Both beautifully made adaptations of Stephen King stories set in prison, where a very special fellow who's not all he seems arrives and influences the lives of its inmates and guards, albeit in very different fashions. Here I explore which film Direction
Either way, Darabont comes out as the winner here, so let's take a look at his style first and foremost. I've only seen The Mist outside of these two works, which is definitely a bit of a step down in terms of quality, though it's still a good enough film. With a broad, overall view of his work, however, Darabont likes choosing stories confined mostly to a singular environment, the Shawshank State Penitentiary here and the 'Green Mile'/ death row at Cold Mountain Penitentiary. Within these enviornments he likes to build little worlds within it, and his mastery for the 'mise-en-scene', of structuring events and exposition together and bringing characters together within the environment, is a skill I'll get onto in more detail later. Beyond that, they diverge quite differently. The Shawshank Redemption has a reputation for being the most inspirational, crowd-pleasing film of all-time, and those elements are brilliantly handled by Darabont as he brings out the powerful moments of Andy Dufresne's (Tim Robbins) quiet defiance against the prison system, and his subsequent 'redemption' and escape. He allows the quieter, more intimate moments where the acting is at the forefront to flow as beautifully as the moments where his director's hand takes control. Equally effective though is how he portrays the darker elements of the prison life, and when the film goes dark it goes very dark. I think the best example of how well he blends these two aspects together are in the following two scenes, one which is directed so beautifully and in a heartfelt way but depicts a most tragic end to a character, another which is directed with such grimy, gritty tones but ends up becoming the most iconically inspirational moment in the film:
I think I'll have to give the win to The Green Mile here however. Not that I necessarily think Darabont does a greater directorial job in one over the other, I just think there's an added challenge in The Green Mile as there's much more tonal shifting throughout the film. There's moments it verges on slapstick comedy territory, soon to be followed by some extremely dark moments; characters who are entertaining to watch are also extremely reprehensible; underneath every inspirational moment lies an undercurrent of cynicism, and vice vetrsa; and in the hands of a lesser director it could've come across as an entirely tone-deaf piece of direction. In Darabont's hands however, he expertly manages to make all sides of the film cohere wonderfully, and while he did a great job in bringing out the inspirational and emotional qualities of the material in The Shawshank Redemption, I think The Green Mile is an even more impressive example of handling what is technically a blend of fantasy, mystery, comedy and horror all into one beautiful cauldron. Despite the divisive and perhaps somewhat obvious Christian allegories prevalent throughout the film, it always feels natural in Darabont's hands, and he maanges to craft some truly amazing scenes that are a combination of both restraint and release of directorial flourishes. The two execution scenes in particular are remarkable examples of bringing out the horror and sadness of the situation but in the latter (SPOILERS) a certain humanity and beauty.
(EXTREMELY NSFW/disturbing)
(Extremely upsetting, and a SPOILER scene)
Winner: The Green Mile Acting (Narrator/Audience Avatar):
Both films feature a narrative voice to guide us into the stories; for The Shawshank Redemption it's Morgan Freeman for Ellis Boyd 'Red' Redding, for The Shawshank Redemption it's shared duties between Tom Hanks and Dabs Greer as young/old prison guard Paul Edgecomb. It's interesting to compare the two roles because while both are main characters, have a great deal of dialogue and are the ostensible 'leads' as in they are the ones whose personal arcs the film properly begin and end with, they are often not the focus, rather they are the point of view from which the audience witnesses the happenings within Shawshank and The Green Mile. Shawshank starts with Andy's courtroom sentencing, but it soon shifts over to Red's perspective and internal voiceover; The Green Mile begins with a scene of a crime which is not elaborated upon till later on, then we're immediately given focus to old Paul (Greer), who's at an old people's home and begins recounting the story of his time on the Green Mile to friend Elaine (Eve Brent) after breaking down in tears after seeing Top Hat on telly. Morgan Freeman as Red vs Tom Hanks/Dabs Greer as Paul Edgecomb
I should mention that Morgan Freeman must've been quite a surprising choice for Red at the time, considering Red was written as a middle-aged redhead Irishman in the original novella. This is hilariously lampshaded in the film when Red is asked why he's called Red - 'Maybe it's because I'm Irish'. Far from just setting up this funny little joke, however, Freeman was pitch-perfect for the role because the first criteria of the job I'm guessing was 'good voice for narration', since there's an awful lot of it in this film. Well one of Freeman's greatest assets is indeed his mellifluous voice which can make even the most mundane thing sound very interesting, and proves that like Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, you can cast an actor against the book's description and still make it work beautifully. Now having a wonderful voice is good and all, but how is the effort behind it? Well Freeman is certainly an actor who can phone it in from time to time (I'm expecting he does so in Ben-Hur), but here there's definitely an investment in the character of Red, as we get such a clear picture of a man in jail for an unspecified crime, clearly regretful of it, but also content enough with prison life as it is. Freeman has such a naturally amiable presence that you'll fully believe he's the guy in the prison everyone turns to for advice and wants to be friends with, and the guy in the prison people go to when they need an extra something from the outside, which brings him into contact with Andy.
It would seem to be the requisite for Tom Hanks Best Picture films in the 1990s to have narrators/elderly figures bookend the films. Unlike Forrest Gump the narration is not handled by himself, it's done by veteran actor Dabs Greer. The latter's screentime in the film is not overly substantial, and the voiceover narration unlike The Shawshank Redemption is used more to set the cogs of the story going, rather than continually replenishing it like Freeman's narration. To Greer's credit he's very charming and sweet as the older Paul Edgecomb, suggesting hints of the younger man but also the disillusionment old age has brought to him, and carries the beginning and end of the film very admirably. The main meat of the character does go to Hanks though, and I have to say it's as if the role was written for him. Paul Edgecomb is the head prison guard of death row, and besides that he's a very average, normal man. He has a loving wife (Bonnie Hunt), takes pride in his job, is ambivalent that every man on the Green Mile, no matter what evil he's done is entitled to a fair final death on 'Old Sparky', and just seems to be an all-round swell guy. All-round swell guys Hanks can play in his sleep, and here he's just perfect in bringing that sort of likability to Paul. In addition to that he has really nice chemistry with fellow prison guards Brutus 'Brutal' Howell (David Morse), Harry (Darabont regular Jeffrey DeMunn), and Dean (Saving Private Ryan co-star Barry Pepper), and prison warden Hal (James Cromwell, two years removed from L.A. Confidential and still getting us to trust him); some fabulous anti-chemistry with the demented likes of sadistic Percy Wetmore (Doug Hutchinson) and 'Wild Bill' (Sam Rockwell). And of course another relationship I'll get to in a bit. Hanks plays his role in a very understated fashion for the most part throughout, often conceding the broader comedic moments or dramatic scenes to his co-stars. His performance is largely reactionary and thus slightly limited, but it must be said that he nails each and every one of these reactions perfectly.
