I always assumed that he had to just maddeningly wait for a heavy thunderstorm. He may have been waiting on that to put the rest of his plan in motion. When the weather got bad, he decided to act.
We never find out if the warden having Andy polish his shoes is a normal occurrence. If it is, then Andy just has to bide his time until all the other factors lined up.
I always thought he had to have a confederate to make that poster thing work. He lifts the poster, enters the hole, crawls out. Then when the warden throws the rock at it, the paper is taut. But he wouldn’t be able to reattach the bottom once he starts into the tunnel.
As far as the timing etc. go, I figured that the warden might also hesitate out of self-interest. If Dufresne is captured by other police, he wouldn’t have control of the narrative and he might talk etc. A lot of people in the warden’s place would hesitate to admit it because it makes them look incompetent, even if they weren’t already thoroughly corrupt.
He could have taped small rocks to the bottom corners.
I’m just enjoying how people who will accept the idea of ‘beaming’ a person atom by atom from a spaceship to a planet or a submarine that plays dodgems with a torpedos in deep ocean trenches because the captain has super-secret knowledge about the tolerances on their high precision seafloor surveys are nitpicking this film over shoe fitment and the tautness of a poster.
Stranger
It’s easier to willingly suspend disbelief on something set in an indeterminate future or a top-secret present than a familiar past.
When he sticks his whole arm in, if it weren’t fastened at the bottom…
Meh, I don’t know.
Andy attached the poster at the bottom corners of the hole. He folded the poster over a couple times at the bottom to make it stiffer so it wouldn’t flap around in a breeze.
It would have been a neat coincidence if it had been a poster of Susan Sarandon.
I love rewatching the Shawshank Redemption.
The only false note is Andy’s reaction to the prisoner’s story that might have eventually reversed his sentence.
Andy knew too much about the Warden’s corruption. He should have understood the extreme danger of telling the warden about new evidence.
Andy was in too deep. I don’t believe a team of lawyers could have gotten his sentence vacated.
It was great addition to the drama. 1.Andy got more horrific treatment that justified his escape. 2.The warden’s true violent nature is revealed.
Yeah, and it got the kid killed. You’d think that someone as meticulous and forward-thinking as Andy would have had the kid lay low with the info since he only had a few months before release. Then the kid could have taken messages from Andy to authorities outside the Wardens control. In theory, Andy could have blackmailed the Warden into investigating Elmo Blatch.
For all of the worldliness that Andy acquired in prison, he still believed in the essential worthiness of people; hence, why he opened the library and helped convicts get their GEDs. It is an implicit facet of his character and is why the story turns on the execution of Tommy. Andy had clearly been planning his escape for many years but only left after Tommy was murdered, thematically because the walls of the prison have become to constraining even for his spirit. Whether it makes rational sense, it is consistent with Andy’s character (who is prone to occasionally irrational things like playing The Marriage of Figaro over the prison PA system) and with the story beats.
Stranger
That’s probably the plot point I disliked the most because it stretched credulity a bit too far.
It worked better in the novella where the warden and guards couldn’t really just straight up shoot inmates with impunity. Instead, they cut a deal where Tommy got to finish his sentence in a minimum security prison plus some other perks (I think they allowed some private visitations with his wife and kid?). In exchange, he kept his trap shut. And so it goes.
Tommy taking a deal to keep quiet would have worked really well. Andy would have felt betrayed by his friend and still escaped.
And hunted him down and done an actual
You beat me to the punch with this comment. IMO, this was the most glaring deviation in the movie from the book. This storyline in the book was better than the movie.
It may be more realistic in the novella, but in the film it serves as the final dramatic turn (although it is a bit of a fake out because the viewer is meant to believe that Andy might have committed suicide, which is clearly what Red is thinking) that is crucial to the big reveal. Just as the novella had many wardens but the film needs one central antagonist, the movie also needs an emotional beat at this point to ramp up and then release tension. This is why movie adaptations of written works usually deviate from the source material (combining characters into a composite, amplifying dramatic points and cutting out side plots, et cetera) because films have to compress their story beats into one two-ish hour period whereas a novel or novella will typically be read over several sessions of a few hours each. This is also why the closest movie adaptations are from short stories although even here the ‘beats’ of the story and demands of character development in screenwriting are different from that of the written word.
Stranger
This would be consistent with his hope that the warden - when presented with proof of Andy’s innocence - would help to exonerate him.
In Andy’s eyes, the warden views him as a murderer, and is showing some degree of kindness in allowing Andy his perks. If the warden knew that Andy wasn’t actually somebody who’d killed his wife, his kindness might go so far as to grant him freedom!
Of course, that wasn’t the warden’s attitude - Andy was a pawn, and a useful one, and the warden didn’t care how he’d obtained his services. The warden had no decency, and when Andy realized that it gave him the motivation to risk his escape.
If Andy had been that forward thinking, he’d have been forward thinking enough to not go to the warden with the information and so would have avoided being thrown into the hole by a known bad actor (by which I mean the man was corrupt and Andy knew it, not that the performance was bad). But he wasn’t, so he ended up in the hole, which meant he wasn’t forward thinking enough to think the warden would even do that, let alone forward thinking enough to think the warden would kill over it.
Maybe at heart, Andy was truly an “innocent” man. To a fault. He couldn’t anticipate that level of corruption and malice. Even amongst murderers, he couldn’t.
Well, until his sentence was up and the warden could do nothing more for him. So maybe the murder plot makes more sense after all…
“I read a book once.” No, that was from Cheers.
Anyone who spends 17 years digging a tunnel (and spends some of that time arranging to have funds waiting for him) counts as forward-thinking to me. I agree that it was Andy being naïve about the warden and his reaction to the possibility of losing his captive source of income.