When seeing any novel’s film
adaptation for the first time, the most obvious adjustment that has to be made
by a viewer is getting used to new representations of characters that had
strong, and sometime very different, physical characteristics in the mind of a
reader. As for Stephen King’s Rita
Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, when I first saw Morgan Freeman as Red,
I was not convinced that I’d be able to ignore the fact that this was Morgan
Freeman, and instead see him as this character that I had imagined from the
novel’s description. Other characters, like Andy for example, were depicted
slightly differently from the novel’s description but it wasn’t, for me, as
much of a throw-off. Pressing past character representations, Red was
positioned very differently in the film versus the novel.
Red’s involvement with the action
of the story, in the film, stemmed from serving as witness to many conflicts
and conversations between other characters, from becoming Andy’s assistant when
doing the guards’ taxes to seeing the warden and head guard repeatedly beat
multiple inmates. In the novel, Red was the guy who could essentially ‘get
anything’ whether it’s cigarettes or information, while in the movie he was the
guy who just eavesdropped on all the action. This portrayal was too much of a
change for me to look past. It may not affect Red’s credibility, as he was
still present when the actions that he speaks about occurred, but his position
as an ‘extra’ in many scenes made me not see Red as a man with a story of his own.
At the very best, Red was told stories of actions he missed, like the warden
approaching Andy for financial advice, at the lunch table simply as one of
Andy’s friends.
Although Red, as a character, was
overlooked in the film, he still functioned as narrator for many scenes. As
narrator, Red made the audience know how to feel about particular scenes by
placing his own values and views on each action. Because Red is familiar with
the politics of prison life, he is trusted as a credible 1st person
perspective. But in my opinion, if the filmmakers are going to deviate from the
way Red narrates from novel to movie, they may as well just cut out the middle
man and make Andy narrate his own story, with Red just evaluating action from
the perspective of a fellow inmate. Since Red’s 1st person narration
was so strong in the novel, his half narrator-half bystander position in the
film was weak to me. Shawshank Redemption
was a great movie as a stand alone, but some of the differences in point of
view and narration really altered the way I not only viewed Red, but also how I
evaluated the story being told.
Red did seem to be present in far more scene in the movie than he did in the novel. In the novel, he tended to just hear about things going on and sometimes be witness, but more often than not he would be in the background during the movie. The film makers were probably just trying to give him more scenes so he would not just appear as primarily the voice behind the movie. They probably just wanted Morgan Freeman to have more face-time than Red experienced in the book. So they had to implant his character into scenes that he was not present in for the novel.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Red was in more scenes than in the short story, but I think that's because of the medium. He couldn't function as a narrator relaying stories to a visual audience; it wouldn't make sense. So the scenes he would normally just recap had to be acted out. It then makes sense for him to be in the scenes because it establishes the relationship between him and Andy. I felt that their friendship was better represented in the film -- especially with the added scenes -- than in the movie. He also still served as a "guy who could get anything" and all the instances of him doing so in the short story were represented in the film. Perhaps with the addition of more characters, there could have been more interaction between Red and them without Andy to establish Red as a character on his own. However, the short story clearly represented Red as a character reliant on Andy (he even makes that admission himself towards the end) so the film's portrayal was pretty consistent.
ReplyDeleteAndy was much different from how I imagined him though. He didn't seem as self-possessed. He appeared beaten right from the beginning.