I think this excellent video here shows how well Freeman builds his character's personal story up from start to finish, without having nearly as much direct focus as Tim Robbins does. From the first, to the very last parole meeting we see a man who's learnt how to stand up for himself and make a difference with his life.
Then of course there's the voiceover, every bit as crucial alongside the soaring score to so many of the most beautiful moments of the film. I have to say it adds a bit to every scene it features in, whether it be the opening introductory moments to Shawshank, how it's interspersed with the opera scene, or of course describing how Andy crawled his way through shit 'and came out clean the other side'. The best example of it is of course, that powerful ending which is carried to a breathtaking conclusion by Freeman's voice.
As for Hanks, he doesn't get as much in the way of standalone scenes to shine as Freeman does. More often than not he's at an edge of a scene, graciously helping to add to a scene with his reactions; even his best moments often involve him adding to the emotional intensity of another character's personal scene. Which isn't to demean Hanks' work in any way. He's one of my favourite actors, and I thoroughly enjoy watching him in general. The role of Paul Edgecomb isn't thankless so to speak; it's a very well-written character that's given a lot of emotional weight throughout, particularly in the last few scenes. He does a great job of the little moments throughout the film involving his character's realization of John Coffey as a son of God, and I particularly love his line deliveries in scenes like the cornbread scene (his delivery of 'many times' is classic Jimmy Stewart stuff), and of course the final 'may God have mercy on your soul'. His performance is a powerful one, but I'll have to give the edge to Freeman here because his character not only has more focus and standalone scenes to thrive, but also because his performance is even more crucial to the film.
Winner: Morgan Freeman in The Shawshank Redemption Acting (The Arrival):
Both films also share a similarity in that the story kicks off with a new inmate to their respective prisons; in The Shawshank Redemption it is mild-mannered banker Andy Dufresne who is convicted for the murder of his unfaithful wife and her lover. In The Green Mile, John Coffey is a far more imposing-looking sort, though perhaps even more milder in manner, a very, very tall black man convicted of the murders of two young children. As you can see, both new inmates are in for very different reasons, and carry with them very different stories. The similarity is that both remain extremely enigmatic at the start, the former due to his personality and the latter due to others' presuppositions and his appearance, and it's over the course of the film we gradually learn more about the both of them and get insight into who they are exactly. Also they're both innocent. I suppose it is a bit of a spoiler that I mention this, but neither film ever tries to really trick you into thinking either man is a murderer, which is kind of the point of them; they work hand in hand with the audience's omniscience. Tim Robbins as Andy Dufresne vs Michael Clarke Duncan as John Coffey
Interestingly enough for films of this sort of type, the new inmates aren't the sort of rabble-rousing radicals we've come to expect of all the Cool Hand Lukes and Randle McMurphy anti-establishment figures that regularly feature as the 'spark' to these sort of prison stories. In fact, Robbins' performance as Andy Dufresne stands as almost the complete opposite of Paul Newman and Jack Nicholson in those films. Where those superstars utilized all their screen presence to craft dynamic, energetic rebels whose every action seemed to be in defiance of confinement, Robbins, more of a character actor and occasional leading man up to this point, plays the role of Andy in a much colder fashion. In the beginning we see a man who's heavily drunk and vehemently jealous in flashback, but from that point onwards we get only the colder facade of Andy to start with.
In the court scene, and in his initial scenes in the prison Andy is a quiet, somewhat distant figure to both the audience, and other inmates, Red included. This is soon revealed to be a masterstroke by Robbins as it firstly suggests the background of Andy, a man more prone to use intellect and brains, than passion and heart, to make his way in the world. It gives a sort of insight into his methodical, precise way of doing everything for a particular reason, and Robbins suggests the intelligence of the man wonderfully through these initial scenes where he may not be the warmest man in the prison grounds, but he certainly still comes across as extremely compelling, and extremely unique.
John Coffey's entrance is expertly handled by Darabont's direction at first placing emphasis on the sheer size of the man, and soon after telling the audience about his supposed crimes - him having been found with two dead girls by his side, tearfully saying 'I tried to take it back...but it was too late'. Not the best first impressions one can have, and by that description alone you'd think Coffey to be an intimidating, grotesque-looking, violent and unpredictable brute. The brilliance of Duncan's performance is to immediately subvert, and yet not altogether reject, these sorts of preconceptions. Duncan is an actor who after this generally played an assortment of thugs and criminals, with the occasional comedic supporting role in the likes of Talladega Nights, so it's amazing how well he plays Coffey as this soft-spoken gentle giant whose first concern when entering his prison cell is whether or not the lights will be kept on at night.
John Coffey is never meant to be exactly suspected of having committed those crimes, but the circumstances, and warnings by other characters to Paul Edgecomb not to be fooled by the man's docile exterior, mean that in the initial stages at least we are a bit wary of him in case he reveals a darker side. Duncan makes this work through his performance by continuing to bring that mystery to John Coffey as a man no one knows where he's from or who he is, exactly, but also conveying that he was most certainly put on this earth for a reason beyond normal human knowledge. This brings the viewer and Paul to the supernatural element of the film, wherein Coffey is revealed to have a very special ability to remove afflictions and heal people by removing the 'bad' from their bodies. These scenes are directed by Darabont with an earthly but still very magical style, and Duncan fulfils his role in these scenes by playing them as a man consumed with an otherwordly gift, suggesting a man from outside the world, but at the same time the otherwordly curse of having to bear so many of the burden of the world upon his soldiers. Duncan goes a step further with his performance by, through all these supernatural occurrences and displays of power, keeping his very modest, understated and kindly approach to John Coffey.
Indeed, one of the most interesting aspects of the writing behind both characters that I must give an awful lot of credit to Stephen King for, is that they both subvert your expectations of the men while never entirely losing sight of your initial impressions of them. That might sound like a non sequitur but let me explain. For Andy, the prisoners initially view him as a bit of a snob, which is not entirely unjustified since he does consciously keep a certain sort of distance from the rest of the prison. As he begins to ask Red for help to obtain a series of contraband items from the outside, however, we get more insight into what compels him, which is a strong, quiet but very evident streak of resilience.
