Shawshank Redemption Question

Lillyth · Jun 24, 2008

So I'm reading through The Shawshank Redemption script, what must be an earlier version of it, and the scene where the guards beat Boggs up is different than I remember it being in the movie.

In the movie, I seem to recall us watching Boggs try to crawl out of his cell and getting dragged back in, with everything else after that left to imagination.

Yet, in the script I'm reading now, they show Boggs sailing off the 3rd tier and landing on a bucket of cleaning equipment.

I may be remembering it wrong, but if I'm not, why do you suppose they ended up filming it that way instead?

(I'm always curious about theses things as I run across them).

Does anyone know/have any ideas?

Don Allen · Jun 24, 2008

I too remember it your way, interesting...

Lillyth · Jun 24, 2008

Don Allen said:
I too remember it your way, interesting...

So then, the question begs:

Why did they change it?

Anyone?

jessegrillofilm · Jun 24, 2008

I am guessing the script you got was an older copy and was not the shooting script. As far as changing the scene it could be for any number of reasons. The actor or director might of wanted to change the scene on the day. Things get changed around and moved all the time on set.

nmstevens · Jun 24, 2008

Lillyth said:
So I'm reading through The Shawshank Redemption script, what must be an earlier version of it, and the scene where the guards beat Boggs up is different than I remember it being in the movie.

In the movie, I seem to recall us watching Boggs try to crawl out of his cell and getting dragged back in, with everything else after that left to imagination.

Yet, in the script I'm reading now, they show Boggs sailing off the 3rd tier and landing on a bucket of cleaning equipment.

I may be remembering it wrong, but if I'm not, why do you suppose they ended up filming it that way instead?

(I'm always curious about theses things as I run across them).

Does anyone know/have any ideas?

Any number of possible reasons. One that might not occur to people is simply a matter of budget. Even on a big movie like this one, when you sit down to work out how much everything is going to cost you still only have so many days and so many dollars -- and it may even have been that the scene, as originally written might have been part of the shooting script to start with and then, at a certain point, the shoot runs a bit over schedule, a bit over budget and somebody says -- right, lets start looking for things we can cut.

So they look at this scene and Darabont (or somebody) says -- hey, instead of having to take however much it's going to take to do this whole set-up with a crew and a location and a stunt man going over the wall, and falling, and hitting the cleaning supplies and then we'd probably have to cut to a close-shot to show who it is, so then we'd need the actor and make up, and all the rest -- which is going to end up taking a whole day to shoot -- why not just have him get dragged back into the cell. Cut. The end. We'll save a day, cost of rigging a complicated stunt, the make-up, the whole deal.

Who knows, there may be other reasons, but that's a possibility.

NMS

icerose · Jun 24, 2008

Shockingly enough not everything in a script gets filmed as is. NMS gives some good reasons.

ETA: This sounds snarky and it wasn't intended. I personally find it fascinating to see what gets in and what gets cut between spec and film.

Lillyth · Jun 24, 2008

Yeah, he does give some good reasons, ones I hadn't thought about.

I know tons of stuff gets changed - I am always interested in why.

I'd be curious to know if it really was a budget thing, or a creativity thing. Like maybe showing less was better, which, ultimately, in this case, I think it was.

That scene of him getting dragged back in there is one of the ones that has stayed with me.

I am endlessly, endlessly fascinated with what makes it in & what doesn't, including which scenes get filmed then cut. Oftentimes, when I am watching the deleted scenes, I can see why they cut them out...

There is a deleted scene in Secondhand Lions where the main character has a family, and they are not in the rest of the movie. (I think it was the alternate ending). I just remember thinking how much it must suck as an actor to have filmed all that, and then not to have been in the movie at all...

aceinc1 · Jun 24, 2008

only 3 reasons

any film is plagued by three reasons that bring in changes into the script,

weather,
budget,
ego

for more read

Adventures in the screen trade - William Goldman
Which lie tdid I tell (more adventures in the screen trade) - William Goldman

I have one narrative feature, and what I've learnt from it is, film-making is quiet fragile, it is like a brittle glass, but I'd love to be in that process every now and then, it is addictive.

regards,
Ace.Inc1

WriteKnight · Jun 24, 2008

Its a truly collaborative process. As stated, any number of reasons can come into play.
I remember reading about "Air Force One" the Harrison Ford film. They were about to shoot a scene, with two pages of dialogue, and Harrison said, "You know, I can say this with a look..."
So they shot it that way and cut two pages. Saved time, money and made a stronger moment. Thats something a great actor can bring to the script. Look at the dialogue, understand the writers intent, and communicate it with a look or a gesture.

Lillyth · Jun 24, 2008

WriteKnight said:
Its a truly collaborative process. As stated, any number of reasons can come into play.
I remember reading about "Air Force One" the Harrison Ford film. They were about to shoot a scene, with two pages of dialogue, and Harrison said, "You know, I can say this with a look..."
So they shot it that way and cut two pages. Saved time, money and made a stronger moment. Thats something a great actor can bring to the script. Look at the dialogue, understand the writers intent, and communicate it with a look or a gesture.

That is a GREAT story!!

Can I just write that into my script then? (Get an actor who can communicate the next page with one look.)

That would be pretty cool if we could...

icerose · Jun 25, 2008

Another example, Indiana Jones, when they're in the market and he shoots the guy. The script had written in this who choreography scene. They'd been filming in triple digit heat all day long and they couldn't get the choreography right. You see Harrison Ford looking absolutely exhausted, sweaty and so forth, that wasn't make up and it wasn't acting. He was exhausted. At that point he was sick to death of it, he pulled out his pistol and shot, the group cheered. They were cheering because they were genuinely sick of filming that same scene all day long. The director was so impressed, they kept it and moved on, much to the happiness of their entire crew.

nmstevens · Jun 25, 2008

Lillyth said:
That is a GREAT story!!

Can I just write that into my script then? (Get an actor who can communicate the next page with one look.)

That would be pretty cool if we could...

You see, that's part of the finesse of writing a script -- because sometimes you have to, in a sense, overwrite a scene or a moment, because you know that you're writing something for a reader or a producer or an exec who isn't necessarily going to be paying all that much attention -- and so points have to be hammered home hard -- just to make sure that the *reader* gets the point.

But having written a scene or a moment in that way, you have to realize that, once it makes the jump from page to screen, that much of what you've written can be conveyed much more economically because the visual medium conveys information at so much denser a rate than can prose, sending words up off the page one at a time.

NMS

GigiZ · Jun 29, 2008

So much stuff is edited out and never gets to the general public.
Brando said in his autobiography he did a bunch of monologues for Apocalypse now that never made the final cut. I didn't watch Apocalypse Now Redux when it came out recently; I wonder if the monos made it in that cut.

Lillyth · Jun 29, 2008

nmstevens said:
You see, that's part of the finesse of writing a script -- because sometimes you have to, in a sense, overwrite a scene or a moment, because you know that you're writing something for a reader or a producer or an exec who isn't necessarily going to be paying all that much attention -- and so points have to be hammered home hard -- just to make sure that the *reader* gets the point.

But having written a scene or a moment in that way, you have to realize that, once it makes the jump from page to screen, that much of what you've written can be conveyed much more economically because the visual medium conveys information at so much denser a rate than can prose, sending words up off the page one at a time.

NMS

Oooooooooh - you brought up a very interesting question:

Namely, I've been reading both Million Dollar Baby and Monster's Ball. They are very differently written scripts. MDB is very florid, very verbose in it's descriptions, MB is just the opposite. Very sparse. So sparse in fact, that
I could easily see, if they got the "wrong" actors, that it could be a VERY bad movie.

So far, my stuff seems to wax descriptive, much more like MDB.

Is this okay?

nmstevens · Jun 29, 2008

GigiZ said:
So much stuff is edited out and never gets to the general public.
Brando said in his autobiography he did a bunch of monologues for Apocalypse now that never made the final cut. I didn't watch Apocalypse Now Redux when it came out recently; I wonder if the monos made it in that cut.

None of it was in "Redux" but some of that material is on view in the "Heart of Darkness" documentary -- which is, in itself, well worth watching.

Much of that material wasn't so much "monologues" as simply extended improvisational rambling by Brando. The fact is, there's only so much of that stuff you can use.

As far as "redux" -- I've seen it and I have to say, essentially every decision made in the original movie -- in terms of what to cut -- were correct.

While the additional material may have some historical interest, not only do I not think that the movie is improved by putting it back in, I think that it's not nearly as good a movie, because it really makes the quest up the river come across as significantly less urgent.

In the original movie, Sheen really comes across as the engine that drives that mission, constantly pushing everybody up that river. But with the new material, that single-minded sense of him pushing toward Kurtz is not nearly so clear.

The original is really the better version of the movie, in my opinion.

NMS

GigiZ · Jun 29, 2008

Yeah, I have to watch Heart of Darkness.
YoOu might be right about the monos but Brando was pissed.

Shawshank Redemption Question

Lillyth

Don Allen

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence

Lillyth

jessegrillofilm

nmstevens

What happened?

icerose

Lost in School Work

Lillyth

aceinc1

can't wait to die

WriteKnight

Arranger Of Disorder

Lillyth

icerose

Lost in School Work

nmstevens

What happened?

GigiZ

Lillyth

nmstevens

What happened?

GigiZ