Therefore, I don’t know the whole back story about this film. I know that it is semi-autobiographical of Truffaut’s own life. I also know that it is the first in a trilogy of semi-autobiographical films.

It’s hard to make a good film about a child or children. Truffaut’s movie doesn’t really work perfectly on the level of showing children as they really are. Yet, this film seems almost neo-realistic more than realistic. There is definitely an element of fantasy and daydreaming to The 400 Blows. All I know is that this quiet and smart film is a little poetic gem showcasing a kid who triumphs despite having so much stacked against him!

Bride of Frankenstein

Sunday April 20, 2008

Bride of Frankenstein (1935) *****

Directed by James Whale

“Yes, a woman. That should be really interesting.” –Dr. Pretorius

Interesting indeed. What no doubt originated as a sequel to a successful horror film simply to make money based on the original’s success turned into one of the very best horror films ever made. While Frankenstein is appreciated a bit more for its importance, Bride of Frankenstein is appreciated simply for its genius!

From beginning to end, I was constantly surprised at how much care was put into making this film. We begin with a beautiful sequence involving Mary Shelly afraid by a thunderstorm. She discusses the after story of Frankenstein which becomes the film the Bride of Frankenstein. This sequence allowed for clips from the first Frankenstein film in order to catch us up and then begins exactly where the first film left off—at the burning windmill that was supposed to kill the monster. Of course, he’s not dead at all, but I’m sure he’s pretty upset at what these people are doing to him. As a result, he kills almost immediately.

In a fantastic performance by Una O’Connor as Millie, the witchlike alarmist old woman, she runs to the town to mention that the monster has returned but no one believes her. We then see Elizabeth (played by a different actress this time—Valerie Hobson) given the seemingly lifeless body of Henry Frankenstein (again played by Colin Clive). Surprisingly, he is alive, but just barely. Enter Dr. Pretorius (hilariously played by Ernest Thesiger) who blackmails Henry into helping him continue the creation process so that ultimately there will be a master race. Of course to form a master race, the monster must have a mate. Henry at first refuses but then once Elizabeth is taken by the monster, Dr. Pretorius promises to give her back unharmed only if Henry helps create the Bride of Frankenstein. Once the bride is made, things go wrong and we are left to believe that a number of characters die, while some are spared. Of course, there are other sequels to the Frankenstein series so I’m guessing the monster lives again—but I’m not completely sure.

Sounds like pretty formulaic or even low class horror plot structure, doesn’t it? Well, yeah, it kind of is. What brings the film into complete greatness is the journey the monster takes. I love that they explicitly played up that this monster is inherently good. He only kills when people want to see him dead. Kindness is finally shown to the monster when an old blind hermit feels that the monster is the answer to a prayer. The lonely man prays everyday for a friend and he now commits to taking care of his new friend. He teaches the monster to speak, which was a very risky choice for the filmmakers, but one that pays off extremely well. Now the monster can tell us what’s going on in his head rather than having us figure it out on our own. The scene is truly tender and heart wrenching. Of course, this very scene was brilliantly parodied in Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein, but I was able to put that out of my mind long enough to see the brilliance of the writing and the emotional payoff of the hermit character.

The character of Dr. Pretorius adds some wonderful comedy—including numerous vices, each of which is his “only weakness.” The scene I really loved involved the creation of a number of miniature people inside of bottles.

The Bride of Frankenstein doesn’t take itself as seriously as Frankenstein, and yet, it’s a deeper and more satisfying film by far. The increased budget helped to make the life giving scene of the Bride of Frankenstein absolutely amazing! While in the first film, the apparatus rises up to the roof, in this film, the apparatus goes way above the roof! In the end, the monster allows two characters to live. I’m not sure why exactly—maybe so Colin Clive can appear in the next Frankenstein movie.

