• Gerardo Valero in Mexico City
Is Frank Darabont's "The Shawshank Redemption" the best motion-picture of all time? According to Internet Movie Database users, that is exactly the case. The advent of the internet likely brought together the largest congregation of movie fans in history, ready to express their opinions in the most accessed movie data base ever, and the best rated film there is "The Shawshank Redemption."This isn't something to take lightly, true, but there are peculiarities about the website's data that needs to be considered. if you've followed their rankings in the past you may have noticed that the response by users to recently released films tends to be more extreme than that of older ones, in other words, a recent good movie might initially appear with a higher rating and a bad one with a lower one; films only seem to reach their rightful place with the passage of time and particularly with the accumulation of a larger number of votes. Their opening weekend is not the most accurate of moments to evaluate what audiences really think about them.
At any rate, "Shawshank" is 16 years old and apparently has received more votes than just about any other top 250 movie which means its #1 rating can not be considered a fluke. This is especially odd when you consider not many people saw it when it first opened in theaters so the great majority of its very large audience comes from home video.
We can start by saying this is indeed a great film, one which has provided sentences to our daily conversations ("get busy living or get busy dying", "you've become institutionalized", "aaaand felt like free men") and our daily doings are often compared with those of the characters depicted here. For me, "The Shawshank Redemption" is also one of those memorable films that I can recall the exact circumstances under which I first saw it: some sixteen years ago; at a theater with my (then) girlfriend, a couple of weeks before we got married, that same morning I had left a job I greatly disliked and which was a source of great stress for me, which meant that when I saw Tim Robbins kneeled under that night storm, I badly wanted to join suit. Some of life's most beautiful memories derive from these types of moments.
Yet if you want to suggest any one movie is the very best of all time, you have to thoroughly scrutinize it; you have to play the role of the devil's advocate. By the end of the day you are bound to come up with apples and oranges but this shouldn't stop us from giving this endeavor a try.
For starters, one can't ignore the fact that a relative low number of younger audiences have actually watched the old greats like "Casablanca," "Citizen Kane," or "The Third Man'--movies that only have a fraction of the votes "Shawshank" does, in part because many movie-watchers seem to have a "what's new?" attitude, in part because some people just don't seem to enjoy black & white films. This means that the #1 spot in the IMDB rankings was likely to go to a relatively new, color film to begin with.
What's best and most unusual about "The Shawshank Redemption" is how difficult a film it is to accurately be described. At first it seems to be mainly about the horrors of prison, then it becomes one about a friendship, later on it is about man's dependency on the walls that incarcerate him, further on about hope and despair and finally, two hours into it, we discover we are actually watching an escape movie, something that by that point was the furthest thing from my mind despite being well aware that the literal translation of its Spanish title is "Dreams of Escape." I also believe "Shawshank" came dangerously close to turning into a complete downer, much like "Midnight Express," but part of the greatness about it is that it managed to end up as exactly the opposite.
In both examples we meet several characters who are beaten up, humiliated and raped, yet "Shawshank" is undeniably an uplifting movie, helped immensely by that most affecting Morgan Freeman narration (which came at a time before those started to feel tired and overused by his narrations in so many other features). It's not easy to find a film in which these scenes of horror can be found right alongside some truly beautiful, elevating ones as when the Mozart opera is played on the speaker system. That involves (oddly enough) mostly grown, unappealing listeners and yet, save for a few exceptions (the so-called "sisters") the majority of them are depicted as far from being evil but rather as people who simply messed up things at some point in their lives and find themselves amazed at still being able to be moved by something so foreign to their sad realities.
There are a few faults to "Shawshank." I think its villains are more than a bit cartoony, especially the warden played Bob Gunton, a specific casting that frequency and the years have effectively turned into a cliché. It's also hard to believe that for over two decades none of these evil doers were ever transferred to another prison or position (Brooks casually mentions this is his sixth warden in 50 years). The film has several other contrivances that become all the more noticeable with repeated viewings. For example, for such a brilliant character as Dufresene it seems naïve to both take his plea of innocence to the no-good warden instead of his lawyer and to ignore the fact that his knowledge of that character's dirty deals all but guaranteed he would never leave the prison alive.
Additionally, for him to successfully dig his way out of the place, he had to count on too many unlikely events such as never being switched from one cell to another in the span of many years, and the presence of thunder to hide all the noise he would have to make. Finally and without claiming to understand the architecture of the place, it seems to me that (a) a large drainage pipe would not likely lead to a clean river and (b) one would dig a tunnel in the ground, not behind the wall of a second level cell.
I also have to question the veracity of the claim that Mexicans believe "the Pacific Ocean has no memory" but I can understand this line's contribution to the dramatic effect of the film, aside from being a terrific one to begin with.
I don't think it's too difficult to understand people's affection for "Shawshank." Few films have ever managed to allow its characters (and audience) to hit rock-bottom in their later stages only to effectively convince them that such a surprising, beautiful and happy ending could indeed be possible. Years ago, I can remember Siskel & Ebert trying to find the reason behind the film's poor theatrical box office and suggesting the possibility that the picture's name was the culprit; this might have been the case then but time has only served to turn this weakness into a strength. In my experience, finding someone who dislikes "Shawshank" is as difficult as learning of one who loved "Gigli." In the year 1994 that gave us the great "Pulp Fiction," "Forrest Gump" and "The Shawshank Redemption", the latter just so happens to be the one I have the most affection for.
After all of this has been said the question still remains: Is "The Shawshank Redemption" the best movie of all time? The answer is no, not really, this is not a particularly ground-breaking or flawless film. Can any one, single motion picture be called the best ever? I don't think so, unless we disregard the possibility that diverse tastes among audiences and critics can exist. How relevant are these conclusions in the grand scope of cinema's history? Not too much. If Shawshank's IMDB rating tells us anything it's that maybe, in general terms, its outstanding virtues plus some external factors have resulted in it meaning more to a larger number of present day movie-goers than just about any other motion-picture. I'm pretty sure Darabont, Robbins and Freeman can live with this.
