Awesome - and a couple of comments how movies are made...

Rating: 10/10 (4 May 2006)

I did read the tacky, little books this movie is based-on, when they first came out. I must admit I was not a Stephen King fan, but realized it was an ingenious way to lure people into buying the next installment. I don't remember being overly frightened, nor entertained, when I read them. I guess my imagination isn't that sharp.....it's visual for me. I bought the VHS without hesitation when I saw it - although I'm not a hard-core fan of Tom Hanks, either. The previews for "Forest Gump" reassured me I would not like that film, because his "southern" accent was far too forced, and knew I wouldn't get a thrill looking at a gang of contrived scenes upon which he would be pasted - that's acting ?
Getting this wonderful film into theaters as quickly as it was done was a major undertaking. Considering its three-hour length, one can get an idea how many miles of wasted film is sitting-around in some vault, unless the first "take" of every scene was perfect. Don't hold your breath for that: when you're dealing with a number of actors in a multitude of scenes, you can bet someone was not quite perfect. The only way to test that is to watch the "dailies", hoping 50+ takes aren't wasted film. You can't use it again, like magnetic tape or digital images. Once the film is exposed, that's what you get and is a MAJOR cost for making a film of this length. I never waited with baited breath for a film just because it was being directed by a certain person, edited by a certain person; some actors I watch for new work, but many are often miscast.
The beauty of a film - once it is handed to them - IS determined by the skill of the editor. Yet, their work is usually hampered by a dictatorial director, impositions from producers and influence of some of the actors. Unless they can demonstrate a "cut" would be more valuable to the over-all beauty of the film, their expertise and their foresight usually are disregarded, because they work under extreme scrutiny. Yet, their work is more intense than any other individual working on the film. The raw footage has to be put together, regardless. A good editor can judge where the movie is going, just looking at the film as it is handed to them. Unless he has worked with a director several times, they don't always agree - if they can convince the director to consider another premise, it is this artist who can influence the scenes to be re-shot, even after the film is considered to be "in the can". If the director wants to do a re-cut, it's this artist who must remember - or search the unused film - what he saw where and do the actual work. An editor must be a very open-minded, resilient artist.
A script is only pages with words on them - how often is the entire script re-written? Who else knew the depth of the characters but Stephen King? Maybe a suggestion here, a suggestion there......he was a natural to write the script. If an actor says "what a beautiful script", it is usually said in self-interest, because they must give the words life. True acting-artists have a foresight of the entire film, scene-by-scene, and sacrifices some of his value to allow all of the actors to give their best work, gambling on the finished product will be a film an audience wants to watch. How sad so little mention is given to the person who keeps detailed notations of every detail of the scene - who was where, the last line to be spoken, how the actors looked, etc.....invaluable.....considering what prominent billing is given to cameramen, lighting technicians, set-dressers and myriad other craftsmen.
These are only some of the most important protagonists in the making of a movie; if they were female, right on. "The credits" list the hundreds of other people involved. If some of them say "it was fun," it is usually in relief it all came together so quickly, "fun" being translated into dedicated "work". To produce a monumental film such as "The Green Mile" is, multiply the effort by a thousand. That the film was produced in such a short period of time is a testament of the MONUMENTAL effort made by all concerned, to produce something to be proud of.
Even the least important worker on this film can be proud. I'm certain there was much applause on the sets to reward extra-ordinary effort. It is a film to readily cry over, because not only is the story inspiring and magical in every way, it draws the viewer into it to live the story, never having seen the insides of a prison. I've written these dull comments to demonstrate the behind-the-scene effort to make the classical film it is. How fortunate we'll always have it.
6/16/07 - THE 2ND VHS CASSETTE - Every time I need inspiration, a quiet lesson in compassion - whatever - I play this consummate piece of what I consider to be best of what I've ever seen for the greatest, truest display of acting-talent, sure-sighted direction and - again - the ultimate editing. I doubt seriously if a better cast will ever be assembled again, or a more realistic filming of how things were "then". Every scene is perfect. If you haven't watched "The Green Mile", DO - and really get into it. The second cassettte contains all you need to remember about the easily understood horrors of the first. This is not a "flick" - it is an experience.