-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Shawshank Redemption Theory: Andy Dufrense was actually guilty and did kill his wife
- Thread starter Arnie7
- Start date
- Status
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
There are two movies i can think of off the bat where discussion like this is enlightening:
1. American Psycho: did he or did he not kill 1,2 many or 0 people? Or was it a case of temporary psychosis? Is the movie about a wealthy psychopath or about a diseased society so unable to pull itself from self-centeredness that it is willing to cover up grisly murders to maintain status quo or profitability?
2. Is Smash Mouth at the end of Rat Race representative of the 4 horseman of the Apocalypse? Does it reflect a condemnation on the part of greedy people everywhere that the unholy pursuit of ill-gotten gains will lead to pain, poverty, humiliation, and suffering?
The answer is clearly given when Andy literally states that he did not pull the trigger. He is guilty in her death because he was a bad husband and pushed her into the affair by not being there for her. He has paid the debt and redeemed himself, hence the title of the book and movie.
But that's Andy saying that. There's nothing else to go on.
The one "interpretation" of the ending I've always gone with is that it's ambiguous whether Andy and Red "actually" meet on the beach. The book leaves this note more ambiguous, and it's more about Red freeing his mind from prison. Whether he actually goes down to Mexico to meet Andy on a beautiful beach is irrelevant; the movie fades from the bus to the water and shows a very dreamy sequence. It's a happy ending, but to me there's enough ambiguity to sort of make it not matter whether they meet or not.
"I hope..."
Red describes a long journey (his life) and says how things are uncertain. To me, this is his daydreaming on the bus, his idealized version of what he hopes to find.
But it's also a beautiful, happy ending as well, so I don't want to be a total wet blanket.
I love that film.
"I hope..."
Red describes a long journey (his life) and says how things are uncertain. To me, this is his daydreaming on the bus, his idealized version of what he hopes to find.
But it's also a beautiful, happy ending as well, so I don't want to be a total wet blanket.
I love that film.
You do realise the setting and time period of the story. What do you expect, DNA testing? The only way any information gets into the story is through narrative, at no time in the story is Andy ever shown to be guilty. This is getting to a level of stupid I cant get sucked into.
Boombloxer
Member
Pointless and dumb
Felix Lighter
Member
Except the part of the story where another man in another prison was taking credit for the murder and Andy trying to convince the warden to follow up on the information.
I literally tear up every time I see the beach scene. So I dont care if it's in the book or not. It's a fucking great scene.
Besides the movie is about Red, not Andy. Red is the main character. And the movie is about his redemption - having a reason to leave the prison and living life.
My new theory is that Andy managed to grab a copy of the Duke Nukem 3D demo from the future, beat the 3rd level and realized that he could try to escape the same way. Then he changed his name to George Broussard, founded 3D Realms and sent a copy of the Duke3D demo to himself in the past through a time warp in order to close the time loop.
(for those who don't know, the final part of that level involves Duke crawling out of a prison cell through a poster with a girl, like in the movie)
(for those who don't know, the final part of that level involves Duke crawling out of a prison cell through a poster with a girl, like in the movie)
Extra Sauce
Member
Unless... everything we see in The Shawshank Redemption is the feverish dream of Tim Robbins's
comatose
Jacob's Ladder
Valkyr Junkie
Member
He was a "hot shot banker," so definitely on the wealthier side I would assume.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
It's partially the fault of the convolusion found within modern films.
It's causing people to go back to old films and look for things that aren't remotely there.
He seemed at least upper middle class, if not "rich" to me. Not the "get out of murder" kind of rich though.
So the "Hur, he was rich!" argument falls more than a little flat.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
Zihuatanejo.
Alex Stroud
Banned
Red was insane and the prison and its inhabitants were figments of his imagination.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Watched this last night. Completely ignores the fact that Red told Tommy Andy killed his wife and Tommy independently claimed his innocence.
At the point Andy opens up to Red he says he figuratively "killed her" by neglecting her. What possible reason could he have not to open up and admit murder after his redemption (regardless of crime?)
It's fun to imagine.
At the point Andy opens up to Red he says he figuratively "killed her" by neglecting her. What possible reason could he have not to open up and admit murder after his redemption (regardless of crime?)
It's fun to imagine.
The Albatross
Member
It's like saying that the Titanic didn't sink in the movie Titanic because it's all being told from the old Lady's perspective and maybe there was no ship and she's just crazy.
At some point, you have to look at the evidence that the movie presents, particularly Dufresne's defense and the murder of someone who corroborates Dufresne's defense, by a corrupt prison warden, and just accept "Andy probably didn't kill his wife."
It doesn't matter, both work and neither is in conflict with the other.
Oh shit I'm on board now.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Do people really have such a surface-level understanding of film that they don't understand that Andy didn't commit the murder by his hand, but still saw himself as guilty?
Walter White
Member
I never really thought of it before, but now that I see this thread, its got me thinking about it.
