As a movie fan, I should never forget that special period in the mid-1990s, which was a period of frequent excellent works. In just one or two years, classic works with different themes and styles have mushroomed. I believe that all the friends who have experienced that stage have a deep understanding of the feeling of happiness that is almost extravagant. It was during this period that Forrest Gump starred in Black Powder, which swept the world with high box office, high praise and brilliant achievements until Oscar night. The work directed by Zamisaki has gone surprisingly smoothly, and its success has not experienced any setbacks. Everything is so perfect. Like Forrest Gump's legendary life, the story of this film itself is legendary.
But there are too many masterpieces of genius in Hollywood from 65438 to 0994, and many of them have become classics handed down from generation to generation. One of these films is often mentioned and compared with Forrest Gump, and that is The Shawshank Redemption. In view of the high popularity of this film in the fan circle, it is dwarfed by other mountains. I'm too lazy to tell stories and analyze the connotation. But I think who is the better of the two movies? Who is more qualified to win the Oscar? Let's talk about our own views and try to clarify some misunderstandings that are easy to fall into in film reviews. Sensitive friends may have guessed by this time, "This guy is probably looking for a reason to erect a monument to his favorite movie again." In fact, I don't want to belittle The Shawshank Redemption at all to raise Forrest Gump. There is one thing that can prove this. When I decided to write a film review six years ago, the film I chose to write for my debut was The Shawshank Redemption, which shows how much I like this work.
The difference between a good work and a bad film is obvious at a glance, but comparing many good works together is easy to get people into a thinking dilemma. Many friends like to bring the ranking pattern of rivers and lakes in martial arts novels into film reviews and want to judge the ranking among many excellent works. Look at the various top 100 and top 10 lists to know how many people are addicted to this cause. But the problem is that literary criticism does not solve mathematical problems, and the participation of subjective emotions can easily affect the emergence of opinions. This is the reason why literary criticism cannot be absolutely fair and objective, and it is also its charm. In my opinion, it is meaningless to evaluate who is better, Forrest Gump or The Shawshank Redemption, because there is no answer. (But this does not prevent fans from finding their favorite answers. But by analyzing the artistic style differences between the two works, and taking this as a reference, it is concluded that who is more "suitable" to win the Oscar (attention! No one is more qualified to win the Oscar.
To put it simply, Forrest Gump and The Shawshank Redemption are fables of "replacing face with point", and both of them use the legendary life experience of a little person to interpret the true meaning of a certain life. The difference is that Forrest Gump summarizes this idea, so that it can be understood and easily digested by people with different cultural backgrounds, religious beliefs and knowledge structures. This artistic technique of taking a step back in order to arouse the audience to the maximum extent is Hollywood's strength, but Zamiski is very clever. He used real historical events to run through the whole fictional story, creating a real and illusory effect. This made the film get rid of the trap of pure popcorn movie and successfully upgraded to an epic work. The Golden Rooster, starring Wu Junru, also uses similar creative techniques. Although its achievements are not as good as Forrest Gump, at least it shows that it is not the patent of Hayao Chai. On the other hand, The Shawshank Redemption takes the minority route. Although its theme is far from obscure, it is by no means easy to understand after reading it once. It requires the audience's mood to precipitate with the story in the film, and you need to chew the dialogue of the characters in the play, think over and over again, and refine the essence of their thoughts. The questions raised in The Shawshank Redemption belong to everyone, but not everyone can really understand them. The charm of the film lies in the epiphany brought by perseverance and thoroughly remoulding. That kind of vigilance comes with the pain after waking up. It is not happy at all, but it is still fresh in people's memory.
Therefore, the simple, simple and atmospheric Forrest Gump is more in line with the taste of Oscar (at least that Oscar), while the sharp, cold and exquisite The Shawshank Redemption is more in line with some keen-minded fans. Forrest Gump is like a dose of chicken soup for the soul, which makes people awake. After watching this movie, you will feel that your soul has taken a bath. Forrest Gump's story is like a huge dust removal, gently brushing away the dirt in our hearts, smoothing the scars, and letting us regain our childlike innocence and realize the true meaning of life. The Shawshank Redemption, on the other hand, is like a sharp dagger, which suddenly plunges into our cold institutionalized body, making us wake up from the stabbing pain, and then gradually recover our dignity as human beings. The significance of The Shawshank Redemption lies in self-awareness, orientation of life, perseverance out of environmental control and courage to realize dreams.
These are two excellent works that go straight to the heart. No one is tall or low. The Oscar is just a symbol, not a criterion. Personally, I prefer Forrest Gump, but I never dare to despise the artistic achievements of The Shawshank Redemption.