Forrest Gump vs. Pulp Fiction vs. The Shawshank Redemption

   There's a relatively small number of movies that everyone's seen and(most) everyone loves. Each decade produces a handful of such titles that go on to become cultural landmarks. We know the characters as well as we know members of our own family. We can recite all the dialogue. We abruptly stop our channel-surfing when we come across them on cable(which is a lot). But what happens when a trio of movies all fitting that description are released in the same year?

   I have to start off by saying that 1994 was a tremendous year for movies. One of the best I've ever witnessed. Most people don't pay much attention to the Academy Awards. They tend to lean toward artsy stuff that doesn't represent the viewing habits of the vast majority. Well, 1994 was NOT one of those years. The public was much more invested than usual. I don't think it's an exaggeration to call that year the fiercest, most nail-biting Oscar battle in history. We had not one, not two, but THREE movies up for Best Picture that could have easily won. The two films that lost are SO beloved that many wish we could go back and correct some sort of grave injustice. The Oscars are really a double-edged sword with the winners often facing the wrath of angry online 'critics' that love to toss around demeaning labels such as "safe" and "overrated"(just ask "Titanic"). Revisionist history comes into play in an attempt to tear down these 'inferior' films and replace them with that overlooked gem that we weren't intelligent or daring enough to fully embrace at the time. In a way, the arrogant attitudes of such film fans is every bit as pretentious and narrow-minded as those stodgy, invisible elder statesman that they claim to despise within the Academy.

   On the Fourth of July weekend in 1994, "Back to the Future" director Robert Zemeckis released "Forrest Gump". The film was a genuine phenomenon, that did the kind of business usually unseen outside of heavily-hyped, FX-laden extravaganzas. As a matter of fact, I don't recall "Forrest" getting any hype at all besides some very enthusiastic reviews, and we all know that actual professional critics don't have much of a hold over the average Joe(he's too busy looking at the sports pages). Tom Hanks was hot and was coming off a Best Actor win for "Philadelphia", but this was a true word-of-mouth hit, which means a whole bunch of people see a movie and really like it and they tell all their family and friends and they really like it and so on and so forth. I explain this because it so rarely happens in a day and age where the opening weekend is everything. The point being that this Southern simpleton earned his success. Bubba Gump Shrimp is a worldwide restaurant chain for god's sake. How many dramas gross $329 million domestically? That's how much "Guardians of the Galaxy" made this past summer, with the benefit of twenty years of inflation. Basically, Forrest kicks Star-Lord's ass. Bill Murray and Michael Keaton were reportedly up for the role, but I can't imagine anyone other than Hanks pulling this off with nearly the same results. He was the greatest actor of the Clinton era, and that's not up for debate. 'The Nicest Guy In Hollywood' somehow managed to cover all the bases and appeal to absolutely EVERYBODY. He coached baseball, romanced Meg Ryan(twice), took us to outer space, stormed the beaches of Normandy, and voiced Woody in "Toy Story"(twice). I swear, if Hanks had run for President in '96, he would have had a shot at winning that, too and I'm only half- joking.

   Zemeckis scored big with his favorite leading man yet again in 2000's "Cast Away", and should really be more famous considering his contributions("Who Framed Roger Rabbit", "Death Becomes Her", "The Polar Express", "Flight"). He's every bit as tech savvy as James Cameron and much more diverse than Peter Jackson. Maybe he should have grown a beard. 

"Gump" vs. "Pulp" is like good vs. evil. Light vs. dark. A mysterious, glowing briefcase vs. a box of chocolates. Thirty years of 20th century Americana vs. three days in the sordid lives of Los Angeles lowlifes. You can go for a run with Tom Hanks or do the twist with John Travolta. Apparently, your choice says a lot about you as a person. Could a movie featuring a heroin overdose, anal rape, and 265 uses of the "f" word REALLY take down the feel-good movie of the decade? In the fall of 1994, it seemed entirely possible. We're talking about a foul-mouthed high school dropout vs. Spielberg's most skilled apprentice. Quentin Tarantino's masterpiece received an orgasmic critical reaction in October, instantly catapulting it's brash writer-director into the stratosphere. His blistering breakthrough "Reservoir Dogs" got people talking. "PF" had them shouting from rooftops.