This is all highly subjective.
If you're any kind of movie afficianado you already know that the IMDb Top 250 isn't really something to put much faith in. Use it as a guide, certainly, but don't take any of it as gospel. I say this with several of my favourite films barely making the list or not at all.
Shawshank is a great film, sublime. As with anything regarded a masterpiece, which this regularly is, there will be the inevitable hype backlash. Including this enjoyably written critique, it must be said.
You have some valid points. Shawshank happens to be one of my top five favorite films because of the strong main characters and the story of hope. But as a 40-something and avid film fan, I've seen the older classics, and many of the new soon-to-be classics. So can I say Shawshank is the greatest film of all time? No. The Godfather. The Maltese Falcon. Gone With the Wind. Sophie's Choice. These are my other top four favorites. All stories with strong central characters and excellent screenplays. Shawshank is, I feel, the choice of the viewer who is a sucker for a quiet hero. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I can name three films that are better: Citizen Kane, The Third Man, The Magnificent Ambersons.
I've shown this movie to a couple of high school classes over the years and it is instructive to watch their reaction.
At first they are restless and vocal about being forced to watch a "boring" movie. But something happens about 20 or so minutes in, the class quietens down and they are drawn in.
The reaction on their faces as Dufresene makes his escape is magic. One young woman put it brilliantly, as only teenagers can, when the camera pans to an outraged Warden "you got stooged".
If you use the same basis on which Shawshank is the greatest film of all time, you would make Andre Rieu the greatest musician and Jocobs Creek the best wine.
Aside from Shawshank's cinematic merits, its success in the IMDb Top 250 can be traced to three factors IMO:
1) As you wrote, the nature of the list is to reward recent films, and Shawshank was newly ensconced in heavy rotation on broadcast TV at a critical juncture in internet home penetration.
2) It appeals to young males, who (particularly at IMDb's outset) were overwhelmingly represented in the voting.
3) Once it ascended to the top spot, it benefited from inertia -- people went to vote on some movies, saw Shawshank on top, and it reminded them that they liked it, so they reinforced its ranking. Even voters who went on to rank many films, and who likely developed more nuanced rating tendencies as time went by, had begun by slapping a 9 or 10 on Shawshank.
Nobody appreciates "The Sound of Music."
"Shawshank" isn't on the same rung of the ladder.
"Titanic" would rank about it. So would "Gone With The Wind."
Steven Spielberg is doing "Smash" about a Broadway musical based on the life of Marilyn Monroe. Katherine McPhee wants the lead role. Jack Davenport is the choreographer. I would rank "Smash" above "Shawshank," without even seeing it.
"Jaws" above "Shawshank."
I guess you can tell I didn't like it that much. Having met a few men who have been sentenced to spend decades in prison, I think it's the wrong solution. Ship them to the sinking island of "Sun Come Up" and let them try to find food, but don't put humans in cages like lab rats. Even if they get drunk and kill their wife and her lover in cold blood. Even if they run a Mexican drug cartel.
I don't think we can call a movie the best of all time, simply because not everybody has the same tastes in movies. I'm not amazed by either Scarface or The Godfather, not because I don't like gangster movies (The Departed and The Usual Suspects are on my top movie lists,) but simply because I didn't find them as engrossing as others. I guess Shawshank appeals to the widest of possible parts of society, and that's why it's so loved by such a large audience and why it gets to be the top movie on IMDB.
Roger,
Your article basically proves it is impossible to criticize "The Shawshank Redemption". Like any good move, its appeal amounts to more than the sum of its parts. Likewise you cannot reduce its greatness by illustrating a few contrived parts that are not even flaws really. All movies contain contrivances including documentaries. IMDB uses an algorithm that accounts for opening weekend bumps. Is "Shawshank" the greatest movie ever? Yes. It actually is. "Kane's" visual symbols are interesting to study but they do not make it a more satisfying movie than Shawshank. Casablanca is generally overrated, though not on IMDB. You might want to try viewing Shawshank in black and white.
Loved the comment and argument. The advantage of IMDB's rating system is safety in numbers. It may not be totally accurate, but unless the film is of subject matter I won't likely to enjoy, any film over a rating of 7 or better is worth consideration. With the typical movie rated by thousands of people, generally literate at that, it isn't necessarily skewed by a subset of detractors.
That said, a look at the top 250 of IMDB's movies are a mixture of great classics, current titles, and some true oddities. It clearly isn't the final best of list to end all lists. However, it would certainly be worth looking at any title on this list that maybe slipped by even the most dedicated movie goer. I noticed myself I never saw "The Lives of Others" at #56. Something to check into.
In the end, my top ten and anyone else's top ten are going to differ with nothing but slight nuances of opinion to separate them. I would certainly put "Dr. Strangelove..." in my top ten instead of position #35 in IMDB. But then, I can understand why it didn't make the top ten with it being in black and white and having a script dripping in sarcasm and black humor. As it is with the nature of these things, I'd be hard pressed to determine where in the top ten I would put it.
Anyway, thanks for the mental exercise.
Loved the comment and argument. The advantage of IMDB's rating system is safety in numbers. It may not be totally accurate, but unless the film is of subject matter I won't likely to enjoy, any film over a rating of 7 or better is worth consideration. With the typical movie rated by thousands of people, generally literate at that, it isn't necessarily skewed by a subset of detractors.
That said, a look at the top 250 of IMDB's movies are a mixture of great classics, current titles, and some true oddities. It clearly isn't the final best of list to end all lists. However, it would certainly be worth looking at any title on this list that maybe slipped by even the most dedicated movie goer. I noticed myself I never saw "The Lives of Others" at #56. Something to check into.
In the end, my top ten and anyone else's top ten are going to differ with nothing but slight nuances of opinion to separate them. I would certainly put "Dr. Strangelove..." in my top ten instead of position #35 in IMDB. But then, I can understand why it didn't make the top ten with it being in black and white and having a script dripping in sarcasm and black humor. As it is with the nature of these things, I'd be hard pressed to determine where in the top ten I would put it.
