Review of The Shawshank Redemption (Note: contains spoilers)

(Submitted on March 14, 2017)

On February 25^th, I finally watched the film The Shawshank Redemption for the first time. I feel like I might have been the last person on earth who wanted to see it but hadn’t! And I’m happy to report that it was 142 minutes completely well spent. This a film that, simply put, moves you. It is a story of hope, of friendship, and of overcoming adversity by reaching into your deepest self and holding on to your spirit.

Released in 1994, Shawshank stars Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, and is adapted from Stephen King’s novella Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. In 1947, banker Andy Dufresne (Robbins), despite his claims of innocence, is sentenced to life without parole in Shawshank State Penitentiary for the murder of his wife and her lover. The film follows Andy’s time in prison, during which he befriends inmate Ellis Boyd “Red” Redding (Freeman), a contraband dealer serving a life sentence. Andy’s indomitable spirit wins him the respect of Red and other inmates. By virtue of his financial expertise and professional demeanor, he is given work managing the finances of prison employees, and later is used by the warden in a money-laundering operation, receiving protection from the guards in the process. It also emerges that he may well be innocent. After approximately twenty years at Shawshank, Andy escapes through a tunnel he had dug over his time there, and heads south to Mexico. Sometime later, Red receives parole after forty years behind bars, and reunites with his friend on a Mexican beach at the film’s conclusion.

Shawshank was the feature film directorial debut of Frank Darabont, who wrote the screenplay as well. Darabont is also known for writing and directing The Green Mile, and developing and executive producing the first season and part of the second season of AMC’s The Walking Dead.

Although it took in $58 million on a $25 million budget, the film faded quickly at the box office. Possible reasons include the difficulty of marketing a prison drama to potential female viewers, as well as the challenge of selling to men a story of true friendship between two men. Shawshank is also perceived to be particularly slow-moving. One critic, Desson Thomson, wrote in the Washington Post that “it wanders down subplots at every opportunity and ignores an abundance of narrative exit points before settling on its finale.”

However, the film for the most part received critical acclaim, and was nominated for seven Oscars at the 67^th Academy Awards: Best Picture (won by Forrest Gump), Best Actor (for Freeman), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Original Score, and Best Sound Mixing, of which it unfortunately won none. Despite its lack of box-office success, it would gain in popularity through airings on cable television, in addition to VHS, DVD and Blu-ray.

While it is safe to say that Shawshank moves quite slowly, I believe that this is not to its detriment. The pacing is deliberate; it is intended to reflect how slowly time moves in a prison. Naturally, as a result of this, the plot does not unfold quickly. The film is noted for its use of narration (provided by Freeman) to illustrate the passage of time.

But perhaps unusually, considering that Shawshank is not fast-paced, it always holds one’s interest. Yes, there are subplots, but they never feel superfluous, are all done with great attention to detail, and they all become intertwined. I can confidently say that this film always knows where it is heading. And the tedium of time passing in prison provides vivid contrast to the rush of adrenaline one feels at the story’s climax.

The performances of Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman are excellent and, of course, Freeman’s voice alone is a treat to listen to (Side note: I still remember in high school coming across a Facebook group titled “I want Morgan Freeman to narrate my life”). They are surrounded by a fine supporting cast, including James Whitmore as Brooks, an elderly man who has spent so much of his life in prison that, once free, he doesn’t know how to adjust to the outside world – a fear shared by Red.

Andy, as played by Robbins, is notably different from the other inmates in that he is able to hold onto hope even within the confines of Shawshank. He has an unyielding belief in the human spirit. A theme that develops is the importance of music to Andy – his playing of Mozart in his head while in solitary confinement, his gift of a harmonica to Red and, most significantly, his playing of opera over the prison loud speakers – which leads Red to say that the beauty of it dissolved the walls of the prison and made the inmates feel free, even if just for a short time. For Andy, it is music that reminds him of the outside world and gives him a place within himself that can’t be locked away.

