In the end we're all winners

Featuring a rogue taxi driver, a suicidal news anchor, a dustbowl poet, detective journalists, and an underdog from Philly, the 1977 Academy Award nominations for best picture are held as some of the most iconic films of the seventies, and arguably even in all of cinema's history. The nominations: Taxi Driver, Network, Bound for Glory, All the President’s Men, and Rocky, each film more amazing then the next, and nearly each great in their own way.  However, sadly, this philosophy does not exist within the Academy’s process. 

Granted the finite nominations, only one film can be deemed “Best Picture”. Of those films, Rocky, directed by John G. Avildsen, won the award in 1977. Truly an underdog tale through and through, the film was written by a virtual no name at its time (Sylvester Stallone), and was initially so underrated, it was projected to flop at the box office by its own producers. Yet, it ended up leaving with the championship belt, both at the box office and at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, out-competing some of the most revered films in all of cinematic history. Juxtaposed with All the President’s Men, a redefining political thriller (for its time) which was produced by movie star Robert Rodford, the film can equally be seen just as important and impactful as Rocky, despite the Academy’s exclusive choice. It’s with this challenge that it is revealed that the value posed by the Academy’s rituals hold no water, for the subjective value of both films, and all films for that matter, are too intense to measure, value and judge. 

To elaborate on the ideas of subjective value and the role it plays in determining meaning, a dissection of Rocky’s themes and narrative will serve as an example. The iconic story follows a struggling boxer named Rocky Balboa as he takes on the challenges of life as he trains to compete against undefeated heavyweight champion, Apollo Creed. In the midst of the story's triumphant themes, it is often overlooked how dark, broken, miserable, and self loathing the film's protagonists are. These deep dark flaws are found in Rocky’s reclusive girlfriend, Adrian and her alcoholic brother, Paulie, as well as Rocky’s coach Mickey, whose past as a boxer is full of nothing but broken dreams and promises. Despair is found even within Rocky, full of unfulfilled aspirations of greatness, Rocky is more of a punching bag then he is a boxer, not to mention he’s stuck in a run down apartment, speaks and thinks as slow as his pet turtles, and works for a slimey loan shark. His lack of fulfillment in life acts a constant phantom that haunts him throughout the film, taking a toll on his self esteem and self worth. When he encounters the chance to take on the champion Apollo Creed, Rocky seizes the opportunity, overcoming his life troubles in the pursuit of achieving a goal. Progressing and grinding despite his insecurities, despite his past failures and unfilled endeavors, and despite overwhelming doubts. Even upon realizing his efforts in victory to be frivolous, Rocky still battles Creed with all his might. Achieving what no other boxer was capable of, not only giving Creed a run for his money, by going 15 rounds, but by also knocking Creed to the ground. It is with this that the beauties of  Rocky’s ability to “go the distance” come to fruition.

By the end of the film, Rocky acts as the very symbolic vessel of the film's themes of triumph, themes of which bleed into almost every aspect of the film. His remarkable battle against Creed demonstrates the fruits of hard work and dedication. Rocky’s liberating accomplishment devalued the outcome of the match, self defining success, and going the distance not to prove it to the world, but to prove it to himself. These themes that are full of sincere accomplishment, self celebration, and pride, are so intimate to the individual viewer, that it would be absurd to objectively argue thematic and or narrative value between one film or another. 

In order to rival the nonsensical notion of thematic and or narrative superiority, another examination of the film, All the President’s Men, will reveal such a notion’s absurdity. Firstly, to understand the film, we must understand the historical events that it is based on. The film depicts the Washington Post’s legendary reports on the infamous burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in D.C, on June 17, 1972. The two reporters assigned to the case, Carl Woodward and Bob Bernstein, scour all of D.C. to uncover the truth of what happened on that fateful summer night, eventually leading down a rabbit hole that led all the way to the White House and rooted up a corruption scandal that led to the resignation of the 37th president of the United States of America.

To memorialize and celebrate such an important demonstration of the freedom of press, producer Robert Redford pushed realism to its limits in his film to accurately represent such noble work. A painstakingly accurate recreation of the Washington Post writing room for a set, muddying dialog, awkwardly establishing shots and focus angles, and stringent recreations of the journalist methodology, all implemented within the film to immerse the viewer into the distracting, daunting, and sometimes dangerous world of investigative journalism. To accompany such praise, the honoring depictions of Woodward and Bernstien are soaked in integrity, honesty, and responsibility. Such values are perfectly represented in Woodward's very first encounter with Bernstein. After baiting an uninvited editor (Bernstien), Woodward catches Bernstien snatching his copy of notes and secretly editing them. When Woodward immediately confronts the thief, he doesn’t scold him for editing his work, but rather for being dishonest, telling him “I don’t have a problem with what you did, it’s how you did it.” The symbolic dedication to principles of honesty are pinned all throughout the film, such as Woodward and Bernstien’s boss Ben Bradly, who constantly demands more evidence from the two, representing the very embodiment of truth. Constantly shooting down Woodward and Bernstien’s ideas, always challenging convincing arguments, and demanding impenetrable evidence, Bradly and the bunch of journalists depicted within the film uphold strong ethical journalism that commemorates such professionality and code of ethics, deeply resonating with the public troubles of 1976.

