-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Shawshank Redemption Theory: Andy Dufrense was actually guilty and did kill his wife
- Thread starter Arnie7
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
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.
But it was still a narrative that made sense. What's the narrative if the unreliable narrator is lying about literally everything?
"Even though this isn't clear, all of that was fake! We totally got you guys!"
I mean come on.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
But it was still a narrative that made sense. What's the narrative if the unreliable narrator is lying about literally everything?
"Even though this isn't clear, all of that was fake! We totally got you guys!"
I mean come on.
he's not lying. he genuinely believes andy.
peaceiscloser
Member
But it was still a narrative that made sense. What's the narrative if the unreliable narrator is lying about literally everything?
"Even though this isn't clear, all of that was fake! We totally got you guys!"
I mean come on.
Also the guy had 20 years to think of his incarceration. I would probably begin blaming myself at least in part for why I was there by that time.
No, you said the guy copped to the story when asked, but Tommy specifically says the guy is offering stories that no one wants to hear, that he wouldn't shut up. The whole movie is about coincidence and circumstances, and it's not until Tommy knows Andy and all the particulars that he even mention it might be the guy. All Andy wants is a new look at his trial, he's not expecting a slam dunk.and? that's why he never told the story until he met andy.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
he's not lying. he genuinely believes andy.
So what's the narrative to be gleaned there? That Red doesn't know the whole story?
That's the point of the movie now?
Even as far as fan theories go, It's a very poor one.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Who is dead? Regardless of who we're talking about, Darabont and King are alive.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.
If you're asserting, against all sense of normal thought, that this theory is true, then there has to be some semblance of logic to what the point of the movie is and when exactly it tells us that.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
of course he killed his wife. he's one of cinema's great psychopaths along with ferris bueller and richard "I didn't kill my wife" kimble.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
No, you said the guy copped to the story when asked, but Tommy specifically says the guy is offering stories that no one wants to hear, that he wouldn't shut up. The whole movie is about coincidence and circumstances, and it's not until Tommy knows Andy and all the particulars that he even mention it might be the guy. All Andy wants is a new look at his trial, he's not expecting a slam dunk.
i actually address that same point later in the thread: it is a man bragging about crimes he never committed. you never heard one of those?
What surprises me most about all of this is how many people get so angry here on Gaf over someone posting this theory. Geez, lighten up people. One could argue that the true meaning of any fictional work is whatever the observer sees in it, not what the artist intended. That's a far more interesting world view to me.
In the end, it's just someone who posts something online about seeing a certain movie a bit different. Who cares if it goes against whatever the Stephen King canon wiki says? Do you people seriously never talk about movies like this with your friends?
Most of all, don't get so angry and defensive over this silly stuff. Entertaining the possibility with things like this can be fun.
In the end, it's just someone who posts something online about seeing a certain movie a bit different. Who cares if it goes against whatever the Stephen King canon wiki says? Do you people seriously never talk about movies like this with your friends?
Most of all, don't get so angry and defensive over this silly stuff. Entertaining the possibility with things like this can be fun.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
of course he killed his wife. he's one of cinema's great psychopaths along with ferris bueller and richard "I didn't kill my wife" kimble.
Come on man, we all know Tommy Lee Jones' character is the one armed man all along, he's simply wearing advanced facial prosthetics and a cybernetic arm.
/S
Ninja Scooter
Member
Tom Hanks never actually had AIDS.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
Tom Hanks never actually had AIDS.
Now that's a movie!
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Tom Hanks never actually had AIDS.
He still got off that island, though.
What surprises me most about all of this is how many people get so angry here on Gaf over someone posting this theory. Geez, lighten up people. One could argue that the true meaning of any fictional work is whatever the observer sees in it, not what the artist intended. That's a far more interesting world view to me.
In the end, it's just someone who posts something online about seeing a certain movie a bit different. Who cares if it goes against whatever the Stephen King canon wiki says? Do you people seriously never talk about movies like this with your friends?
Most of all, don't get so angry and defensive over this silly stuff. Entertaining the possibility with things like this can be fun.
