Book v. Movie: (Rita Hayworth And The) Shawshank Redemption

[NSL]

I know a lot of people feel that the movie gets way too much love, but I'll stand by it as my favorite movie ever. The cast, the direction, and the setting were all perfect. The stars aligned, and it all came together for everyone at the right time. And, just because it's my favorite, does not mean I think it's the greatest movie ever, but that's a discussion for another day.

As for the book, I was surprised. It's not your usual Stephen King work by any means, but it was good. It was great as a short story, and I think it was best to read from beginning to end without putting it down. After reading it, i wondered how they pulled two and a half hours out of it, but they did.

As much as I enjoyed reading the story, I don't think it compares to the movie. They're essentially the same as far as substance, but I think the movie did a better job of telling the story, and of course it was helped by all of the great efforts put into it.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

You don't hear this word often on the forums, ''novella''. That's what the book is. Somewhere between novel and short story, although it's pretty long.

Great film, fine book. It's a short story for a reason, Stephen King didn't have enough ideas to make it longer.

I haven't read it in about 15 years by the way.

 

[NSL]

You don't hear this word often on the forums, ''novella''. That's what the book is. Somewhere between novel and short story, although it's pretty long.

Good point. I've always just referred to it as a short story, because I could never classify it as something else. I know what a novella is, but figured short story worked under Stephen King. I'd like to imagine how it could have been if King had enough to make a full story from the idea.

I read it in high school, as part of one of my electives. I always avoided it, thinking the movie would always be better, but that novella, and that class as a whole did a lot to prove me wrong.

 

[X]

I definitely, definitely prefer the novella. As I've said countless times before, the film adaptation is one of the most overrated films ever made. That's not to say it isn't good, because it is. It's very good. But the love it gets is absurd, people claiming it's the greatest movie ever made, throwing it on their Top 10 lists and proclaiming it genius. It's really not that good. It's not even close in fact. There are several much MUCH better prison films (Midnight Express for example), ones that don't make prison seem like a nice walk in the park with a 5 minute interlude of sodomy once every 30 years.

I definitely enjoyed the novella more. Probably because I'm a big King fan.

 

[NSL]

There are several much MUCH better prison films (Midnight Express for example), ones that don't make prison seem like a nice walk in the park with a 5 minute interlude of sodomy once every 30 years.

I'm not discrediting you're opinion of the movie, I just want to know how it makes prison look like a walk in the park? It shows during Andy's first months/years in prison that there was beatings and rape, and then it changes, showing you the mental breakdown he had. They show it with Brooks, and then Andy, and then Red. The entire time that he's there, he's being used, and shoved down, and given just enough rope to make him feel free.

I think it was a rather unique look at the other side of how prison can break you down.

 

[X]

I'm not discrediting you're opinion of the movie, I just want to know how it makes prison look like a walk in the park?

Having work breaks for nice frosty beers? Freely setting up your own tax-help office in the library? Listening to Mozart? Yeah, not exactly an accurate description of prison life.

It shows during Andy's first months/years in prison that there was beatings and rape

One rape, that they treated like it was no big deal at all. He was beaten, what, like twice? Maybe? Not that those things aren't terrible, but overall the film treated prison like it was just an inconvenience to Andy.

and then it changes, showing you the mental breakdown he had. They show it with Brooks, and then Andy, and then Red. The entire time that he's there, he's being used, and shoved down, and given just enough rope to make him feel free.

That, I will agree with, and is one of the things I really like about the film. Unfortunately the film overall just over-sentimentalizes prison life to the point of absurdity.

 

[NSL]

Having work breaks for nice frosty beers?

That was only after Hadley almost tossed him from the roof. He had to pretty much bribe his way to get that, and if you think that doesn't happen in prison all the time, you need to take a better look.

Freely setting up your own tax-help office in the library?

He didn't "freely" set it up. The guards came to him for help because he was an accountant, and he was showing them ways to find loopholes. The guards were as crooked as any of the criminals in there, so of course they'd give him a little leeway to help themselves.

Listening to Mozart?

Do you remember what happened to him after that? He got to spend a week in solitary.

Yeah, not exactly an accurate description of prison life.

Seems fair to me.

One rape, that they treated like it was no big deal at all. He was beaten, what, like twice? Maybe? Not that those things aren't terrible, but overall the film treated prison like it was just an inconvenience to Andy.

They didn't need to show him getting raped every day to make the point. Red made the speech about "routine", and they covered that it happened more than a few times. They showed 2 beatings, actually, and implied more. There was the fight in the store room, and also when they attacked him in the reel room.

That, I will agree with, and is one of the things I really like about the film. Unfortunately the film overall just over-sentimentalizes prison life to the point of absurdity.

Aren't movies supposed to over-sentimentalize everything? Whether it did or not, it still ranks as my favorite film ever. The novella is good, but I prefer to watch the movie.