Written by Scott Graveline (guest blogger):

When it comes to great movies, word of mouth is a good thing—maybe the best of things.  

“We couldn’t pay people to see The Shawshank Redemption in theaters,” director/screenwriter Frank Darabont once confessed. I had the pleasure of meeting Darabont, and I didn’t even care that he sparked up a cigarette-or-clove-or-whatever-it-was indoors while we talked. I almost boasted to him that I actually saw Shawshank on the big screen, but that would be like winning the “last one awake” contest at a sixth-grade sleepover—a solitary celebration indeed. However, his box office bomb miraculously went on to become one of the highest-grossing rentals of all time. This anomaly has fascinated me for years.

Shawshank: Warming the Cockles of Countless Souls
The Shawshank Redemption ranks among my top three film experiences of all time, rubbing elbows with Casablanca and The Godfather saga. I’m not the only one. It’s hailed as a heartfelt favorite by scores of casual and serious moviegoers. A high percentage of people I meet—guys especially—have carved out a special place for this film. A few years back, my former roommate and I were under its spell weekly. Most twentysomethings who choose the couch over life’s responsibilities do so because of the hippie lettuce; we only had TNT and its steady rotation of the addictive prison saga to blame.

Even actor Tim Robbins claims that fans talk Shawshank with him more than anything else in his body of work. Some have called the film life changing. The critics are also on board; the gripping drama is ranked in numerous greatest films of all time lists and was nominated for seven Academy Awards.

Sneaky Powerful, Sneaky Unconventional
Seeing Shawshank for the first time is like going to the DMV and meeting your future spouse; you’re completely ill-prepared for such a momentous occasion. I can rave about the film’s message of hope, deliverance, restitution, and freedom for days, but I’m more impressed with its subtle escape from predictable movie formulas. The film ranks among the greats despite:

• No present female love interests, save for a poster of “fuzzy britches”
• Two lead male characters who develop an authentic friendship and seldom quarrel
• All that screen time in one dismal location
• A covert 20-year escape plot of which the audience is not aware
• Prison rape (never fun)

So Where Was the Box Office Love?
Let’s take an inventory: Critical acclaim? Check. Joe Moviefan acclaim? Check. Recognizable actors? Check. Released in a theater near you? Check. Then why did this now-beloved film take in a box office gross so paltry that it barely covered its $25 million budget? Let’s get busy hypothesizing…

Pulp Gumption
Turns out, 1994 churned out some fine movies. Juggernauts such as Pulp Fiction and Forrest Gump boxed out Shawshank for Oscars nods. The Lion King, True Lies, and Speed were also killing it in theaters that year. Is a crowded box office reason enough to completely disregard a brilliant movie offering? If anything, I’m fired up to see more movies after I view something gripping or thought-provoking.

Even though a film’s marketing budget is always a factor, I’m not focusing on that here because: a) Exceptional low budget independents like Pulp Fiction get seen and b) I’m entirely too lazy to research it. Get this: some of the inferior films that out-earned Shawshank in ’94 include: In the Army Now, Richie Rich, Timecop, Street Fighter, and, gulp, A Low Down Dirty Shame. Indeed it was a shame. 

Share of blame: 5% 

The Stephen King Non-Horror Scare
Hey, Robert Mondavi is experimenting with beer now; eager to spend your hard-earned cash on it? This is the best analogy I could come up with to explain the Stephen King brand being attached to a non-horror movie in 1994. King’s hope-driven prison novella was without bloody prom queens, resurrected rabid pets, or psycho killer clowns.

However, after Shawshank grew astounding rental and cable legs—and the world accepted King in such a genre—Darabont adapted King’s The Green Mile and it generated over $136 million. It was solid, but can it make you at one with your couch this weekend? I don’t dare put too much weight on the King factor contributing to Shawshank’s maiden failure; nobody goes to movies for the writers, except the writer’s mom. 

Share of blame: 10% 

The Poster Featuring Morgan Freeman’s Rerun Beret
The primary Shawshank movie poster displayed a rain-soaked, quasi-homoerotic close-up of Robbins and Freeman. And Freeman was modeling a backwards beret that played much cooler in the movie than the poster. The title and poster gave us no hint of incarceration, tribulation, corruption, escape, or general awesomeness. Instead, it gave us an all-male cast of Singin’ in the Rain 2. Was a studio insider sabotaging this thing? When men—the demographic that would later make the movie famous—saw this poster, it didn’t have a prayer. 

