Book vs Movie (The Shawshank Redemption)

[Steeven]

OK, here's how it will work.

Go read Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, the novella by Stephen King from the book Different Seasons.

Then go watch the movie, the Shawshank Redemption starring Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman.

Or you can watch the movie first . . . the order doesn't really matter as long as you do both.

Then, come back here and discuss them.

Was the book better, or the movie?

What about the movie did you like better then the book?

What about the book did you like better than the movie?

Get ready . . . Get set . . . GO!

[BillETM]

I'll have to see if I can get a copy.

[Chris Beckett]

I just watched this with my sons a few weeks back. I'll need to re-read the story to refresh my memory. Gotta find it first, though.

chris

[Dezreavey]

My wife picked up a copy of the book from the library for me yesterday.

I have only thumbed through it at this stage. I read the first few lines and it looks like it starts in the same way that the movie does, "There must be a con like me in every prison.....". Fantastic!!

I am really looking forward to doing this Steeven. Thanks for getting it off the ground!!

[Chris Beckett]

I was hoping to be able to plow through the story rather quickly, but my time is not my own. So I'll post thoughts as I read along, if that's cool.






*SPOILERS AHEAD FOR THOSE THAT HAVE YET TO READ THE NOVELLA*








Gotten through the first two parts (roughly the first 10 pages), and I find it interesting that in King's novella we get a complete recounting of Red's crime. He was young, put a large insurance policy on his wife, and fixed the brakes in their car so that his wife would perish in a car accident. Except, he did not expect that his wife would pick up the neighbor and her infant son. All three died, Red was caught, and he went to jail, sent there for a long time.

I find it interesting that in the movie, if I remember correctly, we get Red's matter-of-fact statement that he is the only guilty man in Shawshank, but there is little or no elaboration. I expect that Darabont left out the details of Red's crime (again, if I didn't miss it when I last watched it), in order to keep Red as a sympathetic narrator. If viewers knew of Red's true transgressions, it could turn off the audience.

I also find it curious that the crimes that both of King's main characters are found guilty of are basically the same. It feels a bit odd from such an imaginative writer. But maybe he is utilizing this commonality (with obvious differences in motivations, manner, and obviously guilt) as a way to play off each of these men - Red and Andy - which is something I had not considered until writing this post. I'll need to pay closer attention to this connection through the rest of the story.

chris

[Steeven]

We may have to extend the 'deadline' on this.

I'm not done with the novella and I haven't had a chance to get the movie.

Anyone?

8/15?

How about it?

[Chris Beckett]

Extend as you wish. I'll be posting thoughts some time in the next week, but that shouldn't preclude you having time to get through the story and movie.

You started this (and thanks for that, very cool idea), I'll play by your rules ; )

chris

[Chris Beckett]

Some more initial thoughts. Apologies for my long-windedness, but I've kind of built a reputation for it now, so here goes.

Finished the novella and watched the movie within the past 6 weeks, so this should be without (many) errors. But please, if anyone sees a misguided statement on my part, chime in. Anyway – differences, and my take on them:

- Book: It is implied that the beat down Bogs, the head of the “sisters” was a result of Andy bribing the guards with money he smuggled into the prison.
Movie: the beat down by Hadley comes as a result of Andy helping the guard keep the monetary gift from his deceased brother.
The former scenario, as written by King, seems like the more practical, “realistic” one. He’d already set up that Andy Dufresne brought in roughly $500 shoved up his backside, and the thought that the Shank’s screws would do this for money appeals to how “we” perceive prison. The latter scenario seems ideal for film, which tends toward a more “gut” emotional level than a novel or novella. The idea of Hadley doing this pro bono is appealing for a number of reasons, including the thought that “justice” is being served to a certain degree, but – despite the fact that Hadley is still doing it for his own benefit – it doesn’t fit with the cynical view so often put forth regarding our penal system.
I’m not saying one way is better than the other, and each scenario I find works well; I’m just trying to give it a bit of analysis. Others’ thoughts?

