The Shawshank Redemption: A Novel and Film Comparison
“Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.” The story of The Shawshank Redemption is all about hope and holding on to it. When life kicks you down hope will raise you up. To be set free you must have something to believe in, to hope for, and you must not ever lose the hope or you’ve lost your purpose in moving on in life. A lot of book adaptations usually have more differences than similarities, but The Shawshank Redemption is completely the opposite. The book and novella still have their differences but there similarities stand out.
Surprisingly, there were more similarities between the novella and the film then I expected. The biggest similarity was that the dialogue between both the novella and film were for most the time identical. This took me by surprise because some of the dialogue in the short story was very graphic, inappropriate, and distasteful, and that in a film can turn people away. All the main events of the story happened the same way at the same time in both versions. For example, the court case of Andy Dufresne was exactly the same almost word for word and in the same order. Another example is the escape from prison. The escape is done in the same precise order and way in both the novella and film. The director of the film, Frank Darabont obviously didn’t want to leave anything out, and he surely didn’t. It happens that the film has every scene that happens in the short story. The film doesn’t really change any events, and it doesn’t take out any events.
Like many film adaptations, there were more differences, than similarities. There were a lot of differences in characters actions. The biggest differences in characters are the wardens of the prison. In the film there is one warden, Warden Norton. Norton in the films is one of the main characters and affects the plot immensely. He is a reason “Redemption” is in the title, and he isn’t even a big character in the short story. In the short story, instead of one warden there are three, Warden George Dunahy, Greg Stammas, and Samuel Norton. The short story has Greg Stammas forcing Andy to start an accountant business and run his illegal business of feeding all the money from the prison into his bank account. Although, in the film Warden Samuel Norton is the person behind the crimes and business, which later gives Andy the reason to seek vengeance on Warden Norton. It’s the same with guard Byron Hadley. In the film he is an essential character, in which the end he is arrested for being a part of the crimes, but in the short story he doesn’t do anything significant, and he has a heart attack and retires in the middle of the story.
How the vengeance of Andy plays out between the film and novella is different also. In the film, Andy mails the evidence of the Warden Norton’s crimes to the police and then travels to Mexico. Since, Norton was caught he just resigned from his job as warden of the prison, and goes with the police. In, my opinion, the short story version just came up short of a great part in the story. I say this because the films version of Warden Norton getting arrested is more dramatic, exciting, and it just puts the “redemption” in the title The Shawshank Redemption. Instead of Norton resigning from his job he resigned from his life. He locked the door to his office when he saw the police outside, and he loaded his gun, and pointed it at the office door like he was going to shoot the police officers trying to enter. Although, after thinking about it, he turned the gun, pulled the trigger, and sent a bullet right through his head. This scene in the film is an essential scene, but it doesn’t even happen in the short story which is disappointing.
The short story is named Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, in which Rita Hayworth is the name of the women on Andy’s first poster from Red. In the short story that poster changes several times to many different things. The only reason I believe the author put Rita Hayworth in the title is because it was the reason why Andy and Red are friends, so the poster had significance in the short story. The difference is that in the film the poster of Rita Hayworth was asked for after Red and Andy were already friends. Also, the poster only changed twice in the film.
Probably the biggest differences are the endings of both the short story and film. The film has the same ending as the short story but more. The short story stops at Red finding Andy’s note and money against the rock wall in Buxton, Maine. He never sees Andy again, he just hopes he does. Although, in the film Red just doesn’t hope he sees Andy again, he does him again. After, Red finds the note and money; he takes a bus to Zihuatanejo, Mexico breaking his parole. Once he reaches Zihuatanejo, he walks the beach to see Andy working on a boat. The two meet again and live with each other as wanted criminals. This was probably the most touching scene in the film, and the short story didn’t have a trace of it.
From my personal opinion, the film is better hands down. I say this because the scenes the film had but the short story didn’t made a huge difference in the way the story left its mark. Scenes like the ending where Red and Andy meet again is heartwarming, and moving, it just makes you feel good about life. That scene made the difference for me because I felt that it was the only scene showing the main idea of the story, which was hope, just keep the hope. Andy said “hope will set you free” and this scene showed that like nothing else could. That is what the short story didn’t accomplish; a sense of completion to the story. Overall the novella was great, but compared to the film I believe the novella came up short of just the best.
