MovieChat Forums > The Shawshank Redemption (1994) Discussion > I wish descriptions would stop refferrin...

I wish descriptions would stop refferring Andy as "wrongly convicted"

posted 7 years ago by MikeHunt153
16 replies | jump to latest

For example, this movie is playing on TV this Sunday in my country (Australia), and on the TV guide, the description is:

"Red, serving a life sentence, and Andy, a mild-mannered banker wrongly convicted of murder, forge an unlikely bond in prison that lasts over twenty years. Based on a novella by Stephen King."

Well, I wish they left out the word "wrongly". The people who wrote the description missed the point. The movie doesn't establish from the beginning that Andy is innocent like The Fugitive, it actually deliberately makes it very ambiguous until Tommy's story. There's mounds of evidence against him, he had clear motive and opportunity, and he's a cold man who seems like the type of guy who'd kill his wife if she cheated on him. The jury were perfectly reasonable to convict him.

[–] Lucy9596 7 years ago

and he's a cold man

I was with you up until you wrote the above.

… sometimes one life… If it’s the right life… That’s enough. Goodbye, Harold."
John Reese

[–] iamtherealbg 7 years ago

He always struck me as a cold, remorseless man.

[–] frogca 7 years ago

>He always struck me as a cold, remorseless man.

Well, geez, he's a banker. But anyway, no need to have remorse if you've done nothing wrong. So.... yeah, I assumed he was innocent from the start.

[–] strntz 7 years ago

I agree. I saw the same description on our cable box's TV Guide and thought the same thing. Spoiler alert for sure.

The movie doesn't establish from the beginning that Andy is innocent like The Fugitive, it actually deliberately makes it very ambiguous until Tommy's story.

Put a gun to my head and I say that Andy was innocent, but Tommy's story is hardy convincing. The movie doesn't show what *actually* happened, it showed the events in Tommy's story. In addition, I can't reconcile the DA's assessment of the murder, specifically the number of shots fired.

If this was indeed a robbery gone wrong, why would Blatch even fire on Andy's wife and lover if they were in bed? Seems to me that even if he did, he'd turn and run, not reload and put a single bullet in each.

Face it, Blatch had no motive to shoot two people in bed robbery or no, where Andy most certainly had motive and opportunity.

Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.

[–] PreachCaleb 7 years ago

Well, if we take Tommy's story at face value, it wasn't a robbery gone wrong. The shooter clearly intended to kill the two people he came across. Murder was his goal.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] patconolly 7 years ago

I understood Blatch to say that the golf pro woke up and "gave him some *beep* and that's why Blatch killed him (and then the witness).

[–] PreachCaleb 7 years ago

Good point. I'll have to rewatch now.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] strntz 7 years ago

I understood Blatch to say that the golf pro woke up and "gave him some *beep* and that's why Blatch killed him (and then the witness).

Yes, he did say that.

And if you think about it, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Blatch looked more like a two-bit house breaker than a mass murderer.

Does it seem likely that a guy breaking and entering would pull a gun on a guy in bed with a broad then kill not only him but a woman as well? Most likely he'd have turn and run. But even if he did decide to shoot the pro and Andy's wife, he'd more likely panic and run after the gun fired - unless he did this all the time and again, he didn't seem like a mass murderer. But he doesn't run, he reloads and puts one more in each? As the prosecutor said, that sure seems personal.

Now if Blatch ran into the golf pro face to face in the hallway or in a room that's different. He might very well start pulling the trigger in his panic. But two people naked in bed are not an immediate threat.

I concede that Blatch could very well have been that unbalanced to do such a thing, but if it's my call, I don't give Andy a retrial based on very weak circumstantial evidence that doesn't really fit the crime.

It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men ~ F Douglass

[–] Captain_Beeble 7 years ago

Blatch must have been a real sadist to shoot them again after they were already dead. He clearly enjoyed hurting people, considering how hard he was laughing about it when he told Tommy. It sounds very childish and cartoonish, but I guess there really are some people in the world that are that fucked up.