Anyway, thanks for the mental exercise.
I don't hate Shawshank Redemption, but I confess to being completely bewildered about its high rating on IMDB.
I came to the film having read the novella by Stephen King first, which I love. In comparison, I felt the film suffered quite a bit. Parts of it are contrived and hokey (the Mozart over the PA system, for example), and the changes that were made to King's story for the sake of the film didn't work for me. In addition, most of King's adaptations feel flat--they don't have the rich writing that the books do--and Shawshank was no exception. The only King adaptations I've really enjoyed were Stand By Me and The Shining, which in its movie form was much more Kubrick than King, anyway.
I suspect most of Shawshank Redemption's fans are people who saw the film before reading King's novella, if in fact they've ever read it at all. And personally, I think Pulp Fiction is a much better movie, and a helluva lot more fun.
I saw the film in its original theatrical release. I couldn't understand how it got nominated for BP. I was bored by it. I can't help feel that it's appeal has something to do with Alpha males' fear of prison rape. They identify with Tim Robbins' character to the nth degree, much like horror films with marauding murderers in hockey masks appeal to the base fears of teenage girls.
I believe it is the greatest film of all times... Every time I watch it, I feel good for days to come.. And I have watched it more than 20 times
I think it's interesting to note that "The Godfather" used to be the number 1 film. However, in light of "The Dark Knight" hitting theaters, many went back and lowered their rating for "The Godfather" so that "The Dark Knight" could get a higher rating. As time went by, however, the Dark Knight stayed off the number 1 film, resulting in "The Shawshank Redemption" taking over the number 1 spot.
Perhaps instead of considering the top-rated IMDB movie as the best of all time one should think of it as the favorite of all time.
2) It appeals to young males - snashot1
And why such lists are of no real value. Imo.
It's all about marking a tree. And once there's a mark, others soon arrive and relieve themselves on the same spot. They dress it up as something else, and furiously defend it as though p*ss and valued opinion are the same.
Some do it with sports. Others with movies. The minute you measure something in public, it creates a competitive dynamic and mostly amongst young men.
And for that reason, whenever I see such thingst, I think: "I'm gonna go over here and just enjoy what I like. You can keep wizzing on your tree."
Chuckle!
Years ago I remember reading an article that compared Americans' taste in the fine arts as running along the lines of the Simpsons: the Homer type, the Marge type, the Bart type, and the Lisa type.
I am married to a Marge, but I myself am a Lisa. My spouse ADORES the "Shawshank", more than the "Star Wars", which is saying a lot.
Marges are very good about entering data into databases and patient with surveys. Homers are too lazy, Barts too prone to pranks, and Lisas too snotty to be put into a bell curve.
So it is no surprise to me that "The Shawshank Redemption" ranks so highly. Thank the Marges.
Shawshank is a fantastic film. Obviously popular because it hits a nerve with most people who see it.
But it's NOT just a film that is popular without merit. The script, direction, and performances are excellent. A beautiful story, well told.
Best film made from a Stephen King work? Yes.
Some people's favorite movie of all time? Yes.
One of my favorite films of all time? You bet.
Best film of all time? I don't think so.
A perfect, wonderful, flawless film for the ages.
@Zeke: Agree this is all very subjective but I’m convinced that “Shawshank” being #1 on the list is not an accident. Its ranking tells us something. It’s just that this “something” is probably not “greatest film ever made”.
@Chrisa Hickey: “Perfect” may not be the best word to describe “Shawshank” but “Sublime”and “special” certainly are.
@@orsomWhales: ..and “The Godfather I & II” , and “Casablanca”, etc., etc. but my point is that “Shawshank” just happens to be great at what it aims to be.
@Seamus: The film is probably the biggest example of what “word of mouth” can accomplish.
@sansho1: Curiously, some of this film’s biggest fans I know just happen to be women. Also, don’t forget many new film’s make the Top 250 list almost overnight but, whatever “inertia” they may have, next time you check, they’re not there anymore.
@Bill Hays: You may very well be correct but it seems that over 500,000 IMDB voters don’t share your opinion.
@Faris: I agree with your explanation for Shawshank’s rating. It is also my opinion that “The Godfather” is the best and most engrossing film of all time.
@RickG: When a small, foreign film like “The Lives of Others” (which you mention) sneaks into the IMDB Top 250, it is there for a reason. That is a phenomenal picture which I can’t recommend enough.
@Lynn McKenzie: I’ve written about “Pulp Fiction” before and even though its greatness can’t be questioned, it’s clearly not as easy to love as “Shawshank” for obvious reasons.
@troofire: What does it then say about “Shawshank” when audiences identify with a character that in many ways is depicted as extremely remote?
@Akash Singla: Best movie in history or not, “Shawshank” is one of the most “elevating” ones for sure
@Daniel: When one talks about votes that number the hundreds of thousands, I believe manipulation of the rankings seems very unlikely.
I hardly think that I'm qualified to state what the best film of all time is. I see several films each week, but I know there are many great films ,both domestic and international, that I either haven't gotten the opportunity to see, or that have flown under my radar. I will, however, say this about "Shawshank": There is no other movie that I can watch time and time again, never get bored, and am moved every time. I guess it's the message of hope, and I've watched this movie at times when I've been in less than ideal circumstances, and it always lifts me up. Sure there are problems with it, but I like the arc of its story. How Red warns Andy in the middle of the film that hope is a "dangerous thing" in a place like Shawshank, and Andy responds that there's always hope. Then (I believe) Red's last words in the film are "I hope." It makes me rethink my circumstances, and, as corny as it sounds, has given me the strength to hope, too, and know that you have to have faith (not in the religious sense) that things will get better, especially if you believe they will.
