In the previous blog post, I expressed how I was totally impressed by the image of hope that the book rendered – hope is the most ‘responsible’ action that a person can take. But I was already ready for a failing, mind-breaking quality a movie would depict right before I started watching the movie,. How many times have I found myself grinding my teeth and telling myself “The book was great, but the movie sucked” after watching a movie? Although movie is supposed to be more powerfully influential to us for its fantastic visual aid, there aren’t many gorgeous plots out there that have surpassed in excellence by their film versions.
The movie “Shawshank Redemption” was different. It was what people label as an ‘exception’. When painted across a canvas of celluloid, the story as played out in the movie was even more powerful.
The most important success that the movie did was its choice of its protagonist. Andy Dufryene, as I explained previously, was a stone-like person characterized by immeasurable persistence that nobody can possess. An actor who plays his role had to carry a warm but somewhat minutely ominous smile, a distant and cold but mature speaking tone, and an unveiled but consistent passion. Timothy Robbins played this character swiftly. I was most impressed by the way he firmly promised to Red to meet each other when they get out with sullen but determined eyes right before his prison escape.
Furthermore, both the casual and important dialogues in the movie were very powerful. Of course most of the dialogues in the movie are included as the fundamental scripts in the novella. But the movie succeeded in delivering the powerful but somewhat easily ignorable messages from the dialogues in the novella. For example, the impact of the conversation between Norton and Andy, one of the most important turning points in the movie, was effectively amplified by the movie through somewhat obscene but powerful comments of Norton. Other than that scene, Andy’s conversations with Red and Brooks were all very strong, leaving the inerasable impressions in the spectators.
Furthermore, both the casual and important dialogues in the movie were very powerful. Of course most of the dialogues in the movie are included as the fundamental scripts in the novella. But the movie succeeded in delivering the powerful but somewhat easily ignorable messages from the dialogues in the novella. For example, the impact of the conversation between Norton and Andy, one of the most important turning points in the movie, was effectively amplified by the movie through somewhat obscene but powerful comments of Norton. Other than that scene, Andy’s conversations with Red and Brooks were all very strong, leaving the inerasable impressions in the spectators.
The backgrounds casted in the movie are also very wonderful. The movie possesses some of the most impressive sets and scenery I’ve seen for a prison movie. (Including drama Prison Break) The lighting has just the right shadows and shafts of lights and darkness, the cell blocks are grungy, grimy and oppressive to the right degree, and the people have taken on a cast like walls and rocky fields that contain them. Vivid images of the backgrounds allow spectators to focus on the movie without any lousy humdrums or setting changes.
But most of all, the lessons of the prison ambience in the mid 1950’s in the movie still applies true for today’s wards – how is it that a prison is supposed to reform what is considered a dangerous criminal? What does it mean to be reformed, not institutionalized? Is it enough just to put certain people alone and just wait for them to grind each other up to the point when they lose all hope and spirit? Is it the hope and spirit in these people that’s considered dangerous? The book deals with a word “institutionalized” only mildly by the narrator. However, the movie emphasizes it as much as possible through the characters Red and Brooks. In the book, the part where Brooks gets out of the prison and commits suicide is minutely depicted. But the movie amplifies the effect in showing the way how Brooks is seriously institutionalized to the prison by narrating the letter that Brooks writes to Andy and Red. The suicide scene is also described in a controlled but mind-shaking way. I was also impressed by the scene when Red confides to the consulting janitors how he doesn’t care a shit about the way prison is hold, and how he became just an old, useless black man after years of institutionalization, not a decent, reformed citizen of the society. It was indeed, the most impressive scene that showed the impact of institutionalization of the prison, a drawback of the prison society and education still rampant in current system.
“…Andy crawled to freedome through 500 yards of shit-smelling fowl I can't even imagine. Or maybe I just don't want to. 500 yards. That's the length of five football fields. Just almost half a mile.”
I still can’t forget the last scene when Andy finally succeeds in escape. Both novella and movie would be one of the most favorite stories of my entire life, absolutely.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기