Everyone in the prison is "innocent". "Lawyers fucked me." So who is to say some of those other inmates don't have some innocence story like Andy. If everyone is innocent, surely they have concocted a story as to why they couldn't have done it. Andy is no different. Andy telling Red he didn't do it is just him sticking to the inmate theme of everyone being innocent. If you didn't do it you need to at least have some story as to why.
Everyone in the prison is "innocent". "Lawyers fucked me." So who is to say some of those other inmates don't have some innocence story like Andy. If everyone is innocent, surely they have concocted a story as to why they couldn't have done it. Andy is no different. Andy telling Red he didn't do it is just him sticking to the inmate theme of everyone being innocent. If you didn't do it you need to at least have some story as to why.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Is deliberately misunderstanding a joke or movie or whatever a thing now
I saw people offering alternate theories about what Ralph's "That's where I'm a viking" joke meant and they were all stupid but all these people were going "I NEVER THOUGHT OF IT THAT WAY" and just smelling their own farts.
I saw people offering alternate theories about what Ralph's "That's where I'm a viking" joke meant and they were all stupid but all these people were going "I NEVER THOUGHT OF IT THAT WAY" and just smelling their own farts.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
and I'm going to read your post in Morgan Freeman's voice.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Do you even need more than a surface-level understanding for that? He literally says exactly this.
I didn't say discussing a movie is entitled. I said deciding your made up theory is true when it not only refutes the story but also goes against what King himself has said regarding the story is entitled.
That's a textbook definition of the term, someone who feels so self important that they feel that have more authority over the definition of a creative work than the creator.
I am all for fan theory's, discussions and talking about plot threads, I regularly post in both GOT no book thread and have been in both Stranger Things thread. However I never state I think something happened that goes against what is shown on screen as fact or what the creator has directly said.
Count of Monte Crisco... by Alexandre Dumbass... Dumbass!
orthodoxy1095
Banned
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I just don't get what the point of the theory is anyways.
If Andy is guilty, what was King trying to tell the reader?
I never felt it was ambiguous, to me the movie makes it pretty clear that he's innocent. Only the very beginning makes you wonder whether he did it or not, but then the trial makes it known that he's not guilty. He'd have to be the stupidest criminal in the world to hide the gun but leave the bullets with his fingerprints lying there. It's far easier to assume he didn't know they were going to be murdered that night, which is why he didn't make the bullets disappear. As the judge said, it was all a pretty bad coincidence.
Besides, you have a different character admitting to being the murdered (only shown in a flashback scene), and another one telling that story to Andy before learning the details of the latter's own story. And then Andy admits that he killed his wife, not in a literal sense, but in an emotional one, as it was his behavior towards her that made her seek an affair with another man, which resulted in their death. That's a very strange confession to make if he's guilty.
This theory falls apart as soon as you remember that guy in Tommy's story claiming he was the criminal. When you have someone claiming inocence and another saying he's guilty of the same crime, why would you assume both are lying? I mean, they could be, sure, but as far as I'm concerned the logical thing to do is to take them at face value, especially when both claims (and their reasons) fit together perfectly.
And you're still ignoring Andy's confession about his "emotional murder" of his wife. Why would he say that if he did actually pull the trigger? Why say anything at all in that case?
Indeed. One character says "I didn't do it", another said "I did it", another told the first one "Someone told me he did it" and was willing to testify, and a warden killed the latter because of his knowledge. Even if the first two guys were lying (not like the second one had any real reason to, other than maybe wanting to brag), the third one clearly wasn't, and the warden took him seriously; so much, in fact, that he killed him in order to silence him. Andy's innocence couldn't be more obvious if the movie showed it across the screen in a huge red Comic Sans font.
The Hamburglar
Banned
when andy and red finally meet up on the outside, do they become lovers?
John Dunbar
correct about everything
it doesn't matter what king wanted to say because king did not direct the movie nor write the screenplay.
considering his opinion on the shining, king is the worst person to use in a futile attempt to argue that the source material is relevant when assessing an adaptation.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
If we're going to be pedantic shits about this, then what the bloody hell was Darabont's point?
I always hated how the film dedicated time to the possibility/subplot that Andy could have possibly been innocent. The story has redemption in the title, I always felt it would be more powerful to tell a story about a man who actually was fatally flawed but found salvation. That seems like something that would be easier to relate to than the cliche "you arrested the wrong guy!" thing.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
doesn't really matter, the author is dead.
but andy is a calculating sociopath who shows that we will accept anything if it means that we don't have to think ill of people we like.
or perhaps that even a murderer can find redemption.
DeathoftheEndless
Crashing this plane... with no survivors!
Well, Kubrick took a story very personal to King and made it into something completely different, so I don't blame him for that.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
I have a better question:
If this theory is true, what is the point?
If this theory is true, what is the point?
John Dunbar
correct about everything
i don't blame him either. it's just that his opinion is not worth any more than anyone else's who saw the movie.
if andy was innocent, what was the redemption? that nonsense about "oh i was a bad husband, i deserved to have my wife cheat on me and then get blamed for her murder" was weak as hell.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked