Customer Reviews

Scarlet Letter [VHS]

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I have seen two motion picture renditions of the Hawthorne classic, this one starring Colleen Moore in her final role and the 1926 silent classic starring Lillian Gish and Lars Hanson. This 1934 film is very different than the silent version. The courtship between Hester Prynne and Pastor Dimmesdale that made up a major portion of the Lillian Gish version is skipped entirely. The absence of this background causes the scene where Prynne receives her 'A' to be less dramatic. Henry B. Walthall plays Roger Prynne in both of these films. As a Walthall fan, I was happy to see the silent star have much more significant air time here than in the 1926 film. Walthall is seen right from the beginning and his character is given the opportunity to explain his feelings more than in the earlier rendition. Roger Prynne "Chillingworth," who makes Hester promise not to admit to being his wife, almost shows sympathy towards Hester's plight. Still, Roger will not grant her request to leave Pastor Dimmesdale (played by Hardie Albright) to his own personal guilt. Roger insists on sadistically contributing to the adulterer's slow torment. As the other reviewers have noted, the Laurel and Hardy wannabe team of Alan Hale and some other guy really fall flat. It is not that humor was inappropriate for the Scarlet Letter. The silent film had Karl Dane as the dopey fellow who speaks to his prospective wife through a courtship trumpet only to get slapped for his "unbridled passions" when he steals a kiss before he leaves. This humor worked because it was subtle. Many of the early talkies offered comedy relief which was often excessive. The Scarlet Letter of 1934 is another example. Despite the silly humor, it is not a bad film. The acting is very good. It is just not an emotionally powerful film like the Gish/Hanson version.

Buyer beware before ordering this! If you're a fan of Lillian Gish, D.W. Griffith and great films in professional high quality, you're getting none of the above with this scam, this absolute sham. Instead, you get the 1934 version with Colleen Moore. Why the seller doesn't present it as such (even the horrible packaging doesn't) is beyond me... I hope this product gets dropped immediately.

"The Scarlet Letter" (Majestic, 1934), directed by Robert G. Vignola, is the first sound screen adaptation to the immortal novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne, set in 18th century Massachusetts, starring former silent movie comedienne Colleen Moore in what was to become her final screen appearance.

Filmed eight years after the silent MGM 1926 success that starred Lillian Gish and Lars Hanson, this sound adaptation differs from the earlier film in both continuity as well as production values. In the silent version, Hester Prynne (Gish), a seamstress whose husband is away at sea, meets the Rev. Arthur Dimmesdale (Hanson), who falls in love with her unaware that she is married. However, she becomes pregnant with his child and after the baby's birth, she keeps Dimmesdale's secret that he is the father in spite of the punishment she must face. In the sound version, set in 1642, the story starts off almost immediately in which the viewer finds Hester Prynne (Moore), already a mother, holding her infant daughter, Pearl, in her arms, standing in front of the congregation. She is on trial for having the child out of wedlock and because she refuses to name the father of her baby, for her humiliation and punishment she must wear the scarlet letter "A" over her bosom for the rest of her natural life. Henry B. Walthall, who plays Roger Prynne, Hester's middle-aged husband in both 1926 and 1934 versions, appears in the near beginning of the story while in the silent version, his character makes his appearance almost an hour from the start of the film. In the two versions, his character returns home from his long sea journey to find his young wife has beared forth a child that is obviously not his, thus, and to save face, decides to be known through the community as Doctor Roger Dillingwell. Hester, in turn keeps her husband's identity a secret, knowing that his avenge is to learn the father's identity. Moving forward to 1647, Hester's daughter, Pearl (Cora Sue Collins), now five, must face her own humiliation by being an outcast to the neighborhood children, who refuse to play with her, and being insulted by their mothers, unaware as to why she is being treated just as cruelly as her mother, who steps in on Pearl's behalf after one scene finding Pearl getting mud thrown at her by the other children. As for the Rev. Arthur Dimmesdale (Hardie Albright), he silently suffers for being worshiped by his congregation, unable to confess to all, through a promise he had made to Hester to keep silent, that he is the one responsible for Hester's guilt, and continues to suffer until the climax.

While "The Scarlet Letter" in 1926 was intelligently made and still holds up surprisingly well today, the 1934 adaptation might have equaled the earlier had it not been for its low production values and very slow pacing. Some of the dialog spoken has good intentions and meaning, but then sinks with some unnecessary comedy scenes (mostly by Alan Hale and William Kent) and poorly spoken dialog that unbalances the continuity to the story. At times I wonder what it would have been like had MGM itself remade "The Scarlet Letter" with Lillian Gish reprising her earlier role, with possibly Fredric March or Franchot Tone playing Dimmesdale. Would it have been a failure or would it have been in the class of MGM's other literary works of that period, which include the 1935 releases of "David Copperfield," "Anna Karenina" and "A Tale of Two Cities?"

