92. Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

Stars:  Elizabeth Taylor (Martha), Richard Burton (George), George Segal (Nick), Sandy Dennis (Honey)

Director: Mike Nichols

Awards / Honors

• 5 Oscar Wins – Best Actress (Elizabeth Taylor), Best Supporting Actress (Sandy Dennis), Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design

• 7 Additional Oscar Nominations - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Richard Burton), Best Supporting Actor (George Segal), Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay), Best Film Editing, Best Music (Original Score), Best Sound

• #67 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (2007)

Genre:  Drama

Running Time:  2 Hours, 11 Minutes

Format:  DVD (not yet available on Blu-ray)

Odyssey Rating:  3 ½ Stars (John - 4 Stars, Beth - 3 Stars)

John's Take

Three things.

First, after watching this movie I have decided that at some point I have to see the movie “A Man for All Seasons”, and “The Fortune Cookie”.  This is because Paul Scofield, who beat out Richard Burton for Best Actor and Walter Matthau who beat out George Segal for Best Supporting Actor must have had unbelievable performances in those movies.  However, unless I am just blown away by those two performances, I am just going to have to assume that the “fix” was in that year.  It has been a long time since I have been as impressed with the performance of an entire cast as I was with the cast of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?  Granted, there are only four people in the movie (five if you want to count the bartender that has a single line), but still…  If you want to see an example of why Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton are “Screen Legends”, then you don’t need to look any farther than this movie.

Second, if you want to understand how symbolism can be used effectively in a story, this is a good movie to study.  Virtually everything in this film has some sort of symbolic importance – even the title of the movie.  For those of you are not familiar with Virginia Woolf, she was an early 20th Century English author who is best know for stream-of-consciousness writing that frequently touched the effects of war and other forms trauma on individuals.  Her worked also tended to touch on the idea of living life with no life with no illusions.  Early on in the movie, Elizabeth Taylor’s character sings “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” as a parody of the Disney song “Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf” from “The Three Little Pigs”.  However, as the movie goes on, it becomes clear that this movie is going to delve quite deeply into the real meaning(s) of that question – Who’s Afraid of Living Life without Illusions?  Who’s Afraid of Looking at the Damage We Do to Those We Profess to Love?  As we watch George and Martha’s little after-hours party, the symbolism continues flow into the dialogue at gradually quickening pace, until the dialog stops being simply symbolic and transforms into a type of foreshadowing. George and Martha are always one step ahead of their guests (and us the audience) – the true meaning of their banter and arguing only becomes clear later as we learn more about them.  However, just as we have figured out what their earlier statements really meant, they are off busy talking and arguing about something else. 

Third, this film is probably one of the exhausting movies I have ever seen.  I have been in 2 hour-long arguments / fights with family members that were less exhausting than watching this movie.  Watching four people tear into each other for two hours can take a lot of out you.

After the film was over Beth and discussed if this was the most tragic / depressing of the movies on are list that we had watched so far?  Initially, we both felt it was clearly the most depressing, but as we discussed it, it became a little less clear cut.  For example, Sophie’s Choice – the story a Holocaust survivor – is hardly a feel-good romp.  Then you have movies like The Last Picture Show and Do the Right Thing, not to mention pure melodramas like A Place in the Sun and Wuthering Heights.  Declaring a film “most-depressing-so-far” wasn’t quite so clear cut.

Ultimately, however, Beth and I returned to this movie as “the-most-depressing-so-far”.  It won out for two reasons.  The first reason was the forementioned exhaustion we felt after watching it.  Watching Sophie having to choose between her son and her daughter was horrifically sad.  Watching Sonny come to realize that he would never escape that small town was depressing.  Radio Raheem being murdered by the police was tragic.  However, none of those things left us feeling like we had just run three miles.  The second reason is that the other movies all leave the viewer some sort glimpse of hope – Mookie and Sal come to an understanding; Singo goes on with his life; Ruth Popper is there for Sonny; the spirits of Heathcliff and Catherine walk off together; even George manages to come to terms with his fate at the end of A Place in the Sun.  In Who’s Afraid, however, no one escapes unscathed. There is no glimpse of hope – all four of them are trapped, and they don’t even have their lies to hide behind anymore.

