Question: How did the inmates on rooftops manage to get their hands on beer?
zendaddy621
21st Jun 2020
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Answer: Under all but rare circumstances, alcoholic beverages are not allowed in US prisons, which was also the case in 1949, when this scene takes place; the significance of this scene is to establish that Andy began to enjoy special privileges while incarcerated, which is also how he eventually got the warden to allow him to establish the prison library.
31st Dec 2016
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Question: If Norton had helped Andy get a new trial, would it really work? There was no evidence that Elmo Blatch committed the murders.
Answer: I would say that Andy getting a NEW trial would be virtually impossible. For a prisoner to get a new trial, their attorney has to file an appeal with any information "supposedly" exonerating their client and/or proves some kind of malfeasance or errors in the original trial. Now courts rarely like to ever grant new trials to begin with so one must have awfully damning evidence to get one. I can only surmise that it would've been even harder during that Era than now as well. Now here's the problem or rub for Andy. All of the evidence, which is to say one piece in the testimony, wouldn't likely even be allowed into record or entry as evidence. First, it would likely fall under the here-say rules and deemed inadmissible in court... However, say even Tommy stayed alive and testified to what he knew and it could be entered in as evidence, it would do nothing without verification/corroboration. Now I can't remember if anything was said to whatever became of Elmo Blatch... I never read the book either so I can't say... But HAD Mr Blatch still been alive at that point, he would have been investigated and interviewed. If any evidence was found that pointed to Mr Blatch and/or Mr Blatch admitted his guilt, only then would Andy likely have enough for a new trial which would almost certainly end with Andy's conviction vacated especially if Blatch admitted it. However, via the film, all evidence leads to Andy and there's almost no chance Blatch would have admitted his own guilt especially since he relished the fact that someone else was paying for his crime. The only hope Andy would have had is that Mr Blatch had at least one or more other cell mates that he also spilled his guts to. Then Andy might have some hope that enough admissible testimony might award him a new trial. Problem is that none of that would have completely exonerated him and he'd just be retried. Which would still point to him because even if they could prove that Blatch had been in the area and his "supposed" confession, it would be circumstantial evidence and not likely to overcome the physical evidence that pointed straight at Andy. Hence Andy would just be back into jail. There's a lot that would have to go right or break Andy's way for him to get exonerated. He was the perfect patsy which was even an intended outcome by Blatch.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: It was given to them by the guards.
lionhead
But isn't beer banned in prisons?
Guards can be bribed to bring in contraband.
raywest ★
Part of Andy's agreement with Hadley for helping him with his taxes is that the prisoners working on the roof are given some beer as a reward.
Phaneron ★
Andy gives Hadley (the head guard) financial advice on how to keep a large sum of money, which he (Hadley) received as an inheritance. Andy, being an accountant, offers to do all the necessary tax work, in exchange for three beers apiece for his fellow inmates. Hadley agrees, and arranges for the beer to be delivered and given to them. (All of this is shown in the scene immediately prior to that in which the inmates are drinking beer).