Shining knights wearing ties, establishing righteousness and bearing constitutional celebration, All the President’s Men shined light in a dark America. The film celebrates constitutional correctness, and praises the viruties and benefits of a free press. Delivering expectations to an afflicted America, four years from the Watergate Scandal, when controversy over the matter was very much prevalent. A risky and sensitive film, the messages of All the President’s Men may not speak to the heart like Rocky, but instead to the country. With this film, Redford calls for an ethical standard, challenging America and the way we govern, holding a subjective value that is too intense to measure and value, rendering an objective comparison hollow. 

With ample thematic and narrative investigation, paired with subjective consideration, it becomes apparent that the objective rating from the Academy’s award becomes inane. We all have different ways to look at a piece of art, and no way is superior to the other. Film is like the colors we use to paint. Red, green, blue and so on, all inspire us in many different ways, but no one color is better than the other.

This Was Divine Intervention

The winning film for best picture during the 67th Academy Awards in 1995 was Forrest Gump directed by Robert Zemeckis starring Tom Hanks who played Forrest Gump, which saw him win best actor for the film as well. The film was about Forrest Gump who was not the smartest guy but conquers his lower intelligence by accidentally being involved in some of the biggest world events in the 20th century. Forrest Gump was a very well written story as the audience overtime sees Forrest overcome all sorts of problems and difficult situations. One of the competing films for best picture in the 67th Academy Awards was Pulp Fiction directed by Quentin Tarantino. Pulp Fiction is almost like multiple different stories in one. Two hitmen Vincent and Jules over the course of the movie are conflicted as their stories are interwoven with Butch played by Bruce Willis and Mia played by Uma Thurman. Pulp Fiction should have one best picture of the 67th Academy Awards because of how different it was and how well the story was told. Although Forrest Gump was also a very well written story, Quentin Tarantino directed and constructed Pulp Fiction so uniquely and interesting to where the character development and story shines over Forrest Gump.

One thing that both of these films do very well is character development. Forrest Gump is not the most intelligent person and does not notice or think the same way as a regular person would. He has many tribulations in life but never lets them interfere with his life. When he was a little kid he had leg braces to walk. When bullies started to chase him he went from not being able to run to breaking the leg braces and full on sprinting away. Throughout the whole film something either bad happens to Forrest or people try to use him or mess with him because of his low IQ but he always manages to turn that bad thing and make it into a good thing. When he broke his leg braces off, he found out that he was faster than everybody else. The ability to run faster than everybody else made him run away from any bully as well as in the future get a football scholarship, save lives in the war, and run a shrimp boat. The audience would have never thought he would be able to do the stuff that he has done in his lifetime. The character development of him at the beginning of the movie seeming hopeless and a little off centered, to him accomplishing all of these different things really shows who Forrest Gump came to be in the film.

Another character who changed a lot throughout the film was his lifetime crush Jenny. Jenny was Forrest's friend and crush since childhood. They were stuck like glue during childhood but as the movie progresses they grow apart. Most of the film is also Forrest trying to find Jenny. Jenny went from a nice sweet girl with parent troubles when her and Forrest were kids but once she got older her problems overtook her. She started hanging with the wrong crowd and started to use drugs heavily. Forrest cared so much for Jenny and had always wanted to be with her. Whenever Forrest did help Jenny or tried to at least she always blew him off. This can make the audience change their opinion from liking this sweet girl Jenny to really disliking her. Forrest knew that she was going down the wrong path and so did the audience and for Jenny to just blow him off can really change what you think about her.

The characters in Pulp Fiction seem very unrelatable at first glance. They are murderers, drug addicts, and mob tied. Although they may seem unrelatable at first, those characteristics are not the only ones the audience sees from them. Jules Winnfield (played by Samuel L. Jackson) is one of the hitmen and undergoes a lot of development in the film. Jules takes his job seriously and is good at it, but he is not satisfied with what he is doing. He tries to get out of the business because he thought god stopped the bullets from hitting him and Vincent in their opening scene. He called this divine intervention. Jules took this as a warning from god. He got out at the right time because if he did not listen to this warning, he would have ended up like Vincent who died because he stayed in the business. Onto Vincent, he does not take anything seriously. He cracks jokes and does drugs. Instead of saying it was divine intervention when him and Jules almost died, he said they were lucky instead. By not quitting his job as a hitman like Jules it reveals that he would rather be doing something that he believes in rather than being someone who he is not. At first, the audience might think that Vincent and Jules are just two goofy hitmen, but as the film progresses the audience learns that they are pretty different in what they want in life and that the only similarity between them was that they were good at their job. The characters and their development in this film are developed very well with the help of how the movie was constructed.