What you're all failing to mention is that Shawshank has appeared on cable TV thousands of times in its relatively short life as compared to other classics. It's extremely easy to end up falling into watching it three times a year without expending much effort. One cannot say that for The Maltese Falcon, Gone With the Wind, Sophie's Choice or others mentioned.
And since everyone agrees on the movie's 'feel good' sensations, it's easy to see why the ratings are so high on iMDB. It's comfort food that one continues to enjoy even after the previous nine times they've stumbled across it.
Basically, what it comes down to is - people are lazy - they don't want to see the best movies, of all time, so they settle with Shawshank.
I love "The Shawshank Redemption," but have sometimes been at a loss to explain why. In many ways, it could have been made at Warner Bros. in the 30s or 40s. It's a conventional prison movie in some ways. Of course, it's great fun to see the Tim Robbins character outsmart everyone at the end, and there's no denying that has much to do with its appeal.
I think Tim Robbins summed up what makes the movie special on the Charlie Rose Show a few years ago. He said it was one of the rare films to depict a real friendship between two men that wasn't based on any macho posturing. Andy and Red aren't competing with each other for chicks, and their not taking part in a heist, or any of the usual things that men seem to bond over in movies. It's a genuine friendship based on mutual respect and love. I think that's why it's special.
Of course, it's also a damn fine prison movie, and it is great to see the warden get his comeuppance.
Daniel you are right that's exactly what happened. It's call The Dark Knight effect
I think it's a little silly to try to rank movies in the first place. We don't make ordered lists of the 250 greatest novels of all time, why do we try to do it with movies? Imagine trying to rank the 250 greatest works of architecture of all time-- it would be meaningless. Or how about philosophers? "You claim that Confucius's doctrine of social relationships invalidtes my argument. But if Confucius was so smart, then why does he only rank a 7 on IPDB.com?"
Even if we somehow chose one movie that everyone agreed was the "best" (whatever that is supposed to mean), then what? Will we watch that one movie over and over for the rest of our lives, to the exclusion of everything else? Rankings are not only meaningless, they are pointless.
Analysis of what works or doesn't work in a particular film is a good thing, as is comparing the relative merits of two different films. And there are some movies that simply are better than others. But a ranked list, in which every film occupies some unique place above and below all other films along a single scale, simply can't be taken seriously.
The explanation for which this film has this rating will remain obscure for years, but your critique of the movie is highly accurate. However, you miss the two main points of this picture:
1) One of the most exemplary films where the nerd (Robbins) demonstrates that cleverness overpowers brute force: Hail Bill Gates.
2) James Whitmore's performance is the best and the essence of the film: prison as an identity making environment.
The Godfather and Shawshank have see-sawed back and forth over the number 1 spot on that list a few times in my memory. IMDB does claim to compensate for people sabotaging some movies to raise others, like the example you mention.
I can't understand why Shawshank is anywhere near the top spot, myself. I don't hate it, but I have no idea why so many people seem to think it's phenomenal.
Shawshank is a wonderful story, well told. Greatest film of all time? Not exactly. The Godfather, Silence of the Lambs & Pulp Fiction, to name a few, are all better. But I think the reason SR ranks so highly now (compared to its theater release) is that it is Capra-esque - a very uplifting story about the good in us. Kind of like a darker It's A Wonderful Life.
I consider myself a "Movie Buff" and see hundreds of films every year, and have seen many of the highly rated classics, foreign, and indie films of all time.
I actually appreciate the IMDb listing of the top 250 films because it gives you a good start for finding great movies to watch. And they fall all over the place, they aren't all glossy new Hollywood films. If it weren't for that list, I might have never found "The Wages of Fear". Check it out!
I frequently look over the IMDb list (and almost any listing of top movies) looking for films to check out. I've currently seen every film on the IMDb list (excluding those less than 6 months old that haven't yet made it to DVD). and I encourage others to try to do the same.
Getting back to the main question: If someone were to ask what my favorite movie is, I would automatically say "Shawshank". I've discovered several people I did NOT meet on-line who share the same feelings.
Is it better than my 2nd favorite film, "Vertigo"? Probably not. I don't know what it is about that film, but it draws people to it.
Well, if you look at it from a list standpoint: Citizen Kane has been voted the greatest film on both AFI (1998 and 2008), BFI critic's list and BFI director's list. My guess would be if we had to pick a film considered the greatest, it would be that one. Not just because of its standings on list, but the history. How the French took it during the 50s and revitalized not just their own industry but brought it back to America as well. It's not really based on ratings but impact. Impact can't be given a number, or stars, but it can be fostered within a community and from there you have a consensus.
When my parents would often proclaim to me as a child, "The book is much better", I could never accept it, because movies stimulated my younger, shorter attention span much more. The Shawkshank Redemption remains the first work where I realized how much better the book was.
I concur with Lynn Mackenzie; the novella is not only richer and more poignant, it solves many of the issues listed in this article. For example, in the novella, Warden Norton is not the only warden present, but merely the one who oversees the more crucial elements of Dufresne's later story. It is explained that there are succession of numerous wardens, each with their own horridness, during Dufresne's stay at the Shank.
More important is the tiny detail that Dufresne's poster on his wall is positioned above his bunk (i believe.) This would provide a more feasible access to inner pipelines of the building's structure.
I need to go back and read it again, but some instinct tells me Dufresne left his lawyer years ago when his appeals exhausted and began representing himself. My brain might, however, be introducing this particular fact as merely a distinct strategy that a man like Dufresne would likely undertake.
The Shawshank Redemption is a great film. Anything beyond that is subjective. After all, if we all loved the same kinds of movies, or thought the same movie was the best of all time, then there'd be no need for more than one movie critic.
After a certain point, quality is subjective (for example, which movie is better, Pulp Fiction or The Shawshank Redemption? One could make a case for either film, because both are great). Also after a certain point, it doesn't matter. There are many great films out there.
What the IMDB ranking tells us is that many people love and admire this film, and it's worth checking out why. Not that it's the greatest film of all time, but that it's a personal favorite for a wide range of people.
