The Shawshank Redemption: Film vs. Novella Compared

Introduction

The 1994 film The Shawshank Redemption takes its inspiration from the Stephen King novella "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption," the first of four stories collected in his 1982 book Different Seasons. While the film retains much of the novella's plot and structure, it nonetheless diverges in key areas, such as by adding, cutting, or conflating characters and scenes. The film makes these alterations for a number of reasons, and by examining the differences and similarities between the film and the novella one can understand how casting decisions, time limitations, and an attention to visual drama unique to the film medium informed the major differences between the novella and its subsequent film adaptation.

Critical Reception of the Novella

Before examining the film and novella in greater detail, it is useful to first address the critical reception of the novella, both as a means of contextualizing this analysis and of determining the major details which informed the reception of either text — and, in turn, whether that initial reception shaped the changes later seen in the film. The collection of novellas was reviewed twice by The New York Times, once in the regular paper and once in the supplemental book section. Both reviews consider King's writing to be substandard, or at least unpolished, but they nonetheless give "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" high marks. In his August 11, 1982, review, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt calls the novella "a clever and triumphant account of a prison escape," noting that "the first and third stories [of the collection] — that is, the prison escape and the memoir — depend on conventions of horror, yet also transcend them by a considerable margin" (Lehmann-Haupt 1982). (The other story mentioned by Lehmann-Haupt is "The Body," which was eventually adapted into the film Stand By Me.)

The later review by Alan Cheuse notes this same disruption of horror tropes and style, remarking that "the first surprise comes early: the opening prison narrative titled 'Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption' shows us that the creator of such studies of the criminal mind as 'The Shining' and 'The Dead Zone' can effectively treat innocence as well as guilt" (Cheuse 10). However, Cheuse is not quite as admiring of the story as Lehmann-Haupt, claiming that "the natural narrative force that previously has helped Mr. King overcome his often clumsy prose and sophomoric philosophizing churns through these pages stronger than ever before" so that "it's difficult to imagine any reader feeling a sense of awe at the way Mr. King bullies his way through this tough-guy novella about Dufresne's struggle to establish his innocence and free himself by any means possible," even if the story "does give off a certain warmth" (Cheuse 10). These criticisms are important to note, because some of the most dramatic changes visible in the film serve to lessen some of this "bullying" by altering the character of the narrator and replacing some of the "sophomoric" philosophizing with more emotionally resonant plot developments.

Recasting the Narrator: Red and Morgan Freeman

Having noted the criticisms leveled at "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption," one may now examine the changes present in the film in order to see how these alterations may be related to those criticisms. The most obvious difference between the novella and the film is the narrator, Red. In the book, he is a white man with what was once "a big mop of carroty red hair" from which his nickname derives (King 54). In the film, however, Red is played by Morgan Freeman, who explains his nickname somewhat cryptically by saying, "It must be because I'm Irish." The change may have less to do with race than with Freeman's particular abilities as an actor, because the casting choice seems to have helped erase some of the "tough-guy," bullying quality of the original novella's narration. As The New York Times noted in its 1994 review of the film, "Mr. Freeman is so quietly impressive here that there's reason to wish Red's role had more range" — a role that Variety claims allows Freeman "a grace and dignity that come naturally," characteristics unlikely to be found in the novella's version of Red, even if he maintains the same role of confidant and friend (Maslin 1994; Klady 1994). There are additional changes resulting from this casting decision, such as the nature of Red's original crime, but these are mostly incidental and do not bear greatly on the story, except to portray Red in a slightly more innocent — or at least less guilty — light.

There are a number of characters conflated in the film: the three wardens in the novella are reduced to one, and the guard Hadley remains head guard throughout the film instead of appearing as one of many different guards. Furthermore, the character of Brooks is conflated with another convict so that he retains that older convict's bird companion. These changes are not especially noteworthy on their own, as they can easily be understood as the result of time constraints imposed by a major studio production. Quite simply, including the entire variety of characters from the novella would have made the film unnecessarily long — and even with these cuts and conflations the film was considered "a long, serious haul (albeit leavened by humor and the unexpected) that will put a crimp in the pic's mainstream acceptance" (Klady 1994).

Conclusion

Although both tell generally the same story of an innocent man wrongly imprisoned, the differences between the novella "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" and the film The Shawshank Redemption reveal how the critical reception of the earlier text informed the adaptation alongside the unique temporal and visual considerations of the film medium. By casting Morgan Freeman in the role of the narrator, the film softens some of King's simplified, brutish narration. The cutting or conflation of multiple characters streamlines the plot so that the film can tell most of the story without dwelling on incidental details. Finally, changing the fates of Tommy Williams and Warden Norton heightens the drama and emotional impact of the film's conclusion, simultaneously giving the story a more visible villain while providing Andy with an explicit motivation to escape precisely when he does. Examining the reviews of the novella in conjunction with reviews of the film at the time of its release demonstrates how these changes were likely at least partially the result of the novella's critical reception, coupled with the need to keep the film a manageable length.