The cold facade is gradually lost as the relationship between him and Red warms up into a true friendship, and by the time Andy begins integrating himself with the prison guards to help them with their finances, and taking over the prison library, we don't see him as some snobbish uptight toady but rather a man doing his best to improve the prison life, helping his fellow inmates gain benefits from his actions, and slowly getting on the good side of the prison authorities to set future plans in motion. This streak of resilience is ultimately rewarded, and boy is it beautiful. That we begin to root for him is a slow, gradual but rather wonderful progression handled by Robbins, and helps make every obstacle and pitfall he encounters heartbreaking, and his final escape so beautifully realised and fulfilling. I particularly love the famous opera scene, the scene where he breaks out finally (shown above), and the scene where he goes to the bank to expose the wrongdoings within Shawshank, you see the changed man Andy is from the cynical, cold man he was at the beginning, a smile of satisfaction spread across his face that is just awesome.
Andy goes through more of an arc than John, that's for sure. John Coffey remains a constant mostly throughout in terms of who he is and what he stands for, good, and what he stands against, evil. I could use this to diminish his performance but I can't because what Duncan does in the role is so powerful. When advocating the good through his kindness towards the better inmates and the little mouse Mr Jingles, he's so heartwarming, sweet and utterly endearing, but never in an overly saccharine manner. John Coffey is a straightforward and simple man, not simple in terms of intelligence necessarily but simple as in he has no bitterness or jealousy, he's just happy and content to see others being happy and content, and never tries to hide anything he thinks about because all he has are direct, warmhearted nice thoughts, and never has anything but kind words to say for kind people. He's still mysterious because that's the nature of someone who's effectively a Christ figure (which by the way can also be an interpretation for Andy - see the pose he makes in the rain), but human through his very down-to-earth kindness. And when confronted with evil we see he hates evil, yet not in a hateful fashion, rather he wishes to eradicate it immediately when he sees it to avoid it from hurting the rest of the world.
This sounds like relatively simple stuff, but it could've all gone wrong had the actor seemed ill at ease with the simple kindness and love of John, or his stark goodness in the face of evil. Duncan manages to mend both these sides together beautfiully and creates a quiet but truly inspiring character who sells every magical moment in the film brilliantly, sending chills my spine every time he cures another soul, every time he gives Wild Bill his comeuppance. He makes the walking embodiment of an omnibenevolent, righteous soul resonate without ever making it seem like an artifice, as Duncan's performance never seems less than perfectly genuine and sincere. We grow to love Coffey, and this brings us to the end of the film where Coffey meets his end. The execution of John Coffey is an utterly heartbreaking scene, but even greater is the scene preceding it where Paul tries to get John to escape from prison. Duncan delivers one of, in my books, the top ten greatest film monologues in cinematic history with his speech about being 'tired' of this world. It never fails to break my heart.
Robbins gives an incredible lead performance and Duncan a magnificent supporting one, that help bring the emotional power to their respective stories so beautifully, and I can't possibly choose between the two so I'll leave it to a tie.
Winner: Tie Acting (The Ensemble):
I guess the best way to divide the characters of both films are into the categories villains and supportive characters. I guess one could also put them into 'good' and 'bad' categories, but within the environment of a prison it's difficult to make such clear-cut distinctions of morality between the characters.
On the villain side of things, the ones in The Shawshank Redemption are pretty nasty sorts. Warden Samuel Norton, played well by Bob Gunton, is a falsely pious, inwardly twisted man who rules over the prison with an iron fist and is willing to resort to illegal means to preserve his supposedly 'clean' image. His chief of guards Hadley (Clancy Brown) is a blunt instrument of walking violence, terrifying in each instance he appears because you never know when he's going to run rampant. And from the inmates point of view there's 'The Sisters', a gang of prison rapists who led by Bogs Diamond (Mark Rolston) set their eyes on Andy. They all make for imposing figures who you properly fear, and their final fates are all the more satisfying as the rotten establishment of the prison crumbles as they crumble.
I have to give the edge to The Green Mile with regards to the villains however, as while the villains of The Shawshank Redemption are reprehensible and memorable, the ones in The Green Mile are repulsive, haunting and downright unforgettable. The most prominent one is of course the one and only Percy Wetmore, a prissy, creepy and downright disgusting prison guard played brilliantly by Doug Hutchinson as a representation of a man-child gone most horribly wrong. Percy is a violent and unhinged man who's utterly horrible to the prisoners and comes across as the most self-assured, smarmy git even when he's yet to do anything overtly terrible yet. The way he struts about the prison with such an air of self-assurance with his command and vehemence reminds me a bit of Ian Hendry in The Hill and makes him such a hateful presence, and makes his later actions even more reprehensible and difficult to watch, and his succession of comeuppances so satisfying. As for the opposite side of the villain spectrum, there's 'Wild Bill' played by Sam Rockwell in an early role. The character of Bill is initially used for dark comedic effect, and Rockwell does this brilliantly by making his harassment of the prison guards both quite disgusting and quite amusing (even to the guards themselves). Even in these moments however, Rockwell reveals a darker, twisted edge to the character best shown in the scene where he intimidates Percy sexually; it's really fascinating to see two evil characters, one who hasn't actually done anything 'unlawful' and one who's done everything 'unlawful', come face to face so to speak. The payoffs to each of these characters' finales is perfectly well-earnt, and it has to be said that their dynamic is one of the greatest parts of The Green Mile.
As for the supportive characters, The Green Mile has a plethora of them. The fellow prison guards to Paul, played by David Morse, Jeffrey DeMunn and Barry Pepper, are all likable, amiable presences, with Morse in particular adding rather golden little reaction shots that add so much to the humorous and dramatic sides of the film, and DeMunn and Pepper are also great with their more unassuming work.
James Cromwell's Hal is a bit limited initially as the strict but kind-hearted prison warden, but really nails the scenes where he's required to be a bit more incisive or emotional, and when he gets to do more he delivers. As Hal's wife Melinda who's suffering from a horrible brain tumour, Patricia Clarkson is very moving and difficult to watch in depicting the delibating effects of the illness, and absolutely wonderful after her 'healing' scene with her warmthful interactions with John.
Harry Dean Stanton is a lovable, if all-too-brief presence as Toot-Toot the rambunctious janitor who has a hilarious 'mock execution' scene. As for those on death row themselves, bar Wild Bill the other death row prisoners are painted in a decidedly more sympathetic light. Graham Greene's Arlen Bitterbuck has limited screentime but still makes an impression as a man regretful of a moment's hastiness ruining a beautiful life.
