The "Greatest Film" Game

Rating: Null/10 (23 June 2004)

Rather than just enjoy movies, critics like to play "The Greatest Film" game. A few years back, it was rare that a contemporary film was picked as greatest. "Citizen Kane," "Le Grand Illusion," "The Gold Rush" and other pre-1950 films usually got the nod well into the 1980's.
Then, for some reason, most likely the Internet opening up a voice for the average person to rate film, contemporary films started getting in. "Schindler's List" was one that comes to mind. "Shawshank Redemption" is another.
While picking the same old, stale films year after year doesn't seem to be logical, picking newer ones has a certain risk. Many films amaze and beguile audiences when they come out because they are geared to what currently sells. As years passed, the flaws become apparent and they drop out of sight, while timeless films initially received lukewarmly, or even critically, such as "The Wizard of Oz," "The General," or "Intolerance" soar.
Will "The Shawshank Redemption" drop into obscurity, too? I don't think so.
Why? One can try to explain.
Two possible reasons are Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman. I don't know if either are underrated actors or not, but I rarely hear people remark how completely they transform themselves from role to role. This is certainly the case here. The two performances, and the chemistry between the two men is the core of the film and reinforces one of its primary messages: never let anyone make you lose hope.
The fact the setting, prison, is alien to most filmgoer's experience, doesn't matter. "Shawshank" could never be considered a "prison" film. It contains a story as archetypal as "The Odyssey," a long journey, through many dangers, that ends with the traveler (this time, two travelers) seen to a safe shore (literally!).
Another great strength of "Shawshank" is how it operates on different levels. Like Jon Avnet's "Fried Green Tomatoes," it has its most obvious message--about not losing hope and surviving--set highest. But as "Tomatoes" had a gay subtext that could be acknowledged or ignored, so does "Shawshank," that prison is a dehumanizing experience that ends up ruining people for life rather than just letting them pay their debts to society and move on.
Given this country's conservative bent, it is somewhat bizarre that a film that carries this message is so adored. All I can say is the other aspects of the film allow one to ignore it and still enjoy it, which is probably fitting since films where the message is the most important thing, such as those of the '50's and '60's, now show their age badly.

In the final analysis, though, regardless of what elements we pick at, we ultimately can't say why "Shawshank" is so great. We just know it is by how we feel and how others feel.
Two final examples of the latter. The moment in Andy's escape when he stands in the sewage lagoon outside the prison and holds his arms up in jubilation as the rain pours on him is always a part of trailers and coming attractions. Indeed it was part one of the film's original ads. Why should the filmmakers give away the ending? Because there is nothing to give away. One can see the film 100 times knowing Andy will escape and still want to see it, because it isn't about an escape plot. It's about Andy and Red's journey and what they teach each other.
The second example is that the Lifetime Channel, which generally shows either classic "Chick Flicks" like "Thelma and Louise," or made for TV things about unfaithful or homicidal husbands, showed this as their feature presentation one evening and this is a film that really has no women in it at all.
Of course, one can argue a "Chick Flick" is really just a film that values exploration of deep human feelings and relationships more than car chases and explosions. If that is the case, then "Shawshank" is the greatest Chick Flick of them all.
And I think the Greatest Film Game never fit more than here.