MovieChat Forums > The Shawshank Redemption (1994) Discussion > Why is this movie such a phenomenon?

Why is this movie such a phenomenon?

posted 2 years ago by SlackerInc (1090)
38 replies | jump to latest

Especially decades later?

It's not that I think it's bad. I do think it's a good movie: 7/10. Just not a great one, and certainly not worthy of such adoration and fervid dedication among its fans.

It's also not that I don't understand how other people could go crazy over a movie while I think the hype is unwarranted.

I mean, I don't think "Fight Club" or TDK are very good, and I think "The Usual Suspects" is good but overrated. But I understand why people are gaga for those three movies, even if I am not. There are themes, scenes, and characters that are just screaming for an ardent cult following. Whereas I don't understand this "Shawshank" phenomenon at all.

I mean, it's a prison drama that's decently written and acted, with a reasonably clever ending. I just don't see what would make it not only be so highly rated, but also inspire this devoted following that watches it over and over and quotes all the lines, nearly thirty years after it came out.

Looking over all the movies I have given a similar score (again, 7/10), it strikes me that a great comp would be the 2002 Tom Hanks gangster movie "Road to Perdition". Like "Shawshank", it got good reviews, was nominated for a few Oscars (and unlike "Shawshank", it won one, for cinematography). "Perdition" has a solid 7.7 average on IMDb, but imagine if it had this rabid following and pegged the needle on user-generated lists of greatest movies of all time (but, notably, not critics' or directors' lists). It would just be like "uhhh...why?" which is exactly how I feel about this actual, non-hypothetical situation.

Although looking more closely, it appears "Perdition" was immediately successful at the box office, unlike "Shawshank". Is this the difference, that people feel like they've uncovered this great hidden gem of brilliance? But surely that feeling would have evaporated many years ago, based on the film's massive popularity online. It has been #1 on IMDb's Top 250 for fourteen years now, for god's sake, which is kind of sad in its own right. Why wouldn't that #1 change at some point?

I guess, looking at Wikipedia, it probably has something to do with being shown on TNT over and over. Which...okay then.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6931) 2 years ago

There's a really good video on Youtube that explains how this may be one of the first few films to humanize prisoners without glorifying them, and I think that has a lot to do with it. It's called "How The Shawshank Redemption Humanizes Prisoners" and here's a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhGJ5SmSE2o&vl=en

Remember that it came out in 1994 and the context of that era in relation to the content of the film, such as the fact that the rate of crime in 1991 had been at the highest level ever measured by the FBI in its Uniform Crime Reporting program, and the following significant decline in crime rates from the early to late 90s as a direct result of increased imprisonment.

[–] SlackerInc (1090) 2 years ago

That makes a lot of sense in terms of why it would be a few people's favorite movie, but not why it would have such massive popularity. Prisoner rights is still not something most people support (unfortunately), and even less so then.

[–] liscarkat (16926) a year ago

There have been many movies that humanized prisoners without glorifying them since silent films. It was nothing new in 1994.

[–] Kowalski (61993) 2 years ago

BECAUSE IT'S REALLY FUCKING GOOD. NOEMOJI

[–] capuchin (2749) 2 years ago

I've never understood its status either. I think it's a good film, a little too sentimental for my own tastes and seems to gather every prison movie trope/cliche into one package, but it's well-crafted and well-acted and all round pretty... solid. Quite how that ever translated into #1 on the IMDb was always a bit of a mystery.

But there it is. People have different tastes, don't they? You and I just don't happen to be with the majority on this one.

Edit: Although it's quite telling that, in the thread titled This is ranked number 1?, BlissNEsb suggests 'You people should watch more films' and several of the respondents inadvertently prove the OP's point by demonstrating they have very limited frames of reference. So that might be part of its success. It's probably the choice of the more casual film fan.

[–] SlackerInc (1090) 2 years ago

Yes, that was an intriguing thread, wasn't it? But then some of those casual film fans tried to throw the OP under the bus as a Michael Bay superfan. My favorite rhetorical device on these boards, sigh.

Edit: And even knowing it's the casual film fan's favorite movie, I still want to understand why. What about it so massively appeals to the hoi polloi? Why isn't it, like, a treacly holiday movie, a broad comedy like "Anchorman", or just a huge tentpole movie like "The Dark Knight"?

[–] capuchin (2749) 2 years ago

But then some of those casual film fans tried to throw the OP under the bus as a Michael Bay superfan.

Yes, indeed. That's exactly what I found telling. The old IMDb sneer. 'Maybe this film is beyond your intelligence, kid. Go back to your explosions and car chases'. Very limited frame of reference.

And even knowing it's the casual film fan's favorite movie, I still want to understand why.

To be clear, there are plenty of non-casual film fans who have seen tons of films, know their stuff, and rate Shawshank very highly. That's just a matter of individual taste. That's all fine and dandy.

But I think it has probably pushed itself to the top of the IMDb list on the strength of casual film fans who have literally never seen anything else remotely like it. If you're measuring it against something like Transformers, then -- sure -- it looks like it belongs in a different universe all together.

But as to why this one and not another one? I don't think we'll ever know for sure, but I think it'd be fair to suggest Shawshank might touch people emotionally in a way that Anchorman or The Dark Knight probably wouldn't.

[–] SlackerInc (1090) 2 years ago

"But as to why this one and not another one? I don't think we'll ever know for sure"

Yeah, that's the real puzzle.

[–] strntz (11066) 2 years ago

The bigger question is why do you care what others think about it.