And Michael Jeter's Eduard 'Del' Delacroix is a heartbreaking portrayal of a man who's done terrible things but emanates kindness and regret. His relationship with the mouse of the Green Mile, Mr Jingles, is rather endearing, and Jeter gives such heart and soul to the man's roguish nature and humour that you don't mind that the film technically cheats by not revealing what he did to get on death row (which in the book is revealed to have been the rape and murder of a girl, and when burning her body the accidental burning of a whole building down). He helps make his execution scene one of the most painful scenes to watch in the whole film.
As for The Shawshank Redemption, most of the supportive characters are more than serviceable. Red's 'squad' of convicts, most notably William Sadler's Heywood, are all nice welcome presences to the plot who add a lot to each scene, and though I do think the character of Tommy Williams is a bit of weak writing by King the way he's inserted into the plot, Gil Bellows acquits himself nicely into the role and makes his little arc and exit affecting and disconcerting, respcetively.
The best of the ensemble, though, is easily veteran actor James Whitmore's Brooks Hatlen. Whitmore's performance starts of as incredibly lovable and endearing, a man who's been in the prison for over forty years and has gotten quite comfortably used to prison life. Brooks is just a nice man who loves his pigeons, although he's also done bad things in the past, and Whitmore plays him as such till he has to leave the prison after being paroled. The tragedy of it is that having been contained within the system so long, Brooks cannot adapt to the outside world, and such is the mastery of the writing and Whitmore's performance that it becomes so incredibly powerful and sad to watch him struggle with the pace of the outside world and feeling so lonely. It's a short but extremely powerful performance and I must say, makes me well with tears every time I watch it. It's close in terms of the supportive performances on the whole, but the advantage of the villains by The Green Mile gives it the win in this regard. Winner: The Green Mile Screenplay
The screenplay to The Green Mile is very impressive in how it manages to compress a rather gigantic book into a manageable, compact plot, dealing with so many different characters without ever feeling like it shortchanges any of them, I particularly love the way it plays characters off one another through incidents both comedic and dramatic, often within the same scene, and yet never feels tonally imbalanced. The dialogue, though stylized in particular with regards to the scenes involving John Coffey, always feels tripping to the tongue, and there never feels an extraneous line out of place in a scene, nor do characters ever feel out of place in a scene. I'll have to give The Shawshank Redemption the win here though. While the screenplay to The Green Mile is amazing, the one to The Shawshank Redemption is perfection on so many levels. I've mentioned how great Morgan Freeman's voiceover narration is, well another part of that superlative strength is the lines behind him, many little touches having been added to the source material by Darabont himself to enhance the effect. The original novella to The Shawshank Redemption was quite short in length and also in incident, and the way Darabont expands on it without ever feeling overwrought is great. He employs the mise en scene terrifically in scenes where characters are just chatting or shooting the breeze to introduce more characters, more story elements or set up further plot elements. The 'Brooks Was Here' segment is a particularly great example of picking up on a completely throwaway character in the original source material and turn it into one of the most affecting moments in the film. It's a tough call, but I'll give The Shawshank Redemption the win in this regard.
Winner: The Shawshank Redemption
Editing I love The Shawshank Redemption, but I will admit there are some parts in the midsection I feel lag a little. It's more than a nitpick really, but I've always felt the slightly slower pacing in the middle section, while effective in some parts, reveals some minor flaws in the editing in that it feels a bit too removed from Andy Dufresne's personal story. Again this is a nitpick, but The Green Mile has pitch-perfect editing through and through. It flows along beautifully for a three-hour film but never feels rushed, each scene transitions onto the next seamlessly, and there's never a feeling of anything more wanting from one scene to the next because it's all pieced together in a way that makes the sequences satisfying. Winner: The Green Mile Cinematography
The cinematography in The Green Mile is great. It creates such a vivid atmosphere of claustraphobia within the death row, and within the limits of one building even has a few nifty tricks for scenes involving Mr Jingles. The creative camera angles to make Michael Clarke Duncan tower over his already pretty tall co-stars David Morse, James Cromwell and Tom Hanks should not be sniffed at as they feel entirely realistic. Having said that, the cinematography to The Shawshank Redemption is of an all-time great standard. I'll show the iconic introductory scene to the prison everyone knows and loves here, as it really is just a pitch perfect example of how the film camera can tell so much with so very little.
Winner: The Shawshank Redemption Sound
Both films capture the auditory vibes of the prison life incredibly well, especially in the escape scene for The Shawshank Redemption, and the execution scenes for The Green Mile. I'll give the edge to The Green Mile because of how immersive it is on a sound level in matching with the visuals onscreen, from the big sounds like John Coffey's 'healing' scenes to little touches like the clip clop of Percy Wetmore's shiny shoes on the Green Mile. Winner: The Green Mile Set Design/Lighting
Both films have beautiful sets, both films have beautiful lighting. The Shawshank Redemption exemplfies it best through the design of the prison life and prison courtyards, and of course that rain scene, but I have to say the design of the Green Mile itself, and the way the lights are employed throughout the film, is truly in its own league.
Winner: The Green Mile Costumes
The costumes in The Green Mile are quite standard for a reason, the characters are either prisoners on death row, prison guards or average citizens, there's not much variation within these categories though I've always though John Coffey's overalls and the way Percy wears his hat and slicks back his hair, are particularly memorable. The costumes in The Shawshank Redemption however, add so much character. From Red's baseball cap to Brooks' old-style fedora, to those creepy glasses worn by Bob Gunton (though it's maybe the actor who makes them that creepy), all add a great deal to the film in the way the best of the best do. Winner: The Shawshank Redemption Soundtrack
Closer than you might think. The Green Mile has a great soundtrack by Thomas Newman that really strikes the perfect balance between being pleasing to the ears, and haunting to them as well. It works particularly well for Melinda's healing scene, and the melancholic ending of the film. The Shawshank Redemption though has one of the most recognizable themes of all-time for a very good reason. It's iconic because it's great, and I have to give it the win here because it helps elevate some scenes from 'really good' to 'magnificent'.
Winner: The Shawshank Redemption
The Green Mile 6, Shawshank Redemption 6
I suppose it'll have to be a tie then. I thought of once again doing the 'emotional impact' category but I realized it would be most erroneous, considering both films go for almost diametric approaches with the final emotional impact they imprint upon the viewer. Shawshank tells of indeed, redemption and hope, through all the pain and suffering Red will find his friend once again; The Green Mile ends on a beautiful but powerfully sad note, with the only bright spot being that John Coffey is free from this terrible world but Paul Edgecomb must stay for a much longer time. I'd say I probably feel more affected during viewings of The Green Mile with its power, but that's more because it's close to being one of my top 10 films of all-time, and The Shawshank Redemption is no slouch either, it's up there among my all-time favourites. In the end I don't think one's better than the other, I prefer The Green Mile but objectievly I think they're just about equal in terms of being great films.