Freeman’s portrayal of Red is a fascinating one. Red is, by his own admission, guilty of the crime for which he is incarcerated. Until his friendship with Andy, he seemed a man without hope, simply gaming the system as best as he could. There has been no glimmer of optimism in Red about life beyond Shawshank. The gradually developing friendship between him and Andy is at the heart of the story. In addition, I believe that the decision to have Red narrate, considering he is not an innocent man and is in fact a criminal, brings empathy to the prisoners and shows the audience their humanity.

The cinematography in Shawshank is outstanding. The foreboding appearance of the prison, with the use of blue, brown and gray within its walls, contrasts especially with the brightness of the Mexican beach seen at the film’s conclusion. The camera work is in a classic style – there are no jarring angles or panning techniques. It perfectly exudes the slowness and drudgery of life in prison.

I would suspect that many reviews of Shawshank have ended like this, but I will do it anyway. If you have not seen it, I recommend that you do so immediately. For, in the oft-quoted words of Andy, one must “get busy living or get busy dying.”

 

 

BB King’s Live at the Regal

(Submitted on September 5, 2017)

As a novice to blues music, I recently did some research on the subject. I came across a list on the website “Vinyl Me Please” entitled “The 10 Best Blues Albums for a Beginner.” I listened to some of the most highly regarded work of artists such as Lead Belly and Robert Johnson, in addition to the record “John Mayall – Bluesbreakers With Eric Clapton.” As a rock aficionado, the latter was probably the one I was most eager to listen to, being fairly familiar with Clapton’s music. But then I listened to B.B. King’s Live at the Regal, an album recorded at the Regal Theatre in Chicago in 1964, 16 years into his career, and that was what really stood out for me. Of course, I knew beforehand who King was, and was aware of his legendary status. But for one reason or another, I couldn’t recall ever having heard any of his songs.

In reading more about King, I learned that he grew up picking cotton in the Mississippi Delta, and developed an interest in music – specifically the guitar – at church. He started his career with performances in juke joints and on radio. From humble beginnings, he went on to become regarded as one of the most influential blues musicians in history. He passed away at the age of 89 in 2015.

King was particularly known for devoting much energy into his live performances, and he would regularly do over 200 concerts a year, well into the twilight of his life. It turned out that the record I listened to, which I found immediately appealing, was a fantastic introduction to the artist’s work. Live at the Regal features a collection of his greatest hits, and it ended up being considered one of the finest live albums ever recorded.

First, there is the music itself, and King’s renowned vocals and virtuoso guitar technique are fully on display, backed by a tight horn section and the beat of drums played by Sonny Freeman. Many distinctive elements of the blues genre weave through the songs, including the repetition of lyrics, sung to perfection by King whose vocal range allows him to slide effortlessly from gravelly growl to falsetto. King makes use of call-and-response, also typical of the genre, in songs such as “It’s My Own Fault,” in which his vocals alternate with the sultry sound of a tenor saxophone. King’s vocal range is matched by the extraordinary talent he brings to his guitar playing. His style is precise and powerful, and he uses the instrument to produce sounds that run the gamut. His playing is frequently described as dynamic, and this word seems apt, given that he can alternate between loud and soft, and aggressive and gentle.

I had read that a 12-minute, three-song medley on the first side of the album was perhaps the greatest 12 minutes of live musical performance ever recorded, and my senses were heightened with anticipation as the song “Sweet Little Angel” started to play. I wasn’t disappointed, and found myself entirely swept up in the experience. However, this album is so much more than just the music. As it was recorded live, it includes lots of B.B. King stage banter and between-song vignettes, and it’s immediately apparent that he is a charismatic performer who interacts with his audience and invites them to make noise and really feel the experience of the show. And feel it they do, as they cheer and clap throughout the concert. I read one account describing this as distracting. However, for me it was transporting and I felt as I listened to the album that I was there, at the Regal, right in the midst of the audience and enveloped by this great music and responding to the stories King is telling both through banter and song.

In looking back at his career, King once said, “I wanted my guitar to flow and sing, to make it prolong my feelings like all my favorite music did.” On this album, he surely achieves that aim. For King aficionados, it is a must-listen, and for anyone who is unfamiliar with blues music but is looking for the ideal way to introduce themselves to it, one could hardly find a better place to start.