The monster’s makeup is more sophisticated and more frightening this time around. I’m not sure if the monster was supposed to look burnt after the ending of the original film, but it looked that way to me. I was also able to appreciate the excellent cinematography in Bride of Frankenstein. Most of the shots of the monster are from the ground up, making the monster look bigger and more menacing. At one point, the monster walks past Dr. Pretorius and you can see that Pretorius is actually taller than the monster. The monster feels huge throughout the film and credit for this must be given to James Whale.

Once again, Boris Karloff as the monster is perfect. This time he is able to show more range and character. My understanding is that the following Frankenstein films were not at the same level in terms of quality and that’s too bad. I hope to one day check them out, but for now, I can definitely say I was delighted to see Frankenstein and especially Bride of Frankenstein.

Frankenstein

Sunday April 20, 2008

Frankenstein (1931) ****1/2

Directed by James Whale

To appreciate a low budget film from close to eighty years ago, it is simply unfair to judge it next to today’s films. This is especially true for a horror film. There’s not a moment of fear or disgust in Frankenstein. If you want to be disgusted, rent Hostel Part Two.

It’s wrong to fault Frankenstein solely because I wasn’t scared. In my opinion, the appropriate way to approach a film like this is to think of two things. First, I tried to think about how absolutely horrifying this movie must have been in 1931! In no way does this movie hold back. We get a scene that is still a bit disturbing involving a little girl who just wants to play with the monster and the monster just wants to play as well. Unfortunately, he doesn’t realize that his play will ultimately result in the little girl’s death. I think it’s safe to guess that for most moviegoers at the time, this scene was the first time they saw the murder of a child on screen.

Second, Frankenstein absolutely must be credited for every other horror film that came after it. This film wants to show a monster that brutally kills people who get in his way. The brutality has stayed well within the horror genre. Nowadays, horror films seem to want to compete with each other to see how much brutality they can fit into an hour and a half movie. Frankenstein wasn’t meant to gross anyone out. It was meant to frighten. The problem with many of today’s horror films is that they aren’t meant to frighten as much as gross people out.

The story is simple and iconic. A young scientist named Henry Frankenstein, along with the help of his hunchbacked assistant Fritz, wants to try and play God by taking a dead body along with a dead man’s brain and use electrodes to bring this creation to life. Unfortunately, Fritz grabs the brain of a murderer so this monster’s nature is evil. Actually, though, is this monster evil or is it just acting in ways to fulfill the judgment that people have already placed on the monster? There are scenes that seem to point in both directions. He wakes up and automatically kills a doctor. Of course, he was terrorized by Fritz before being knocked out so he may wake up a bit angry—besides, he was also strapped to the table. At the end of the film, a cliché is born. The townspeople with their torches storm the building that the monster inhabits. The monster is frightened and over-stimulated as he attempts to kill Dr. Frankenstein. It’s almost sad when the monster is engulfed in flames. I haven’t seen any of the sequels so I’m not sure if the monster escapes or not. I plan on watching Bride of Frankenstein later today, so maybe I’ll find out.

The movie is based on Mary Shelly’s book which deals with ethical questions such as progress and responsibility—questions which are still very alive today regarding issues of cloning and embryonic stem cell research. The film begins with a warning that what you are about to see is going to be shocking and even horrifying! I can imagine it was. Simply watching it as a film and not as a cinematic innovation, I was thoroughly entertained. The energy and the over the top delivery of the actors made for a fun viewing experience. And at 70 minutes, it didn’t overstay its welcome.

The revelation and the backbone of the film though is Boris Karloff as the monster. This film made him a hot commodity and allowed him to quit his day job as a truck driver. Karloff became a horror movie icon, reviving the monster role in many other Frankenstein films.

Frankenstein is definitely an important film, but in my opinion, it’s equally an entertaining film. Because of its short running time, this may be the perfect movie to turn younger viewers on to the accessibility and entertainment of many movies from the early black and white era. Yes, some modern viewers may laugh at the film, but hey, laughter’s not a bad thing in itself. If they take time to think about what they just saw, even for a second, then maybe they may see the merit of this low budget masterpiece.