1960s The Green Mile (directed by Robert Mulligan) Paul Edgecomb (young): Burt Lancaster Paul Edgecomb (old): Frederic March John Coffey: Ossie Davis Brutal: Martin Landau Jan: Jean Simmons Hal: Jack Albertson Del: Harry Dean Stanton Percy: Robert Blake Wild Bill: Warren Oates Harry: Richard Erdman Dean: Robert Duvall Melinda: Shelley Winters Toot-Toot: Wallace Ford Burt Hammersmith: Arthur Kennedy Arlen Bitterbuck: Chief Dan George Klaus: Frank Overton 1960s The Shawshank Redemption (directed by Robert Mulligan) Andy Dufresne: Sidney Poitier Red: Gregory Peck (I know it's not the most obvious choice, but come on, that voice. Alternatively, Robert Shaw.) Norton: James Whitmore Heywood: Frank Gorshin Hadley: Strother Martin Tommy: Bobby Darin Brooks: Claude Rains
I thought of Wong Kar-wai (for a reason I'll get onto in a bit), but choosing Mann seemed too good a chance to pass up. Mann's one of the few directors with two films in my top 100 list, but the funny thing is I'm generally not a huge fan. Most of his recent films, most notably Public Enemies, have been sorely average, and though I don't think the likes of Heat or Ali are bad I certainly don't like them all that much. I really like Last of the Mohicans though, and I love The Insider and Collateral especially. It's the latter, plus the early effort of Thief (1981) which is pretty much a 1980s Drive down to the conception of the villain and the 'silent driver' character. His visual style implemented with his masterful employment of silent moments, and his soundtrack panache (though I don't like all his films, I pretty much like all soundtracks to his films) would be great for it. The Driver (Ryan Gosling): Johnny Depp/Cary Elwes/Tony Leung Chiu-wai/Ethan Hawke
Perhaps this will be a point of contention for some, hence I'm adding three choices (I should add that were this to be made in the 1980s, Tom Cruise would 100% be my choice). Anyway, each of these three actors would have made a terrific 1990s Driver.
For Leung, I'm quite proud of this choice. I'm no fan of Days of Being Wild, it being probably my least favourite Wong Kar-wai film, but I do love its ending a great deal. Namely because it features my favourite Hong Kong actor in a cameo role as a gambler of some sort. Without a single word Leung conveys the whole history of a man. It's a beautiful if a bit random scene, and on the basis of this, In the Mood for Love and Infernal Affairs I think he'd have the sufficient amount of of cool and emotional power to infuse into the role.
I'll just add these set of scenes to further emphasize my point. I actually kind of dislike the way Superintendent Wong's (Wong Chau-sang) death is directed here, the flashback isn't necessary at all especially because Leung delivers the emotional impact through his performance. The death of Keung (Chapman To) I've always felt is far more affecting (and possibly my favourite part of the film) because of the work of the actors, especially Leung, in silently bringing out the intensity of te moment. Add to that Leung looks the part of a Driver-esque figure.
Depp had yet to reach prime overacting mode in the 1990s, and if Edward Scissorhands is anything to go by he'd thrive in the difficult task of conveying words through silent expressions.
Elwes I'm a bit unsure about as the roles I best know him for, namely his turn in The Princess Bride as a charismatic prince and in Saw, are pretty talky roles. I'm choosing him mainly because he had the look and he certainly can act.
As for Hawke, I've never seen him in anything nearly as stylized, but he's a darn good actor, exceptionally naturalistic, had the boyish looks, he'd be perfect too.
Irene (Carey Mulligan): Gwyneth Paltrow
There's a reason Paltrow specialised in supporting roles like this in the early 1990s, she was as good at it as she was playing the scene-stealing sort of supporting turns in The Royal Tenenbaums later on. Like Mulligan she's a very charming actress, and like Mulligan I feel she'd be able to strike up the perfect dynamic with whoever played the Driver through her underrated dramatic depth.
Shannon (Bryan Cranston): Chris Cooper
Cooper like Cranston himself was a late bloomer sort of actor, and only started getting prominence well into his forties (though that's a bit earlier than Cranston who only really started becoming a household name in his fifties). Anyway, Cooper can do gruffness in his sleep, but what I'd see in this casting choice is an employment of that in a genial sort of way that would be perfect for Shannon, a guy who's lived a rough life and is a bit of a scoundrel, but a good man at heart.
Bernie (Albert Brooks): Gene Wilder
Imagine Willy Wonka stabbing someone to death with a fork. Same sort of effect having amiable New York comedian Albert Brooks play a menacing mobster villain had. I think Wilder would be absolutely brilliant being the talent he was. RIP indeed. :(
Standard (Oscar Isaac): Benicio del Toro
Del Toro spent most of the 1990s playing mobster after lowlife after mobster, and as his career in the 21st Century has shown he's capable of far more than just that, although he's very good at doing that as well. I'd originally envisioned Raul Julia in the role (since he's bascially the 1980s and 1990s version of Oscar Isaac), but Del Toro would be in the right sort of age category and it'd also have been a nice change of pace to see him as a decent guy for once.
Nino (Ron Perlman): Ron Perlman
Looking at Perlman in the 1990s and Perlman in the 2010s, he could've easily played the same role in two different decades.
Blanche (Christina Hendricks): Rosanna Arquette
The role itself is pretty thankless on the whole, more just a little cameo than anything more, but I think Arquette would fit this type of 'gun moll' role quite well.
Who else? It's interesting to note that in his varied, two-decades-plus career, QT has yet to make a period crime piece, which just feels like something that'd be right up his street. In a parallel universe where the original L.A. Confidential in 1997 never fell through, I'd love to see his take on James Ellroy's magnificent source material. The whole tightly knit noir plot in abundance of corruption, crime and absolutely compelling characters would provide a whole lot for Tarantino to dip into with his style, 1950s Hollywood providing not only a backdrop for a whole lot of pop culture references he would salivate at, but also the framework for some excellent mystery and tension building he exemplified most recently with The Hateful Eight.