I truly believe that this film truly deserves to be referred to as a “classic”.  Despite that this movie is artistically and technically brilliant I can’t give it a perfect ranking of 5 Stars.  As I mentioned back in the All the President’s Men post, for me to consider a movie truly great and get a 5 Star rating from me, I need to find it highly re-watchable.  It has to be able to make me stop and watch it if I happen to stumble across it while channel surfing.  I can say with all honesty that the odds of me watching this movie again casually are pretty low.  It is just too emotionally brutal.  Thus, it is just going to have to make due with a ranking of 4 Stars.

John

93. The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

Stars:  Frank Sinatra (Maj. Bennett Marco), Laurence Harvey (Raymond Shaw), Angela Lansbury (Mrs. Iselin), James Gregory (Sen. John Yerkes Iselin), Janet Leigh (Eugenie Rose Chaney), Leslie Parrish (Jocelyn Jordan) 

Director:  John Frankenheimer

 

Awards / Honors

• 2 Oscar nominations - Best Supporting Actress (Angela Lansbury), Best Film Editing
• #67 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (1998)
• #17 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Thrills (2001)
• #21 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains – Mrs. Iselin, Villain (2003)

Genre:  Drama (Political Thriller)

Running Time:  2 Hours, 6 Minutes

Format:  DVD (not yet available on Blu-ray)

Odyssey Rating:  3 Stars (John - 3 Stars, Beth - 3 Stars)

 

John's Take

While watching this movie, Beth and I started discussing the apparent lack of purpose that Janet Leigh’s character, Eugenie, has in this movie.  During that brief discussion, Beth made a comment something along the lines of “Why does Janet Leigh always play these weird roles? Like how she gets wacked right near the beginning of Psycho…”  Her comment struck me for two reasons.  First, I was pleasantly surprised that Beth even knew that Janet Leigh was in Psycho.  Truth be told, despite me being a larger “classic film” buff than Beth, if you wait six months and ask me, “What is the name of the actress that killed at the beginning of Psycho?”, I would probably choke and not remember.  I am terrible at names and I pretty much rely on Beth to keep me up to date on “entertainment news”.  If I want to know which star is getting married / getting a divorce, she is the person I turn to.  However, Psycho was bit before her (and TMZ’s) time, so I was pleasantly surprised.  Kudos to Beth.  The second reason her comment struck me as profound, was the fact that it was probably more truthful than she realized.  Not to disparage the career of Janet Leigh, but one has to admit that her most well-known roles all have sort of odd twist / idiosyncrasy that contribute as much to their notoriety as does her performance.

 

For example, there is the previously mentioned Psycho (film #16 on our list, by the way) in which her character is killed in the first third of the movie despite being the “star” of the film.  In the film Safari, her character decides it is good idea to tour a crocodile-infested river in a rubber raft.  In Touch of Evil…  OK, the fact that Charlton Heston is trying very hard and failing equally as hard to play a Mexican character – yet it still kind of works because, well, he is Charlton Heston – is more quirky than anything Janet does in the film.  That being said, does anybody believe for a second that Janet Leigh is physically capable of strangling anyone?  No, I didn’t think so.  So, why do any of the characters in the film believe she could?

 

That brings us back to her role in this film.  While watching the film I just assumed that she was tossed in because some Hollywood exec decided that Frank Sinatra needed a love interest and hat film needed more “star power”.  However, I wanted to make sure it wasn’t a case of me just missing some subtle element in the script or her performance that explains why the heck she is even on screen.  Thus, I decided to do a quick internet search before I wrote this post – no harm in double checking.  Guess what I found!  In the Frequently Asked Questions section of the IMDb entry for The Manchurian Candidate was the question, “What’s Up with Janet Leigh’s Character?” Ah-ha!!  Beth and I were not ones who noticed that her character was pointless and much of her dialog didn’t really make sense.  So, what was the answer to the question you ask?

Rosie's inexplicable dialogue in the train scene was taken, according to the director's commentary, from the novel.  Its meaning is a manner of debate among fans and is up to interpretation.  It's possible she was simply saying strange things to catch his attention. Another theory is that she was Marco's [Frank Sinatra’s] "American operator," working with the conspiracy and trying to control Marco.  Another theory, which the 2004 remake endorses, is that she was working with the federal government. 