Marie Haws sounds like a barrell of laughs. Insert snooty dismissive comment about the silly tendencies of young women, old women, old men, teenagers, republican lesbians, etc here.
Of course lists are of value, unless you've seen every movie every made. You say you specifically just enjoy what you like, as if that's not what everyone does. What; young men seek out movies they don't like or don't believe they'll like? What are you talking about? Women flock to vacuous rom-coms; they just tend to be less inclined to post their opinions online afterwards for whatever reason. This reality doesn't make me feel superior.
I would think this is obvious, but the value of lists like this is to direct us to films we might otherwise be unaware of or have overlooked in the past. Saying "I know what I like" implies one of two things: (1) you have tragically limited taste, or (2) you are already aware of every film available that you might personally enjoy. How do you choose what to watch? Trailers? Guest appearance on Jay? Recommendation from your BFF or sister? Whatever's in the closest Redbox? Only movies starring Actor X? These choices all narrow your field of vision significantly, as do, admittedly, most "best film" lists.
Any list I run across that presents films I'm unfamiliar with is worth my time to peruse. If I take a look and see "Citizen Kane," "The Godfather," "The Dark Knight," or a "Lord of the Rings" film at the top of a short list, I'll just move on. I enjoy all of those films, but everyone who has a pulse has already seen them or at least had ample opportunity. I get no value from knowing that professional or amateur critic X loved them to pieces. A list that includes, say, "Sans Soleil," or "Ace in the Hole" . . now that might be worth a few minutes. It has no absolute value in terms of helping me determine what the "best" anything is, but it might lead me to a theretofore hidden gem.
As for IMDB, I get more value from the genre-specific lists or the bottom 150 of the all-inclusive list. I'll never get to them all, but that's part of the fun. I'm never going to run out of ideas, but I don't create my own ideas in a vacuum. I need input, and lacking family and friends who are as into cinema as I am, various lists do the job just fine.
Oh, and not that the term "best" means a darn thing, "Network" is the best film of all-time, including every film I've never seen and every film to be created for the rest of eternity.
Ebert is wise on movies but weak on facts he comments as inplausible. prison wardens tend to be political appointees so they come and go with political tides. It is very believable Shawshank would have had 6 wardens in a 20 year period. The chaos at the top meant the middle management would need to be pretty stable to run the place effectively. The guards were likely not unionized and couldn't bid on jobs outside the prison it is very likely they would be guards at the same prison for an entire career. As fa as the sewer, it would have to run to a flowing stream. Otherwise, it would simply pool outside of the walls and raise a holy stench. The flowing stream would mean the upstream portion of it was clean and even the exit pipe would be pretty clean at night when the prisoners are sleeping and it is raining. The tunneling underground point is simply untenable as a criticism. It would have been impossible to dig a tunnel through the ground from a second floor cell. Moreover, getting rid of the waste dirt would been impossible as would finding pilings to support the tunnel. Walls reach under ground to prevent such attempts anyway.
A very nice assessment of an excellent film. It's interesting because while it may be #1 on IMDb, I can't really think of anyone who, while liking it, would call it the greatest movie ever made. It's quite good and I like it a lot, but it's not that good.
My own interpretation: the top rankings used to be something like this:
1. The Godfather
2. The Shawshank Redemption
3. The Godfather Part II
4. Pulp Fiction
5. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Something like that. Then The Dark Knight came around and quickly shot to #1 in the jubilation that followed. For anyone who didn't think Nolan's film was good, this simply would not do. So in the great scuffle of people voting 10s and 1s, everything got reshuffled, and it just so happened that Shawshank would be on top. I've not seen any critics defending this, even though Gerardo's just observing it.
However, I think everyone can agree on one thing: if you saw every movie on that list, you'd come away a little bit changed, and I think a little bit bettered. I put IMDb's Top 250 before any Time or Newsweek list, the AFI lists, up there with Sight & Sound. That's because it's a general consensus from many people who care about and are informed about movies, and Sight & Sound is from similar people who actually work in movies. So you get a filmmaker's perspective, and the audience's perspective.
"Is "The Shawshank Redemption" the best movie of all time? The answer is no, not really, this is not a particularly ground-breaking or flawless film."
But does a film have to be ground-breaking or flawless to be a great film? Sure Citizen Kane broke ground for it's visual style of the time and creating some of the cinematic language that we use even today, but is it as engaging a story as Shawshank Redemption?
Now mind you, I'm not bad mouthing Citizen Kane here. It just seems that it is known more for its technical proficiencies than telling an enthralling story with engaging characters. I've seen Citizen Kane a few times and enjoy it but I think that it is Shawshank Redemption's lack of ground-breaking and its attention to story and character that make it such a great movie.
And really, is any film flawless? Even Citizen Kane?
"Can any one, single motion picture be called the best ever? I don't think so, unless we disregard the possibility that diverse tastes among audiences and critics can exist."
This is why I don't really agree with "greatest" lists whether it's movies, songs, albums etc. I can't even choose my own favorite movie let alone the greatest one of all time. I have many favorites from different genres but I enjoy each of them for different reasons. So to name only one as my all-time favorite over the others would be as ridiculous as saying apples are better than oranges.
It comes down to personal feelings and opinion. But top ten lists, greatest of all time lists etc. get you hits on your site or sells you magazine or gets viewers to you show. So I don't see these lists going away anytime soon.
I also don't think Shawshank enjoys its popularity purely because of the male audience. I've met quite a few women who love this movie. I think its themes are far more universal than it just being a macho movie.
In fact it's anything but a macho movie. The primary reason it appeals to so many is its message of hope. Its message of breaking out of whatever prison our lives have us in and escaping to paradise. But also it's a platonic love story between two friends who happen to both be men. That's anything but macho. But some of you act like this is Fight Club or something.
Great article.
