The Shawshank Redemption Narrative Analysis


The narrative of The Shawshank Redemption

- The structure, effects, and theories


Adapted from Stephen King's novel 'Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption', the film is composed in the classical Hollywood 3 act structure, which organises the story into the exposition, the development, and the resolution. However, the narrative is slightly non-linear primarily at the start to allude to the protagonist's (Andy Dufresne) potential involvement in the murder of his wife; this is formulated in a series of flashbacks containing Andy in a courtroom for his prison sentencing which shifts back and forth to a close up of him in a car, drunkenly holding a gun which tells the audience he has evidence against him on his trial, thus making it expected for his arrival into the prison - this is where the story remains linear for the rest of the film (conventional as it is chronological) until the climactic build-up of act 2. These flashbacks act to illustrate what is being talked about in the present, and in the case shown, suggests that the spectator has power within the courtroom in the form of a jury as we can see the accused events happening as they are discussed, foreshadowing that the protagonist will be sentenced. This is a part of the narrative that is unconventional as the flashbacks take place in a previous timeframe to what is shown through the dialogue - the only other flashback is in act 2 where a peripheral character, Tommy, acts as a mentor (Vogler Archetype) or donor (Propp) to Andy by giving him the information that proves his innocence for his wife's murder which provokes Andy into 'repairing his equilibrium disruption' (Todorov narrative theory) by confiding this information to the antagonist, Warden Norton. This is somewhat unconventional as typically mentors are older and wiser than the hero they help, but Tommy is a much younger and naiver convict than Andy and he acts as his primary Attractor character, largely because Tommy is a projection of what Andy was like when he entered, so there is an emotional fondness from Andy to Tommy. 

Todorov's 5 stage narrative is also present in this film, yet they are not explicitly shown in chronological order. For example, the first stage is equilibrium, yet the audience is thrust into the disruption of this equilibrium as the film starts, so there is no real understanding of how the protagonist has ended up in the courtroom setting. It is only until we see the (arguably) dual protagonist 'Red' talk about Andy's career as the story shifts into the soon familiar prison setting that we understand Andy's equilibrium being a good-paying, stable job as a banker while married to his wife. I view Red and Andy as dual protagonists as each character can be viewed with their own story. For example, Red is the one telling the story which automatically positions the spectator to side with him as well as through his admirable, friendly interactions with his fellow inmates which places him as a hero; his attractor is Andy, and his antagonist is institutionalisation as a result of being dependant on his prison lifestyle. The spectator is also positioned to like Red through his use of second person in his narration; this makes us feel as though we are involved with the story and are discovering Andy's character along with him. As a result of this, the spectator is placed to like Andy because Red tells us to. This is because Red is a force of trust and stability for the audience to rely on. Joseph Campbell's 'The heroes Journey' can also be applied to 'The Shawshank Redemption'. In this case, Andy is the Hero whose 'call to adventure' is the result of his conflict: the murder of his wife, and his hesitation to this call being his denial of guilt within his trial. Red acts as Andy's mentor as he introduces the hero, Andy, to the new prison world and guides him through by aiding him with tools and knowledge as the 'guy who can get stuff'. Red can also be seen as the 'Helper' and 'Donor' to Andy in Vladimir Propp's character functions, as the person who helps Andy on his 'quest' to freedom by the end of the film by giving him the valuable pickaxe (Donor Function - some 'magical' object), of which he is unaware of, as he, as well as the spectator, realises the use of at the climax of the film. The use of this prop being given and discussed by the two men foreshadows its function at the climax, and the spectator may feel rewarded if the plot twist is guessed right, or by the simple connection to the prop they may have disregarded earlier.

