The Best 1000 Films of All-Time

I could not disagree more on The Shawshank Redemption. It’s cliche. So what? The execution is flawless – the blend of genres, the twist, the relationships between the characters. A trope done badly is a cliche, a trope done well is an “archetype”, but really it’s all in the craft, and the craft of The Shawshank Redemption is flawless. Not every movie needs to be 2001.

A lot of the things you said weren’t even criticism, just observations. “le conspiracy against our 4000 IQ protagonist that outsmarts everyone” – yeah, the protagonist is smart. There is no third tablet of Moses whereon is written: “Thou shalt not write movies with clever protagonists who outsmart their enemies.”

Also Andy didn’t earn any redemption. It’s not a story about Andy, it’s about Red. Andy doesn’t even have an arc – he’s the same character at the start and at the end. Red’s arc is learning to never give up hope, through his relationship with his friend.

I’m not even going to touch on absurd race-based criticism.

Not every movie, not every great movie, needs to be as unconventional as 2001. Executing an ordinary story to perfection is its own achievement.

“no counterpoint to really develop dialectically nor room to make a constructive picture of the system” – it’s not a thesis.

“breaking your parole and following your heroic unbeatable 4000 IQ (no he’s not just smart, he’s a genius mastermind, although he’s helped by stupid villains) buddy that gifts you money and a job” – nor is it a handbook for life improvement, it’s a story. It’s not meant to be a model for everyone.

Most of what you said is just throwing insults at the movie. Anyone can talk derogatorily about any movie. Calling the main villain of a movie “downgraded Biff Tannen” is just a juvenile insult – it’s not criticism.

My guy, you’re the one who brought up 2001. At no point did I put forward that film as the standard, nor did I make my evaluation a matter of being unconventional. Chinatown and The Godfather are extremely straightforward narratives, and they’re on my list. Citizen Kane has an unconventional structure but is also quite straightforward as a narrative and thematically– armchair Freud to paraphrase Welles’ own words. I even made sure to put Last Year At Marienbad aside in its own bit because a comparison would be muddy. I played ball with you mentioning it because it was as good as any a film to highlight how outclassed Shawshank is, not so you could straw man my side as arguing in favour of parabolic philosophical films exclusively lol.

Which is an odd takeaway because none of what I attacked Shawshank on has to do with its proposition, but precisely its execution. You know, not making your character a tax fraud wunderkind that learns the trade in a short span in addition to a master manipulator and evasion master all at once while dumbing down to hell the prison personnel (the fucking poster) if you want said evasion to feel earned and keep up credibility. Likewise: perfect supernaturally hypercompetent genius MC, loved by all good characters, and only disliked by the meanies, wronged in the past and who is always one step ahead of everyone, and whose sole real flaw is that he’s aloof and misunderstood also makes for a poor main character (it’s also commonly known as a Sue). That’s what you want to throw in the writing ring with Michael Corleone, Charles Foster Kane, Guido, Isak Borg or Scottie Ferguson ? But I’m just repeating myself here. Point is, I am talking about the execution and I am bringing up specific examples to tie them into a stated criticism.

You keep hiding behind my abrasive delivery to take a moral high ground, but I don’t see you developing a single line of thought nor rebutting anything. You made one blanket statement and that’s it.

So if we summarize thus far:

-I can’t call out the film on its overwhelming clichés as crutches even if they make for poorly developed characters, hurt the credibility and immersion, deflate the weight of the conflictual relationships, and make for cheap artifices and shortcuts in order to clumsily and desperately manipulate the watcher into an emotional response rather than let the events and performances speak for themselves….because the craft is “flawless” (it’s actually mediocre) or some vague stuff like that ? –and I’m just focusing on the writing part right now, but more broadly this… cinematic…thing.. also triples down on that crap with the sad violins and a voiceover that undermines the rather good performances to baby you into being told everything that’s happening and how you should feel about it. Which is anti cinematic in my book but I digress.

-I can’t ask of the film to put its themes, ideas, statements to the test by introducing a credible (doesn’t even have to be equally credible, just credible) challenge/conflict/character to the MC, either to make him grow or better solidify his position (the latter in the case of a static character, which isn’t inherently a flaw, but it doesn’t matter here because Dufresne is not static anyway) because… it’s not a thesis ?? You do know it’s also a literary device right ? Foils being just one example of it.

-I can’t ask the film to be compelling in the questions it tries to raise ( here on rehabilitation, society as a prison, freedom, guilt, overcoming), has already started to tackle (melodramatic token suicide bird guy) and is concluding through Morgan Freeman (parallelism with bird guy), the brilliant conclusion of which is “break the parole you waited years for, get your 4000 IQ escaped buddy to send you money and hire you to give you an existential purpose, then hug it out on the beach” which is one of the most idiotic self-sabotaging copouts I’ve ever seen. And given how obviously sentimental and happy the ending is, it’s not cynical and aware of its sinister implications, they just didn’t realize it and called it a day. There are also poorly done parallels between prison and capitalism, but saying it’s not Foucault would be an understatement. Or would the movie be shielded from criticism on its execution there as well because it’s not a “handbook for life” which has nothing to do with what I’m talking about ?

I’ll even provide a positive example : The Bicycle Thieves first starts by introducing poverty as the main conflict to the main character, then later brings in the faceless thief to serve as the antagonist that drives most of the film, and ends in the neighborhood of said thief to show us his equally bad economic situation and push the main character into attempting to steal a bike himself. The marxist reading and broader statement (De Sica is a Marxist) being that poverty is actually driving a wedge between the working class and making them fight amongst themselves to perpetuate it while the well-off stay out of sight and out of mind. A double effect. The initially faceless thief has been tied further into the first and main conflict (poverty) as a cause and a symptom, the confrontation has shook the MC’s assumptions and character and put that and his desperation to the test, from the interaction of those elements is born a compelling reasoning and statement on the subject by the author. Simple, elegant, substantial, compelling. A controlled landing whereas Shawshank crashed on the sidewalk.

One dimensional caricatures as characters, predictable clichés galore, narrative conveniences (Biff Tannen Jr is apparently scared of getting caught for tax evasions more than for conspiracy and murder lmao, the poster thing working is some muscular suspension of disbelief as well), themes poorly developed and sabotaged by the ending (as a bonus also a physically painful sentimental cliché to go through). All of that I’ve expanded on, I don’t think I forgot the execution. I guess the dialogues haven’t been covered, I don’t remember enough so I won’t bash, but I do remember that they weren’t a Wilder film at any rate. Might be good though.

All in all, a rather poor picture of perfection I would say. Of the same stock as Forrest Gump, The Green Mile (and other such interchangeable simplistic and sentimental American films typical of that time period) and Ferris Bueller more so than 8 1/2, The Seventh Seal or The Godfather. You’re free to finally substantiate your assertions, but I probably won’t type more.

I think Ebert summarizes the virtues of the film quite well, and it would be a waste to paraphrase him. There are many places (Ebert is just one) to read about the structure and craft of the screenplay, and if I paraphrased those articles or videos I would just be wasting your time. The economic or social aspects of the movie mean nothing to me.

With more thought I don’t think this discussion is very productive. I just find you so aggressive and insulting to the movie, that it’s impossible for me to formulate a fair and rational response. And anyway, everything I could say in praise of the movie has been said more eloquently elsewhere.

There’s no need to continue this argumentative discussion.