Shawshank Redemption. What an impact!!! (1 Viewer)

[Inspector Hammer!]

Hell yes! It's one of the finest pieces of entertainment around, I could watch this film on an endless loop.
Frank Darabont is one of those rare directors whose films I always look forward to, he never fails to please. BTW, The Majestic IMO is a wonderful film that is very Capra-esque in quality.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Remember how long it took to finally come out as it was? And then when it did the commentary was gone.
Definately something more than "lack of interest" holding back a great DVD version of this, or at least it appears so.
For the record, as beautiful as the film is and despite it being near the top of the fiancee's film list, I would strongly agree that Pulp Fiction is still easily its superior. I hadn't watched it in over a year when the new DVD came out and it blew me away all over again. Some films take on a different life in your memory, either getting weaker or stronger. PF was certainly not just hype. Of course at the time SR didn't get nearly the respect it has come to have.
Speaking of the fiancee and Pulp (in a SR thread no less), I couldn't have been more proud than to hear her tell me of a film reference she made at work (which sadly went unrecognized by the simpleton she made it to).
The person asked her to help someone out with a problem..."Can you take care of her?"
Putting her finger to her head gun-style she replied "Take care of her?"
Just one reason why I'm glad I bought her the ring. She's a keeper.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

It's not really fair to compare two films that are so vastly different from one another is it? I mean The Shawshank Redemption is such a gentle film that deals with matters of the heart. While Pulp Fiction, while an outstanding film and one that i'm proud to own, is essentially mean and violent.

 

[Josh Lowe]

Unfortunately, because the horror movies based on Stephen King's works are VERY POOR adapatations with very little in common with his books, many people do not realize what a great writer he actually is.

Poor horror? The Shining. Carrie. The Dead Zone. Misery. Dolores Claiborne. Creepshow.

For all those misses of his work there were there have also been plenty of big hits.

 

[Ricardo C]

Josh, don't forget to add John Carpenter's version of "Christine" to that list. What a way to kill a wonderful novel.
As for SR, I also saw it for the first time this year, after years of hearing people rave about it. Amazing film, and yes, a notch above The Green Mile (which I also love). I just can't find one thing wrong with it. I can watch it at any time and be just as drawn into it as I was when I first saw it And once again, Morgan Freeman reminds us why he's one of the finest actors of all time.
ps-- Here's one for the "Erika Eleniak was in E.T." thread. A pre-Ally McBeal Gil Bellows plays Tommy in SR.

 

[Chris Knox]

I think it's important to understand that horror is probably no better than 5% of what any of king's books contain. As an example, you are nearly halfway through the book before you experience anything remotely supernatural in 'The Shining'. It is never the horror that scares the shit out of you in a King book, it is that these horrors are happening to people you genuinely care about.

The problem with movie adaptations of King's books are, to echo a previous poster, that they are focused too heavily on the horror and not enough on the human emotion.

Take 'It' for example. This is a fantastic, wonderfully-wriiten book that I read over and over again. The TV movie adaptation is terrible; it is horribly acted (by the adults) and not executed well enough. I cannot believe that the adult actors got paid for this. John Ritter is a far better actor than the performance he turned in. The movie is a doomed failure because the book is way too large to tackle in a film, but if you feel like you absolutely must do it, this is how I would try it:

I would completely cut out all references to the adult versions of the kids. The entire movie is about the kids only. With that stroke I just chopped the book by more than half. If you want to go back and make the adult version later in a part 2, so be it. At this point you can make this movie really work by devoting more screen time to falling in love with the kids. I would keep Mike's interludes (the best parts of the book IMO) intact as voiceover throughout the movie...Can you see it?

Anyway, I'm off topic here (as usual). If you haven't read King because you aren't "into all that horror stuff." then you are missing out on some wonderful reading experiences.

He is the world's most successful author in history for a reason, folks.

Chris

 

[Robin Warren]

John,

I don't find Pulp mean and violent at all. It has mild violence in it but for the most part it happens off screen. I find Pulp to be quite uplifting in its morale of redemption. I.E. Jules repents and walks away from the criminal lifestyle due to a perceived miracle and Vincent doesn't and ends up dying for it.

Shawshank was powerful the first time my wife and I saw it in the theater and is still one of our all time favorite movies. I have not bought it on DVD yet but may have to crack and go out and pick it up today. Was hoping for a SE but oh well.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I understand all of that Robin, but surly you can understand where i'm coming from right? I mean however suggestive the violence in 'PF' is, the film is still pretty violent.

The message of redemption is about the ONLY trait these two films share IMO.