I love Shawshank, it's been in my top 5 for a while now. Every time I watch it though, I definitely can see the flaws. But for some reason, it's just a film that really resonates - there's so much that can be applied to our lives: grief, regret, redemption, true friendship, the whole idea of being institutionalized.
Some of the classics mentioned here, really don't relate to my generation (30's) nearly as much. Sure, Citizen Kane was a well made and interesting movie, but the dialogue is extremely hokey and let's face it, the way people talk in that movie does not resemble reality. The supporting actors are weak, and their voices all sound like radio announcers, not real characters.
People who grew up with that movie may disagree based on nostalgia and the fact that they saw it before all the other movies that borrowed from it. But if a movie was released today with a "twist ending" was that it was all about a sled? It would be a joke.
That's a crap ending. Let's face it.
Is THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION the best film of all time? For me, it is not. I give that honor to SCHINDLER'S LIST. That film just hit me emotionally with a devastating blow. It grabbed me so much it became an out of the body experience, which I think the greatest films are able to do. I saw CITIZEN KANE in a film class the week after seeing SCHINDLER'S LIST on Laserdisc. I know CITIZEN KANE is considered the greatest movie ever made, and it is a great movie. But for me it felt more like a technical triumph than an emotional one. (CITIZEN KANE has the greatest editing of any film I know.)
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION was my pick for the best film of 1994, just ahead of HOOP DREAMS and PULP FICTION. If you really look closely at the film it really is about redemption, especially for Morgan Freeman's character, Red. When we first see him he sincerely tells the review board he feels rehabilitated. The second time he comes up for review it sounds like he is just saying scripted words. But the third time, he truly, deeply, doesn't care if he is rehabilitated. Sure, he is remorseful in what he did, but he has by that time become institutionalized. And his friendship with Robbins' Andy Dufresne is what gives him the hope that redeems him from the crime he has done, and that he can truly live again.
Anytime I see THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION I wonder what became of Andy and Red after their reunion on the beach. My guess is that the two of them succeeded in fixing up that boat, opened the beach motel, and went into business together. If my age and timetable is right, Red was around 18-20 when he was locked down, making him 60 when he was released. Andy was around 25-30 when he was locked down, making him 44-49 when he escaped. My guess is Red lived another 20 years until he died in 1987, while Andy may have lived until 1997.
Both actors have won Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actor since 1994. I'm sure people they meet are always bringing up THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION even today. It says a lot when a film is remembered 17 years after it first came out. That isn't the case with most movies being made today.
This is definitely one of my favorite movies of all time. I would definitely pick this to rewatch, over Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind, and any number of other highly rated movies. But as others have said, rating movies is highly subjective, which is why narrowing down all of moviedom into one "best ever" is stupid.
I will have to disagree with some of your "problems" in the movie, however. Of course there are a lot of coincidences in Andy's escape. He escapes, through determination and sheer luck, because that is his story. Coincidences happen all the time. And frankly, waiting for a thunderstorm before attempting an escape is entirely feasible. He didn't have to leave as soon as the hole was finished. He waited. He had been waiting a long time, a few more days couldn't hurt.
Anyway, great analysis, fun to read. Cheers!
Roger- well considered argument, but I think there is a significant flaw. The fact this is recent has nothing to do with Shawshank's position at the top of the list. The average rating of 9.2 could be from 500,000 votes or 200,000 votes and it would still be #1. Considering that 5 of the current top 10 are from 1974 or before tends to validate that point.
I do love the movie and am inexplicably sucked into watching it whenever it is on AMC/ TBS/ etc. I think the high rating tends to be due to the fact that evryone either loves it or very much likes it. There are nearly no "outliers" on the negative rating side- people who think the movie is a 5 or below. Certian movies (Citizen Kane is a good example) I believe have greater number of low ratings due to the fact many believe it is overrated and put little to no credence in the technical merits of the movie.
Going through the list, IMDB represents a very good summary of the average movie-goers tastes. Top-notch action/ blockbusters get more recognition while serious dramas which may have better filmmaking gets less. It certainly lends credence to the phrase of Take it for what its worth.
I saw this movie years ago, soon after it came out, and I was very impressed by it.
Then, I saw it years later - I could not believe 1. How much it sucked and 2. How did I actually think it was good?
It is as cornball as they come. Cliches abound, boringly.
But the the thing that astonished me the second viewing (other than how little I cared about or believed for a second the yarn being spun before my eyes) was that repeated, ongoing and vicious (not likely any other variety) gangrape is being perpetrated upon this man's person and the movie treats it basically as subtext. Gee, he seemed to bear it pretty well. Didnt really seem to phase him much, I mean after the requisite short-term, nothing important facial bruising went away, he was just the guy he always was... maybe a little more motivated, a little more focused, but basically cheerful etc etc. This character is so zero-dimensional one gets the sense that if someone had asked him, man to man - "so Andy, how does it feel to get viciously f"cked in the *ss by a gang of psychopaths on a regular basis?" ol Andy would have just given a somber look across the yard, perhaps allow a little smirk to flicker, then seize the opportunity to spout wise, ever so cryptically.
If a movie is going to be so disinterested in the emotional life of its main character, why, even how, the hell does it expect anyone else to be otherwise?
So, similar to the recent critique here on M Night S, the kewl thing that everyone loves about this moldy pile is that really neat plot device er "development" where the story just says "ah completely f"ck it" to the idea of taking itself seriously and throws in a Great Escape that no one! could have possibly seen coming.
Cracker Jack Box surprise ending.
Great essay and responses. I would however respectfully differ with Rick G.'s comment. "The Lives of Others' was a worthy film, much like "Shawshank." Yet it wasn't even the best foreign film of its year. That honor should have gone to "Pan's Labyrinth", which is better than both of the above, and is destined to only grow in stature in the years to come.
Plus the IMDb list is joke anyway. Where's Bubba Ho-tep?
