Question: Stupid, random question but I'll ask anyway. If there was a grate in the pipe that he escaped from, Andy would'be been screwed at that point huh?
Answer: To put it mildly. Red addresses it in his narration in the novella: "Here's a joke even funnier than the parole would have been: Andy breaks into the sewer line, crawls through five hundred yards of choking, shit-smelling darkness, and comes up against a heavy-gauge mesh screen at the end of it all. Ha, ha, very funny."
Question: What was the name of the fake person that Andy helped Warden Norton create?
Answer: Randall Stephens. And strictly speaking, he didn't "help" Norton create the fake person...he did it on his own initiative, to launder Norton's ill-gotten gains. If Norton knew about Randall Stephens at all, he likely didn't understand the purpose but trusted that Andy was doing it for his (Norton's) own good.
Question: When Andy tells the warden how Tommy knows who really murdered his wife, the warden sympathetically says that Tommy made up the story to impress Andy, and he's surprised that Andy believed it. He also says they'd never be able to find that Elmo guy, and even if they did, he'd never confess. Isn't the warden essentially admitting he thinks that Andy is not guilty? Otherwise he'd just say 'I don't believe you, I know you were the one who killed your wife.'.
Chosen answer: The warden doesn't care whether Andy is innocent or guilty, only that his money-making schemes continue (with Andy's help).
Question: Andy Dufrense sent the accounting ledger to the Portland Daily Bugle, this is how they found out about the fraud schemes, but how did they find out about the murder of Tommy Williams? It was in the headline "Corruption, Murder at Shawshank"
Answer: The information about Tommy's death was in the letter that Andy sent along with the ledger. In it, he explained everything that was happening at Shawshank. He sent the accounting ledger as well because he knew that: a)without proof, the letter would be ignored and: b)that the fraud and corruption would be the only thing that would actually get the warden and Hadley arrested as there was no proof of Tommy's murder.
Question: I'm not sure if this is an actual mistake or a question: when Andy is escaping, we see him climb down something before he leaves the prison, (scaffolding, I think) and he is wearing boots or shoes of some kind. How could he do that since he left his shoes in the shoebox for the warden to find? The warden's shoes were safely tucked away in the plastic bag Andy had attached to his foot by the rope. It wasn't like he could carry a spare pair when he went to the warden's office to close up for the night.
Answer: Either prisoners are given more than one pair or Andy obtained another. He does have a lot of pull at the prison. Getting another pair of shoes would be trivial for him.
Question: What is the white powder made out of that they throw on them at the beginning of the movie? I mean, I know it is a delousing agent, but what specifically is it? What is it made out of?
Chosen answer: It's an insecticide (probably DDT, which was in wide use in the late 1940's) to rid the body of lice before prisoners are admitted into the prison. With all the bodily contact in a prison, a lice infestation would not only affect the inmates but the guards as well. It's also a health hazard.
Question: Why does Andy go to Norton (warden) about the information that Tommy provides him rather than see his lawyer? While he may not think Norton would go to the lengths he did to keep him there, what advantage would seeing the warden before a lawyer do?
Chosen answer: You're right--it's a character mistake, but an explainable one. Andy probably figured that because he was doing so much work for the Warden (accounting for dirty money, kickbacks, tax compliance, etc.), that the Warden would use his power to get Andy a new trial. Sounds like a fair trade--Andy makes sure there's no way for anyone to disover the illegality of the laundering, and the Warden gets Andy pardoned. What Andy didn't realize, however, was that the Warden didn't want to risk having Andy, after his pardon & release, reveal the details of the illegal schemes that were going on. So to make sure Andy got the message that he was going nowhere and would reveal nothing, he was give the two months in solitary confinement (as you know from the movie, of course).
Answer: It was the 1940's to 1960's. Prisoners did not have the same rights and access to the legal system as they do today. Look what happened when a new prisoner cried...In those days all they had to say was "he got out of line and we had to beat him and he died." Prisons were not scrutinized - they were there to hold "bad" people and no one really cared what went on in them.
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.
Question: Why would Heywood start chanting "fresh fish"? Betting on who will break down is pretty bad, but I understand they probably have nothing better to do. But what was the point of starting the chant? He seems to feel bad when Fatass is beaten to death, but what was he expecting to happen?
Answer: They were betting on who would break first out of the new inmates and the chant was meant to incite an emotional outburst from them. Most times, someone will just cry or break down. Heywood wasn't expecting Fatass to completely lose it and felt guilty because of his actions. This is one the first indicators in the film that some of the long term inmates like Heywood still have their humanity.
Question: Red quotes Andy a price of $10 for the rock hammer, and associated fees. Seems like a lot of money for the time period, doesn't it? And what did prisoners get paid, if anything?