 

[Holadem]

Chirs, Although I do like the current version of "IT" (except of course that infamous ending), I absolutely adore your vision of what it should be .
Beware of phrases like this "The movie is a doomed failure because the book is way too large to tackle in a film", if there ever was a book to qualify for this phrase, it certainly is the LOTR
--
Holadem

 

[chung_sotheby]

I believe that it is impossible to compare Shawshank and Pulp Fiction, as they are comletely different movies. Or, in the immortal words of Jules Winnfield:

"ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same fuckin' sport"

As for you Pulp Fiction lovers, here is a spoiler which will further deepen your understanding and love for this movie. I didnt believe it at first, but it does fit in perfectly once you see the movie again with this information. A majority of you may already know this spoiler, but for those of you who do not, look out, it's a doosy.

Notice that every time someone opens up the briefcase, there is a golden light, and everyone says that it is the most beautiful thing that they have ever seen? Also, remember the Hand of God saving Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield from the hail of bullets? Remember the Band-Aid on the back of Marsellus Wallace's Head? Well, what was in the briefcase was Marcellus' Soul. Yup, his real soul. How do I know this, here are a few answers to you inevitable questions. In the bible, as well as other religious texts, the actual Human Soul is supposed to be the most beautiful and awe-inspiring sight in the world. In ancient times, it was believed that when a man's soul was taken from him, that the devil snatched the soul out from the back of a man's neck, thus explaining the mysterious band-aid we always see. Finally, when Jules and Vincent visit the apartment to pick up the soul, and Jules gives his Ezekial 25:17 speech, he really is unleashing his vengeance, as he is putting down punishment on the people who stole Marcellus' soul. And Finally, when the guy comes out with the hand cannon and proceeds to empty the gun into the wall, it is divine intervention, and Jules and Vincent are messengers of God who were sent to reclaim a man's soul. I know, it may seem crazy, but it is the tuth behind Pulp Fiction. In fact, this little plot secret is what really add's the "Pulp" factor to the movie.

 

[Adam_S]

I just don't see the attraction of Pulp Fiction, it's a beautifully executed film, but it never connects to me; it's enjoyable, but far, far from the transcendent film experience people make it out to be. To each his own I guess. Shawshank on the other hand for me is a transcendent film, it is entertaining and brilliant filmmaking, it's more than cold brilliance of "Pulp Fiction" or the overwhelming emotion of "The Majestic". It's truly one of the finest pieces of film art from the most recent era of cinema.

And it's not just King's horror stories that are butchered, take Hearts in Atlantis for instance, they took a beautiful, haunting, and disturbing coming-of-age story and turned it into My Girl. At least they didn't focus on the horror, but they didn't focus on anything else compelling from the story either. There are flashes of what the film might have been, the three card monty scene, the scene at the Corner pocket, the scene when Bobby's mother returns, but the film never rises above the script by William Goldman, which imo is responsible for most of what failed in the movie.

Adam

 

[Seth Paxton]

The message of redemption is about the ONLY trait these two films share IMO.