Ever heard the expression to "not suffer fools gladly"
But the point is he's bragging about shit he got off for. Most folks lie to look tough, this dude is laughing because he's a monster and no one knows it. He's only in jail for burglary. Tommy calls him out as a joke to see if he's fucking around, but the scene is played as truth.i actually address that same point later in the thread: it is a man bragging about crimes he never committed. you never heard one of those?
John Dunbar
correct about everything
But the point is he's bragging about shit he got off for. Most folks lie to look tough, this dude is laughing because he's a monster and no one knows it. He's only in jail for burglary. Tommy calls him out as a joke to see if he's fucking around, but the scene is played as truth.
the scene is a story told by tommy. why would it not be "played as truth"? and why is it so different to be bragging about something you got off for vs. taking credit (or blame) for something you didn't do to impress someone?
I don't think anyone's mad. I know in my first post I said entitled and said I get frustrated but that's more about the fact that entertainment culture is starting to condition people to look for things that are not there in everything, sometimes a cigar is a cigar and all that.What surprises me most about all of this is how many people get so angry here on Gaf over someone posting this theory. Geez, lighten up people. One could argue that the true meaning of any fictional work is whatever the observer sees in it, not what the artist intended. That's a far more interesting world view to me.
In the end, it's just someone who posts something online about seeing a certain movie a bit different. Who cares if it goes against whatever the Stephen King canon wiki says? Do you people seriously never talk about movies like this with your friends?
Most of all, don't get so angry and defensive over this silly stuff. Entertaining the possibility with things like this can be fun.
But as for the greater thread I'm not really seeing anger, and as much as I disagree and debate the points made by John Dunbar he has a right to them and is very civilly debating an unpopular opinon against people (mostly) debating civilly they think he's wrong.
I think it's working as intended and much more interesting to my areas of interest than the umpteenth Donald Trump thread.
NealMcCauley
Member
Tom Hanks never actually had AIDS.
But then what did Jenny die from?
No cutaway to Tommy disbelieving, no questioning him as he tells it, the actors demeanor during and after where he doesn't appear to be selling a lie. You saying he's lying isn't supported by anything in the film but your inclination that criminals lie. Ever heard the old phrase, "there is honor among thieves?"the scene is a story told by tommy. why would it not be "played as truth"? and why is it so different to be bragging about something you got off for vs. taking credit (or blame) for something you didn't do to impress someone?
omnislayer
Member
He's invoking "Death of the author". It means after a story is released the author's opinion or insight bears no more weight than any other reader. They are essentially separated from the work.Who is dead? Regardless of who we're talking about, Darabont and King are alive.
If you're asserting, against all sense of normal thought, that this theory is true, then there has to be some semblance of logic to what the point of the movie is and when exactly it tells us that.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Oh my God, that's what he was referring to?He's invoking "Death of the author". It means after a story is released the author's opinion or insight bears no more weight than any other reader. They are essentially separated from the work.
Let me excuse myself from this argument. I can't take anyone seriously who cites Barthes unironically.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
No cutaway to Tommy disbelieving, no questioning him as he tells it, the actors demeanor during and after where he doesn't appear to be selling a lie. You saying he's lying isn't supported by anything in the film but your inclination that criminals lie. Ever heard the old phrase, "there is honor among thieves?"
the honor that makes him let someone else take the fall for his crime?
again, the scene is a story told by tommy, who believes it. if elmo truly worked at the club, there is every reason to think he is familiar with the details of the case, either through news coverage or rumours, and could spin a very convincing yarn to impress a scared kid. and if tommy believed him, of course elmo is going to seem like he means every word he says in a story told by tommy. none of that chance that all the evidence the film provides point to andy being the killer, and we never actually see the murders.
Oh my God, that's what he was referring to?
Let me excuse myself from this argument. I can't take anyone seriously who cites Barthes unironically.
pretending like you knew what it was while being condescending, nicely done.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Everyone is Lying: A Movie Theory Textbook by people who are annoying to discuss movies with.