Personally, after seeing "The Scarlet Letter" of 1934 several times, which is currently a public domain title available through numerous video sources, I find it's real fault is its slow pacing, and sometimes the performance of Hardie Albright, whose character plays weak, but fails to bring forth the strong points to his character. Aside from the actors mentioned, the movie includes screen veterans William Farnum, Virginia Howell and Jules Cowles (who can also be seen in the 1926 version). Film buffs will delight into watching this rarely seen find, which did enjoy some frequent revivals during the early years of Cable TV in the 1980s, but others will find themselves falling asleep long before the movie is over. But steer clear of the Demi Moore 1995 "free adaptation.". To learn more about the Hawthorne literary classic, just read the novel. (**)

The very first adaptation of The Scarlet Letter was a silent picture released in 1926, but this 1934 version is the first to feature sound. That and the great disservice it does to the underlying story are its only claims to fame. The original novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne is one of the most respected, best-known works of literature to ever grace the printed page, and this adaptation of that great novel is exceedingly strange. Certainly, The Scarlet Letter is a somber, contemplative story, but that is where it's all-too-human heart lies. The makers of this film, for reasons I fail to comprehend, chose to add comedy to the production, thereby producing one of the weirdest movies I have ever suffered through. With a length of sixty-eight minutes, it naturally glosses over much of the emotional and plot-driven wonders of the novel, but its own scarlet sin is the inclusion of a number of entirely purposeless scenes designed to produce laughs. I think I am safe in saying that The Scarlet Letter and comedy do not and certainly should not go hand in hand. We get only the most basic of outlines of Hester Prynne's sin and subsequent life bearing the scarlet letter. The casting of 20s flapper Colleen Moore to play Hester seems to be something of a mistake to my eyes, as I never really saw her as the Hester Prynne I have known fairly well for a number of years now. Arthur Dimmesdale comes across pretty well, although we have no sign until the very end of any of the self-flagellating punishments he inflicted upon himself as penance for the sin he was too cowardly to acknowledge. Henry B. Walthall reprises his 1926 role as Roger Chillingworth, but the depth of his own iniquity is never really laid bare, although we are privy to his plans regarding the unfortunate Mr. Dimmesdale. The child who played Pearl was very good, though, and helped make up for some of the larger faults of the other character representations.

Two things ruined this movie for me. One is the awful cattiness of the women in the community; early on, we are treated to a number of "in my day" or "they should have let us women take care of Hester's punishment" speeches; while those kinds of thoughts or expressions probably do apply here, there is far too much of it in the movie. What I really hated was the addition of a duo of dolts adding a Laurel & Hardy aspect to the movie. First they exchange smart remarks and the little guy finds himself supporting a heavy wagon on his back while his partner putters around interminably with a grin on his face, but later on the two become involved in a romantic triangle of sorts. The big guy takes it upon himself to tell the little guy's chosen sweetheart just how much the little guy loves her; he does this by whispering back and forth to her through a marriage trumpet-naturally, the rather undesirable woman thinks the big guy is the prospective bridegroom-this Three's Company-esque situation only gets worse when both men accidentally see a pair of her "nethergarments" lying about. This scene and these silly actors have no place at all in Nathaniel Hawthorne's remarkable story, and such inane, totally out-of-place comedy totally destroys the serious mood surrounding the Reverend Dimmesdale's overbearing guilt and Hester's praiseworthy steadfastness and struggle.

This movie completely fails to capture the passion and emotion of the story it proposes to tell. Without the needless comedy, it would be woefully incomplete yet watchable; with the ill-fated attempts at humor, it is hardly worth watching at all.

This is NOT the 1926 Gish version as promoted on the DVD cover. Amazon would be advised to correct the 1926 label from their product title, as this is an inferior 1930s version. Buyer be warned!

This adaptation of Hawthorne's novel is not a masterpiece according to today's cinematographic art. But it is an essential historical document on how the novel was seen in these old years, and how the cinema worked : with no special effects and no computers, not even color. And moreover it is an essential film because the vision of the novel and of the plot is, though short and simple, extremely faithful. We hence have a full drama of impossible repentance imposed onto one sinner by the other. Repentance has to be public or it is not. We also have a drastic vision of the punished woman becoming the glorified person whereas the man who goes unpunished by society is tenfold more punished by his own soul and guilt. Punished to death. This is the very reversal of the puritan vision by life that thus appears as denying any righteousness to puritanism. The point on which this film is rather deficient is the vision of the child. In those days it xas not that easy to get a child to perform this role, the role of Pearl. It is slightly regrettable because the child is the real center of the novel, in spite of what some may think. She is the real heroin and the true winning victim. At this level there is some cynism on the part of the novel and this film renders it very well.