Ed Exley (Guy Pearce): Ben Foster
This would be a fascinating change of pace for Foster, who's more accustomed to playing characters like the next one I'll get to. Exley's the character who goes through the most dramatic arc throughout the whole ofL.A. Confidential, starting out as a stick in the mud, by-the-books stiff and 'perfect' officer who doesn't mind being unappealing or ostracized, and ending it as...I'll not spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it. It's a fascinating sort of character and presents a challenge for the actor, to make an initially extremely charmless character compelling. Foster, who made the well-worn character of the Western sheriff so unique and intriguing in 'Aint Them Bodies Saints and Lance Armstrong of all people have smidgens of humanity in The Program would be perfect in bringing the same sort of incisive drive and determination to Exley as Pearce did. As the character gradually becomes disillusioned and grows much more craftier and interesting, Foster would be eqaully great at bringing out more of his usual Foster intensity as the story goes on. Plus, like Pearce, Foster is the king of silent, subtle reaction shots, which provide most of the meat of his performance. Bud White (Russell Crowe): Matthias Schoenaerts
I've made no secret on this blog that Schoenaerts is one of my new favourite actors. Any proof you need that Schoenaerts would be pitch-perfect as the complete brute, menacing force of nature Bud White is can be found in the likes of The Drop and Bullhead; the man may have a normally rather amiable grin and inviting eyes like Crowe himself, but put him in a role like this and he's one very scary force of nature. Like Crowe, however, Schoenearts would be brilliant in finding what motivates the man's violent nature. His character in Bullhead, Jacky, was traumatised by a childhood incident much in the same way Bud White was traumatised by his father's alcoholic abuse of his mother; it's in this sort of disturbed psyche I think Schoenaerts would thirve as well as he finds the physical presence of the character. I also think him and Foster onscreen would be something to behold. Both are considered chameleonic actors who have their own respective brands of intensity to their acting styles. I would absolutely love to see scenes like the 'you don't know the meaning of the word, you ignorant bastard' scene, or the interrogation of the DA scene. Please, Hollywood, let these two lead a film someday, please.
Jack Vincennes (Kevin Spacey): Robert Downey Jr.
I've criminally underrated Spacey's career-best performance in this in the past. It's now not only my MVP performance of this film, but also in my opinion one of the greatest supporting performances of all-time. Thus picking out an actor to play the deeply complex role of Vincennes, a Detective Sergeant who 'can't remember' why he's in the profession anymore, consumed by the hedonism of the Hollywood scene and the self-loathing of a man who knows his decadence, was tricky. I thought Tom Cruise, I thought George Clooney, I thought Joaquin Phoenix, all under different sorts of direction, but in the end I got it. RDJ. The man carries himself like a superstar in his very best roles because he is a superstar. Downey Jr. would nail the showman aspect of Vincennes immediately, but moreover I think he'd be utterly brilliant at showing the inner torments of the man; if Captain America: Civil War is anything to go by, we're seeing that side of the man once again. Plus, RDJ and QT seem like a match made in heaven; I'm not the biggest fan of the former in Natural Born Killers but I would love to see them work together as star and director. Dudley Smith (James Cromwell): Richard Jenkins
Jenkins and Cromwell fit perfectly in terms of the whole character actor spectrum. Both incredibly well-respected old-timers with Oscar nominations as kindly sweet men under their belts. Well this would be as brilliant a bit of subversion as Cromwell's casting was. I won't go more in depth, due to the nature of the role, but Jenkins would be marvellous at playing up both sides to Captain Dudley. Bone Tomahawk showed what a lot of people have not realized Jenkins is capable of; this would be another great opportunity.
Sid Hudgens (Danny DeVito): Steve Buscemi
Been awhile since Buscemi's worked with QT, hasn't it? Well I'd love to see this as Buscemi would bring sleaze like no other, making Sid Hudgens so engaging but also so reprehensible like no other actor really can do when Buscemi's on point. Patchett (David Straithairn): Michael Parks
Pimp in a QT film? Call me predictable, but I'm going to go for the guy who nailed it last time round in Kill Bill Vol. 2 Michael Parks.
District Attorney Ellis Loew (Ron Rifkin): Alan Ruck
Ruck's a terrific actor at portraying abrasiveness and sleaziness as can be found on television shows like Spin City and the likes of Speed. Wouldn't it be darkly humorous to see Cameron Frye being in a position of power finally, and acting like a complete dick about it?
Dick Stensland (Graham Beckel): Neal McDonough
I've only seen him in the first Captain America where I thought he was rather good. He has that look about him that'd make him perfect for this small but vital role.
Buzz Meeks (Darrell Sandeen): Don Harvey
I found out the other day Casualties of War is one of QT's favourite films, and this would probably be a pretty good opportunity for him to slot in a cameo for this chap.
Lynn Bracken (Kim Basinger): Sarah Gadon
Second to Vincennes in terms of the trickiest role to cast, and I'm still not entirely sure which Hollywood actress Gadon resembles enough to make the role work. I thought of Elizabeth Debicki for starters, but she's played this sort of role a couple times now. Gado, however, stands out to me as a perfect choice because Gadon, from the very little I've seen of her, is a fantastic, very old-school type of actress. In Maps to the Star, a lesser Cronenberg film is greatly bolstered by some excellent performances. Gadon played the ghost of a Hollywood star there and in the limited screentime she got, made an indelible impression. I'd love to see the sort of impact she could bring to a role like this, and also how she'd play off Foster and Schoenaerts.
Also she's great at generating chemistry with co-stars, from what I've seen of her Cronenberg input, and I really, really need to see 11.22.63, I've been hearing and reading nothing but raves for it. Watching the clip below makes me determined to catch up on it soon enough (James Franco seems to be great here, goodness me).
Two grand epics, featuring heroic men seeking revenge on heinous dictator figures. Neither film sticks to the historical truths particularly closely, Bravheart even acknowledges this in its opening since it's more of a tale of William Wallace's legacy than the much grittier truth (see: Hollywood History on this page http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/Braveheart). Thus neither is really constrained by 'facts' so to speak in their conception. They take a grand, romantic yet brutal portrayal of their respective time periods, Ancient Rome and 13th Century Scotland, and milk their epic scopes for all its worth. So which film is better (or as it's come to be on this blog...which do I prefer?) Direction: Ridley Scott v.s. Mel Gibson
I should note that both films are incredibly well-directed. Gibson, who directed this well at the height of his popularity as an A-List movie star, won a Best Director Oscar for his terrific work on recounting the legend of William Wallace. Gibson's direction is actually rather daring considering the rather divisive nature of the material he was taking. He masterfully mounts the proceedings on an epic scale, and handles the grand scenes marvellously. The 'Hold' scene is a particularly excellent bit of mounting tension, but he also does well with smaller scenes like knowing how to dial down the grandeur in intimate love scenes between Wallace and his wife Murron (Catherine McCormack), and Princess Isabella (Sophie Marceau). The highlight however is probably for me the final torture scene where he brings together all the strongest elements of the film together in one very powerful moment. He sustains a very personal style to each of the battle scenes and you get such a visceral feel for where the tide is turning in each of them, and the dialogue and interaction scenes are also imprinted vividly.
