Ryan McNeil
Pop quiz – what do THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION and CITIZEN KANE have in common? If you answered that they are two of the best films of all time…well, you’re right but that wasn’t the answer I was going for. (Note to self, next time think your pop quiz through a bit more before you release it into the blogosphere).
The point I wanted to make with KANE and SHAWSHANK, is that while are both deeply loved, widely acclaimed films, it wasn’t always so. When both films were released, they were more or less pronounced DOA. Both films struggled at the box office, and both were ultimately considered commercial flops. Think that’s bad? At least they got good critical reception – one other classic wasn’t so lucky.
IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, the film that has become a seasonal and family classic was not only commercially killed – it was also critically drubbed! Yes folks, the heartwarming tale of George Bailey, and what his life meant to everyone in Bedford Falls managed to get this reaction from The New York Times on its release:
“The weakness of this picture, from this reviewer’s point of view, is the sentimentality of it—its illusory concept of life. Mr. Capra’s nice people are charming, his small town is a quite beguiling place and his pattern for solving problems is most optimistic and facile. But somehow they all resemble theatrical attitudes rather than average realities…”
Did that critic really watch the same movie I did??? Weird. at least he didn’t suggest to the FBI that the film was communist propaganda (An industry insider did that).
I think about KANE, SHAWSHANK, and LIFE today, because I wonder how they managed to endure. Just two back, I used this space to talk about movies that upon reflection aren’t as good as they seemed to be. This morning, I’m wondering about the opposite…about how it happens that a film once dismissed manages to rise above and convince audiences that it is better than they first thought it was.
Recently, finding something to be better than I thought hasn’t happened too often. The reason for this, is that I’m a glass-half-full kind of guy, and tend to be the one trying to convince everyone else that a movie they disliked “wasn’t that bad”. Still, it happens…usually with something edgier. At the risk of exposing my ignorance, I’ll admit that neo-classics like THE THIN RED LINE and FARGO were once met with a yawn and a shrug by yours truly. ‘Course, nowadays I consider them amongst my favorites.
How does this happen? What part of our movie-watchin’-minds gives these titles a reprieve? Is it mob mentality? Is it a change in perspective as our life situations change?? Or is it the fairy tale notion of good triumphing over evil in the end.
Months ago, I drove a fellow blogger nuts with the amount of times I said “You just didn’t get it – watch it again”. Sometimes that’s all it takes – such was the case with IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, whose brilliance wasn’t understood until RKO allowed its copyright to expire, thus allowing any TV station that wanted to air it ad naseum during the holidays.
What do you think folks? What is it that gives movies once tossed aside for scrap, the ability to paddle away from the Island of Misfit Toys and claim a spot in our cinematic hearts?
Not so hot on Citizen Kane. Very good movie, just not so hot on it. Same goes for Fargo actually, though I think Kane is better. But you're right, repeated viewings do help some films. Although usually once I've seen it and decided, there's no turning back for me. That makes me sound impulsive, but I can't remember not liking a film and then coming to love it.
I've always really enjoyed Kane, though films like Shawshank and Kane get a lot of anti-popularity hate these days just because they are well liked. For whatever reason some films just never make it through to the mainstream, or sometimes any stream. Hitchcock's Vertigo was a disaster, but now deemed one of his masterpieces. Mostly because so much changes over the years. Slumdog Millionaire was the right film at the right time, but will it hold up so well 30 years from now?
Despite our attempts at understanding the past we'll always be secondary to the context of that year that allowed some films to get more/less praise than others. As a director I remember reading Orson Welles never had a box office hit. Sometimes it just works out that way.
Though of course the fact that Hitchcock never won an oscar is eternal proof that hindsight is always 20/20 🙂
Interesting post and all very true. It is however worth mentioning from a critical point of view that all four of the films you mention were nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. The big problem with Kane and Shawshank was the release and marketing.
Another film that is much loved (18 on the IMDb Top 250) is Fight Club. It failed to make its money at the US box-office and didn’t go into profit until it was released in Canada and Europe.
