 |
| The Shawshank Redemption Forrest Gump Pulp Fiction |
In honor of today’s Academy Award ceremony, I have
decided to change Movie of the Week up a bit. Every year around Oscar time discussions
concerning past Academy Award winners being deserving or not and what film should
of won come to light. Google ‘Oscar
snubs’ and countless articles and discussions can be found in the search
results. If you flip through the entertainment channels on television right
around this time of the year you are bound to find some kind of special concerning
Academy Award snubs. Due to this, I thought it would be interesting to continue
the ongoing debate of one particular Best Picture race right here on Shawgoes
to the Movies.
Let’s go back 18 years. The 1994 Academy Award
winner for Best Picture: Forrest Gump.
The two movies that lost to Forrest Gump
that have been argued as more deserving winners over the years: Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption.
If you can take yourself back to the moment, you can start to understand
why Forrest Gump was the winner at
that point in time. It had just dominated at the box office, becoming the second
highest grossing film of the year with The
Lion King being the highest. It had a fun but compelling way to present
American history. Most of all, it presented a character that could become
instantly lovable with a star in the form of Tom Hanks that was already loved.
Because of all this, how could the Academy go a different direction?
It is also important to note that Forrest Gump’s competition was not as
strong at the time. No one had really heard of The Shawshank Redemption and everything from its title to it premise
was eerie. Other than Morgan Freeman, Shawshank
did not have heavy star power. Pulp
Fiction had the star power but its subject matter is something that Academy
has trouble swallowing. Since their
releases in 1994, both The Shawshank
Redemption and Pulp Fiction’s have
become well known, even acquiring a ‘cult classic’ status similar to Forrest Gump. This has led to the ongoing
debate of what film actually should have won the Academy Award for Best Picture.
So let’s discuss. Was Forrest Gump the right choice?
Should either The Shawshank Redemption
or Pulp Fiction have won? What is the
all around best film of the three? What film is the most ground breaking? If
these same three films are released in 2013, what film wins? Nothing is off
limits so refresh your memory of these films and come back and share your thoughts.
I've seen all of these movies multiple times. The only one that I was lucky enough to see in theaters was Forrest Gump. Even though I was only 5 years old, I knew that I had just seen a master work. Forrest Gump is uplifting and truly captures the idea that the spirit of one man is enough to change the entire world.
ReplyDeleteI was a sophomore in high school the first time that I watched Pulp Fiction and really began to discover gift to humanity that is Quentin Tarantino's catalog. I was blown away by how cool everything was. From the characters, to the style, to the dialog, Pulp Fiction practically created the definition for what a "cool" film consists of post 1994. Therefore, it takes the cake as the most "ground breaking" of the three.
Finally we're left with The Shawshank Redemption. I actually don't remember the first time I saw this one. All I know is, is that it is the BEST film of the three. Hands down, Shawshank is the best story, the dialog is on par with anything found in Pulp Fiction, and Andy Dufresne is every bit as likable as Forrest Gump. There is nothing that Shawshank doesn't have.
If these three were released in 2012, Shawshank takes home the statue in my opinion. I think that the star power of Hanks and the body of work from Zemeckis were chief among the reasons why Forrest Gump won. Frank Darabont was directing his first film and Tim Robbins was on the cusp of stardom.
If these three films were released in 2012, I think that Forrest Gump would still win best picture due to its epic scale. It has a grand, epic story aspect to it which seems to be something the academy tends to go for. Add in the larger than life character that is basically a superhero and you have a tailor made academy award winning film. The fact that it has a heavy American feel to it also helps.
ReplyDeleteEven though Shawshank Redemption is ultimately a feel good film and not as depressing as it appears to be at times, I believe that it would still be something that would be hard to digest or its not the safest of choices. It's lead character and subject matter is dark at times and is not the easiest to view. Easy viewing is also something that the academy tends to lean towards.
Which is why even if Pulp Fiction was released today, it still would not win. If it was released 50 years from now, it still would not win. A Tarantino film will never win. Believe it or not, this is a compliment. Pulp Fiction was ahead of it's time and like Joshua said, 'groundbreaking' to say the least. The Academy's greatest fear: controversy. With it's dialogue and subject matter, Pulp Fiction is seen as controversial to the Academy so it can not be there choice. In many ways this is a good thing because the minute a Tarantino film is fully embraced by the academy is the minute Tarantino films quit being Tarantino films.
How important do you think these debates are? Yes, they are fun to have but film is so subjective that it hard to declare what film should or should not win Best Picture, Almost every year the films nominated are close if not equal in quality which makes it hard to declare one a clear winner. 1994 was one of those years. All three film that we have been discussing can be given a strong argument for.
These kind of debates really don't hold any importance as far as actual value, but they make for great conversation. It doesn't get much better than talking about three films of this caliber and trying to answer hypothetical questions about them.
ReplyDeleteLet's consider how different 1994 was from now. This was in the height of Generation X and there wasn't a lot of American pride at the time. The Academy, a group of proud and disconnected Americans, saw the character Forrest Gump as a beacon what it means to be an American. There was no way they weren't going to pick this film. It had to be remembered as a classic in their eyes, it was a movie that could help push the Academy's view of the American way.
With that nonsense out of the way, I don't agree with the idea that the Academy prefers films that are easy to view over those that are hard to digest. Consider 2009 when The Hurt Locker won. It beat out films such as The Blindside, Up, Up in the Air, and, most importantly, Avatar. All of those movies were far more watchable than The Hurt Locker. Therefore, I don't see this as a valid reason that Forrest Gump would still win in 2013, a when in post 9/11 anything can happen.
Your views on Tarantino really hit the mark. I hope he never takes home a best picture award, but I'm all for him winning any other award. His anti-establishment, "Ima do me", attitude can't be attractive to the Academy.
Which movie do think is objectively the best? Which is the most enjoyable to you?
Do you think there are really any certain standards or qualities in a film that the Academy looks for? Do they change from year to year? Why don't they tend to go for filmmakers that strive to be different such as Tarantino?
DeleteObjectivity, I believe the best overall film out of the three is The Shawshank Redemption. It does not hold much back when presenting the rawness and darkness of being locked away but at the same it manages to mix in heartfelt emotion. That scene with Brooks being released from prison is masterful to say the least. It also offers a character that you like even before you know that he is actually innocent. I think it is a beautifully crafted film that yes, is extremely quotable but at the same time truthful.
Which film is the most enjoyable to me? This is such a difficult question. It is also the reason I chose these movies for Movie of the Week. These are three films that I highly enjoy and I think several people feel the same way. They all three have very little flaws and offer something special. I still haven't answered the question yet have I? The film I enjoy the most at this point in time is Pulp Fiction. The reason I say 'this point in time' is because 2 years ago my answer would have been Shawshank, 1 year ago it would have been Forrest Gump. I have gone back and forth with these movies so much. Pulp Fiction is my favorite right now because I really have been focusing on characters and what they have to say. Pulp Fiction is filled with interesting characters that are written so well. With all of these characters in one film working so well, a highly entertaining film is the result. Not that Shawshank and Gump don't have well written characters, its just that they are being compared to Pulp Fiction in this regard. Few films can top it.
I don't think there are any set criteria for what the Academy looks for but there are various factors that can help a film. These factors seem more important some years than they are in others. A lot of the decision, I feel, are based on momentum and the personal story of the team that wins. It's hard for a director who is outside the inner circle, like Tarantino, who doesn't do things the way they are supposed to to build the type of momentum it takes for the Academy to select their work as the winner.
ReplyDelete