Whither Shawshank?

Why in the heck is THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION regarded so highly by so many people? I recall seeing it upon release in '93, thinking it was a solid little melodrama, and then - as they say - I moved on.

But in the years since, somehow, this modest little prison picture has become utterly beloved by some great mass silent majority.

I can't figure it. There is the possibility that, since the picture trades in some rather "Golden Age of Hollywood" storytelling tropes, it is simply the only NON post-modern film that many post-Tarantino fan-boys have ever seen. (Many of today's film fans only became so after seeing PULP FICTION, and this explains why, to them, the fidelity of the scripted dialogue is the only measure by which they will critique most films.)

My other theory, which I tend to prefer, is that SHAWSHANK is a weeper that men feel free to enjoy, because it has no women in it (other than the one killed in the first few minutes.) This may sound like cynicism, but there's a whole generation of fanboy-thugs out there who believe that any film that attempts to tug at the heart-strings is to be mistrusted, called-out, denied, forsaken, etc. (Perhaps they believe they can identify these films by the amount of women in the cast, and so it goes...)

Which brings up a secondary, broader point: If a movie is "sentimental", that in itself is not a statement of critique, but rather a statement of style. The same is true if a movie is "dark"; just claiming a movie is "dark" is not in any way pointing towards the film's actual quality level, but rather a simple descriptor of tone. And just because a film has sentiment, that doesn't make it a craven lie or any kind of immoral manipulation. (Trust me, I've heard a lot of people respond to the question "Is 'Movie X' any good?" with "Yeah, it was really dark!")

E.T. is a sentimental film. So is TERMS OF ENDEARMENT. Both are, as far as mainstream American cinema goes, masterpieces. To dismiss them as a "kid's flick" and a "chick flick" is to be rather pathetically reductive. To deny their intelligence or gravitas because they aim for a certain kind of softer, feminine reaction is malarkey. Conversely, to say that THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is good because it is "dark", rather than because it is so much fun (which is the case), it to stubbornly stake a claim at staying 13 and sullen forever. (On the other hand, PATCH ADAMS is indeed bad because it is sentimental in a phony way, and most of Film Noir is wonderful because it IS dark... in an honest and earned way that resembles post-war angst a lot more than it resembles high-school poetry.)

So, SHAWSHANK. To these eyes, a three-star movie to its core, and not even helmer Darabont's best venture based on a Stephen King novella (that would be the B&W version of THE MIST.) And yet, the film's popularity is nearing the fervor of religion. And I think the above reason #2 is why: Here is a film with no women in sight, some violence and tough guys here and there, and a murder to kick it all off. To the one-dimensional male, this is clearly a sign that there is no false heart-string tugging on display. This safeguard bypassed, male viewers are then able to enjoy the film - a soppy, sentimental, eminently watchable melodrama that is no more or less honest in its feelings, nor any less sincere about its fondling of the heart-strings, than STEEL MAGNOLIAS - which is also a perfectly watchable three-star movie.