Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption - Rachel G.

            In Stephen King’s Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, Red’s voice makes up the narration of the novel through a first person perspective whereas in the movie adaptation Red’s voice loosely narrates the scenes. Red still takes a major role in the film adaptation and also has more active roles throughout the movie. This change took place to account for how Red knew about certain situations whereas in the novel Red states many times that he heard certain things from multiple sources. Red still states his credibility in the film, but not as frequently. This happens because Red needs to be accounted for as a present main character since in the book he became the main character through his first person narrations of the situations.

            Red narrates most of the scenes that he is not present as the narrator of the film just like he is in the novel. In the scene with Andy and the sisters in the projector room, Red narrates the end of the scene right as the camera moves to an eagle-eye shot of the men. His voice over makes it seems like Red knows and can learn most anything that goes on in the prison. Red uses credible and multiple sources in the novel; Red, in the movie, only needs his voice over to be matched with the scene for the audience to believe the scene actually took place. Just seeing the scene makes it credible whereas hearing the scenes in the novel in first person credible sources must be given if the narrator says he wasn’t there. Another way they added credibility to Red’s narration was by placing him in the background of many scenes throughout the movie such as while Andy tutored Tommy or did taxes for the guard.

            Also Red said many wise things in the novel through his first person narration; so Red instead says these things to other characters in the film to turn him into that wise older figure from the book. For example, Red says “They give you life, and that’s what they take- all of it that counts, anyways” towards Kendricks’ release from prison in the novel, while in the movie he says almost the exact same phrase towards Brooks being given parole. Narrative phrases translated into verbal conversation help to create Red as a main character in the movie as he was in the film.

            Andy’s escape scene in the movie seems different in narration from the novel since Red never speculates about what happened. Everything seems like a definite as to how Andy escaped from the prison including Andy figuring out that the concrete was weak by carving his name into the wall. In the novel, Red only guessed that Andy tried to carve his name then started to dig, but the movie made this seems like this was a fact. Red could only guess about Andy’s escape because of his limited point of view through first person perspective. Since Red finds Andy in Mexico instead of just ending with the hopes of finding him, Red can be sure about Andy’s escape. In the movie, Andy could have told Red, the narrator, so everything in his escape scene could be concrete. Since the conclusion was changed the perspective of the scene changed as well and could seem less limited in its knowledge.

            The movie had many changes to account for Red as a main character and the limitations of his narration. Since Red needed to be as much of a driving force in the movie as he was in the book they had him narrate many of the scenes he was not present in, but did not overwhelm the movie with narration. To not overly narrate the movie, Red took on an even more present role as a wise figure through turning his narratives from the novel into conversations. Or Red is just present in certain scenes to create this credibility. Red’s character is adapted in the movie so he can still function as a main character with more presence instead of just being a narrator with fewer scenes.