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