In other words, nobody really knows.  How terribly unsatisfying.

 

I guess I could go read the novel, but since I really have no desire to do that, I decided to do the next best thing – look up the novel in Wikipedia and see if I could find an answer there.  Unfortunately, I really only managed to learn that this film is considered by some to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the book (which implies that the Eugenie character is just as ubiquitous in the book as in the film), and that the author, Richard Condon, died roughly 15 years ago which means asking him directly is not really an option at this point. Again, terribly unsatisfying. 

 

This unresolved question then brought to mind yet another question.  In an industry know for “adapting” source material in anyway they happen to see fit, how does a successful director like John Frankenheimer not take a look at the script and say, “Hey, this character makes no sense. Maybe we could just cut her right out and have Janet play Leslie Parrish’s part…”?  Having Janet play Leslie’s part seems like a reasonable solution to me. J anet would have ended up with more or less the same amount of screen time and the film would still have had “big name” actress.  At least Leslie’s character had a point to it.  Not only does a surprising amount Janet Leigh’s dialog make no sense, her character really doesn’t do anything to move the plot along.  You could literally cut out all of her scenes from the finished work and it would have absolutely no affect on the plot whatsoever.  No one would even miss her. 

 

However, that isn’t what happened and we are stuck with this slightly annoying ambiguity.  It appears that the question of “What’s Up with Janet Leigh’s Character?” is simply one of those mysteries that will never truly be solved.  More’s the pity.

 

I give The Manchurian Candidate a rating of 3 Stars.  Overall, it is a good movie and I would certainly watch it again, but there are certainly better movies on this list.

 

John

 

94. An American in Paris (1951)

Stars:  Gene Kelly (Jerry Mulligan), Leslie Caron (Lise Bouvier), Oscar Levant (Adam Cook), Georges Guétary (Henri Baurel), Nina Foch (Milo Roberts)

Director: Vincente Minnelli

Awards / Honors

• 6 Oscar wins – Best Picture, Best Writing, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Musical Score.
• 2 Additional Oscar Nominations – Best Director, Best Film Editing
• #68 on AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Movies list (1998)
• #39 on AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Passions list (2002)
• #32 on AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Songs list – “I Got Rhythm” (2004)
• # 9 on AFI’s Greatest Movie Musicals list (2006)
• In 1993, An American in Paris was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

 Genre:  Musical

 Running Time:  1 hour, 53 minutes

 Format:  DVD, Blu-ray

 Odyssey Rating:  3 Stars (John – 3 Stars, Beth – 3 Stars)

John's Take 

So, this “screening” of An American in Paris was going to be the first time that I had ever watched the film all the way through from the beginning to the end.  I had seen bits and pieces of the film before – the ballet scene at the end of the film is usually part of any Film 101 college course after all – but never all the way through.  In addition, I have always been a bit of Gene Kelly fan, so I was kind of looking forward to finally sitting down and seeing all of it.

Let’s start out with the highlights.  First, the transfer to Blu-ray was fantastic.  The film is really quite gorgeous to watch. I send out a well deserved ‘Kudos” to the folks that worked on the restoration of the film.  They even did a nice job restoring the film’s original Mono soundtrack – the dialogue is clear and the musical numbers sound much “fuller” than one might expect from mono.

Second, Oscar Levant’s rendition of Gershwin’s Concerto in F is absolutely my favorite part of the film.  This is due in part to manner in which Vincente Minnelli shot that scene.  The shot is framed in a manner that really emphasizes Oscar’s hands just pounding on the keys of the piano.  Really the whole scene is just wonderful rendition of someone daydreaming about performing their favorite music.

Third, the “making of” featurette included on the disc is really quite excellent.  If you ever wanted to get a quick introduction in what critics are always going on about as far as things like “visual style” and what exactly Art Directors really do, then you will want to check it out.  The feature isn’t real long, but it does an excellent job of telling the story behind the movie and giving examples of how artistic elements are woven into films – such how the styles of various French Impressionist painters are used to affect the look of this film.

And of course, the final ballet at the end of the film is just fabulously done.

Now, for the stuff that, while not necessarily bad, certainly felt “out of sorts” for a lack of a better description.

For one, the film has surprisingly dark undertones.  You never get the feeling that anybody really ends up living happily-ever-after.  Milo and Henri certainly aren’t very happy.  We can assume Henri goes on with his American tour, but we never really know what happens to Milo after she wanders off to drown her sorrows in champagne after being dumped by Gene Kelly.  Oscar Levant’s character, Adam, just kind of stumbles off back into the party thus we never really know what becomes of him either.  Even in the case of Gene Kelly’s and Leslie Caron’s characters, we, the audience, know that the two of them really don’t know each other that well since they spent most of the movie keeping secretes from each other.  To paraphrase the “making of” featurette, An American in Paris kind of has a Graduate sort of ending.  The guy gets the girl, but you are kind of left with an ‘OK, what do we do now?’ sort of feeling.  Not exactly the sort of thing you expect from a classic MGM musical.

Second, there is no dialog for the last 20 minutes or so of the film.  Granted it is the ballet that everyone always remembers and praises about the film and I even singled it out for praise earlier in this post, but nearly 60 years later, it still feels… well, odd.  I remember having a discussion with someone about this film who said of the ending, “If it is so great, why hasn’t it been copied more often?”  There may be a small grain of truth hidden in that question. I s Hollywood so stunted artistically that it can’t find ways to recreate / reuse that type of visual style, or do we simply confuse uniqueness with art?  Maybe a little bit of both.

Ultimately, it comes down to this.  Beth and I both liked the movie, but we didn't think is was great.  Parts of it we thought were brilliant.  Parts of it we thought were just OK.  It certainly one of the prettiest films on the list, but overall there are films on the list that are better.  We both give An American in Paris a rating of 3 Stars. 

John

BETH'S TAKE:

It's not that I didn't like this movie..it was just "OK". I felt there was absolutely no chemistry whatsoever with Gene Kelly and Lise Bouvier. The relationship between the two was not believable by any means. And even though they ended up together at the end...I didn't believe that they would stay together. The 20 minute ballet scene at the end, although very good...was a bit too long for me. But as I stated...the movie was "OK" LOL

Tagline Trivia!

Hey Folks,

To make up for the lack of posts for the last couple of months here is a little trivia quiz for you all to enjoy. Try to identify the movies that these taglines belong to.  What is a “tagline” you ask?  Well according to Wikipedia a tagline is:

A tagline is a variant of a branding slogan typically used in marketing materials and advertising.  The idea behind the concept is to create a memorable phrase that will sum up the tone and premise of a brand or product (like a film), or to reinforce the audience's memory of a product.  Some taglines are successful enough to warrant inclusion in popular culture.

In the case of motion pictures they are normally associated with the movie’s promotional posters, but they can, and often are, used in other forms of advertising.

Here is some additional information to assist you in trying to guess what the movies are:

• None of the movies are obscure.  That doesn’t mean they were all good necessarily, but you will have hear of them and /or they all star actors and actresses familiar to most people.
• None of the movies are sequels.  For example, if you think one of the movies below is one of the Indiana Jones films, then it would have to be “Raiders of the Lost Ark”.
• The movies are listed in order by release date (US wide release date to be exact, as defined by Wikipedia). For example, Movie #1 was released on March 2nd, 1990 and Movie #2 was released on, or after that date.  Movie #3 was released after or on the same date as Movie #2, and so on.  Movie #55 was released October 15th, 1999.
• Lastly, every year (1990, 1991, 1992, etc.) is represented in the list and there are multiple movies for each year.  The distribution is not exact (some years are better represented than others), but each year is represented by at least four taglines.

Post your answers in the comments and I will eventually post the answers there.  Also, don’t cheat and Google the answers.  That is no fun.  Just see how many you can get on your own.

Movies from the 1990s

 

1. Invisible. Silent. Stolen.

2. She walked off the street, into his life, and stole his heart

3. Hey dude, this is no cartoon

4. They stole his mind, now he wants it back

5. You will believe

6. A family comedy without the family

7. The Civil War had ended, but one man's battle with himself was just beginning...

8. Dr. Hannibal Lecter. Brilliant. Cunning. Psychotic. In his mind lies the clue to a ruthless killer. Clarice Starling, FBI. Brilliant. Vulnerable. Alone. She must trust him to stop the killer.