When there are book adaptations there are usually more differences than similarities, but The Shawshank Redemption is completely the opposite. The film and novella still have their differences but there similarities stand out. The similarities and differences are what make one better than the other, and that there is for you to decide. For me, the film took the story of hope to a different level. For me, the film was just plain out better. I mean the film and novella had their similarities but the film had more things, better things, and that’s what makes the difference.
Surprisingly, there were more similarities between the novella and the film then I expected. The biggest similarity was that the dialogue between both the novella and film were for most the time identical. This took me by surprise because some of the dialogue in the short story was very graphic, inappropriate, and distasteful, and that in a film can turn people away. All the main events of the story happened the same way at the same time in both versions. For example, the court case of Andy Dufresne was exactly the same almost word for word and in the same order. Another example is the escape from prison. The escape is done in the same precise order and way in both the novella and film. The director of the film, Frank Darabont obviously didn’t want to leave anything out, and he surely didn’t. It happens that the film has every scene that happens in the short story. The film doesn’t really change any events, and it doesn’t take out any events.
Like many film adaptations, there were more differences, than similarities. There were a lot of differences in characters actions. The biggest differences in characters are the wardens of the prison. In the film there is one warden, Warden Norton. Norton in the films is one of the main characters and affects the plot immensely. He is a reason “Redemption” is in the title, and he isn’t even a big character in the short story. In the short story, instead of one warden there are three, Warden George Dunahy, Greg Stammas, and Samuel Norton. The short story has Greg Stammas forcing Andy to start an accountant business and run his illegal business of feeding all the money from the prison into his bank account. Although, in the film Warden Samuel Norton is the person behind the crimes and business, which later gives Andy the reason to seek vengeance on Warden Norton. It’s the same with guard Byron Hadley. In the film he is an essential character, in which the end he is arrested for being a part of the crimes, but in the short story he doesn’t do anything significant, and he has a heart attack and retires in the middle of the story.
How the vengeance of Andy plays out between the film and novella is different also. In the film, Andy mails the evidence of the Warden Norton’s crimes to the police and then travels to Mexico. Since, Norton was caught he just resigned from his job as warden of the prison, and goes with the police. In, my opinion, the short story version just came up short of a great part in the story. I say this because the films version of Warden Norton getting arrested is more dramatic, exciting, and it just puts the “redemption” in the title The Shawshank Redemption. Instead of Norton resigning from his job he resigned from his life. He locked the door to his office when he saw the police outside, and he loaded his gun, and pointed it at the office door like he was going to shoot the police officers trying to enter. Although, after thinking about it, he turned the gun, pulled the trigger, and sent a bullet right through his head. This scene in the film is an essential scene, but it doesn’t even happen in the short story which is disappointing.
The short story is named Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, in which Rita Hayworth is the name of the women on Andy’s first poster from Red. In the short story that poster changes several times to many different things. The only reason I believe the author put Rita Hayworth in the title is because it was the reason why Andy and Red are friends, so the poster had significance in the short story. The difference is that in the film the poster of Rita Hayworth was asked for after Red and Andy were already friends. Also, the poster only changed twice in the film.
Probably the biggest differences are the endings of both the short story and film. The film has the same ending as the short story but more. The short story stops at Red finding Andy’s note and money against the rock wall in Buxton, Maine. He never sees Andy again, he just hopes he does. Although, in the film Red just doesn’t hope he sees Andy again, he does him again. After, Red finds the note and money; he takes a bus to Zihuatanejo, Mexico breaking his parole. Once he reaches Zihuatanejo, he walks the beach to see Andy working on a boat. The two meet again and live with each other as wanted criminals. This was probably the most touching scene in the film, and the short story didn’t have a trace of it.
From my personal opinion, the film is better hands down. I say this because the scenes the film had but the short story didn’t made a huge difference in the way the story left its mark. Scenes like the ending where Red and Andy meet again is heartwarming, and moving, it just makes you feel good about life. That scene made the difference for me because I felt that it was the only scene showing the main idea of the story, which was hope, just keep the hope. Andy said “hope will set you free” and this scene showed that like nothing else could. That is what the short story didn’t accomplish; a sense of completion to the story. Overall the novella was great, but compared to the film I believe the novella came up short of just the best.
When there are book adaptations there are usually more differences than similarities, but The Shawshank Redemption is completely the opposite. The film and novella still have their differences but there similarities stand out. The similarities and differences are what make one better than the other, and that there is for you to decide. For me, the film took the story of hope to a different level. For me, the film was just plain out better. I mean the film and novella had their similarities but the film had more things, better things, and that’s what makes the difference.