On the other hand, I've heard it suggested on here that Tommy could have contrived the "Elmo Blatch" story on the spur of the moment - but it doesn't seem likely. If he did make the Blatch story up, it's extremely doubtful the warden would have had him killed. Of course that would sure put an interesting new perspective on how we view Andy! But that would really fly in the face of one of his best lines in the movie: "The funny thing is, on the outside, I was an honest man, straight as an arrow. I had to come to prison to be a crook." That doesn't sound like something a killer would say. If Red admitted to being a murderer, and him and Andy were such close friends, Andy most likely would have done the same thing if he was really guilty of murder.

"Damn it, Beavis - she was probably gonna pay us 'til you started talking about poop!"

[–] strntz 7 years ago

On the other hand, I've heard it suggested on here that Tommy could have contrived the "Elmo Blatch" story on the spur of the moment - but it doesn't seem likely.

I agree; Tommy didn't seem bright enough to come up with a story like that on the spot, and repeat it at least three times that we know of and get it right.

If he did make the Blatch story up, it's extremely doubtful the warden would have had him killed.

I believe Tommy relayed the story as he heard it. The story Blatch told could be true (we're not privy to any evidence either way), but I'm not convinced that Blatch didn't make it up. A lot of people confess to crimes years later that they read about back when it happened. Over the years, they actually come to believe they did it. Blatch heard the fascinating story of a double murder that included a cheating married wife of a banker and a golf pro. Who wouldn't be impressed with such a lurid tale? Blatch could have convinced himself he was the murderer or simply BS'd young Tommy with such a great story.

The movie doesn't say, and I never read the book, but maybe the Warden did some basic investigation and found out that a prisoner named Blatch really was incarcerated with Tommy. Without knowing anything else, that alone would spook the Warden into fearing a retrial for Andy and provide him with enough motive to silence Tommy forever.

It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men ~ F Douglass

[–] patconolly 7 years ago

Just before Tommy talked about that specific killing, he said that Blatch liked to talk about "... jobs he pulled, women he *beep* people he killed, people that gave him sh*t."

They only have the one scene where Tommy talks about what he said, and one scene where they show Blatch bragging about that one killing. Unless there's an extended version of the film showing Blatch petting a kitten or something, he sure seems like a mass murderer to me.

[–] strntz 7 years ago

....he said that Blatch liked to talk about "... jobs he pulled, women he *beep* people he killed, people that gave him sh*t."... he sure seems like a mass murderer to me.

If we go by that criteria, there are far more mass murderers running around the streets than people actually murdered.

It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men ~ F Douglass

[–] marecek (122) 5 years ago

He WAS wrongly convicted because he was actually innocent. If Tommy's evidence had made it to court, do you think the judge would have said, "Well, Mr. D., it seems you did not kill your wife, but there was loads of evidence against you and you had a bad demeanor in court, so I hold you were properly convicted and send you back to the slammer."

[–] strntz (10775) 5 years ago

He WAS wrongly convicted because he was actually innocent.

We don't know that. Andy's story was full of holes.

Tommy had no evidence whatsoever. He had a story and a name. If Blatch did exist and if he could be found and if Blatch admitted to the murder, then Andy would have gotten a retrial at least and likely a dismissal of charges if Blatch's story held details of the murder that was not generally known except by the police and the prosecution.

But none of this is important. Andy spent 20 years in prison, enough for viewers not to care that Andy escaped prison even if he did kill his wife and her lover.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I think you're missing the point the OP was making (2 years ago). He wasn't arguing that Andy might be guilty, rather he was rightly complaining about the spoiler in the TV guide description. That Andy is actually innocent isn't revealed to the viewer until the second half of the film and it's honestly a better told story when the viewer doesn't have that information going in.

[–] ATG6 (3000) 5 years ago

Juries are supposed to need proof. Motive and opportunity make a suspect, not a conviction.