How about Deloris Claiborne? That was a pretty good adaptation as well. The plot was changed quite a bit–in the book, Deloris’s nemesis Dr. _____ had died “offstage” well before the end of the book, and her adult daughter never put in an appearance at all.
Don’t forget Misery.
I still love watching this movie. I had no idea about the story and the escape took me by surprise.
As for the head guard, I just didn’t see him “not being bad.” Crippling Boggs wasn’t for revenge. It was a statement to the rest of the inmates that Andy was now the wardens bitch so hands off.
I’m not the sort to feel bad for the geeky fat kid who walks out on the playground each day and does the same stupid shit that gets him beaten up. There are plenty of fat kids who don’t get beaten up, because they’re not geeky, so blaming your weight is silly. And with the movie, blaming that he’s a white collar white guy who doesn’t deserve to be there isn’t an excuse either. Spending 20 years, or however long, without getting the clue that being a whiney white guy is going to get you raped and beaten up, makes you a whiney bastard. Life is about adapting, and life isn’t so nice that you can just play along as the nice guy around bad people.
In my eyes, the only thing he accomplished in the movie was to escape from having to buck up and live with the cards life dealt him.
Boy, you so did not watch the same movie as just about everyone else. Andy was the most clued in person in the entire prison! (except maybe for Red.) He manipulated the guards, the warden, the thugs–everyone. I sure don’t remember any whining.
But you haven’t shown any whineyness at all. You seem to be saying that he’s being beaten up because he’s whiney, and not working that out for 20 years made him whiney. These contradict.
When I saw it in the cinema aged 11 or 12 I just thought he was gonna kill himself. IIRC the scene before you see that the cell is empty has the screw looking up in horror as if looking at someone hanging in the cell. One thing that impressed me about it was that I enjoyed it at that age and I enjoy it still and that it wasn’t so graphic as to be unsuitable for a younger audience.
I suppose I must have read the novella before I saw the movie, but I still remember being generally surprised. But then, I’m pretty sure the gap between my first and second, and second and third viewings were big enough that each time I forgot the special significance of the poster when it first appeared. I guess the surprises were their own little delight, but the times when I viewed the film without having forgotten these things, it was still quite enjoyable and uplifting.
Interesting. It’s one of my favorite movies, but I haven’t forced my kids to watch it yet because I’ve got an idea some scenes might be too much for them. I’m thinking specifically of the scene I found hardest to watch: The beating of the “new fish”. Man, that seemed to go on forever.
What part of a man shooting himself in the head with full brain splatter on the back wall is suitable for young viewers? 
I knew of the film for ages before I saw it on video (at a colleague’s insistence) but didn’t know anything about the story other than that it was set in prison. For me the film was simply about the experience of being in prison, I didn’t think it was moving towards any one conclusion or another. I didn’t forsee the end at all, and of course had that “of course, it was all there when you think about it” moment afterwards. I was expecting suicide as I couldn’t see how he could get out of the situation, and the ending with Red meeting him on the beach was a great uplifting scene for me.
I’m really glad I saw this not knowing how it turned out in the end.
Well, I suppose it depends how young. This came out in 1993 or thereabouts? I was 11 or 12 when I saw it. I thought it was great without being overly gratuitous. However, I had seen a shedload of other far more violent movies up to that point so maybe I was desensitised!
I’m with you completely there. I rarely watch book-adapted movies because it really irks me when they don’t do the book justice. I really hate it when you watch one of these butchered stories with someone who doesn’t read, because I then feel compelled to try and explain the real story to my viewing companion. This movie stayed true to the story and was able to skillfully add components the book did not have. In my opinion they pulled it off beautifully.
Thank you, ivylass, I was going to post just to ask what that music was!
This is a case where the movie is much better than the short story. Among other differences, as memory serves in the story the warden just retires- he loses his ill gotten accounts but doesn’t have to eat a gun to stop from being a prisoner, and I think the same is true of the evil guard.
Huh. There’s a name you don’t see every day. Hey, VB.
I just watched this movie for the first time the other day having never read the novella or, really, knowing anything about it at all. I wasn’t shocked when Andy escaped (the tunnel did surprise me; I figured the Bad Guard helped him out or something) but it didn’t occur to me that he might until he had that conversation with Red. When he told Red there would be something under that tree for him when he got out I knew it had to be something that Andy hadn’t buried yet.
I think it would be a safe bet to say they didn’t know it was Italian and only vaguely knew it was an opera. All they knew was the beauty of the music and the arrogance of the act, both would have been appreciated.
Speaking from experience it is amazing how much one’s point of view and personal value system changes once incarcerated. I have seen hard young men with 2 or 3 years behind them looking at another 10 or so get more excited about the possibility of chocolate milk (or even white milk, anything but powdered) than a young man on the street would about winning the lottery. A diversion that would be distastefull and unappreciated on the outside is pure gold inside.
As to Andy being whiney, again perceptions change when you’re in there. Whiney and bitchy outside can turn into calm, cold and calculating inside. Where we spend a few hours a day with most people out here, inside it is the same faces and personalities 24/7 so where “Still waters run deep” can easily be overlooked in one setting, it becomes painfully obvious in others.
I’m not saying that this movie ranks as a documentary of life in prison, but a few details here and there like the reaction to the opera scene sold the movie to me at least if not more than “Cool Hand Luke”.
I’m aware that I’m being picky and whiney, myself, but I just can’t buy that no guard ever noticed the poster. If I see a poster attached to a wall, I can tell it is attached to a wall. It will normally be flat and supported. Attach a poster over a hole and the damn thing wil bend inward and outward slightly due to the air pushing against it. Plus in the army, any time a poster of a hot chick was put on the wall, you’d always have a few clowns touching the damn thing, simulating. . . you get the idea.
It doesn’t destroy the movie for me, but is something that bugs me slightly.
Sir Rhosis, anal over his posters
Whoa, I’m not sure I wanted to get the idea.
I can’t remember if it was brought out in the movie, but in the book Andy brings a wad of money into the prison with him. Red speculates that Andy greased the palms of the guards to keep his prison cell from being searched too carefully. (That’s also why Boggs gets beaten up in the book … Andy paid a guard and some inmates to do it.) Later, as he becomes the de facto CFO of the warden’s clandestine business, Andy uses his status as the way to keep his cell from being searched much.
In the movie Andy is not bribing the prison officials, but it’s clear that his position as CFO is buying him some privilege. After Andy sets up the jackass guard’s taxes, the warden tosses Andy’s cell in order to size him up. He notices the Rita Hayworth poster and states that normally it woudn’t be allowed, but a special exception could be made.