ramblin' on (and on...)
- Thread starter darkhorse
- Start date
Daniel_M,
I agree with you that there is no "deeper meaning" here, as King was pretty straightfoward and clear with the message. As for the "touching on the essence of what it is to be human", I again agree with you; for King's character does not touch on the essence of what it is to merely be human but on what it is to be an extrordinary human!
PEACE and good trading Daniel,
Publias
Publias,
Yes, Andy Dufresne (the lead character) was an extraordinary person. (Well, he showed extraordinary resolve, let's put it that way - since I don't the film really lets us peek very far inside him).
But the goal of the film is to tell an engrossing story of a brilliant escape, not to move us to tears. And for that purpose, they couldn't have picked a more appropriate actor than Tim Robbins; this guy's blank expressions are the perfect tool to direct viewers' attention to the plot and away from any reflection on Dufresne's emotional states. In short, Andy Dufresne is no Willy Loman.
Yes, Andy Dufresne (the lead character) was an extraordinary person. (Well, he showed extraordinary resolve, let's put it that way - since I don't the film really lets us peek very far inside him).
But the goal of the film is to tell an engrossing story of a brilliant escape, not to move us to tears. And for that purpose, they couldn't have picked a more appropriate actor than Tim Robbins; this guy's blank expressions are the perfect tool to direct viewers' attention to the plot and away from any reflection on Dufresne's emotional states. In short, Andy Dufresne is no Willy Loman.
Daniel,
It is funny that you somehow can know exactly what the goal of King's story was...
The book "Different Seasons" in which the movie was spawned from as a film adaption of "Rita Hayworth and The Shawshank Redemption" also contained 3 other short stories, "The Body" (Stand by me), "Apt Pupil", and "Breathing Lessons"... All of which are stories that attempt to tell a journey of the human spirit...
To focus soley on the destination of the plot (the escape) is to miss the message entirely... It would be like focusing soley on the body in 'Stand by me' and totaly missing the journey of these kids coming to age.
Of course this is just my humble opinion
PEACE and good trading,
Publias
Publias,
It is funny that you somehow can know exactly what the goal of King's story was...
Well, I don't claim to know the goal of the BOOK, I haven't read it. In case you missed it, I was talking about the FILM.
To focus soley on the destination of the plot (the escape) is to miss the message entirely... It would be like focusing soley on the body in 'Stand by me' and totaly missing the journey of these kids coming to age.
Well, first of all, in regards to Shawshank, the director leaves me with very little to focus on BUT the plot. Secondly, "Stand By Me" is totally different kettle of fish. I think I can say with some confidence that the goal of Stand By Me was to show the "coming of age" (or "an innocence lost", or whatever you wanna call it) aspect. Without it, the movie offers very little.
It is funny that you somehow can know exactly what the goal of King's story was...
Well, I don't claim to know the goal of the BOOK, I haven't read it. In case you missed it, I was talking about the FILM.
To focus soley on the destination of the plot (the escape) is to miss the message entirely... It would be like focusing soley on the body in 'Stand by me' and totaly missing the journey of these kids coming to age.
Well, first of all, in regards to Shawshank, the director leaves me with very little to focus on BUT the plot. Secondly, "Stand By Me" is totally different kettle of fish. I think I can say with some confidence that the goal of Stand By Me was to show the "coming of age" (or "an innocence lost", or whatever you wanna call it) aspect. Without it, the movie offers very little.
In the movie and the book alike, the author and the director spend about 2% of the time on the actual escape and about 98% of the time on the journey...For me the message was pretty clear...
Yeah, but the objective isn't to illicit compassion for the character, or to make you revile him, or to make you feel much of ANYTHING with respect to the character; the objective is to entertain via a compelling storyline that keeps you glued to the screen/turning pages to see if he's gonna pull it off. Would you have really cared all that much if the story ended with a bullet in Dufresne's back? It wouldv'e been a far poorer ending from a story telling point of view, but I doubt anyone would have felt sorrow for Dufresne.
In the end, we both agree it was a great film, although for different reasons (or, put differently, i think so for one less reason than you.)
Anyway, the only reason I responded in this thread was because Nitro said anyone who wasn't moved by Shawshank is "dead inside"; I wasn't and I think I'm far from dead.
Yeah, but the objective isn't to illicit compassion for the character, or to make you revile him, or to make you feel much of ANYTHING with respect to the character; the objective is to entertain via a compelling storyline that keeps you glued to the screen/turning pages to see if he's gonna pull it off. Would you have really cared all that much if the story ended with a bullet in Dufresne's back? It wouldv'e been a far poorer ending from a story telling point of view, but I doubt anyone would have felt sorrow for Dufresne.
In the end, we both agree it was a great film, although for different reasons (or, put differently, i think so for one less reason than you.)
Anyway, the only reason I responded in this thread was because Nitro said anyone who wasn't moved by Shawshank is "dead inside"; I wasn't and I think I'm far from dead.