[–] SlackerInc (1090) 2 years ago

I don't understand this attitude, which seems to be all too common. What do you come to these boards for? Serious question: when people say "why do you care what anyone else thinks?" I just have trouble understanding, if they don't care, why they participate on a message board which inherently involves discussing...what other people think.

[–] strntz (11066) 2 years ago

Because you're not asking or discussing the relative merits of the movie, you're asking specifically why so many people love it. Again I ask, why do you care what others think?

[–] SlackerInc (1090) 2 years ago

Discussing the merits of a movie is implicitly about caring what others think. Otherwise you could just think about the movie in your head, or write down your thoughts about it privately instead of sharing them on a message board.

[–] strntz (11066) 2 years ago

I've been on this board from day one and for many years on IMDB before that. I've posted about movies, TV shows, performers, etc. and never once have questioned why someone likes or dislikes a film. I discuss what I like or dislike, but I don't care what anyone else thinks.

Your original post wasn't much about this film's merits or lack thereof, it was why everyone else loved it. Again, why do you care?

[–] SlackerInc (1090) 2 years ago

Why do you care about why I care?

[–] strntz (11066) 2 years ago

Whether I do or not is a deflection.

[–] SlackerInc (1090) 2 years ago

It's pointing out your inconsistency, a double standard really.

But just so you don't accuse me of dodging your silly question: I care because it's weird, I don't understand it, and I want to understand it. Hypothetically, if the most popular show in TV history were "Trapper John, M.D.", I'd be puzzled by that as well and might find a forum to go express my puzzlement and solicit theories to explain it.

[–] strntz (11066) 2 years ago

I care because it's weird, I don't understand it, and I want to understand it.

It's not great, but it's an answer. It's not complete anyway. I get the curiosity - I guess I don't get why it bothers you, or if it even does. Maybe it doesn't bother you..

[–] SlackerInc (1090) a year ago

It doesn't bother me, it puzzles me.

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 2 years ago

Frank Darabont.

[–] SlackerInc (1090) 2 years ago

Because of TWD? But didn't the massive popularity predate that?

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 2 years ago

You asked why it's such a phenomenon. It's such a phenomenon because it's written and directed by Frank Darabont. That's why it's such a amazing movie. Just as The Green Mile is amazing, and The Mist is awesome. And the first season and a half of The Walking Dead were superb. He is phenomenal in and of himself. 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

Oh shit, he did the mist? I didn't realize that. Actually this reminds me, I really need to check out The Majestic.

[–] SlackerInc (1090) 2 years ago

Haven't seen "The Green Mile". Thought "The Mist" was pretty good until the ending. The first season of TWD was good until the last couple episodes.

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 2 years ago

Oh my, I can't recommend The Green Mile enough. It's one of those movies that just gets better and better every time you watch it.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

I mean, I don't think "Fight Club" or TDK are very good, and I think "The Usual Suspects" is good but overrated. But I understand why people are gaga for those three movies, even if I am not. There are themes, scenes, and characters that are just screaming for an ardent cult following. Whereas I don't understand this "Shawshank" phenomenon at all.

I don't know what to tell ya.
If you acknowledge that there are some things you don't like but that other people do, I'm sure you can acknowledge that there are some interests you may or may not understand either. No one can will be able to change your opinion on this.

No matter what ppl say about the cinematography, the acting, the script...you've already rejected those ideas. And again, you bring up TDK, fight club, and the usual suspects. But, it's the same sort of difference. You just don't like them while others do. Here you can't see why some ppl like this movie, whereas other do. Because I'm sure there are some ppl who don't understand why ppl like fight club or TDK, but can still like shawshank, regardless of their own personal opinions.

Even your conclusion is misguided. They wouldn't show on TNT over and over unless it was appealing to audiences. But for some reason, you're just looking to denigrate people for doing so (i.e. "great hidden gen of brilliance").

I can't stand Tarentino, and I don't like the vast majority of his films. But I'm not gonna make a thread on Pulp Fiction to question why people would like it, and then passively insult those who do. My interests are my own. And even if I can't empathize with others, I will surely respect their interest, even if I don't understand it myself.

[–] beauq81 (1022) 2 years ago

Because it is a well made, compelling story. This is one of the rare movies that literally anyone can watch and agree that is good. You can play it to a child (I WAS a kid when it came out) and an old person and both will find something compelling about it.

[–] SlackerInc (1090) 2 years ago

There are thousands of well made movies with compelling stories. What makes this one rise above the others? Especially when it was a box office bomb when it first came out?

[–] beauq81 (1022) 2 years ago

It was a year of a lot of great movies and it came out at the same time as Pulp Fiction and Interview with a vampire, so it went unnoticed.

It works better than others because it has many stories within one, all told in a perfect manner and sequence to make it simple to follow, yet provoke deep emotion. You have Red as the perspective, watching them all unfold: Andy's story, Tommy's, Brooks'. It is, primarily a story of a good man's struggle in which he manages to thrive, find friendship in an unlikely place and, eventually, come out of it victorious. The romance (and a broken one) is there, but as a background, not the forefront as others would show it. Every single actor is perfect in his role.

Also - it was written by Stephen King and narrated by Morgan Freeman.

[–] SlackerInc (1090) 2 years ago

OK.

[–] Naptown317Native (524) 2 years ago

I'd be curious to hear what you think are good movies.

[–] SlackerInc (1090) 2 years ago

"Shawshank" is a good movie. Assuming you are asking what movie I think is the greatest of all time, that would be "Network" (1976).