9. For the good of all men, and the love of one woman, he fought to uphold justice by breaking the law.

10. It's not the same old Thing.

11. What if Peter Pan grew up?

12. You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll hurl

13. A brutal murder. A brilliant killer. A cop who can't resist the danger

14. Never let her out of your sight. Never let your guard down. Never fall in love.

15. A husband. A wife. A millionaire. A proposal

16. An adventure 65 million years in the making

17. What if someone you never met, someone you never saw, someone you never knew was the only someone for you?

18. Power can be murder to resist

19. A murdered wife. A one-armed man. An obsessed detective. The chase begins.

20. She makes dinner. She does windows. She reads bedtime stories. She's a blessing... in disguise.

21. Yabba-Dabba-Doo!

22. Get ready for rush hour

23. Life is like a box of chocolates...you never know what you're gonna get.

24. When he said I do, he didn't say what he did.

25. From zero to hero

26. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free

27. Girls like me don't make invitations like this to just anyone!

28. Drink from me and live forever

29. For Harry and Lloyd every day is a no-brainer

30. His passion captivated a woman. His courage inspired a nation. His heart defied a king.

31. Houston, we have a problem.

32. Let he who is without sin try to survive

33. Attitude plays a part

34. The dark side of nature

35. Alcatraz. Only one man has ever broken out. Now five million lives depend on two men breaking in

36. Don't make plans for August

37. Some things in life just can't be explained

38. A lawyer and his assistant fighting to save a father on trial for murder. A time to question what they believe. A time to doubt what they trust. And no time for mistakes.

39. Someone is going to pay

40. The rest of his life begins now

41. Someone has taken their love of scary movies one step too far

42. They were deadly on the ground. Now they have wings.

43. In order to catch him, he must become him

44. Protecting the earth from the scum of the universe

45. Impenetrable. Invincible. In Trouble

46. Collide with destiny

47. A comedy from the heart that goes for the throat

48. Oceans rise. Cities fall. Hope survives

49. Size does matter

50. On the air, Unaware

51. All the time in the world is all they've got

52. The mission is a man

53. Uh, oh!

54. It’s a whole new west

55. Mischief. Mayhem. Soap.

 

1990’s Bonus

 

Note: These bonus taglines don’t necessarily follow the same rules as the ones above do. :)

 

1. It's nothing personal (1991)

2. Lived any good books lately (1995)

3. Something has survived (1997)

4. Every generation has a legend. Every journey has a first step. Every saga has a beginning. (1999)

5. The Toys are Back in Town (1999)

 

John

New Movie List (Finally .. yes I know)

OK, I know what you are all thinking…

“John, it has been three months since your last post – you stink as a blogger!”

And you would be right. I have several reasons – but really no excuses. I have kind of let myself get sidetracked by a number of things. I am also likely get sidetracked again in just a few weeks (for those of you living under a rock – World of Warcraft: Cataclysm is just a few weeks from release – woot!).

However, I promise to try to make a better effort to keep this little journey on track.

And if I fail it will be Beth’s fault. :)

Without further ado, here is the next four movies on our list:

94.  An American in Paris (1951) -- Blu Ray
93.  The Manchurian Candidate (1962) -- DVD
92.  Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? (1966) -- DVD
91.  Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) -- Blu ray

John

THIS IS BETH - IT WILL NOT BE MY FAULT...NOTHING EVER IS MY FAULT REMEMBER! LOL

95. Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Stars:  Tom Hanks (Captain John H. Miller), Tom Sizemore (Technical Sergeant Mike Horvath), Edward Burns (Private First Class Richard Reiben), Matt Damon (Private First Class James Francis Ryan), Jeremy Davies (Technician Fifth Grade Timothy E. Upham), Vin Diesel (Private First Class Adrian Caparzo), Ted Danson (Captain Fred Hamill)

Director:  Steven Spielberg

Awards / Honors

• 5 Oscar wins - Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound
• 6 Additional Oscar Nominations - Best Picture, Best Actor (Tom Hanks), Best Writing (Orginal Screenplay), Best Art Direction, Best Make-up, Best Original Score
• #45 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Thrills list (2001)
• #10 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Cheers list (2006)
• #71 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (2007)
• #8 on AFI's 10 Top 10 lists - Epic Movies (2008)
• According to Box Office Mojo, Saving Private Ryan is approximately the 102nd highest grossing movie of all time (when accounting for inflation)