I disagree with this. Certainly the human need for humor in times of stress is common to both films.
And SR is just as "mean" as PF, considering the RAPING, theft, abuse, and general mistreatment by the warden. Not to mention the suicide by the old man (isn't it as mean for the film to kill him off as it is to kill off Marvin by accident?).
The rapists in PF suffer for their actions too. And as Freeman points out, SR plays up nicey-nice with the convicts but its not like the place is full of innocent men. SR is about the PF characters AFTER THEY ARE CAUGHT, that's the only difference IMO.
Other than that we have honest emotion from characters who are all involved in rather seedy lifestyles (going to prison is no badge of honor). They find humor, love, compassion, and fear within their lifestyles. They also prove to have deeper thoughts in regards to their own lives.
I think Freeman could very well represent what Ving might become were he to be jailed for 30 years. He might be broken from his willful ways and have compassion for someone like Andy as much as Freeman does.
To me PF plays much more HONESTLY with the characters. We are seeing the normal sides to them which are normally hidden behind their "characters", especially in film representation.
The nice and diligent wronged man is a rather standard character, as is the lovable old convict who has been in prison so long we can no longer see the criminal in him. It's right up there with the hooker with the heart of gold.
But in PF ANY character can display a mean side, a compassionate side, a desperate side.
SR flows beautifully, it's a wonderfully made film. But PF probably actually comes closer to acknowledging REAL EMOTIONS that people deal with.
We love to hear starry-eyed advice like "Get busy living or get busy dying", but what does that really mean to our practical life? Does going to the store count? We need to eat after all. But we need money to go to the store, so does going to work count? People love to imagine that they need to "get off the treadmill" like Robbins and Freeman do at the end of SR, but the practicality of that is nil. They have STOLEN money to live off of in a foreign country having left all friends and family behind.
So sure, if I steal some money from someone (who conveniently had already stolen it them self, so I have no guilt) and have NO RESPONSIBILITIES in life (such as friends/family that may care about me) then I can "get busy living" in the dream-like style depicted in the film. And before that point I can be busy living by working toward this end (setting up the theft and the escape).
The reality for us is that most of us ARE "busy living" everyday, though it seems routine and mundane to us. Such is the nature of the human condition. We see change as living, but even constant change is repetitive, so in the end we are doomed to continually question if we are really living our life to its fullest.
This is one reason why SR has such a strong appeal, just as Capra's work does. It sounds right, it makes sense on film, but in reality it is generally just so much lip service.
BUT, the choice Jackson makes is much closer to our choices, despite it sounding less realistic. In fact it is how PF approaches it that makes it seem so. PF has Travolta question Jackson's choice. He says the practical ideas that actually have to be faced in reality. So the film does not hide reality away from us while presenting some Utopian philosophy of life.
Yes, the film does delve into the darker sides of life, and this IS DONE in a Utopian manner. The criminal life is taken to the ideal extremes in terms of highly violent, big money, etc. that would seem to be far outside a normal person's experiences. HOWEVER, the commonality of this life is not hidden from us, the fact that much of their lives involve mundane concepts as well which require regular relationships full of the same simplistic interactions that a "normal" person finds themselves involved with.
And this is where the film bonds more to us than SR does. We are actually closer to being the characters in PF because we do find ourselves arguing over trivial things in moments of crisis (looking for the book or how he shoots Marvin), because we do gossip and worry and do stupid things, and because we do form flawed relationships with people all the time, both friendly and antagonistic. Their lives are not clean and efficient in a movie-form while in SR the characters are much more cleanly placed in one category or another. The rapists, the warden, the head guard, these are all pure evil characters. In PF only the 2 hillbilly rapists are pure evil.
And the irony of this is that PF accomplishes this despite containing hyper-real dialog, dialog that "sounds real" but flows too well to be real. Film theorists examine this all the time, where people say dialog sounds real but is rarely like actual taped conversations. Of course the SR dialog neither sounds real nor is real (being film dialog that doesn't even attempt to play real).
This is no complaint on the dialog of either film, simply pointing out that good film REALLY utilizes ILLUSION. Not just visual illusion or the illusion created by a background score (music can make the same scene either funny or scary for example), but also the illusion of dialog.
The difference between SR and PF dialog is that they use different types of fake dialog.
So I think we like to identify more with SF and it's ideals, because such identification is more appealing to us. But I think the truth is that we really should be identifying more with PF.
We would all like to persevere in some uplifting manner like Robbins does, but realistically we probably handle our lives in the sloppy, complex manner that Travolta does, with perhaps some hope that we might reach up to achieve a Jackson-like moment of revelation at best.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Chung,

That is rumor that QT totally denies. It's a mcguffin that audiences have sought to put meaning to.

 

[Christ Reynolds]

That is rumor that QT totally denies. It's a mcguffin that audiences have sought to put meaning to.

then why do so many of those 'instances' fit in with the movie? and if you were QT, would you go and say "yep thats it" or deny it? me too. i'm not one to believe any rumor that goes around, but i believe this one. too many of the factors line up for me not to.

CJ

 

[Seth Paxton]

Those aspects fit because they been reverse engineered. People take the parts they want to fit and leave out anything that might not. Such "analysis" happens all the time with films. Heck, its also the basis of horoscopes and why they can always be shown to be correct after the fact.

Why would QT deny it? What does he gain?

On the other hand, the McGuffin is a very popular film device, used most famously by Hitchcock.

Asking what's in the briefcase is like asking what is being stolen or smuggled by spies in a Hitch film. It never matters, it only matters that they are important.

Now, which do you want me to believe here, that QT was inspired to write a script based on ancient mythological ideas and biblical meanings, or based on stuff that Hitchcock used to do in films?

Come on, the QT story of being a film geek that worked in a video store is famous. The story of QT being an ancient religion and mythology student is not so famous.

For example, who has the answer to this question

In ancient times, it was believed that when a man's soul was taken from him, that the devil snatched the soul out from the back of a man's neck, thus explaining the mysterious band-aid we always see.

WHICH ANCIENT TIMES? Which society believed this? Someone, anyone give me a solid literary reference. Then continue on to give me how that source connects to QT, where would he have come across it.

I know where he came across the use of a McGuffin. The films he admits to have a deep love for and shows a very strong knowledge of.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Seth-
Your analysis/comparison of Pulp Fiction and Shawshank is one of the best posts that I have read in quite a while! You raise some great points.
You da man!

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Gotta disagree. While I love Shawshank Redemption, I love The Green Mile even more. And yes Morgan Freeman is a truly superb talent.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Forrest Gump, Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, who cares what is better. Personally, I think it was one of the greatest years in movies, and I'm more than happy to say I got to live through it.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Oh yeah, good post Seth. Wish I had your internet connection.....my drops after five minutes of inactivity.

 

[Michael_UK]

WOW I can't belive one of my threads from christmass day last year has been resurrected.

I don't really compair SR with PF they are stories of life but in completley different situations, they are both good but for different reasons.

{IMO}

Personaly I think that the chung_sotheby's religous take on PF is complete and utter bull.

The film is about many things including life altering choices/experiences, mistakes, repesct, honour, love and greed.

Suit case was filled with gold.

{/IMO)