Shawshank Redemption: Did Andy kill his wife and her lover

12 posts / 0 new
Last post

Shawshank Redemption fans: What do you think: Did Andy kill his wife & her lover?

You're here all day anyhow, why not join us http://www.thebeijinger.com/classifieds/employment/2014/03/12/web-editor-beijinger

 

Why is this even a poll?
IIRC, it turned out that Andy didn't kill his wife and her lover after all.

"wcasd" wrote:
IIRC, it turned out that Andy didn't kill his wife and her lover after all.

what evidence in the film indicates this?

Dude, have you actually watched the movie?

Quote:
what evidence in the film indicates this?

The cellmate the young fella had at the other prison confessed to him IIRC. Not that that stopped two people from voting 'yes'.

Which proves democracy can never work, or something.

ARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHH.....

Read-the-story-by-Stephen-King.

Fool.

No-he-did-not-he-was-going-to-but-was-an-easy-frame.

Enough-evidence-based-on-the-apparent-planned-attempt.

"Johnny Laowai" wrote:
Quote:
what evidence in the film indicates this?

The cellmate the young fella had at the other prison confessed to him IIRC. Not that that stopped two people from voting 'yes'.

Which proves democracy can never work, or something.

Here's what I recall:

One convict, Tommy, tells Andy that one of his former cellmates, a whack job, confessed to a crime that is similar to the one Andy's in for.

But before evidence can be drummed up that Tommy's former cellmate was the killer, Tommy is killed by the warden.

Having watched the film several times I'm convinced the filmmakers intentionally left a shadow of doubt as to Andy's actual innocence.

Take the first scenes of the film: they never show Andy driving away from the scene of the crime and disposing of the gun (his alibi), but rather end the sequence with Andy still standing in front of the crime scene.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think there's meant to be any doubt by the end of the film.

For one, the cellmate's story has no reason to be in the movie other than to prove Andy's innocence - would it not skew the characterisation for the young fella to be murdered by the warden over something Andy knew to be false? That would make Andy out to be an amoral Patrick Batemanesque character, which would kind of go against the prevailing sentiment.

Also, the scene at the beginning sets up uncertainty in the viewer which is resolved by the aforementioned story arc. If we knew Andy was innocent to begin, wherein redemption?

It's a good movie and that, but one that plays unswervingly by 'the rules'.

Also, I haven't read the book, so perhaps Herojuana can fill us in on what further information we could get from it.

Not-a-book.

I-can't-get-into-details-now.

Keyboard+endless-procrastination.

Ok, short story - Bachman books etc etc.

Dude, I know I shouldn't say it, but get a new keyboard. Doesn't it strain your little finger to hit the hyphen all the time?

Short-stories.

Admin,-I-am-telling-the-truth.

good points, JL. I'll admit to feeding a far-fetched conspiracy theory here but I've often wondered if it was the intention of the filmmakers to leave it unanswered

some other points:

-- The prosecuting attorney in the beginning sequences points out that the killer shot the victims eight times from a 6-chamber gun, indicating the perpetrator had reloaded the gun to put two extra bullets, one in each of the victims' heads -- signaling revenge/bitterness towards the victims.

Tommy's recollection of a four-year-old conversation he had with a cellmate says it was sort of a joy killing and that the perpetrator did not have any particular animosity towards the victims.

Oddly, in the film Tommy is mentored closely by Andy -- with Andy teaching him how to read, etc -- but yet never mentions this alleged confession directly to Andy in the hours/days/weeks/months he spent learning from him -- it's only after an extended period that Tommy mentions the alleged confession in passing to Red.