Dr Jacques Coulardeau

Colleen, more famous as a silent film star (Lilac Time, Ella Cinders), does the best she can with this dried out piece of toast of a movie. But to be honest, this just wasn't the role for her. In her last film, Colleen still has it, but Hester Prynne was not the role best suited to her talents.

Several comedic elements were added to a story usually known for it's depressing overtones, and there is a sense of "abridgedness" running through the uneven film. Produced in 1934, some of the uneveness and choppy style can be blamed on early sound film production, but not all.

Alan Hale is in good form as a comedic character, in a style he would use throughout his career. Other such Hale efforts can be seen in "The Adventures of Robin Hood", and "The Sea Hawk", both with Errol Flynn.

Colleen shines in just about anything, if you can find one of her films. "Lilac Time", "Ella Cinders", and "The Sky Pilot" are all good choices. Some of her best work was in comedies.

Overall, this isn't as bad a version of "The Scarlet Letter" as some make it out to be, but it is also not a masterpiece.

***NOTE: Colleen Moore was the first film star to popularize the "flapper" look in the 1920's, most notably with her bobbed, pageboy/dutchboy hairstyle. A shrewd investor, she went on to write a book on how women could invest in the stock market. Colleen also designed a world-class dollhouse now housed in a Chicago museum.

The Scarlet Letter, 1934 film

The `Foreword' says this is a "portrait of the Puritan period in American life". A woman is condemned for "malicious gossip" and is punished and ridiculed. A man is in the stocks for laughing on the Sabbath. A bell calls the people to the town square. A stranger walks into town and hears the news. Hester Prynne is guilty of adultery! "Has she no shame?" She won't name her fellow sinner and confess. "No, never!" They force her to wear a scarlet letter so all men can shun her. [Did that really work?] Seamstress Prynne has a visitor: Arthur Dimmesdale the minister. Should there be a bigger scandal? "Bless you, Hester." Roger Chillingsworth signs his name, the colony needs a good doctor. He needs a place to stay, and is directed to Hester's cottage! "We have wronged each other." [We learn their background.] They will keep their secrets. The years pass by.

Two men work to change a cart wheel; they don't have a pile of flat stones to support the cart! "When I was a girl things were very different." Little boys play their games, imitating the town militia. Mistress Abigail enjoys insulting Hester and her daughter. Can they recognize the father's features in Hester's daughter? The other children will not play with Pearl. A man summons Hester, the town council may take Pearl away. Master Dimmesdale argues for Hester's keeping Pearl. We see their custom of courtship. A courting trumpet provides privacy in a crowd. "No." Can a man suffer from a guilty conscience? Can a bodily sickness be caused by a spiritual problem? Dimmesdale instructs Pearl in religion. We see church services. No sleeping in church! Muskets are stacked in the church aisle for easy access. Dimmesdale makes a veiled confession. Hester aids a sick woman. This woman tells Roger how Dimmesdale comforted Hester.

Dimmesdale's conscience troubles him. Hester and Roger meet to discuss the situation. It is a sin for a man to touch a woman's nether garments! Hester meets Arthur in the woods and tells him about an enemy under his roof. Hester advises Arthur to leave town for a new start. The men make merry on elections day. Some will leave town on a ship. Roger taunts Arthur, who decides to tell all in a public confession. The bell is struck to end Arthur's story.

I never read the book, it seems like a comment on 17th century Puritan society when religious men were the rulers. Was it inspired by some now forgotten scandal from the 19th century? I wonder how many today are guilty of "malicious gossip" when talk radio shows prosper and people watch Hollywood gossip shows on TV? The commandment against bearing false witness is broken daily in most people's lives. Current scandals about businessmen, politicians, and even religious leaders should warn you against trusting people in authority. Your views may differ.

The low rating is for the DVD presentation, not the film. It's great to see a restored version that looks quite good, but the thoughtless and disrespectfull replacement of the opening studio and title segment and end title are enraging. It is probably due to the print given to UCLA by Sherman, but the orignal titles are on the low budget releases of this film. This release would be ok to listen to the commentary, but I would just as soon watch an old beat-up print for the originality. "Another" film that would have made for a perfect release ruined.

This movie was terrible and was purchased to assist my high school student while reading the book. The movie was not helpful for my student. I would not recommend this purchase EVER!The Scarlet Letter