Answer: $10 in the '40s is equivalent to roughly $180-$190 today, so yes, rather pricey for an item that retails for under $20 nowadays. Still, Red charges his fees, plus a significant mark-up due to the increased risk of smuggling contraband that could be perceived (by prison officials) as a weapon. The estimate of the cost of the hammer comes from the novel. And no, the prisoners likely weren't paid (even if, at that time, they had the option, the warden is so corrupt he'd likely keep their wages for himself); according to the novel, Andy smuggled a few hundred dollars into prison with him, hidden in...let's just call it a secret place.
Question: Andy didn't kill his wife and her lover. Still, he says in the beginning of the film that he did do something wrong. What does he mean by that?
Question: Towards the beginning, after the guard captain beats up the fat guy, the says "call the trustees and have them take him to the infirmary." What are the "trustees"?
Chosen answer: As referenced in this movie, trustees are prisoners that have earned the right to work in parts of the prison - in this case, the hospital wing. The name implies that they can be trusted to do the required work with minimal supervision.
Question: With so many bank accounts under a phony name, where were all the monthly bank statements going?
Answer: Bank statements weren't mailed as they were in more recent times. In those days, when you went to the bank, a passbook or ledger was updated and provided to you. Remember, in those times everything was hand-written and manually recorded. Statements weren't created automatically and mass-mailed.
Chosen answer: Possibly post office boxes, or maybe even to the prison directly.
Question: Andy Duframe was in prison for 20+ years, received his rock hammer early on and realised he could chip away at the wall. In 20+ years, every cell check, no one bothered to look behind that poster covering that hole. In that time, not one guard walked past during their checkups and accidentally saw him chip away at the wall, not to mention the buildup of whatever that wall is built of is scattered throughout the yard. After 20 years, that would be a fair buildup. Did no guard or prisoner ever question this?
Answer: Andy got special treatment due to helping the warden, so his cell wasn't closely inspected. No one suspected he was digging a tunnel, and it would be impossible to hide contraband behind a poster, so no one thought to look behind it. His cell was on a corner, so he could see and hear the guards coming. As for 'buildup of debris,' it was about four cinderblocks' worth of rubble in that huge yard, with a lot of foot traffic, over twenty years.
Answer: Real-life jail breaks have been more elaborate and unbelievable than what is depicted in this movie. Digging tunnels to escape is not uncommon, which he didn't, only through the wall. Recently, in 2015, a man in Mexico escaped prison by digging a tunnel from his prison cell to a construction site over 1.5 kilometres away; the tunnel was dug 10 metres underground. Now, he obviously had a lot of help from guards or from outside (cartel) with handling material to him and away from his cell, but still, it's quite impressive. He had a makeshift motorcycle for inside the tunnel to transport materials with and managed to evade capture for a year.
Question: Being the mid to late 1960s, how did Andy acquire plastic bags? The first was used to bust out of prison; the second was a thinner bag used to protect the letter and cash Red finds in the tin box buried along the stone wall. Plastic wasn't easy to come by at that time.
Answer: Plastic bags were definitely in use by that time. The first generation of plastic garment bags, trash bags, etc. was all introduced in the 1950s.
Question: Is it really possible that the guards left Andy's cell completely unchecked after his deal with Norton? I mean, no all round inspections, structural maintenance or even repainting - anything that would have revealed his escape plan at once - for 20 straight years?
Answer: The prison is known to be corrupt and thus maintenance would be at a bare minimum. Prison guards rarely actually go into the cells unless there is concrete information of a smuggled item etc. Andy was well liked by most of the inmates so no-one would really snitch on him. He was also working for Norton so his cell had a lot of things a prison cell should not have - books, the poster, the rock collection, a table etc. Red narrates that Andy worked for so long to escape, working in small increments, chipping away bit by bit and dumping the dirt outside. Guards, managers etc would change over 20 years and nothing happened that would warrant a renovation.
Answer: Well they probably did do inspections, but of the common things like the mattress and toilet. They don't check behind the poster, I think most try their best to ignore it. None of the guards expected he was making a hole behind it, since that's not possible, in their eyes. I hardly doubt they paint (or plaster) a cell that's occupied by an inmate. And the construction work is so expensive and time-consuming, they don't do structural maintenance unless it's really necessary (meaning when something falls off).
Question: Why couldn't Brooks bring Jake with him?
Answer: He wanted Jake to have his freedom. He couldn't keep him at the halfway house, and perhaps Brooks suspected he wouldn't be around much longer.
Answer: Andy escapes from Shawshank in August 1966, as evidenced by the date on the paper that Norton reads shortly before his suicide. Red's parole comes up the following year, 1967, exact date unknown. He then works at the store for an unspecified but short period of time before fulfilling his promise to Andy to go and find the box buried in the field - from the greenery visible, most likely in the mid-to-late summer - and he then heads to Mexico. In all likelihood, the total time between Andy's escape and he and Red being united is about a year, give or take a couple of months either way.
Tailkinker ★
Plausible, but the question asked if the real time frame/date was addressed in the movie. I believe the answer is No. The date of escape was stated as 1966, but Red's release date was not formally indicated.