As for Scott, I love his work on Gladiator as well. It's a shame that he didn't win a well-deserved Oscar that year, or the next year for Black Hawk Down. Gladiator presents him at the height of his powers as an action director and visual talent, as he brings his usual panache for the vast and impressive he showed in Blade Runner and he would later hone further in Kingdom of Heaven, as well as bringing like Gibson a more intimate quality to the quieter scenes of Maximus' inner turmoil. It's visually impeccable work from him, and the fact he had to deal with so many behind-the-scenes problems is testament to his talent. I'll have to choose a victor between the two, and in the end I'll go with Gibson purely because I think his ability to bring out such a powerful personal style within just his second film is quite incredible (although to be fair my reasoning here is flawed, since Scott's second film is Alien which is miles ahead of either film here).
Winner: Mel Gibson
Acting (Hero): Russell Crowe as Maximus Decimus Meridius v.s. Mel Gibson as William Wallace
Crowe won Best Actor at the Oscars for his portayal of Maximus, and I must say this is a performance that's grown on me over time, as most of Crowe's performances tend to do .Anyway, Crowe's character here is actually fairly simplistic, and if he just rode on his physically domineering presence it'd have been perfectly fine. Maximus is a general in the Roman Army who's growing a bit tired of his job and wants to go back to his family and children, but a series of circumstances results in his family being killed at the command of Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), and Maximus left for dead. Maximus, in a sort of Spartacus fashion, falls into the hands of slavers and then, the hands of gladiator trainer Proximo (Oliver Reed). Thus, he becomes a gladiator, and slowly fights his way upwards to seek vengeance. That's essentially all of Crowe's arc in this film, the brooding hero with a family to avenge, and it needs to be said that he's absolutely perfect in the role. I can think of no other actor today who could've given Maximus Decimus Meridius the innate gravitas and command needed for this born commander of men, and boy does Crowe emit gravitas with his every word uttered in that guttural, booming Aussie accent and incisive delivery. Each speech he makes as a general, and even more so as a gladiator leader among his fellow slaves, his so rousing just by his delivery alone. He commands the screen physically with his performance, and you genuinely feel his every blow and thrust of sword because how at home he seems with it. Frankly, the lead in a swords-and-sandals epic is a tougher job than one might think, and Crowe goes even beyond that with his powerful emotional portrayal of the grief that compels his character, and helps add to an aspect of the film I'll discuss at the end. He gives a performance no one else could possibly give in his place, and his early reservations according to Wikipedia over the dialogue and characterization of Maximus Aurelius is surprising because it's such a perfect fit for him.
Gibson the director I must say I've liked to loved every single one of his films thus far, and the trailer for Hacksaw Ridge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2-1hz1juBI) has me so pumped for it. Having said that, though as an actor I like Gibson, it's nowhere close to my admiration for him as a director (haven't seen Gallipoli yet though). But I digress. Like Crowe Gibson is an actor with innate charm, which I think the best example I've seen is in the Lethal Weapon series. This is utilized well for William Wallace as both his position as a leader of his men which makes up the main meat of the film, as he handles each of his speeches well (even if the accent is, as many have noted, a bit iffy, though it doesn't really hurt the performance), particularly the most famous one we all know, and also has a very nice charm in his quieter scenes interacting with his lovers. He brings the needed weight to moments like his execution of two traitors to his cause against the English, and perhaps his best scene which is the quartering execution at the end of the film. What sets this performance apart from Crowe's for me is that Gibson, while very fitting to the film as the rousing hero, never really goes beyond that. I did not feel as strong a sense of emotional drive from his performance alone, nor did I ever really get 'chills down my spine' so to speak from anything he did acting-wise, usually that sort of feeling in Braveheart I have reserved for his directorial choices. I like Gibson's portrayal of William Wallace, but I don't find it to be the Oscar snub some seem to consider it to be. The nominated Nicolas Cage and Sean Penn were exceptional, Ian McKellen and Morgan Freeman in the same year gave far more powerful and entertaining performances vital to their films. Gibson's performance is good but simply not on the level of Crowe's tremendously powerful portrayal of a man sinned against by the world, and thus turning against it; he's the grand and passionate leader he should be, but never beyond that.
Winner: Russell Crowe
Acting (Villain): Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus v.s. Patrick McGoohan as King Edward 'Longshanks'
I wouldn't consider either of these 'all-time great' portrayals of villains like the Joker, or Hans Landa, in fact I'd rank them nearer the 'quite good and adeuqate' band of villains like Jeremy Irons in Die Hard with a Vengeance. I'll admit they've both grown on me over time, however. Both are unrepentant villains through and through, and I've a tough time trying to decide who's worse. I'd say probably Longshanks because he's more dangerous, because he's the more competent of the two. Phoenix's Commodus is a bit of the whiny, spoilt brat sort of dictator who's more competent at ordering people around than actually doing anything himself. I like his performance because he gives off the right vibe of someone who wants to be physically imposing and threatening, but can only achieve so by his royal power. I used to find his tic-filled, mannered approach to depicting the mentally imbalanced state of Commodus distracting, but re-watches have made me appreciate that it's perhaps the best way he had to portray the character since there's not all that much else to work with.
As for McGoohan, he's definitely the more immediately menacing and hateful of the two, since he's not only terrible to his enemies, he's terrible to his own people too, in particular his son and his son's wife. King Edward Longshanks is as utterly charmless as Commodus is, and what I think puts him up slightly in my books is that he presents a far more dangerous adversary to overcome, though Commodus is the one you feel more impact at the demise of due to the personal connection with Crowe's Maximus, Both actors give good, not great, villainous performances, and I'll give McGoohan the edge because he does have a bit more to work with and does end up having more individually memorable scenes like that 'window' scene (which by the way I don't see as being homophobic as many have interpreted it, it's a murderous king doing the act anyway, you're not meant to advocate it), and his speeches. Winner: Patrick McGoohan
Acting (Ensemble)
Probably my easiest choice thus far. The supporting cast of Gladiator isn't bad at all. Oliver Reed is the obvious standout, despite his performance being truncated obviously by fate, as Proximo the ex-gladiator and gladiator manager. He gives a very convincing potrayal of a man with pride in the profession and adds a lot to the film in his relatively short screentime. Djimon Hounsou also acquits himself nicely as Juba, fellow gladiator to Maximus, and provides some good supportive supporting work; unfortunately, the rest of the supporting cast don't really have all that much to distinguish themselves. In fact I'd say the broad sweeping scope of the film and Crowe's performance overshadows them, though on a positive note no one stands out in a bad way.