This is going beyond the film and picking and choosing. So he's not lying about working there to get a mark, but he is about killing? Apparently the dude has already told many stories, why this one have to end so specifically. And death of the author is about themes you can actually point to in film, you're creating a whole new character based of your bias.the honor that makes him let someone else take the fall for his crime?
again, the scene is a story told by tommy, who believes it. if elmo truly worked at the club, there is every reason to think he is familiar with the details of the case, either through news coverage or rumours, and could spin a very convincing yarn to impress a scared kid. and if tommy believed him, of course elmo is going to seem like he means every word he says in a story told by tommy. none of that chance that all the evidence the film provides point to andy being the killer, and we never actually see the murders.
pretending like you knew what it was while being condescending, nicely done.
This entire theory is debunked since Red states that he is the only guilty man in Shawshank.
Yeah, but that was only in reference go the fact that he was the only one willing to admit he was guilty.
I don't think the theory is true. It would be far too much of a coincidence for those two events to happen and be as simmilar ad they were. How many women were cheating on their husband on a rich man in that area only to be murdered around that time? I would guess pretty few.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
This is going beyond the film and picking and choosing. So he's not lying about working there to get a mark, but he is about killing? Apparently the dude has already told many stories, why this one have to end so specifically. And death of the author is about themes you can actually point to in film, you're creating a whole new character based of your bias.
and i would argue you're accepting andy's innocence based on your bias.
infinitys_7th
Member
Alternative fan theories are kinda fun until enough fans start believing and it becomes impossible to escape in discussion about the topic. See Squall is Dead, Marche is the Real Villain, and Ferris Bueller isn't Real.
They are best saved for like a Cracked article and that's about it.
Marche being being the villain is not really similar to the others, though.
Squall is Dead and this Shawshank Redemption theory are based on (seemingly) unintentional lines of inference.
Marche being the villain is more a matter of philosophy - if you sympathize with FFTA antagonists (who are presented very sympathetically imo) then he could be a villain protagonist from your perspective depending on how far your sympathy goes.
That said, this theory goes against the theme of the movie, so it seems fumb.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I guess I forgot people were stupid enough to cite Barthes in fan theory arguments when it makes for an entirely unconvincing, if not laughable, argument.pretending like you knew what it was while being condescending, nicely done.
If you buy into that concept of literary criticism in such an overly and absurdly broad manner, then I guess fanfiction level of shit theories from Reddit suddenly seem acceptable.
Excuse me while I go prepare my super serious article about Jack Dawson being a time traveler.
Who would be obtuse enough to believe this?
I say obtuse far too much because of this movie
And I'd crawl through a river of shit before I stop!
John Dunbar
correct about everything
I guess I forgot people were stupid enough to cite Barthes in fan theory arguments when it makes for an entirely unconvincing, if not laughable, argument.
If you buy into that concept of literary criticism in such an overly and absurdly broad manner, then I guess fanfiction level of shit theories from Reddit suddenly seem acceptable.
Excuse me while I go prepare my super serious article about Jack Dawson being a time traveler.
you seem to be taking this awfully personally. just talking about a movie here.
ps. knew i could lure you back. <3
I have only the film and it's themes to go off, so yes. I bet you don't think there's a point to why Red is able to get out once he tells the truth to the probation board and how this correlates to Andy getting out.and i would argue you're accepting andy's innocence based on your bias.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
I am very surprised that not a single person has yet posted that the thread title spoiled them on this movie.
lol
lol
John Dunbar
correct about everything
I have only the film and it's themes to go off, so yes. I bet you don't think there's a point to why Red is able to get out once he tells the truth to the probation board and how this correlates to Andy getting out.
then can you explain what exactly was the redemption for andy? "i was a bad husband"? not even an abusive one, if memory serves. i guess him admitting to beating his wife wouldn't really jive with the whole innocence bit.
From a religious perspective, Andy endured a hellish gauntlet, and then God literally cleansed him (of both shit and sin).
It seems pretty commonly accepted that God can cleanse the sin of murder, but while Andy was actively lying about it and proclaiming his innocence? Doesn't seem likely.
It seems much more likely that this is about Andy's other sin. Andy stopped hiding behind his wrongful accusation of murder and stopped falsely describing himself as "innocent". He accepted and felt remorse for his real sin, which was that he was a bad husband. He took his punishment (quite a harsh one) and God declared all of Andy's debts cleared (even if the law doesn't).
