Why did Red get rejected in the first two times... - The Shawshank Redemption (1994) Discussion

[–] Ant1238 (856) 4 years ago

Because the first two times, he was very eagerly saying everything they wanted to hear, whether it was true or not, and they could easily see that. The third time, he was actually sincere, so they knew that he was finally so defeated that he wouldn't cause any trouble on the outside. He wasn't being sarcastic, he was finally being honest and blunt with them.

reply

[–] Who (5146) 4 years ago

The last time was after the corrupt warden and guards were out. Presumably that warden was not writing favorable parole recommendations.

reply

[–] Ant1238 (856) 4 years ago

No, I don't think that has anything to do with it.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 3 years ago

they knew that he was finally so defeated that he wouldn't cause any trouble on the outside

This is the best way to put it

The prevailing theory seems to be his honesty, but I never bought that as sufficient. He could be honest and still dangerous.

It was the fact that he was honest about being too old and tired to care any longer. That told them they were seeing the real Red.

I'd only add that he was that much older at his final hearing, and therefore that much less likely to be a danger to the public. Like Brooks, they figured he was too old to get into trouble any longer and effectively kicked him out.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Didn't Red kill people?

reply

[–] strntz (11249) 3 years ago

Red was in prison for murder, yes. He also admitted it to Andy, but I believe it was a single incident.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Is it not murder because he only did it once?

reply

[–] strntz (11249) 3 years ago

Is English your first language? You said:

Didn't Red kill people?

"People" denotes plural in the English language. No, Red didn't kill "people", he killed a person. If you said instead: "Didn't Red kill someone?", then I only would have responded to the first part of your question as to whether Red was in prison for murder, which of course is yes.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

"Red said he was the only guilty man in Shawshank because he murdered his wife for insurance money by cutting the brakes on her car.

He would inadvertently murder three more when his wife picked up some passengers on the way into town, resulting in Red getting caught. Red stated that he only did it because he was "a young, stupid kid" and that not a day goes by where he doesn't feel regret for the terrible crime, and it is speaking from his heart like this that resulted in him getting paroled after serving forty years out of a life sentence. "

https://stephenking.fandom.com/wiki/Red

I don't care how many people he murdered, I think the fact he committed murder is why he had a hard time getting paroled.

reply

[–] strntz (11249) 3 years ago

We're talking about the movie, not the book. In the book, he also was a red-headed Irishman and Norton never killed himself. There are way too many differences between the book and film.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

I don't fucking care how many people HE KILLED.

reply

[–] kenburke (2309) 3 years ago

Because he is black.

reply

[–] strntz (11249) 3 years ago

Wow, I was sure I answered this, but I don't see any other thread so..

Why did Red get rejected in the first two times when he acted compliantly in front of the interrogation group and incredibly got approved when he acted sarcastically in the same condition?

That was for our benefit as movie watchers. Remember the first time you saw this scene? After Red acted the gentleman twice and got rejected, we all figured he blew his chance for sure when he was sarcastic and condescending to the parole board. That he was accepted was a great piece of cinema.

So why did they grant his parole? This is just a fiction script, but as in real life, Red's parole was most likely granted more on time served and his prison performance as a prisoner than arguing what the definition of "rehabilitated" was.

reply

[–] Ant1238 (856) 3 years ago

Ohh, it's just a movie. That explains that!

reply

[–] PaladinNJ (20653) 3 years ago

That makes sense.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (14130) 3 years ago

that and the "he'd served another 10 years" part
like Strntz I think it had a lot more to do with that than he "refreshing candour"

reply