The film Pulp Fiction is one of those films that you have to constantly be watching closely if you want to understand it. If you miss one thing that happened, the story could be pretty confusing. That is why it is such a great film. This film used a non linear timeline to help tell its story. The film opens with the restaurant robbers Pumpkin and Honey Bunny who after that opening scene do not come into Vincent and Jules' story till later in the film. The film jumps from the beginning of Jules and Vincent to later on in Jules and Vincent's story to where Vincent and his boss's wife Mia to then tell the Butch story to then Jules and Vincent again. This order is integral to how the story unfolds. This order is what made people sit at the edge of their seats. This made the audience want to know how one story intersects to the other and how the other story intersects with the main story. Compared to Forrest Gump, Forrest Gump is told through narration in chronological order. Forrest Gump being in chronological order does not automatically make it inferior to Pulp Fiction, but the majority of films that are made are in chronological order. To see all these different stories and different parts of the stories in this nonlinear order again is more engaging and makes the audience think more of what they just saw or saw earlier in the film than one in regular chronological order.

The 67th Academy Awards for best picture had two very well written movies of Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction. Forrest Gump won that year but because of character development and the structure of the film, Pulp Fiction should have won that year. Both Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction had great character development. How everyone thought Forrest would never be able to do anything, Forrest accomplished and went through it all. With Jenny being a sweet young girl to overtime becoming a drug addict, Forrest Gump had some great character development. Although that may be true, Quentin Tarantino constructed Pulp Fiction to have a brilliant nonlinear timeline with different stories in one, plus that having a great impact on character development, Pulp Fiction should have been the film to win best picture that year.

Important Stories Come From All Across the World

Unfortunately, foreign films go under many people’s radars due to there being subtitles or different ideas being portrayed; however, Parasite’s best picture win from the 2020 Oscars made many more people aware of a whole new world of cinema. As movie lovers who adored Bong joon Ho’s Parasite explore the endless realm of foreign cinema, they may look back at past foreign film academy award winners. 2013 was an especially notable year for foreign cinema with films like Embrace of the Serpent and Son of Saul (winner) both being nominated for best foriegn language film. While both films were exceptional in their storytelling, I believe Embrace of the Serpent should've taken the edge in this category. 

Son of Saul is a Hungarian film set during the Holocaust that follows Saul (Geza Rohrig), a Jewish worker who is tasked with disposing corpses at the Auschwitz concentration camp, as he tries to find a rabbi to give a young boy’s corpse, who he claims to be his son, a proper burial. 

Located in the Colombian Amazon, Embrace of the Serpent follows Karamakate, an Amazonian shaman who is the last of his Cohiuano tribe, as he embarks on a journey with an ill German explorer, Theo (Jan Bijvoet), to a find a healing plant called Yakruna. They are also aided by Theo’s friend who is another Amazonian native who wants to help the explorer. Every so often the film jumps ahead 40 years to an older Karamakate (Antonio Bolivar) who is on a different yet similar journey. Just like the other timeline, Karamakate is helping someone find the Yakruna healing plant, but this time he’s helping American explorer Evan (Brionne Davis) who is trying to complete Theo’s work.

As Son of Saul deals with the viseral horrors of Nazi Germany and Embrace of the Serpent examines the destruction of Amazonian culture, it is clear that both of these films deal with heavy subject matter. Luckily, directors Laszlo Nemes (Son of Saul) and Ciro Guerra (Embrace of the Serpent) make great choices in the film’s presentation that are appropriate and reflect each film’s subject matter. For Son of Saul, most of the film is a closeup of our main character. The use of tight shot framing for most of the movie creates an uncomfortable and almost claustrophobic atmosphere. This choice in cinematography also emphasizes the isolation Saul must create between him and the brutally gut wrenching world around him. Presenting the film in this manner also avoids what other Holocaust movies may do, exploit the tragedy. The horrors that occur during this film are never in focus as they are always in the background. Not only does this put the audience in the shoes of Saul, but also makes the sequence of events feel like they are actually happening. Unlike Son of Saul, Embrace of the Serpent is filled with beautiful wide shots that capture the size of the Amazonian jungles. In fact, one of the more memorable wide shots is one used during the transition from one timeline to the other. The camera follows young Karamakate’s boat down the river and seamlessly moves through the water to reveal the older Karamakate sailing down the other part of the river. Both films have great use of cinematography to help convey their experience whether it be creating an uncomfortable and riveting experience or emphasizing the size of the movie’s mystical world. 

Another important choice in presentation in film is color. For Embrace of the Serpent, Guerra decided to use black and white coloring for the whole movie. This artistic choice helps the film feel more reminiscent of the time it is set in. It also emphasizes one of the main ideas being portrayed in the film: clash of cultures. The black and white create a contrast of visuals, representing the contrast between the white man’s culture and the Amazonian culture. In Son of Saul, the use of color makes many of the visuals much more powerful. When someone is killed in the background of a shot, the red sticks out to the audience because the person is not in focus. During the climax of the film, one of the most powerful visuals is seeing someone in the background explode into red blood. However, Guerra’s use of color is able to better capture the setting and ideas of his film and makes many shots visually interesting. 