Terrific commentary, really. In the end, however, it remains just a movie -- a medium of storytelling told 24-frames-per-second projected through light that is solely meant to entertain. Without these "flaws" you mention, then it's just some blotchy story misinterpreted through time and teller. But on screen it soars and stands tall and triumphant as one of our truly GREAT American movies. ... but not the Best.
Not even close to my favorite movie ever by any means. Not even in my top 100. It IS a great movie though. However, this imdb list is significant in my opinion. More so than any AFI/critics list because it is the list of THE AUDIENCE. The most important judge of any film.
The critics are usually WAY behind the audience in the true value of a motion picture. See how long it took them those critics to value recent classics such as The Empire Strikes Back, Aliens and Terminator 2 which were immediately embraced by the public. Citizen Kane is great. But not as great as The Godfather or Star Wars. The audience knows that. But this is not the popular opinion if you're a "serious" film critic.
I think imdb is the best guide to seeing a movie you've missed.
@Mike Rogers: In general terms yes, “favorite” is hard to dispute.
@Marie Haws: That sounds sexist but also very true.
@nmr: How do you call someone who quotes Star Wars the most? A Binks?
@Joe: My thoughts exactly.
@Zeiram: Mostly agree, but if anything hints at claiming to be the best ever at anything, it better be ready to be scrutinized.
@Guil: Yet another thing that’s remarkable about “Shawshank” is how a film in which the surprise ending is so very crucial, it can still manage to be extremely re-watchable.
@Steve: Actually you can constantly run into those films you mention if your cable service carries TCM.
@Alex Wilson: Of course not, settling has absolutely nothing to do with appreciating “Shawshank”.
@Brian W. Fairbanks. Casting such diverse actors like Freeman and Robbins and making sure that their characters, on the surface, seem to have absolutely nothing in common but their friendship, only served to make it feel truer.
@Alamanach: Rankings may be silly and pointless but that doesn’t mean trying to come up with them is any less fun.
@Mario Zavala: As I mentioned, there are several essences to this film and I believe they’re all equally important.
@Nick: I can’t understand who would want to dedicate time and effort to alter the IMDB rankings. I do suspect that one of the reasons the opening weekend results may be flawed could be the positive vote from people who have a stake on a film but, who could possibly care if “The Godfather” and “Shawshank” are 1 o 2 in a specific order?
@Mark: There are plenty of less accurate ways to call “Shawshank” than “Capresque” and I’ll leave it at that.
@Sam: The IMDB Top 250 is certainly helpful but if you want to a list of can’t miss films, you can’t beat the Ebert’s Great Movie series.
@Dan L: As a fan of “The Godfather” I don’t think “consensus” makes “Citizen Kane” any better than such.
@Peter Zachos: I’ll the first to admit ”Shawshank” has its faults but it is reasonable to assume that, whenever adapting a novel to the screen, filmmakers have to make some hard decisions and avoid getting into little specifics if they want to obtain the best dramatic results.
@litdreamer: Logic tells me “Pulp Fiction” is better in many ways than ”Shawshank”(groundbreaking, original, etc.) but the latter was the one that moved me the most and that’s why I prefer it.
@Sloppy J: Curious that “Network” lost Best Picture to the “feel good” (and not much else) “Rocky”. Having watched “Network” again recently, I don’t even think they’re in the same league.
@Nicholas Bernhard: “Dark Knight” as best film of all time? I heard someone recently say that the Academy should take a 5 year period in order to more accurately vote for the Best Picture of a specific year. While unfeasible, this doesn’t sound like a totally bad idea.
@Bob: I would dare say the other films I mention (“The Godfather”, “Casablanca”, “TheThird Man”) could indeed be described as perfect, on the other hand, as much as I love ”Shawshank” it has a few too many flaws for comfort.
@Gerrit: I understand your point but you have to see a film in the context of the time when it was made. “Citizen Kane”and ”Shawshank” are precisely what I meant when I mentioned apples and oranges.
@Brad Ruhle: Personally, I can imagine Andy and Red in no hurry fixing that boat and not giving a damn if they ever finish.
@Sara L. Perhaps I’m being a bit hard on “Shawshank’s” fault, we have to remember it is a cinematic work of art, not a documentary and that thunderstorm indeed gave Andy’s escape a fantastic background.
@scott: In my opinion “Shawshank” stands beautifully after several viewings.
@john in Denver: Agree with you John, this piece has had some of the very best reader comments I’ve found on this site, and that’s saying a lot.
I’m getting a feeling “Lives of Others” might make a great future subject.
@John Hoty: I remember reading a Premiere Magazine article several years ago in which writer William Goldman put “Shawshank” above its competitors for Best Picture (“Forrest Gump”, “Pulp Fiction”) due to the simple fact the film, as he mentioned “moved the hell out of me”. On this basis which I agree with, warts and all, “Shawshank” is indeed a Great Film.
Gerardo: "Lives of Others" might make a great future subject"
Damn good flick, and deserving. But "Bubba Ho-tep" would be more fun.
Shawshank Redemption vs Pulp Fiction is like Casablanca vs Citizen Kane. We can endlessly admire Citizen Kane and Pulp Fiction. But can we ever feel the affection for them in the way that we do for Shawshank and Casablanca? They are films that you forgive their faults ... or at least their limitations ... because of the stories they tell. And stories like that are extraordinarily rare.
Nor should it be forgotten that both Casablanca and Shawshank are professional products in their direction and production and from their playing right down to the minor parts. It's not a specific brilliance but an overall "rightness".
I don't get the adoration for this film. For me it is mawkish in the extreme, overly sentimental and with characters that are smug with too many sentences sounding like hallmark greeting cards. The plot also I think had unnecessary moments- particularly the ending. Why do we need to see them meeting at the boat by the ocean? This scene might have been left to the imagination.
The only thing the movie - and hence the audience - finds interesting about ol Andy is that he's clever, in a lab rat-ish sort of way. He's in a trap and he figures a way out and we all cheer hooray!. Name one other characteristic in him that is interesting or compelling.
