TxMike — 10 years ago(February 19, 2016 08:00 AM)

Some SPOILERS obviously, be forewarned.
A couple of years ago I got my hands on the short novel, "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption", it was at my public library. As a poster pointed out to me, it is contained in King's "Different Seasons" which is a book of 4 short novels. After seeing the movie a number of times I was curious, and it is a short read, about 2 hours.
The concept of the novel is that, when Red gets the blank postcard after Andy makes his escape, he gets pencils and paper and over a 3-month period from late 1975 into early 1976 writes the story that represents the book. So what we have is a narration told completely from Red's point of view, either relating what he witnessed or what others, like Andy, told him. It spends many pages with Red's thoughts on various things that Andy might have worried about, or what his motivations might have been.
The core of the story in the movie matches that in the short novel. In fact many key dialogs in the movie are taken exactly from the book. Including my favorite Andy line, to Norton, "How can you be so obtuse?" But there are a few significant differences.
To me the most significant being in the book Andy had secretly used a friend Jim to handle some financial transactions for him
before the trial
, to set up some investments that grew in value to $375,000 by 1967. Plus Jim had established the fictitious identity Peter Stevens, complete with social security number, birth certificate, and drivers license. Pertinent papers were in a bank lock box, and the key was hidden under that volcanic rock near the wall in the field. As it turned out Jim died while Andy was in prison but as long as Andy could still get to the key, he would emerge as Peter Stevens.
Red said that Andy did indeed worry that some construction or other event might have disturbed the hiding place over all those years.
What I got from the movie is that Andy did all that himself from prison, using the illegal profits the warden made, deposited to accounts of fictitious persons, and when he got out claimed all that for himself.
Another, less important difference is we see one warden in the movie. The book details a series of different wardens over the years, with Norton being the one in charge when Andy escapes. However in the book the warden doesn't kill himself, he resigned 3 months after Andy's escape, "a broken man."
The posters in order are Rita Hayworth, Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, Raquel Welch, and finally Linda Ronstadt. In the movie we don't see Jayne Mansfield or Linda Ronstadt, Raquel Welch is up at the end when the warden discovers the hole.
The timelines are a bit different. In the book Red goes to prison in 1938 when he was 20, gets paroled in 1977 at the age of 59, with Andy getting there in 1948 at the age of 30, and Andy escaping in 1975. But in the movie Andy gets there in 1947 and escaped in 1966, then Red gets paroled in 1967 after 40 years. So in the movie Andy spent 19 years there, in the book 27 years.
In the movie Andy tells Red, if he ever gets out, find the volcanic rock in the field and "I have something under it for you." In the book Andy never tells Red that, only tells him that his key to the bank lock box is there. After Red gets out and is working as a bag boy, he takes several trips to try to find the field Andy had described, and after about 2 weeks found it, only to satisfy himself that the big shiny black volcanic rock was really there. He had no expectation of finding anything for himself there.
We see Andy has left him a letter and some money. In the book Red says he waited until he got back to his hotel room to read it, and it was signed "Peter Stevens." In the movie he read the letter right there under the tree, and it was signed "Andy." The two letters say almost exactly the same things.
And finally, the book ends with Red on his way to try to find Andy, still with most of the $1000 Andy left him under the volcanic rock, writing "I hope Andy is down there." The movie adds one scene, barely 1 minute long, showing Andy and Red meeting on the Mexican shore.
In situations like this (movie from a book) a few invariably ask the question, "Which is better, the book or the movie?" If you want a pragmatic answer, the movie is considered one of the best ever, and its popularity easily outstrips the short novel, so that would point towards "the movie is better."
I personally don't like that comparison because I think it is an impossible one to answer. Some people like reading novels better, forming images and dialog in their minds. For them the book would be better. However for those who really enjoy movies and all they bring to the viewing enjoyment, the cinematography, the acting, the soundtrack, the movie is without a doubt better.
I am glad I read the book, it certainly was not a waste of time and it contains many details that either are absent in the movie, or are portrayed in a way that may not be totally clear.
.... TxMike ....
Take a risk