In Embrace of the Serpent, many of the film’s themes are delivered through the dialogue and character’s motives. In a scene where Theo and Karamakate meet with a tribe that Theo is friends with, one of the members steal Theo’s compass. When he asks for it back and the native doesn’t listen, Karamakate tells him to just leave. Theo says he worries that their knowledge of using stars for direction will be lost if they learn how to use a compass. Karamakte responds with, “You cannot forbid them to learn.” This thought provoking dialogue creates engaging and complex characters whose motives are both understandable. Karamakate often argues with Theo’s native friend on Theo’s motives. Karamakate’s trust issues are understandable due to the fact that he has seen first hand the negative effects of colonialism. The amount of intense dialogue also allows the actors to express their character’s emotions. Even from the first scene when Karamakate sees Theo’s Amazonian necklace, he bursts out at him and asks where he got it. We can see the frustration and hatred in his eyes and body movement. This scene alone creates a connection between Karamakate and the audience because even before we find out he is the last of his tribe, we know that he has a dark history with the “white man”. In the case of Son of Saul, the storytelling is strongest through its presentation and camera work, not it’s dialogue. While it’s dialogue is serviceable, the character development is not present for the most part. Saul’s motives to find a rabbi for his son are understandable and we are invested with his mission; however, his character is not on the complexity level of Karamakate. While both films excel on a technical level, Embrace of the Serpent utilizes every aspect of a film to deliver an unforgettable cinematic experience. Ciro Guerra crafts a spiritual journey that captures the effects of colonialism on Amazonian culture through two connecting timelines. While this may be better than Son of Saul in multiple ways, they are both amazing films that creatively present important stories that should be heard. The more foreign films people watch, the more people can widen their horizon and share important stories. As Karamakate says at the end of the film, “Don’t let our song fade away.”

Beauty and the Lamb

This article will explore the academy awards category for Best Picture in the year 1991. Specifically, it will evaluate if Kenneth Utt, Edward Saxon and Ron Bozman’s Silence of the Lambs truly deserved to win over Don Hahn’s Beauty and the Beast. I found this year in particular to be interesting because not only is Beauty and the Beast the first animated film to be nominated but only one of three animated films to be nominated ever. This as well as the fact no movie as gruesome as Silence of the Lambs had ever come close to winning made for an interesting combination. And while the two movies are on two completely opposite ends of the spectrum, both utilize many different elements of film into their respective movies that keep you gripped with curiosity and wonder until the very end; whether that be with a monster turned man, or a man turned monster.

Before even starting the conversation of who should’ve won, I feel like it’s important to determine what exactly an academy award winner for best picture should be bringing to the table. Anthony Breznican, a writer for USA Today describes it as “the one you can have the longest conversation about at dinner afterward. The best picture is the one that you could watch again right away as soon as the credits end. The best picture is the one that makes you say “Wow” the loudest.” 

Director Johnathan Demme’s 1991 horror thriller, Silence of the Lambs won the award for the year and I personally have always been a fan of this movie. It is a movie adaptation of Thomas Harris book of the same name about a brilliant cannibalistic serial killer named Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) who aids FBI trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) in solving the pressing case of who they call Buffalo Bill. The story moves through twists and turns of the case all the while Lecter is swiftly escaping his detention centers and Clarice is going through something of her own story. Somehow all these different plot points are melted perfectly together to create an effortless flow throughout the movie. The film is the perfect combination of horror and intelligence that comes to a head at the right time in the right way. Hannibal lecters' genius is captivating and with every scene leaves you itching for the next, even if you don’t quite know what you’re waiting for him to reveal or do. 

Though Anthony Hopkins' performance as Hannibal Lecter is what I think really seals the deal for Silence of the Lambs. During almost every scene in the high retention prisons, Hopkins makes you feel just as nervous as Clarice herself to be standing in front of him. In fact, I think him winning best leading actor for a role with scarce screen time shows how prominent his character was. On top of that, another part I find to be really interesting is when Clarice cuts the lights and Demmes chooses to have one of the most crucial parts of the movie be done in night vision mode.

Then we have the other nominee Beauty and the Beast, which is of course a Disney childhood classic. It is the familiar tale of a village girl named Belle taking place as prisoner for her father to a ‘Beast,’ who is really just a conceeded prince who was spelled hideous, until he decides to let her go. Though spoiler, it doesn’t end there. She falls in love and comes back to save him when the village people try to attack him, then he almost gets killed but she's in love with him so bing bang boom, he’s back to the attractive prince and everyone else is human again as well. I had never seen this movie before, I’m not a big Disney person, and I felt like this was the perfect opportunity to finally do it. I found one of the most impressive parts of this movie to be the integration between songs and plot and how fluid the two felt. The animations were also fantastically done, especially for the time, but the storyline is a little bit predictable. Admittedly that is the case with most Disney movies, but it is hard to ignore the happiness they all provoke when watching and that is probably what makes the movie a household name today. 

Certain scenes like when the beast and Belle are eating breakfast and he is slobbering it down and tries to eat it with a spoon to impress her have any viewer smiling from ear to ear. Songs like “Be my Guest” and “Something There” are among many other catchy songs that push the narrative along rather than making it feel like it’s at a pause. Even the ending scenes when they kiss and blue sparkly strings of magic envelop them to change him and the other characters back to human, seems special and enchanting rather than cheesy and dumb.