In Braveheart many a supporting performance stands out in a very good way. In fact, McGoohan might only be my 4th favourite of the ensemble, as you have Angus Macfayden giving a very strong performance as future King of Scotland Robert the Bruce, who's really the true heart of the film; the always reliable Brendan Gleeson as Wallace's best friend Hamish; Catherine McCormack giving a haunting portrayal of Murron MacClannough, Wallace's love of his life; Ian Bannen giving a very interesting performance as Robert's leper-infected father; and of course, possibly my favourite performance in the cast on re-watch, David O'Hara's Stephen, from Ireland, a barmy ball of energy who joins in William Wallace's cause just for bloodshed. Braveheart has a great ensemble and I'd say in this regard it trumps Gladiator quite easily.
Winner: Braveheart Screenplay
Gladiator has some fantastic linesby David Franzoni, John Logan, and William Nicholson, like the 'My Name is Maximus...' scene, Proximo's lines of the nature of gladiator fighting, and overall the story is very taut with little in the way of plot contrivances. It's also quite admirable how it managed to write its way through the death of Oliver Reed halfway through filming while still bringing the film to a powerful conclusion, despite missing a greatly important factor for its final act. I have to say though that the writing behind Braveheart is slightly more impressive. It tells a broader story, not that there's anything wrong with Gladiator's scope, and alongside William Wallace's story branches off itno several different arcs, and the fact Randall Wallace's screenplay touches on all of them quite well, in particular Robert the Bruce's personal arc, is fairly impressive. I don't love either screenplay, neither has that 'X-factor' which pushes a film's script from 'very good' to 'amazing', but I do like them both quite a bit. Will give the win to Braveheart for its sheer complexity.
Winner: Braveheart Cinematography
The cinematography to Braveheart by the one and only John Toll. He was in charge of making The Thin Red Line one of the most beautifully brutal films of all-time and does some great work here in making each battle scene, each establishing shot across those beauteous greens, stick in your mind. I really like his work here, but I must say the cinematography in Gladiator is one aspect of the film I've always loved from the very start. It's a masterclass in colour schemes, those scenes in the colesseum with those muted yet striking dark colours merged with the shiny golden sunlight and the gladiator's armour; the scenes in Elysium; and of course the camerawork in the action scenes. The battle sequences in Braveheart have a grand spectacle and grand camerawork to follow them, but Gladiator goes a step further in making each fight in the Colosseum so immersive to the audience. Moreover, there's other great touches like the scene I post above where the beauty of the filmed scenery juxtaposed alongside the tragedy of the situation, is extremely powerful.
Winner: Gladiator Editing
This is one of those categories I'm never really that sure about how to comment on. I'll give the win to Gladiator for the timebeing because as a film I think it flows along slightly better, and the way its action sequences are spliced together alongside the quiet scenes are remarkable, whereas Bravheart might have a few scenes which jut out as slightly imbalancing the pace of the film, I'm thinking mostly of the scenes back in England.
Winner: Gladiator Sound
Both films sound great, with the clashing of swords and crashing of horses and screams of gladiators in Gladiator all so resonantly heard throughout each sequences, and the magnificent use of silence and minimalism in very specific moments too. I do, however, think that Braveheart sounds even better overall as somehow it manages to make each action sequence loud and rousing, but also making each voice and portion of the battle have a character all of its own.
Winner: Braveheart Lighting/Special/Practical Effects
Perhaps unfair to compare the two, but I do place the lighting used in the forest scenes, the Colosseum etc. and the special and practical effects used to enhance them to an even more glorious scale, like for the views of Rome, are incredible, and while the equivalent work in Braveheart on the battlefields is nothing to be sniffed at, I give Gladiator the edge in this regard.
Winner: Gladiator Costume Design
Swords-and-sandals films do tend to have a certain continuity in terms of garments worn by the actors, and so while the costumes for our Romans in Gladiator are quite something to behold, I wouldn't call them quite as impressive as the downright brilliant costumes by Charles Node for both the Scottish and the English through all classes, is a marvel to behold. A particular favourite of mine is the way Hamish's attire fits Gleeson's gruff and brutish yet compassionate performance, or how Robert the Bruce's costume emphasises his regal nature, or just how nice Princess Isabella's garments look. Winner: Braveheart Set Design
The Colosseum, is all I have to say. Braveheart has some very impressive sets too, but the Colosseum in Gladiator is practically a character all in itself.
Winner: Gladiator
Soundtrack
I thought this would be the differentiating factor for the two films, since I've always thought James Horner's theme for Braveheart was a thing of beauty, with its marvellous employment of the flute alongside the grander orchestral bits. It helps make so many scenes even more memorable than they already are. On re-watch however, the soundtrack with Gladiator stuck with me more than before. 'Now We Are Free' really is a beautiful tune, and I don't mind the main battle theme being kind of similar to the Pirates of the Carribean one anymore since one, it's Hans Zimmer's personal style, and two the fact he implements it so well into the film. Like Braveheart it makes scenes its blared over resonate even more, and I really can't choose between the two.
Winner: Tie
Emotional Resonance
Well since there's a tie, I guess all I can use to divide the two films now is a look at how much they've impacted me individually on an emotional level. Now Braveheart is among historical 'biopics' quite renowned for its strong emotional core. The backstory to William Wallace, the personal story of Robert the Bruce, and of course that rousing finale where the latter invokes the memory of the former with 'You bled with Wallace. Now, bleed with me' all have strong emotional undercurrents. With Gladiator however, I will confess, the emotional core is somewhat more simple, yet even more effective in my opinion. The conclusion to Maximus' journey, with that Zimmer score and his dying words, the death of one good man for the sake of Rome, and Maximus passing on into Elysium and the afterlife to be reunited with his wife and son, is really powerful stuff. For the sheer emotional impact the film has on me, I have to give Gladiator the win in this regard, and overall.
Winner: Gladiator
Winner: Gladiator, 7 - 6 And lastly, just for fun: 1960s Gladiator directed by Fred Zinnemann
Maximus - Robert Shaw
Commodus - John Hurt
Lucilla - Julie Christie
Proximo - Trevor Howard
Juba - Woody Strode
Gracchus - Leo McKern
Marcus Aurelius - Michael Redgrave
1970s Braveheart directed by William Wyler
William Wallace - Terrence Stamp
Princess Isabella - Romy Schneider
King Edward 'Longshanks' - John Gieguld
(need recommendations for the rest)