Genre:  War Drama

Running Time:  2 Hours, 49 Minutes

Fomrat:  DVD, Blu-ray

Odyssey Rating:  4 1/2 Stars (John - 5 Stars, Beth - 4 Stars)

John's Take

OK, let’s cut to the chase with this film.  Saving Private Ryan is an excellent film.  I give it a rating of 5 Stars and it deserved all of the accolades that it received.  I love this film, and can watch it over and over.  Add to that, the Blu-ray transfer is spectacular.  There.  Now that is out of the way, here is what I actually want to talk about: artistic license in historical fiction – when is it OK and when it is not? 

Historical fiction has always been popular in movies.  The problem is filmmakers haven’t always been very concerned about differentiating between what is “historical” and what is “fiction”.  Sometimes it can’t be helped. I get that.  History is complicated, and the more exciting, action-packed, and emotional an historical event seems, the more complicated that event probably was, and complication makes for bad story telling.  Good stories are always very simple at their core.  They have heroes (preferably one or a really small group) overcoming great difficulties or villainous foes (preferably both) – in other words you need conflict and you need to resolve the conflict in simple and direct ways.  So, if a filmmaker needs to modify / omit events or characters a little to make the narrative work a bit smoother, then that is understandable.  It is the definition of “a bit” that seems cause problems.

While there are any number of examples of films where “artistic license” was used a bit too liberally, the one that immediately comes to mind is the film Braveheart.  Now, don’t get me wrong.  I love this film and I have seen it many times.  However, it is probably one of the most inaccurate historical dramas ever made.  Short of having the story take place in Australia and having William Wallace wielding a light saber, I am not sure it could get any less accurate.  Historian Sharon Krossa described the film thusly:

"The events aren't accurate, the dates aren't accurate, the characters aren't accurate, the names aren't accurate, the clothes aren't accurate—in short, just about nothing is accurate."

Director and star Mel Gibson freely acknowledges the many historical inaccuracies, but has always defended his directorial choices, by saying that the way events are portrayed in the film are much more "cinematically compelling" than the historical fact.  I would certainly agree with the “cinematically compelling” statement.  Like I said, I love this movie.  So do millions of people.  So what is the problem? 

The problem is that we were being sold a lie.  If movie had been marketed as the fictional story of Wally Williams and it took place in some non-specific time in the Middle Ages, well then no harm, no foul.  It wasn’t, however.  It was sold as a being based on real events, but very little in the movie happened the way it was depicted, if at all.  Sorry, artistic license or not, that is just wrong.  How can we learn from the past if our popular forms of media feel that they can just present history any way they like and not be clear about the fact they are doing so? 

Sometimes historical fiction is done well.   The movie I should be talking about, Saving Private Ryan, is an example where it is done well.  It was fictional story, but it didn’t feel the need to completely disregard actual events.  About the most critical thing you could say is that the movie seems to give the impression that Americans took Omaha Beach all by themselves, which wasn’t the case.  For example, Tom Hanks and crew should have been aboard a British landing craft with a British pilot.  Many nations fought and died on those beaches that day, but the movie just shows you Americans and Germans.  Could that have depicted more accurately?  Sure, and it probably should have been.  That being said, the Omaha Landing was depicted far more accurately than say the Battle of Stirling Bridge was in Braveheart.  Which battle was that you ask? It was the “They will never take our Freedom!” battle.  Yes, I know, there is no bridge depicted in the film.  There was one in real life mind you.  And a river.  And an over-extended British army trying to cross the little tiny bridge when they were sneaked attacked by the Scottish.  In other words, where WWII vets were going on record for saying how realistic the D-Day scenes were in Saving Private Ryan, absolutely nothing of the battle you see in Braveheart actually happened. 