Though when you go deep down to the roots of the movies, they are just two stories about trust. In Beauty and the Beast, Belle is more or less just supposed to be working for the beast and waiting for her imprisonment to be over so she can go back to living her normal village life. She is not supposed to be letting the beast in or trusting him in any sense. Yet she does, and even with her new freedom she comes back for him even after what he has done. Clarice on the other end is continuously warned not to trust Hannibal Lecter with any personal information because that is exactly what he thrives on. Still, she begins to share her darkest secrets and most painful memories to him. 

Both of our heroines go against their better judgement and decide to be trusting towards a monster. Which in different ways, works to both of their favors. Belle gets a dashing Prince Charming, becomes a princess, and gives a bunch of innocent people their lives back. Clarice on the other hand gets to live which is a plus, but also has a hand in a cannibal being released back into the world. Though her placing her trust in Lecter did also led to the Buffalo Bill case being solved right before time ran out for the senators daughter, which would not have happened otherwise.

When it comes down to it, I do feel as though Kenneth Utt, Edward Saxon and Ron Bozman deserve the crown here for Silence of the Lambs. Even with Beauty and the Beast’s trendsetting nomination and beautiful execution, it really just can not stand up against Anthony Hopkins impeccable performance and the brilliance of the chilling story Demmes brought to life.

The Spider-Verse Knows More than the Internet

Wreck-it-Ralph: Ralph Breaks the Internet directed by Rich Moore and Phil Johnston. Came to theaters in 2018 as the sequel adventure to Wreck-it-Ralph. After six years Ralph and Vanellapi have forever been best friends doing everything together, one day as the arcade started to open the store owner installed “WIFI” which is also known as the internet. They venture off into the internet in search of a video game part that broke but on the way figure out their insecurities and fears that have built up over the years. Spiderman: Into the Spider-verse directed by Peter Ramsey, Bob Persichetti, and Rodney Rothman, came to theaters in 2018. The new addition to the Marvel franchise. The story that many are familiar with but with different superheroes. All from different universes (spider-verses) but still are “spider-people'' sent by this huge collider created by Doctor Olivia (Doc Oc) and KingPin who has been trying to reunite with his family. After the spider man from the normal universe died, a young kid from Brooklyn named Miles Morales takes up the responsibility of the next Spiderman along with his friends from the other dimensions while also finding himself in the process. 

After seeing both movies back to back I could clearly see why SpiderMan: Into the Spiderverse won the Oscars in 2018. The way they filmed it as a comic book was very clever considering the whole storyline was based on all the different SpiderMan comics. It also keeps the spirit of Stan Lee’s (may he rest in peace) message to all of us Marvel fans and all superheroes, specifically in the spiderman comics that, “With great power come great responsibility” and we hear it throughout every single spiderman movie including this one. Now this movie, in my opinion, won against Ralph breaks the internet because it was a great movie visually; the comics book animation and the messages embedded in the movie along with action and very funny moments. Ralph although it has great animation, however, nothing beats the first movie.  

Ralph Breaks the Internet is the second adventure to the first movie, where bad guy Wreck-it Ralph from the Wreck-it Ralph game, 6 years after he almost pulled the plug on one of the arcade games, he and his new best friend, Vanellope Von Schweetz (sweets) have to venture to the internet to find a wheel for her racing game. As they try to come up with money to get the part both find their insecurities and desires outside of the arcade. Vanellope wants more than predictability in her life, she wants adventure and suspense while Ralph cannot let her go, he's insecure about his loneliness due to him being alone and looked as a villain his whole life. Friendships have been tested which also turned into a nasty virus set by Ralph’s ambition to make Vanellope stay with him. Without realizing how selfish and insecure he was towards her he had to learn the hard way that he had to let some things go to move on. 

SpiderMan: Into the Spider-Verse the new addition to the Marvel franchise, a new but old twist on the SpiderMan franchise. In my opinion, this movie deserved all its awards and praise that it had, it was my favorite movie of 2018. The cinematic animations and the soundtrack was the best I've heard in any Marvel movie beside Black Panther. The journey of the Brooklyn teen Miles Morales, trying to figure out who he is and what he's going to be with the help of Peter B. Parker and other spider people. He eventually found his strength after the death of his uncle and uplifting words of his father he finally dared to be the hero he was meant to be. He had the strength to take down Kingpin once and for all to avenge his uncle who was working for him and to save his universe and the other spider verses. 

Both were very entertaining to watch and I've watched them more than once in a minimum of two days, but as I said if I had to choose which was better it would always be Spiderman Into the Spiderverse.

How The Shawshank Redemption Truly Outran Forrest Gump

The year 1995 was an intriguing year for the award "Best Picture" at the Oscars Academy Awards, featuring some of the most classic films of all time. What made the 1995 Best Picture Award so memorable is that it featured two films which can undoubtedly be marked down as two of the greatest films of all time. The winner that year: Forrest Gump, directed by Robert Zemeckis tells the story from the point of view of a mentally challenged man named Forrest Gump (Tom Hanks), who overcomes various life obstacles to live out a successful life in various careers, which in turn inspires the people all around him, including his loving mother (Sally Field) and his lifelong best friend and eventual wife Jenny (Robin Wright). The Shawshank Redemption, directed by Frank Darabont tells the story from the point of view of an inmate that goes by the name "Red" (Morgan Freeman) who tells his account of the imprisonment of an innocent man named Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) who overcomes corruption and a plethora of struggles at Shawshank Prison, where he serves his life sentence, to eventually shockingly escape years later. There is no doubt this is one of the most difficult comparisons to make between movies because each film contains so many similar strengths in the plot, underlying meaning, acting, emotional connection, characters and visual effects that make up each film. Both films are all time classics for all these reasons, however I am here to argue that The Shawshank Redemption should have won the 1995 Best Picture Award at the Oscars over Forrest Gump specifically because of the film's superiority in the overall storyline and meaning.

