Before we can critically assess The Shawshank Redemption, we first have to deal with The Shawshank Reputation

Rating: 9/10 (27 October 2016)

Before we can critically assess The Shawshank Redemption, we first have to deal with The Shawshank Reputation. In addition to its Oscar nominations and huge critical acclaim, the film has topped the IMDb Top 250 for years and shows no signs of dropping off any time soon. Any attempt to criticise it could come across as churlish or contrarian, the work of someone attempting to be above what is popular for their own self-righteous sake. Fortunately, there is little need to criticise - for Shawshank really is as great as people make it out to be. It's easy to forget how much of a slow- burning success Shawshank was. Despite favourable reviews and its many nominations, the film barely broke even on first release. It was only with the VHS release that word began to spread like wildfire, so that by the turn of the century it had garnered a reputation as a modern American great. In an age where films are dead in the water if they don't perform on opening weekend, it is hard to imagine a situation in which another Shawshank could emerge (although Slumdog Millionaire is a reasonable candidate). It's equally easy to forget how brutal the film is, particularly in its first 20 minutes. Shawshank's reputation as a popular favourite might lead the uninitiated to thinking that it's an uplifting, feel- good film - and it is true that these later moments are the ones which have most entered into popular consciousness. But any film about hope needs a source of despair to provide conflict, and Shawshank has more than enough violence and emotional trauma to justify its 15 certificate. As Mark Kermode famously remarked, there's a whole lot of Shawshank before the Redemption. Even without its reputation, Shawshank is one of the best adaptations of Stephen King's work. Indeed, among King's dramatic stories, it is outshone only by its successor The Green Mile. Frank Darabont has a greater understanding of King than almost any other filmmaker: he gets the tone spot on and recreates the period setting brilliantly with the help of Roger Deakins' cinematography. Despite the much-parodied narration that punctuates the film, the drama unfolds naturally and believably throughout, with the characters always being at the forefront and naked exposition being kept to a bare minimum. Shawshank is a good example of how adaptation works - or more specifically, how changes made to the original story in translation often benefit the finished product. The best example of this is the character of Red, who in the original novel is a red-headed Irishman. This is referred to jokingly by Morgan Freeman in one of his first conversations with Tim Robbins; when Andy asks why people call him Red, Red responds: "Maybe it's because I'm Irish.". On top of Freeman's obvious ability, the casting decision makes sense because it adds an extra layer of meaning to the character. Red is one of the few black characters we come across; while he applies himself in different ways, he is as much of an outsider as Andy DuFresne. This is borne out by his remarks about institutionalisation, which are laughed off by his fellow inmates. Red may be well-connected when it comes to smuggling things in, but otherwise he is just as lonely as Andy. Shawshank approaches the theme of institutionalisation with great grace and dexterity. Because the story takes place over three decades, the temptation would be to canter through the plot points and cut straight to Andy's escape - you could even stage the entire story in flashback.