Look, Mel Gibson is going through a lot these days and I am not trying to pile on him, but the fact is that he doesn’t let little things like… umm… facts, get in the way of the story he wants to tell (don’t even get me started on The Patriot) and he and other directors do a disservice to everyone when they allow their expressions to run unchecked by reality.  Hollywood seems to think that words “based on” or “inspired by” means “we only have to get some of the names correct”.  Like it or not, the entertainment industry has a measurable effect on how people learn about and view both historical and current events. F ilmmakers should feel free to tell whatever stories they want, but when they get sold as being true when in fact they are not, it is false advertising and people should be held responsible.  

Not only that, it hurts documentary and educational filmmakers as well.  Even when historical fiction is done right, like Saving Private Ryan, there is just no way documentaries and educational movies can compete with multi-million dollar Hollywood productions.  Yes, Saving Private Ryan is a great piece of historical fiction, but regardless of how accurate it may be it shouldn’t be confused with historical fact.  Hollywood should make a much better effort to differentiate between the two.  It would benefit everyone if they did.

John

BETH TAKE:

Let me just start to saying...I love Tom Hanks...he my favorite actor of all time..LOVE HIM...LOVE HIM...LOVE HIM!

Like John, I loved this movie...I gave it 5 stars...so yeah, I loved it! Unlike John, I can not watch this movie over and over. I don't know if there is anyone like me out there, but I can't watch sad and dramatic movies over and over. I can watch it once, and be glad that I did see it...but I can truly go without watching them ever again. I can name two movies that I feel this way about...this one, Saving Private Ryan and The Green Mile...oddly enough, they both have Tom Hanks in them (I just realized that lol). I loved both movies but Saving Private Ryan is a little bit too dramatic for me and The Green Mile is just way too sad.

And unfortunately, at the end of SPR...Tom Hanks dies...WHAT? Tom Hanks can't die in a movie :(

96. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Stars:  Tim Robbins (Andy Dufresne),  Morgan Freeman (Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding), Bob Gunton (Warden Samuel Norton )

Director:  Frank Darabont

Awards / Honors

• 7 Oscar Nominations - Best Picture, Best Actor (Morgan Freeman), Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay), Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Original Score, and Best Sound Mixing
• #23 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Cheers list (2006)
• #72 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (2007)

Genre:  Drama

Running Time:  2 Hours, 22 Minutes

Format:  DVD, Blu-ray

Odyssey Rating:  4 1/2 Stars (John - 5 Stars, Beth - 4 Stars)

John's Take

It is easy to forget after being bombarded repeatedly by the same 30 second commercials for movies like Salt, or The Expendables, or Scott Pilgrim vs. The Word that marketing is not just an annoying part of the film industry, but a necessary one.  Every year Hollywood movie distributors spend literally billions of dollars to buy paid advertising – TV commercials, newspaper ads, etc.  Why?  Well, because unless it is a mega-blockbuster, films don’t typically linger in theaters for more than four to six weeks, which means that the movie distributors have a very limited window in which to make as much money as they can.  Theaters just don’t have the ability to wait for a movie to build an audience by word-of-mouth anymore.  Granted, film promotion is definitely a double-edged sword.  The emphasis on focus-group reaction and profitability estimates certainly can impact the artistic quality of film in a negative way.  On the other hand, if no one sees a film, can it be considered art at all?

The Shawshank Redemption is a prime example of how film promotion can be both helpful and detrimental to a motion picture.  There is no doubt that Shawshank is one of those films that everyone loves.  For example, it is currently # 1 on IMDb’s list of best reviewed movies.  It is one of Rodger Ebert’s “Great Films”, and while always a film-critic favorite, this film has started to grow more highly regarded than either Forrest Gump or Pulp Fiction, the two most critically acclaimed films the year of Shawshank’s release.  Time is certainly being kind to this film.  With such glowing, nearly-universal praise, it is easy to forget that this film was a box office flop.  After its initial theatrical run, the film was about 15 million dollars in the hole.  35 million to produce and it made only about 20 million or so.  The film was such a box office disappointment that when asked about it later, director Frank Darabont, stated: “We couldn’t beg people to go see this movie when it first came out.”  Why was such a critically acclaimed movie like The Shawshank Redemption (and a surprisingly large number of other films on this list) such a financial failure?

The answer:  the film had a bad marketing campaign.