The exposition of a 3-act film structure serves to introduce the characters as well as their goals and obstacles they may face during the development stage. Andy fits the stereotypical archetype as a protagonist character as the story, even though narrated and told through Red, revolves around Andy and the obstacles he faces (The 'sister's' attempt at rape, false imprisonment) are shown and resolved. Therefore, Andy is also the hero of the story. In relation to Propp, he reacts to the donor(s) by receiving the pickaxe and information of his innocence and weds the princess, which is his reward of freedom - perhaps unconventional for the protagonist as he has no love interest in the film. Yet it is interesting to view Andy as the hero when the spectator is positioned to be cautious at his introduction in the film; his close-up flashback in a car acts as a hook as he fondles a gun - an enigma code for the spectator. This is intentional from the director to create a distanced intrigue as well as the unconventional structure of the film's narrative. It is also ironic that the clear hero archetype is a convict charged with murdering his wife, as the spectator is conditioned to expect the hero to be admirable and have redeeming morals, shown through their actions. Levi Strauss' binary opposites theory can be applied to this. An obvious way of viewing this would be good versus evil; Andy versus Warden Norton who kills Tommy and hence his testimony for Andy's freedom. The unconventional aspect of this, however, is by how the film presents these oppositions; the antagonist/villain (Propp) Norton appears to represent justice through his title as well as his constant reference to the Bible, yet he is corrupt in order to maintain his status and receives pleasure from Andy's suffering. In ironic contrast, Andy, the hero/protagonist is dressed as a criminal, representing evil/danger, yet he is fundamentally good from being failed by the system. However, despite this seemingly negative presentation of Andy, we realise, once Red has positioned us to like and follow Andy in his prison experience, who the hero is. For example, when Andy wins small victories such as on the rooftop when he selflessly watches his prison 'co-workers' drink rewarded beer from Andy's trade with the antagonist guard Hadley, or when he plays the music for the whole prison at the expense of his solitary confinement for weeks, the spectator is positioned to feel a sense of triumph. When he finally escapes, that sense of triumph is escalated as his new equilibrium of living in Mexico, as a changed, free man with the reunition with Red, is established.

 The use of Red's narration means that the story is told through his point of view, and thus this narration is dramatic as the spectators never get a glimpse into Andy's thoughts, making the climax more shocking as there is no way of understanding Any's intentions with the objects he accumulates throughout the film. This is unconventional as the hero/protagonist is typically shown with a detailed description of their thinking, and this first-person narration can disadvantage the story as there is only a singular perspective that alienates the other characters. However, the film uses this to its advantage as it positions the spectator to view Andy with a sense of mystery which makes his dialogue, requests, and actions more interesting.

Overall, I believe the narrative is successful at positioning the spectator to be involved with the characters and the story. This is helped through the narrative theories such as Propp's character functions as it establishes the characters' purpose and objectives within the story. However, the villain was someone I was unsure of while spectating; there was an almost respectable quality of Norton as he grants Andy access to the start-up of a prison library and allows him to deal with the guards' financial issues through his experience as a banker. This uncertainty from the spectator is shattered in the climax of act 2 when he appears to work with Tommy in helping Andy's potential for freedom, while actually revealing to shoot him unexpectedly. This subverted my expectation and solidified him as the main antagonist, making his downfall satisfying for the spectator. His introduction presented him as authoritative and unlikeable, so this placed him in a villain category from the start, making his actual villainy satisfying for the spectator as the narrative revealed his function early on. Another aspect of the narrative I found successful was the passing of time; at first I was unaware of how long Andy would stay in prison until Red's remark of how Andy would suffer an obstacle for two years during his narration in the first act. The use of time is also effectively shown through the decade-aged movie star posters from the 1940s-60s. These act as a referential code for the spectator to indicate the passage of 20 years. The use of the happy ending is triumphal for the audience as we have been positioned to feel empathy for Andy when the film is largely composed of degradation, violence, and abuse. Todorov's conventional narrative structure used is effective at revealing to the spectator that the protagonist will overcome his obstacles by the end of the film as we have already been shown that the minor prison obstacles have been overcome by Andy, so we have faith that his prison escape will be successful. I feel as though this was therefore predictable for the spectator, and although rewarding to see the hero gaining what they deserved, I see the narrative as slightly flawed from this predictability - the foreshadowing/ tension build-up could have been more obscure as I had mentally noted that the pickaxe would be crucial to Andy's eventual escape which is hinted at through his subtle reluctance of accepting his sentencing and motif of freedom. Therefore, the plot twist of the climax wasn't as shocking, even though it was intended to be unconventional from the uncertainty of the narrative ending.


Comments

  1. I seem to have a pattern of unintentionally analysing Stephen King adaptations :0

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well if it's unintentional... I must confess, I didn't realise Shawshank was a King story originally. It is a very fine film. Your analysis is superbly comprehensive and walks with a sure step the line between applying narrative theories and critiquing (looks wrong - critiqueing??) them. You hold me spellbound from beginning to end and discover things I'd never noticed before. You've graduated to emphatically A* territory here. Well done.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment