Morality in The Shawshank Redemption

Believe what you want. These walls are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. After long enough, you get so you depend on 'em. That's "institutionalized." - Red

The way I see morality in The Shawshank Redemption is a continuum. On one extreme you have Brooks Hatlen, and on the opposite end you have Andy Dufresne. Then you have Red right in the middle, who is asked to choose whether he will be like Brooks or Andy in the end.

Andy Dufresne is an innocent man condemned for killing his wife and her lover. Despite being unjustly accused and suffering in prison, Andy chooses not to lose hope. Unlike Brooks, he chooses not to commit suicide or become institutionalized. His character shows existentialism, too, in the sense that he committed what is seen as an immoral act (to escape from prison) in order to maximize his happiness. This also makes us question the morality of escaping. Was it morally correct, seeing that he was in fact innocent? If we go back to our previous blog post on whether or not it is possible to live a good life in a corrupt society, we can argue that Andy did have the right to run away. The whole institution of Shawshank was corrupt, from the very top, represented by Norton, the warden, who embezzled money, to the bottom, represented by Bogs and his gang, who assaulted other prisoners. Seeing that corruption was everywhere, it is only understandable that Andy would commit an immoral act. In fact, he even claims “It's funny. On the outside, I was an honest man. Straight as an arrow. I had to come to prison to be a crook.” Also, if we consider the fact that Andy, unlike the other prisoners, was actually innocent, it is arguable that by running away from the system, he was finally able to find justice.

Brooks’ morals become clear when he is released from Shawshank after 50 years in prison. On parole, he is unable to adjust to the outside world—he’s institutionalized.

Man's been here fifty years. This place is all he knows. In here, he's an important man, an educated man. A librarian. Out there, he's nothing but a used-up old con with arthritis in both hands. Couldn't even get a library card if he applied. You see what I'm saying? - Red

Because he is unable to fit into the outside world, Brooks even considers committing a crime to go back “home.” He confides “Maybe I should get me a gun and rob the Foodway, so they'd send me home. I could shoot the manager while I was at it, sort of like a bonus.” Since he is willing to commit an immoral act (robbery) in order to maximize his happiness (go back to Shawshank), we can analyze Brook’s character through the lenses of utilitarianism—He is weighing his options and making decisions based on utility, or the reduction of suffering. Brooks does not, however, execute his plan. Instead, he chooses to commit suicide, as a way to escape a society where he doesn’t fit.

I don't like it here. I'm tired of being afraid all the time. I've decided not to stay. - Brooks

If we think about the filmmaker’s morals, this can be seen as an existentialist approach. Most existentialist philosophers, like Immanuel Kant, argue against suicide as a way to escape reality. Similarly, by having Brooks kill himself, in contrast to Andy’s endless hope (“Get busy living or get busy dying”), the filmmaker condemns Brooks’ decision to take away his own life. Despite showing all sorts of different moral codes, it becomes evident, as the movie progresses, that the filmmaker’s vision is the one portrayed by Andy’s character and moral decisions.

Red, in my opinion, is the most interesting character in the movie. At the same time that he is the prison’s contrabandist, which is morally wrong, he is also the only prisoner that does not deny committing a crime. “I’m the only guilty man in Shawshank.” I like his character, though, because when he is approved to go on parole, he is faced with a decision he has to make: will he follow Brook’s path and kill himself, or follow Andy’s example and not lose hope? Had Andy not come into his life, I believe Red would have ended up like Brook. Institutionalized and unable to adapt to the real world.

Red: Forget?

Andy: That there are things in this world not carved out of gray stone. That there's a small place inside of us they can never lock away, and that place is called hope.

Red: Hope is a dangerous thing. Drive a man insane. It's got no place here. Better get used to the idea.

Andy: Like Brooks did?

Because Andy showed Red how “get busy living” instead of “get busy dying,” he is then able to get out of Shawshank and lead a happy life. Red still feels like Brooks, to a certain extent, when he says “Terrible thing, to live in fear. Brooks Hatlen knew it. Knew it all too well. All I want is to be back where things make sense. Where I won't have to be afraid all the time. Only one thing stops me. A promise I made to Andy.”

Going back to my proposed continuum of morality, by the moral conduct of these three characters, the director shows that Andy’s approach is the one that should be followed, since it will lead to happiness. Also, he criticizes the system for its corruption and unfair treatment of the prisoners. Art doesn’t necessarily have to be moral, but The Shawshank Redemption certainly has a moral vision worth noting, which is what makes the movie so fascinating.