The number of people I have met over the years, that when discussing this film, tell me that they saw this film in the theater is surprisingly high.  But considering how little money this movie made while in the theaters, I have either been very lucky to have known a large number of sophisticated movie-goers, or some of them were lying – they saw it on cable or on VHS just like the rest of us.  Now, the reason I didn’t see this movie in the theaters is probably the same reason most of you out there didn’t see it in the movie theaters:  we didn’t have any idea what this movie was about and I didn’t like the title.  Go out to Wikipedia and take a look at the theatrical poster for this movie.  Now, combine that image with the rather cryptic sounding title “The Shawshank Redemption” and try to divine what this movie is about.  Not exactly easy is it?  The point of a promotional campaign is to convey to you what genre movie falls into (action, horror, comedy, romance, etc.), and some idea of what the movie is about.  Can you honestly tell me you can derive any idea of what the plot is from the title and the poster alone?

Granted, a title and a movie poster does not an entire film promotion make.  If we take a look at the poster for a movie I mentioned earlier, Salt, it doesn’t exactly portray a great deal of information either.  However, the movie trailers clearly do.  I haven’t seen Salt, but based on what I have learned form the commercials, I could tell you that Angelina Jolie plays a CIA operative that is on the run from her fellow spies because she may or may not be a Russian sleeper agent.  I can tell you that it is an action movie with lots of stunts and explosions, and that Angelina appears scantily-clad in at least one scene.  But then again, I can’t help but know this.  The trailers for this movie have been appearing on my TV every 15 minutes for the last month, so it is OK that poster is simply some sort of simple teaser and the title of the film is rather silly.  Now, in Shawshank’s defense, its trailers do a pretty good job of letting you know what the movie is about as well, but can any of you out there actually remember ever seeing them?  I can’t.  In fact, I went out and specifically searched for the trailers and watched a few.  I can honestly say I don’t remember ever seeing any of them.  Not in the theaters, not on TV, never.

What’s the lesson here?  While you may have to deal with some “backlash” issues if you inundate me with advertisements for your film, I absolutely won’t see it if I don’t know what it is about, so you better make sure your marketing campaign reaches me.  I think that is the case with most people – they won’t go spend money on a movie that they know nothing about.  So with a media campaign that clearly failed to reach anyone, all people had to help them make the decision on whether or not to see this film was the title (cryptic) and the movie poster / newspaper ad (usually the same image).  Considering the resulting box office totals, I suspect that most conversations about seeing this movie went something like – “The Shawshank Redemption? I have no idea what that is about.  Let go see that Tom Hanks movie instead, the previews for that looked great …”

So, what transformed this failure into such a critical success?  The Oscars.  Again, as much as many film snobs like to berate the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as simply a marketing device (sort of like I did back in my Sunrise post), one cannot argue the effect that the “Oscar bump” had on this film.  The Shawshank Redemption was nominated for seven Oscars, but didn’t win one – it, along with Pulp Fiction had a hard time competing with the award-accumulating Forrest Gump juggernaut.  However, with a re-tooled Oscar-centric marketing campaign the movie garnered about another 10 million or so in box office receipts, still not enough to break even on production costs, but the nominations had helped get even more people to see it and that lead to good word-of-mouth, which in turn helped build an audience for the film.  With a quick release into the home video market, along with a heavy rotation on cable television – and Presto! – one of the first classics of the home video age is born.  The Shawshank Redemption, a film that tanked at the box office, in part due to a poor marketing campaign, went on to become profitable and beloved due to a better tuned one.

So, does that mean I think that the ultimate success of this film is due solely to the correction of a bad marketing plan?  Of course not.  Ultimately, this film has become a classic because we all see ourselves as Andy Dufresne.  We all, at times, feel like we are trapped in our own little Shawshank Prisons, so we all root for Andy as he tries to survive in his.  No, marketing didn’t make The Shawshank Redemption a good movie, but bad marketing nearly prevented any of us from seeing it, and that certainly would have been a crime.

The Shawshank Redemption gets a ranking of 5 Stars.

John

BETH'S TAKE:

Morgan Freeman is one of the best actors ever. I can't think of one movie I have watch with him that I did not like. This one included. My one and only complaint about this movie...IT'S WAY TOO LONG!! Once I thought the end was approaching...NOPE, it wasn't!

But overall...very very good movie..highly recommend watching it!