Through each time I have watched The Shawshank Redemption I have been fascinated by how Frank Darabont captures his audience in the film with the unique and complex story his film portrays. There are so many elements which help shape the path that the story of Andy Dufresne takes. From the very beginning Andy Dufresne is a man who repetitively claims he is innocent, yet nobody seems to believe him when he says it. The audience can't even be sure when all of the evidence point to him murdering his wife and her secret lover one night when he found them having an affair. It seems almost certain that Andy is a murderer, yet the film gets the audience to believe him when he claims he is not, and to root for him through his struggles in prison. Andy makes the most of his time in prison and tries to do good for the people around him by helping get the funds to build a new library, educating fellow prisoners, and helping all of the guards with their financial situations by using his banking experience. Andy is well developed as a character who has a good heart and that is what gets the audience fully invested in his journey. What makes the storyline especially good is how Andy overcomes the corrupt system to succeed in the end. When Andy finds evidence to prove his innocence, the warden (Bob Gunton) doesn't let him go to court because he needs Andy for his own personal gain. Andy is constantly beaten and sent to the hole and he still keeps persisting. It seems as if Andy has nothing left and he is going to be in jail forever until it is revealed that Andy has escaped prison. Through years of secretly digging through the wall in his cell and determination to find a path out, Andy overcame all obstacles to outsmart the warden and gain his freedom. The value of the film is that the story contains the underlying meaning that you cannot overcome a corrupt system by conforming, the only way to win is by outsmarting the system.

When I watched Forrest Gump for the first time I could immediately see why it has always been such a popular movie among people all around the world. The storyline of this film is more straightforward, but that does not take away from its meaning and value. Forrest acts as the narrator as he tells his crazy life story to random strangers on a park bench. Throughout his story, the audience feels a connection to Forrest because of his innocent, happy, talkative, and determined personality. In the early parts of his life it becomes clear that Forrest is at a disadvantage because he is mentally challenged and that hurts his social life, early opportunity, and how he is treated. Even with these early life problems, Forrest always was happy, mostly because of his caring mother and his best friend Jenny. The film does a good job with developing Forrest's character to show how no matter what life threw at him he was able to overcome it, through determination, his natural running ability, and his positive attitude. We see as Forrest overcomes these obstacles he lives a successful life where he plays football at Alabama, serves in the military at Vietnam, plays ping pong for the U.S. national team, receives various national awards, starts his own shrimping business, and runs all around the country. The story of Forrest Gump is unpredictable, exciting, and inspiring as he lives out a life nobody would have thought he could have ever achieved. While Forrest lives a happy life we see a huge contrast in the lives of people around him such as Lieutenant Taylor (Gary Sinise), Bubba (Mykelti Williamson), and Jenny who all face tragic life events. Through all the tragedy of those around him Forrest is able to push through and eventually live out his dream of marrying Jenny and raising their child. At the end of the film the audience is happy to see how far Forrest truly had come in life and how he overcame all odds to succeed.

When I look at each of these films individually it is easy to find so many strengths throughout each storyline. When comparing each movie I find that The Shawshank Redemption is superior, not because of what Forrest Gump did wrong but what The Shawshank Redemption did better. A big reason The Shawshank Redemption deserved the award is because the film does a better job with portraying the idea that often you have to fail in life before you succeed. We see Andy Dufresne constantly fail in his life- he fails to win his court case, he fails to fight off gangs, he fails to get funding from the government, he fails to convince the warden to let him testify again, and he fails to succeed against the corrupt system. Andy fails and fails over and over again until he finally succeeds for the first time ever, when all that failure was worth it in the end, when his plan to escape finally came to fruition. Forrest Gump on the other hand, never exactly truly fails at what he aims to do. While Forrest faced other obstacles in life, he succeeded at everything he did- he gained national recognition for football, a medal of honor for his military service, national recognition for ping pong, he started a successful shrimping company, and eventually married Jenny. As a result, we see a contrast in each storyline and the courses each of these characters have to take to reach their end goal. Both journey's are incredible however, there is a stronger meaning in Andy's journey because it shows how it truly is in reality, when you have to learn how to deal with failure before you can learn to achieve success.