   Travolta was in the doghouse when he got that fateful call from QT. I mean, literally. He was on the set of "Look Who's Talking Now"(the one with the dogs). Quentin reminded us how talented and charismatic the man was. Six years later, JT would make us forget all over again in "Battlefield Earth", but we're not getting into any of that. This is a celebration of the biggest pre-Robert Downey Jr. comeback the industry had ever seen, as Travolta's resurgence saw him headlining hits like "Get Shorty", "Broken Arrow", and "Face/Off". But no one has ever benefitted from Tarantino's gutter poetry more than Sam Jackson. Before he put on that jheri-curled wig, he was the computer guy in "Jurassic Park" and an incompetent getaway car driver in "Goodfellas". He was looking like a bit player for life, until Tarantino handed him a few pages of awesomely embellished Bible passages. We have Jules Winfield to thank for SLJ appearing in approximately 4,867 movies since he blew away Brett and his big brain in that apartment, making him the biggest box office actor of all time.

   I don't see Tarantino ever taking the top prize at the Oscars(he has picked up two statues for screenwriting). It doesn't matter, though. I can't think of another director with a more devoted following, and not winning preserves his all-important 'cool' factor.

   Wait a second, who invited these guys? A movie about the friendship between two men that ISN'T about them trying to get laid? What do ya mean, they don't shoot anybody?! Talk about a dark horse. This is where revisionist history starts to come into play. "The Shawshank Redemption" was released on September 23(sandwiched in between "Gump" and "Pulp") and totally bombed. This Stephen King adaptation barely broke even with $28 million, an abysmal figure even by 1994 standards. But the critics were very supportive, leading to seven Academy Award nominations. It won NONE. Home video business was strong, however as Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman were given a warm welcome in living rooms across America. What happened next was truly astounding. In June 1997, Frank Darabont's crowning achievement premiered on TNT. The result was record-breaking ratings. Naturally, they showed the film again. And again. And again. And again. And again. A 2004 Sunday Times article reported that no more than two months pass without an airing of "Shawshank" on the Turner networks. I first got acquainted with "Red" Redding and discovered the cathartic joy of Andy Dufresne's prison break during this endless loop and I know you did as well.

   "Shawshank" currently sits at number one on IMBD's Top 250 and has for a while("The Godfather" is a close second). Empire magazine's voters ranked it the fourth greatest movie of all time in two separate polls taken in 2008 and 2014. Morgan Freeman can accurately be described as a national treasure at this point, with his dignified presence, quiet authority and soothing vocals seemingly present in countless documentaries and commercials. We'd all have this man narrate our life stories if we could afford it. "It's a Wonderful Life" has a reason to be concerned if this flick gets any more popular. "The Wizard of Oz" and "Citizen Kane" are hardly safe anymore.

   Darabont never scaled these heights again, although "The Green Mile" was a well-received hit in '99(oh, Hanks was in that one, too). He seems to have a knack for bringing the literary works of Stephen King to life on the big screen and wants to do it some more. He can count me in.


   There are certainly compelling arguments to be made in each direction, but there can only be one winner on Hollywood's biggest night and you're looking at him. I honestly feel that Zemeckis beats Tarantino and Darabont and Hanks beats Travolta and Freeman. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it, but there's really no losers here(well, except for Bubba, Zed and the Warden). There are no wrong answers, either. We all win when films this iconic get produced and the ONLY reason anyone thinks to compare them is because they were all released in a three month span. They all take up permanent residence on my DVD rack because sometimes I'm in the mood to see(or hear) Forrest's horny principal banging Sally Field and other days I'd rather see Butch and his annoying French girlfriend ride away on that chopper. Listening to Mozart with Andy is occasionally more appealing than listening to another legless Lt. Dan rant or picking up pieces of Marvin's skull, but Pumpkin and Honey Bunny are more lively breakfast companions than Heywood and Brooks. Some days I'd rather play ball with Red then ping pong with Forrest, and when I've had all I can take of Jenny's head games, I've been driven to snort cocaine(or heroin) with Mia Wallace. I could watch Andy tunnel his way to freedom again right now, but later on I might get a craving for shrimp or a $5 shake. You get the idea.