Easy-breezy, obvious as a child's lie.

Rating: 7/10 (25 September 2009)

Shawshank Redemption (1994)
The short of it: I asked some students what their favorite movie was, and some of them (many of them) said, "Shawshank Redemption," and I said, "I haven't even seen it." And they assigned it to me as homework. I started watching, and after about twenty minutes I realized I had, in fact, seen it before.
That's how memorable it was for me.
I also see that Shawshank has the highest user rating of any film on IMDb. What do these other intelligent, movieloving people see that I don't? I wish I could know, but I can't except by reading their comments. And here, then, finally, is mine.
First of all, I don't think it's a terrible film, despite all the picking I do. I'm trying to be analytical. But when I take one aspect and think about it independently, and compare it to other movies I like, it starts to look weak for specific reasons, which is good to know. Please don't read further if you just want a confirmation of why this is a great film. In brief, I don't think Shawshank probes, invents, or seduces aesthetically. It's just a nice story well told.
First, that story. Stephen King is a successful writer, to say the least, and a really good "wordsmith." His stories work with simple conflicts, and they are plot driven--one thing happens, another thing happens, a third thing is almost necessary to have happen, a twist, a turn, and always, from what I can tell, a nice wrap up. That's pretty much the plot in Shawshank. There is almost no depth to the characters--they are stereotypes, not made of foamcore maybe, but flimsy. There is the evil warden, of course. There is the thoughtful black man who everyone likes, played by Morgan Freeman (who narrates), and the thoughtful white man who doesn't like anyone (at first), played by Tim Robbins.
Of course, it goes from there, but really, the "twists" are old ones.
The plot is the framework for something I found more irritating, and that was a slightly glib tone. The story was not really "realistic" in any sense, though the trappings of actual prison life are all there, from rape in the back room to corruption in the front office. Maybe as a "fable" it can get away with its airiness, right up to the final happy ending. It might not need any grounding in reality. As a fable it would naturally avoid complexity, or even anything independently interesting. What I mean is, maybe the journey through these familiar clichés, done with a fuzzy, congenial ease, is self-satisfying on purpose. And therefore Shawshank Redemption is heartwarming and enjoyable, to use two words that are as exciting together as milk and warm.
But it was this breezy tone that made it unwatchable for me. I had to fastforward through a few parts in the second half (it was my second time seeing it). It seemed that nothing happening! Nothing I hadn't seen before in other movies. It struck me not as mythic or spiritual (those are words people use) but as false, as anti-meaningful because it's obvious, familiar, comforting.
The film-making? Let's tick off some basics.
Editing: conventional, and downright slow. You can argue the pace was leisurely and luxurious to draw the viewer in. Or you can say it's drawn out and sluggish.
Music: functional and familiar, "movie music" pure and simple, in its lush seduction, which is offputting once you pay attention to it directly.
Script: hmmmm. The writing is not distracting or "bad" especially, but that's hardly a recommendation. It gets the information across. But really, read some lines, repeat a few scenes out loud. There are those now famous lines, about everyone being innocent and so on, but most of the movie doesn't crackle--even other Hollywood heartwarmers like Die Hard have more inventiveness. Isn't Shawshank presenting Hallmark sentiments?
Acting: exactly what the film needed for its pace and intentions. No faulting Freeman or Robbins there.
Photography: professional. If there was a movie crying out for some great filming, this is one, with a great interior to exploit and some good night scenes. But the camera work is functional, with a few moments of higher drama (the prisoner getting shot from above, the escape sequence). But look how often the scenes are just filmed "nicely" so that we enjoy being there. Maybe this is the idea, to be caressed and not assaulted--it's not an action adventure film, so I don't expect to be shocked.
Direction: finally, the lynchpin person here needs to be accountable. Oh, I'm sure Frank Darabont doesn't mind the cult status of his movie, but he probably knows he is no auteur, but rather rode the coattails of a lot of talented craftspeople around him. But those other people all had to count on him to ask for (and deliver) something with more originality, beauty, surprise, depth, and compactness than the Shawshank we have. It's not a shame, obviously, that we have what we have, because so many people love it, really really love it. I didn't care for his other well known film either, The Green Mile, and so again, it's just what you want from your two hours of absorption.
But it brings me back to where I started, which is to realize that there are all kinds of viewers, and movies to match. This one didn't go the places I need a great movie to go. It's not a bad movie, not at all. In fact, this might be a classic example of a movie being much more than the sum of its parts. But, still, even the whole strikes me as flip and easy-breezy, obvious as child's lie. It is content to be superficial, and I, personally, am not.