Share of blame 30% 

Worst Title Ever
When I first fell in love with the film in ‘94, I quickly devoured the Stephen King novella, Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. The good news is that Darabont and company dropped the lengthy, confusing title for the movie adaptation. The bad news is they replaced it with an abridged version that was equally repulsive and perplexing. Absolute box office poison. If I cut a dog crap sandwich in half, is it any more appealing to you? Don’t get me wrong, this title plays after you’ve seen the film, but it sucks on a movie marquee that features 19 better-titled films.  

I was a teenager working at Blockbuster at the time Shawshank found its remarkable second life in the rental market. Its resurgence was insane—all word of mouth. Droves of customers would request the film, and less than half could pronounce it. Shank-shaw Redemption was the most common error. My porn-minded associate called it Schlongspank Redemption, but I think he had his own thing going on. 

Share of blame: 55% 

Conclusion
Much like Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption was set up for failure. Some good films survive weak titles or minor marketing gaffes, but this campaign had numerous somebody-better-be-fired blunders and paid for it in theaters. Just imagine if a picture of this caliber was released before rental and cable—only astute film professors would reference it in passing. One thing’s for sure: The Shawshank Redemption crawled through a river of box office excrement and came out clean on the other side.

Why is it that Government will pledge $200 billion to help Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae and another $700 billion to bail out financial institutions but they won't give $25 billion of that $700 billion to the Big Three? Also, why the hell does the government allow $700 billion to be used to help the economy and there is no clear picture of what they will be doing with it.  Everyday they are changing their strategy.  In fact, yesterday Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said that he believes our major financial institutions have been stabalized so the money won't be going to them.  If they are stabilized then I think we should get our $700 Billion back!

Back to the Big Three bailout: the Democrats are pushing for the bailout while the Republicans are trying to stop it.  I think the reason can be summed up in one word: Union.  Democrats are very union friendly and Republicans see them as a hindrance on business.  The Republicans are saying they won't bailout an industry that isn't making any moves to help themselves.  How about giving them the money they want under the condition that the unions disappear?  Lower the salaries and the costs to build the vehicles will go down which you can pass on to the customers so your sales go up.  There was a time and place for unions but now there are Federal employeement laws that make a union unnecessary.  I bet if you added that stipulation in to the bailout the aisles would flip; Democrats would be calling foul (after all, who pays for their elections) and the Republicas would be in support.  This country isn't ready to get rid of unions so on a more realistic idea, force high MPG regulations on them.  I want to see 40 MPG gas burning cars (not unproven hybrids) by 2015.  If you can't have 50% of your cars meet that by 2015, the government loans come due in full and you will have to sell off your assets to pay it off.  No more long term loans, give them goals to meet.  If they meet the goals then everyone wins.  If they miss the goals then we aren't out of money for too long.

Frankly, I don't think we should be bailing anyone out.  We got to this place because of greed and businesses not being regulated enough.  Elected officials will never make the hard choices and never be firm enough to make this work.  Taking more of my tax dollars and giving to a car company for a car I won't buy (give me 40 MPG and we'll talk) will only delay our problems and will vaporize more money to get there.

My inner narcissist has won out.  For the last few years I've googled my name, "Brett Jones," just to see what comes up.  There are currently 57,100 hits for my name and I have yet to find one about me.  There are football players, Dr's and even a memorial for a very young Brett Jones (sad) but, nothing about this geek.

I've been very surprised about how many of my articles on this blog get ranked so high on google rankings.  I don't do any SEO and I really don't try to do anything to drive traffic.  So, I will remain doing nothing (I'm lazy) and will start the Brett Jones Experiment.  I want to see if one day I can actually find something about me on google. 

To my loyal readers (both of you): Please don't take this as a challenge to post something mean or damaging.  This is all in good fun.

Here we go:
To read about Brett Jones, please check out his blog.

**Update 12/4/2008: Progress update is here.

In Sarah Palin's interview on Fox News (11/10/2008) she made mention about the bloggers in their parent's basement wearing pajamas.  Off topic: I guess it's only mamma's boys that can't get dressed or elite media in this world?  Back on topic: She said the book ban was a lie.  That "Harry Potter wasn't even published when [she] was the Mayor of Wasilla".  Unfortunately, that's not true.  She served two three year terms from 1996-2002.  The first Harry Potter book was released in the UK on 6/30/1997 and later in the US on 9/1/1998.  Clearly she was serving as Mayor during that time.

Maybe it was an oversight or maybe it's just another "fact" that she is trying to slip through us mamma's boys.  Either way, we need to keep her honest so we don't have to see her again in 2012.