Robert Zemeckis not only portrays a stronger meaning in his storyline, he also is able to create a more climactic and unexpected conclusion in his film. In The Shawshank Redemption, Andy Dufresne escaping from prison is completely unexpected, large in part due to the build up to the ending. The storyline is so complex and there are so many developing factors that when Andy escapes from prison the audience does not see it coming. The film is so effective in convincing everyone that Andy is going to commit suicide when he begins acting depressed after all his failure, gets a rope from another inmate, and doesn't come out of his cell the next morning. So when it is revealed that Andy had escaped by digging through his wall with a hammer, which had been covered by a poster for 19 years, it creates an exciting and unbelievable conclusion to a long story of failures. By including this twist at the end of the film it changes the whole way you view all of the events in the storyline, especially when you re-watch the film. In Forrest Gump the ending is unexpected to a certain extent, however it lacked the amount of excitement that was portrayed in the conclusion of Zemeckis' film. Forrest seemed almost destined to marry Jenny in the end because that was always his ultimate goal and he had always succeeded at everything else in his life. It was a little bit unexpected that Forrest had a kid with Jenny, and that led to a happy ending, but far less exciting and unexpected than the conclusion to Andy's journey. The conclusion to Forrest's story was more slow and emotional with the wedding, Forrest's child, and Jenny's funeral, whereas the ending to Andy's journey lead to hectic events such as the police search for Andy, the warden committing suicide, and Andy and Red reuniting. The more meaningful message and more climatic ending definitely should have cemented The Shawshank Redemption as the better film.

With two classic films such as these there are so many narrative and thematic choices to like overall from each film. However, while Forrest Gump is undoubtedly a masterpiece, there is no doubt in my mind that The Shawshank Redemption deserved to win the Best Picture Award in 1995. The storyline in The Shawshank Redemption takes the audience on a more meaningful journey with a man who symbolizes hope, even when there is none to be found. Andy Dufresne is a more realistic representation of what societal corruption can do to a man, and shows just how to overcome it. On top of it all, the superior storyline in this film is capped off by a more climactic ending and that is what truly seals the deal. Forrest Gump may have been fast, but the story of Andy Dufresne far outruns the story of Forrest Gump any day.

Boats vs Tanks, and Honor vs Idolization: Tora Tora Tora! vs Patton.

Boats vs Tanks:

Tora Tora Tora! And Patton. 

Somewhat coincidentally in 1970 two of the most critically acclaimed war movies of all time were released. Made very differently and with wildly different purposes for being made. One was made for historical accuracy, while another was a great example of cold war patriotism. Even better, they both are World War II movies. Even better, both are in completely different parts of the war. It is movies like these that make the amateur historian very happy, both go to such long lengths to make their movies not only be as historically accurate as possible, but both look amazing.

Just how amazing you ask. 

Well, I would say them both being nominated for best visual effects is pretty good. 

TORA! TORA TORA! Is a film that depicts the Pearl Harbor attacks and goes very far to be historically accurate and look beautiful while doing it. Made by two film teams, one Japanese and one American, offering a view of the Pearl Harbor attacks that Americans don't see often. Much of the film is from the perspective of Imperial Japan´s military commander in chief, Isoroku Yamamoto. Quite honestly one of the most fascinating characters in World War Two that needs to be discussed more often. With his ideas that air superiority will become the new deciding factor in modern war being shunned, he would never see the end of the war, dying in 1943, being killed in action. 

The best part is about this film is quite how frankly un opinionated it is, sure it does agree, and thankfully so, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany are bad. Like, really bad. What I mean is, it does not let into racist ideology of the 70´s. All the racism in the film, which is not a lot, is shown in a negative light and is meant to represent 1940's racism, and not meant in good light. Making the film so much more noble than what it could have easily turned into. 

Fun Trivia Fact. The idea of Yamamoto saying something similar to ¨We have awoken the sleeping giant¨ appears to have started with this film. No official document, or witnesses ever report Yamamoto saying this.

Tora Tora Tora would go on to win the Academy award for visual effects. 

Patton is a film idolizing the character of George Patton. The World War Two general who faced Erwin Rommel in Africa, lead troops in the ending days of World War Two in Europe, and advocated for a immediate invasion of the soviet union, all before dying in a car accident, putting an Ironic end to the most testosterone up general in US military history. 

Patton as a movie is not as historically accurate as Tora Tora Tora, however it is important to consider it never claims to be extremely accurate and is mostly  meant to show the character of Patton, and in a world that is in the middle of the Cold War, with Vietnam fighting, Patton was meant to inspire. To show what the military should be like in a time where a lot of the military had no pride, fighting a war that later on would be discovered, started out of lies. 

An example of this American pride can be seen in the opening scene. Patton's opening scene is just absolutely imagery-wise fascinating. A small man decorated in outrageous military clothing with a gigantic all American flag bordered by a grey curtain  is as close as you can get to the idea of a patriotic opening as you can get. It creates a stunning image and sets the scene for the patriotic tone the movie tries to show. It almost makes me want to pull out an apple pie just looking at it.  

Patton would not win the Academy Award for visual effects but did win seven other Academy awards, including best actor for George C. Scott as the namesake character but he turned it down. Which, while controversial at the time (according to my lovely grandmother) was very much a move that the real Patton would do. Go figure. 