- Book: The group chosen to tar the roof is randomly chosen whereas . . .
Movie: in the film, Red manages to get his “group” of guys chosen through well-placed bribes and such.
Again, it’s a matter of what works in the book and in the movie. In King’s novella, we really only follow Red and Andy, the other characters flesh out the space, but aren’t major players, while the movie surrounds Red and Andy with a group of “friends” who, though still incidental characters, give a feeling of togetherness to the whole thing. I think this circle of friends allows watchers to relate better to Andy and Red, and, because there is this group of men working together to help each other as best they are able within the confines of the Shank, we don’t see these men as hardened criminals but feel sympathy for them because they are living together under such horrid conditions.

- Book: In the novella, Brooksie’s story – the old librarian in the prison – doesn’t even take up a whole page
Movie: In the film, his story is an integral part of what allows the audience to understand prison life, and what it does to someone forced to be in the joint for the bulk of their life.
Again, Brooksie’s story was insignificant for the novella. King uses it as a transition for Andy’s ascension to librarian of the prison and then we don’t return to it. In the film, Darabont uses Brooksie to showcase the humanity that can be found within this prison and develops the character skillfully so that when he is released and unable to cope with this strange new world (he went in before WWI, I think?), he rips our heart out with what Brooksie feels is his only recourse. Again, Darabont adds to the sympathy we feel for these people and draws us even farther into the story.


More to come

chris

[Dezreavey]

Sorry for my slackness guys, like I said I am about halfway through the book and do have some thoughts to share, I just haven't got around to it yet, but SOON I promise!!

[Dezreavey]

[Steeven]

I'm almost done with the book.

The movie should be coming to me this week.

[Dezreavey]

Good news Steeven!!

I will try and finish the book this week. I may watch the movie again if I get time, but to be honest, I know it word for word anyway!!

[Dezreavey]

Still haven't finished the book, sorry boys!!

But here are some things to wet your appetite



Best quote from the movie


Best scene from the movie

I have said it before and I will say it again. BEST. MOVIE. EVER!

[thomalo]

Ok, I am in for this one. I will watch the movie soon and I think I have the book.

[Dezreavey]

Awesome. Welcome aboard!

[Steeven]

OK, so I finally got around to watching the movie this past week.

I have a lot to say and I hope it comes out better then the jumbled mess that I foresee it being.

First off, I'll just say that as far as the Book vs. Movie is concerned, the Movie wins.

My favorite line from the movie wasn't in the book: (And I am paraphrasing because I can't quite remember now) "Andy crawled through a river of s#!t and came out clean on the other side."

I had zero problems with the changes they made for the movie as the changes were there to help flesh out the story.

The only problem I had with the entire movie, and it was a little thing, was when they were playing keep away from Tommy with his test scores . . . it seemed a little out of place in a prison . . . that's just me.

This movie is a good example of taking everything that's really important about the book and making something really special.

Book vs. Movie = Movie.

[Steeven]

I've added a poll to the top so we can vote to see who wins, the book or the movie.

[yodajones]

Its been a while since I read the story (It was in Different Seasons if I recall correctly...) but I can't help but watch this movie everytime I see that it is on. it is one of my top ten movies of all time. I've even been to the prison in Mansfield Ohio that they shot some of the film in.

I remember when the movie came out it really wasn't on my radar as I wasn't that impressed with the short story. I was more aware of Bryan Singer's adaptation of "Apt Pupil" than I was this. Thank goodness a buddy of mine at the time talked me into seeing it with him at the theater when it first opened.

I defintely prefer the film to the book, although now I'll have to reread it. Darabont has this almost poetic camera sense, a realism that is almost fantastic in its realism if I am making anysense, that really elevates the source material. This is why i am so looking forward to his take on The Walking Dead. And the performances are outstanding. James Whitmore scratching BROOKS WAS HERE into the rafter, Clancy Brown's expression as the solid feces hits the rotary oscillator soon after Andy's escape, and of course Robbins and Freeman are two actors who here are at the top of their game.

I will swing by the library and pick this book up. Count me in.

[Dezreavey]

Great comments Jim.

Very jealous that you got to go to the prison where this was shot!

Brooks' whole monologue leading up to his death was excellent ("I doubt they'll kick up much fuss, not for an old crim like me.")

Glad to have you on board!

@Everyone else, I will try and finish the book this week and then post something more than just a promise to post more some time soon!!

[Steeven]

No hurry dude. I took away the deadline.

I don't see why we can't have multiples of these up and folks can post when they get to it.