Although Red still narrated the film version of Stephen King's story, his perspective is no longer the only one audiences are privy to. Instead of relying on Red to tell the complete story, the film showed scenes as they happened. This changed some of the plot points as the director interpreted some of Red's opinions into actual scenes.
For example, Red opines at the end of Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption that Andy discovered the wall's weakness when he attempted to scratch his name into the wall; however, readers would never know if he did do that because we never get insight into what Andy does when he's alone. The film version allows us to see and understand Andy without Red's input, and we witness him carve his name. This serves as foreshadowing of his escape instead of having Red keep hinting at it. It is expected that the film will remain mysterious when it comes to the ending whereas the story relied on character development more than it did plot points. Ironically, the film required more resolution -- or revenge -- than the short story did.
This is evident in the treatment Boggs received after the warden decided to protect Andy. While the short story suggests that Boggs was beaten, the film makes it clear that he will never walk again. The punishment is much more severe and it speaks to the film audiences need for a clear distinction between the bad and good characters. The bad characters need to have bad things happen to them while the good characters ultimately earn their freedom. Again, this is displayed in the warden's suicide and Red reuniting with Andy.
When Red narrated, his script was almost a direction translation from the short story. In doing so, the film retained the same tone and theme of the short story. As it would no longer make sense for Red to relay scenes back to a visual audience, the scenes he described in the novel were acted or his role was changed so that he was closer to Andy. For example, he begins to work in the library and is therefore a witness to many of the events that happen to Andy.
The film is also much less subtle than the short story is. Although hope is mentioned repeatedly in the short story, the way it is used in the film (in the added scene where Andy plays the record) really hits audiences over the head with it's importance. Another change was that Andy, rather desperately, asks Red to promise to visit the field that his rock is hidden. In the short story, Red does so of his own accord. Less is left to the imagination of the viewer, which perhaps make sense because of the visual medium.
The film does veer away from seeing scenes through Red's perspective. I think they can do that because when a viewer watches a scene they inherently believe what is presented to them. On the other hand, when a reader reads a first person narration of a scene the narrator is not in they usually need to know about credible sources. Also it is very interesting that a film audience would need more concrete conclusions. The warden had a fine conclusion in the book, but then the film makers made it so his end was gruesome so the audience could feel satisfied with him getting some sort of consciences for his actions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that, changing the story to a visual medium leaves the viewers with less imagination but helps with understanding the plot a little bit more. And I think this the main reason why most producers and director make movies out of good books, because the visual media adds more to the imagination of reader and readers that are less imaginative. In this story, we the producers/directors have added a few things that were not in the book to help the viewers have a better understanding of the story. For example they've added the rope that Andy uses when he escapes and they've added the scene where Andy changes his shoes and all this props help the viewers with understanding the plot better.
ReplyDeleteThe film definitely lacked a lot of the subtleties that worked so well in the book version. I think the viewers of the film could have followed the storyline just as well with an ambiguous ending instead. The ending scene was a little cheap to me too.
ReplyDelete