@ Andrew… See, that's my point. A lot of people are like you who will give a movie one kick at the can, and if it didn't do it for them, they aren't interested in circling back. How do films like these survive that?
@ Univarn… I think I'm going to have to add a note on to my post rhyming off the additional hated-then-loved movies that people mention in the comments.
Don't even get me started on awards – that's a whole other post.
@ Fandango… Good point that they later got award nominations, but none of the four did particularly well come award time. Still, I'm talking about popular opinion…and many of these sorts of movies (and many more) were met initially with a shrug, only later to be seen as touchstones.
Maybe it's just that the original audience didn't care about it, but audiences a few years later started seeing it as something better?
As for FIGHT CLUB, it hit theatres in Canada the same weekend it dropped in The States. It was very much ignored here too…I think it lost out to some Ashley Judd thriller.
I'd like to think that me not ever changing my mind about a film shows how in tune I am with what I like. I mean, I'm trying to rack my brains honestly, but I don't how someone could see something [okay, take Fight Club] – think it's a bad movie – and then change their mind. I understand the whole people maturing, etc, but the movie's a good movie, it's always been a good movie and it always WILL be a good movie.
But never say never, perhaps someday soon I'll reassess something I hated or loved and change my mind.
I think with Kane, it was seen as something special at the time but people just didn't quite know what to make of it – was it a novelty or a masterpiece? The Hearst campaign against the film and Welles' subsequent backslide (in terms of success in the business, not in terms of quality) made it easier for people to shrug off the film and move on.
Life and Shawshank are different inasmuch as there was nothing in their making or release to indicate their subsequent popularity. We can trace the rise of Life to one particular incident: PBS' decision to run it every Christmas and turn it into holiday counterprogramming to the major networks. With Shawshank, I'm not sure what turned its popularity around (though it certainly didn't take nearly as long). With both films, word-of-mouth seems to have led the resurgence of both (though I have not studied the history of either in-depth). With Kane, I think it was more a critical reappraisal, or renewal of interest.
Another interesting example is The Wizard of Oz – which, like Life, was rediscovered on television (though how it became so popular in the age of B&W TV is beyond me…). Apparently it was not even mentioned in Frank Morgan's obituary when he passed in the late 40s…just another MGM product from the late 30s.
Would you believe I haven't seen Kane or Shawshank?
I have never, and will never understand what makes a movie popular or not. It all comes down to public opinion obviously, which is seriously influenced by a plethora of factors. Sometimes the wind just isn't blowing the right way, but it comes around.
If it all made logical sense, Transformers would have never been made, let alone gross a billion dollars.
@ Andrew… Really? You've never watched something and found that it made a better impression on you than the first time you saw it??
@ Movieman… OZ is an interesting case, since it was such a mess to get off the ground in the first place (I think three seperate directors worked on it…maybe even four).
The more interesting bit with OZ is that it was part of what many consider the greatest year in film history: 1939. It's hard to get footing as a classic when you are competing against GONE WITH THE WIND and MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON.
@ Blake… I highly suggest you make both of them part of your next Library Loot pickup. You can thank me later.
@Andrew I'm one of those people who disliked 'Fight Club' initially and then changed my opinion about it (though I still wouldn't call it a masterpiece).
The funny thing about criticism is that all critics seem to hold on to a fundamental belief that they are right. And they may be, to a point. David Hume's notion of a standard of taste could be debated either way.
Gene Siskel has a great line:
"There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong."
I think that what it comes down to is a willingness to live with the inevitable contradictions of our own critical observances. The best a critic can do is track a series of honest reactions, admit that those reactions can change over time and then try to illuminate the reasons why.
'It's a Wonderful Life' is my favourite film, by the way.
@ Joel… You raise an interesting point, about whether or not a critic is willing to double back and ammend their original gut reaction.
For instance – THE USUAL SUSPECTS, a film I think we could almost all agree is one of the very best of the 90's. Upon its original release, Roger Ebert gave it a negative review.
Think in hindsight he might recant?