The Shawshank Redemption

Sunday April 20, 2008

The Shawshank Redemption (1994) *****

Directed by Frank Darabont

Who would ever have guessed that a prison could perfectly evoke magic? Well, I guess Stephen King did when he wrote “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.” I read the short story in college and out of the four stories that were in King’s book, I actually remember liking “Rita Hayworth…” the least. It’s not that it was a bad story, it just wasn’t magical enough. The story works fine in a book but it really needs the film medium to allow it to reach its potential. I am going to make a bold statement—I don’t think it would have been possible to make a movie based on King’s short story any better than this.

This is not the first time I’ve seen Shawshank. I also saw it in college. Back then, I remember disconnecting myself from the film. Though I did enjoy it that first time, I wasn’t blown away by it. The Shawshank Redemption has played a very important and surprising role in recent movie history. This film, while awarded with a Best Picture Oscar nomination, really took off on home video. People were calling this film among the best ever made. It was included on the most recent list of AFI’s top 100 films. Also, on imdb.com, it is the number two highest rated film of all time, just under The Godfather. I viewed it just now trying to see if the film worked better for me now and if not, then I at least wanted to understand why so many embraced this film.

Well, all I can say is that I was so wrong in college! The Shawshank Redemption completely earns every bit of praise it has received over the years. The individual to thank for this film most of all is Frank Darabont. He wrote the screenplay which is rich with philosophical insights about purpose within a life with no freedom. His dialogue is extremely romanticized but yet it absolutely compliments Shawshank’s transcendent tone. He also directed this film with confidence and achingly beautiful camera shots.

Tim Robbins gives his best performance that I’ve seen him give as Andy Dufresne, a once wealthy banker who is falsely convicted of killing his wife and her lover. He claims that all the evidence against him (and there’s quite a bit of it) is simply a coincidence. Later in the film, we find that the evidence was in fact coincidental. For a second, I was mad that they expected us to believe such an absurdly unlikely alternative explanation for the double murders. Then I realized that we were supposed to understand Andy as profoundly unlucky. In all the tens of thousands of murder cases the United States has prosecuted over the years, it seems logical that at least some crimes can contain wild coincidences.

So Andy is in prison unjustly. As he enters prison, he is put through hell and yet he is able to stay strong that first night—not so for another new inmate. Andy is terrorized by predatory prisoners who take a liking to him. Because he fights back against his attackers, he is beaten often—one time even to within an inch of his life.

Andy though is extremely smart and resourceful. He is able to make friends with an important person in the prison community, Red (played exceptionally by Morgan Freeman). Red is the go to man for contraband. Andy further uses his skills to get beer for his fellow inmates. He even begins to give the prison guards financial advice. The beer puts him in favor with the inmates and the financial help puts him in favor with the prison staff, most notably Warden Norton (Bob Gunton).

Eventually, Andy is severely punished for indicating that the dirt he has on the warden regarding his taking bribes and stealing from the prison is safe with him. Even the mention of this power that Andy has results in his being placed in solitary confinement for an exceptionally painful two months.

Once he is released from solitary, we see that Andy’s spirit is about to break. So he decides to finalize his plan which he has been working on for almost 20 years. The ending, which I will not give away, is sublime.

Both the cinematography and editing in The Shawshank Redemption are among the best I’ve ever seen in film. The side plots all work exceptionally well too. We see an old man named Brooks who can not cope with the outside world once he is paroled. We also see a young punk named Tommy who gives Andy some extremely useful information regarding his wife’s murder which ultimately leads to tragedy.

Again, the best part of Shawshank was its utter magical tone. Even within the confines of the prison, hope will almost supernaturally help a person survive. It helped Andy and it also may have saved the life of Red. Andy’s escape is the final event in a series of events that may very well give many of the inmates the hope they need to make it through their hell on earth. The irony that Andy was completely straight edge before he got to jail and broke the law daily once he was behind bars is absolutely fascinating. Perhaps this truth mandates that we look into the effectiveness of our prison system in this country.