Now, all this is great, but why do I bring up historical accuracy, when I should really be discussing visual effects. Well, the visual effects do include military vehicles, and people using and blowing up said military vehicles. It just so happens that I consider myself a military history buff who especially specializes in military vehicles, so I can give a good perspective on how the vehicles being used can affect which film should have, or deserved to win the Academy Award. 

TO start off with something both films have, and something I have the most knowledge of, is Planes. Obviously in this category Tora Tora Tora has the advantage. Mostly because …. well you know. 

Overall Tora Tora Tora in my countings have 11 different planes, ones I picked up myself are  the North American T-6 Texan, and boeing b-17F,. The other planes I looked up afterward and they   are a Vultee B-13, Consolidated PBY-5 Catalina, Boeing Stearman Model 75, Curtis P-40R kittyhawk and Mock, Vultee B-15 Valiant, Consolidated PBY-5A Catalina, Vought OS2U Kingfisher, and finally a  Douglass, A-20 Havoc.

The planes here are just magnificent. Each one chosen for being as chosen for being as close to the original as possible. Obviously getting all these planes was expensive, and also many of these planes are too expensive to rent to fly, so replacements were in order. 

For example the North American T-6 Texan is used by the Japanese. However, taking into account that it is supposed to be a Mitsubishi A6M Zero, the actual plane the Japanese used in the attack, this change makes sense. The North American T-6 is a plane that looks very similar to the Mitsubishi A6M Zero. 

North American T-6 Texen (Tora Tora Tora!)

Mitsubishi A6M Zero

Now what planes are in Patton. Because Patton´s focus was not on planes we only have 6 planes compared to the staggering number 11 in Tora Tora Tora. Patton does have a Casa 2.111 which is being used as a Heinkel He 111. This  was a popular plane in the German Luftwaffe for a lot of the war and because of Casa´s relevance in the plane industry in the 1970´s it was just much easier to get. 

Casa 2.111 (Patton)

Heinkel 111

Now this in mind we also have a Cessna 170B, it is not a war craft and is used mostly sparingly but I think it is smart to note that this plane is not actually in production until 1948, and to the best of my knowledge is not meant to be anything that was made in World War Two. Is this a bad thing, well not really, but when compared to the outstanding effort of Tora Tora Tora to the most obscure  details, it leaves a lot to be desired. 

After this, the theatres of the war diverge what is actually used. Tora Tora Tora has Planes and Boats, but Patton has Planes and Tanks. This in mind it is best to compare the lengths and ethort they put into both.  In the ship department of Tora Tora Tora a mixture of scale models, built sets and the real ships were used. Specifically the USS YorkTown. While a US ship, it is fair to note that being able to get a lease on a real life aircraft carrier is hard. As well as set changes making the USS YorkTown more resemble the AirCraft carriers that Japan used. Ginormous One to One scale models. Not to mention the beautiful sets and models used to depict the ships that went down in the actual Pearl Harbor Attack. 

It is extremely rare today to see films put such painstaking effort into making the designs look historically accurate as possible. And as someone who has so much respect for the people who made the actual history these films were based on, the care and detail is utterly heart warming. 

Sadly, not all films have that care, and this, in the realm of visual effects only, is one of my biggest gripes with Patton. Not that is was the film makers fault mind you, like stated before Patton put a lot of effort in already to be accurate, and models and vehicles are hard to come by. But there is a particular scene in Patton in involving these tanks. 

Patton

I didn't really pick up on it right away but the more I looked and looked these tanks just looked too modern to be German World War Two tanks. So yet again I looked online for guidance from my fellow history buffs who are much more knowledgeable than me, and I found out that these tanks are M 48.  And that the Americans also used M46 and M47 tanks. And the most hilarious part about this is that the tank´s are called Pattons. The film did not leave much room for covering this up like Tora Tora Tora would and quite honsetly I find it really weird to get an American tank then paint Nazi symbols on them. SUre for film making this is fine and used respectfully but I with my own beliefs feel unearthed by this fact. 

Then I realized something about Patton. Patton is not a film about how the war actually happened. THis film whenever it uses these visual effects with tanks, it is to make Patton look cooler, while Tora Tora Tora uses them for thrills.

Tora Tora Tora history aside is meant to inspire dread and excitement, remove the history aspect entirely and you are still left with a suspense filled action movie. The planes and Ships are seen with such awe and excitement. When what looked to be dozens of Japanese planes take off into the air, knowing what is about to happen you are filled with dread. With Patton, aside from one key scene and one downright out of nowhere moment when Patton tries to personally take down 2 the previously mentioned Heinkel 111´s with his own gun, not a lot of thrilling action happens. In fact when tanks are used in the film they tend to be used driving past with Patton looking forth like a parade. 

It is this key difference that makes Tora Tora Tora the winner of the 1970 award for visual effect winner for me. Patton vs Tora Tora Tora almost becomes unfair because they are meant to be used in completely separate ways.  Patton all the visual effects are reserved for the namesake character, the one general who the film is building to be an archetypal American. Tora Tora Tora is a film meant to honor and give respect for the Soldiers and Civilians who died in one of the most tragic events in US world history. 

Both I recommend watching, Patton is very good but can get lost in idolization, but Tora Tora Tora, is a film that has so much of a grand scale that even history today have to try really hard to match.