Red never hid behind any lies, and he was released after he expressed remorse to the parole board and accepted their punishment.
It seems pretty commonly accepted that God can cleanse the sin of murder, but while Andy was actively lying about it and proclaiming his innocence? Doesn't seem likely.
It seems much more likely that this is about Andy's other sin. Andy stopped hiding behind his wrongful accusation of murder and stopped falsely describing himself as "innocent". He accepted and felt remorse for his real sin, which was that he was a bad husband. He took his punishment (quite a harsh one) and God declared all of Andy's debts cleared (even if the law doesn't).
Red never hid behind any lies, and he was released after he expressed remorse to the parole board and accepted their punishment.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
He was hesitant to change and spontaneity. He describes fondly a memory of making love to his wife in a field, but you have to infer from his general gawkish demeanour that these moments were few and far in between.then can you explain what exactly was the redemption for andy? "i was a bad husband"? not even an abusive one, if memory serves. i guess him admitting to beating his wife wouldn't really jive with the whole innocence bit.
It can be deeper than him admitting to beating the shit out of his wife. Human relationships tend to be a bit more complex than that.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
From a religious perspective, Andy endured a hellish gauntlet, and then God literally cleansed him (of both shit and sin).
It seems pretty commonly accepted that God can cleanse the sin of murder, but while Andy was actively lying about it and proclaiming his innocence? Doesn't seem likely.
It seems much more likely that this is about Andy's other sin. Andy stopped hiding behind his wrongful accusation of murder and stopped falsely describing himself as "innocent". He accepted and felt remorse for his real sin, which was that he was a bad husband. He took his punishment (quite a harsh one) and God declared all of Andy's debts cleared (even if the law doesn't).
Red never hid behind any lies, and he was released after he expressed remorse to the parole board and accepted their punishment.
so basically you have to be religious for the movie to have a coherent message. not very compelling for a filthy heathen like myself.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
so basically you have to be religious for the movie to have coherent message. not very compelling for a filthy heathen like myself.
What? Not at all. I'm an atheist and it makes perfect sense to me.
You want to believe this alternate theory, and that's ok. You just need to admit it to yourself.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
What? Not at all. I'm an atheist and it makes perfect sense to me.
You want to believe this alternate theory, and that's ok. You just need to admit it to yourself.
dude, i don't even like the movie very much. i don't want anything in particular as far as it is concerned.
Felix Lighter
Member
It doesn't take a religious person to understand that lying about your crime is no way to redeem yourself.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
It doesn't take a religious person to understand that lying about your crime is no way to redeem yourself.
actions speak louder than words.
Felix Lighter
Member
actions speak louder than words.
Well he would then be actively trying to frame another man for murders he committed.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Amazing.
And regarding this from the OP
Wow such compelling arguments.
Talk about reaching, good lord.
You're telling me that Andy murdered his wife but claimed she was murdered for sleeping with a golf pro and that later, someone admits to killing a dame who was sleeping with a golf pro.
Andy must have been stoked with that coincidence!
Really and truly though, isn't it a coincidence that someone murdered her when he was thinking about murdering her?
John Dunbar
correct about everything
Well he would then be actively trying to frame another man for murders he committed.
wouldn't expect anything less from a cold-hearted killer.
Grimm Fandango
Member
Sorry but this is a real pathetic theory. The movie offers no evidence to believe Andy did it. No small mentions or tidbits, easter eggs, nothing. Even those stupid Pokémon theories are more grounded than this.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
wouldn't expect anything less from a cold-hearted killer.
Killers in real life are not usually very intelligent though. That's a myth of the media.
Dude, it's ok to admit that you want to believe this. It's fine. It adds some spice to a movie that gets played 400 times a year. I get it.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
Killers in real life are not usually very intelligent though. That's a myth of the media.
andy is a fictional character.
when andy and red finally meet up on the outside, do they become lovers?
Yes and then Andy becomes neglectful and Red hooks up with a golf pro and...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.