I can certainly understand though why the movie is so popular: because there are lotsa 20somethings embarking beyond the wild shores of mom&dad's&college who figure they can relate directly to the character of Andy, well, not so much his character as nothing about that is revealed, but rather his predicament and obvious intrinsic superiority to the mopes and dopes he spends his days with. This also explains how such an apparent large audience can be found for a flick that treats gangrape - male on male, no less - as trivial, plot filler.
We all (ought to) know that the majority demographic of English internet is American, middle-class males, late teens to mid-20s. And those are the folks raising TSR to such lofty heights.
Just saw this recent A. O. Scott(NY Times) piece on "The Warriors." Thought you might get a kick out of it.
"A cult classic." says Scott.
Sound familiar, Gerardo?
YouTube - Critics' Pick - Movies: Critics' Pick: 'The Warriors' ...
youtube.com/watch?v=vTV08YaKtZY
I am baffled that people think Shawshank is a great movie, or anything more than a competent one. It is an exemplar of Manipulative, Dishonest Hollywood Product, far more on a level with Forrest Gump than any truly great cinema. It marks the triumph of mediocrity over excellence in popular film.
It presents an utterly unrealistic portrayal of prison life. Its good characters are unambiguously good, the bad ones unambiguously bad. Each of the movie's emotional marks is punctuated by soppy musical cues to instruct you how to feel. Many of its characters, like the Evil Warden, are pure cliche. Though the story takes place over two decades, nobody ages. In the Happy Ending™, everybody gets their just desserts perfectly, with all the evil characters facing dire consequences, and all the good characters getting their "redemption." How many prison escapees are currently living idyllic beach bum lives in a Central American paradise, I wonder?
There are many things you could call this, but excellent storytelling isn't one of them.
I just thought I should point this out as I did not see anyone else mentioning it, but to those who praise or criticize Roger for the points made in this post are addressing the wrong person. This was written by Gerardo Valero.
Anyway, I think it was a good article though perhaps not terribly original itself. I have had similar thoughts about various lists including the IMDB and have discussed this very issue a few times. I have a very hard time ranking the films I love. I could never pick single a favorite or best film for that would depend on my mood at that time. Even then I would be tempted to give an unordered list that might omit some very important films. I think that might be a good way of viewing the IMDB ranking. In the end it is an internet poll, it is biased, there are no filters. Many people voting probably have a very limited experience with film. It is all very questionable. The order, even the exact content is likely not very important but it can be used as a rough guide to some very good films, some astounding films. When I am looking for a film in a specific genre I often look for top 10 etc. lists, not because I believe they are actually a reasonable ranking but because they may lead me to something worthwhile and they are a common way of collecting people's opinions.
As for The Shawshank Redemption, I enjoy the film. I have seen in a number of times and I still find parts of it to be very uplifting and triumphal. It simply feels good in many places. I do disagree with some of the comments above, the one sticking out in my mind was made by troofire on the topic men's fear of prison rape. I see no evidence of this. I have never thought about that as a central theme in the film or the area I identify with, in fact I feel it is one of the weaker points. I have also never met anyone else who has expressed any sort of identification with his character and that situation. Would I rank it as the best film ever? No, not even close. I think it gets there because it really is a good film and deserves to be given praise. It also gets there because many people do have a very shallow and recent understanding of film (let's face it, many people have a shallow understanding of just about everything). This can be seen all of the time, look at the lists of favorite films on Facebook and often they are lists of films that are less than 5 years old. Many people are forgetful of older films or never see them.
@David O: The IMDB ranks are a terrific source for learning which films you need to watch but as I mentioned, audiences can get a little overexcited about a movie right after it comes out
@David McLachlan: Very true except that I don’t think “Casablanca” has any real flaws (just don’t stop and think it wasn’t filmed there, but in Burbank instead).
@mark lunk: Completely disagree. It seems to me that their meeting at the beach is one of the most “elevating” moments in cinema, period.
It did bother me a bit how much they mention “Zihautanejo” in the film, but ended filming that particular scene in the Virgin Islands.
@Scott: What’s truly amazing about Andy Dufresne is that such a distant character whose always referred to in a third person sense, managed to become so endearing nonetheless.
@john in denver: Yeah, I saw AO Scott’s terrific video on “The Warriors”. I liked the fact he also found the fight scenes similar to dance numbers.
I’m relieved to know I’m not the only one who feels something for that movie John. Some friends really chastised me for choosing it.
@Martin: “Shawshank” is a fictional motion Picture, not a documentary.
I thought they did a decent job of aging the film’s main characters but it seems to me like aging make-up is not among Hollywood’s best achievements. Just look at Russell Crow as the older Nash in “A Beatiful Mind” (looks completely made of plastic). Also look at the old Peter O’Toole in “Goodbye Mr. Chips” (his real life aging turned out nothing as it did in that movie).
One of the problems with the “evil warden” is that, following “Shawshank”, Bob Gunton went on to play countless villains. That obviously affects our perception of his role here.
@Travis: My goal with this essay was to discuss something relevant, if not, as you mention, terribly original.
Troofire's comment nailed something about Shawshank that always bothered me but I never realized until now. I, as well, think that one of the reasons guys respond so well to this movie is because of our mortal fear of being raped in prison. So when the guy who has raped Andy many times gets beaten so badly he ends up in a wheelchair for the rest of his life, we think, "Yes!" Then, when the Evil Warden who allowed the raping to happen and later threatens to throw Andy back into the prison population where Andy will feel like he's "been f*cked by a train" blows his own brains out we think, "Hell yes!" This post might infuriate people but part of the male response to the movie is perhaps as psychologically simple as that.
When "Star Wars" is quoted, it is usually the Jedi statements or the Jar-Jar idioms which are favored. Jedi-philes?
However, it has been my experience that the longest segments of cinematic quotable material are derived from "Caddyshack" and I call those people "my younger brothers". They love that film. Probably has something to do with the fact that we grew up near a golf course.