The Scarlet Letter

I was struck by how faithful this film is to the original novel, comparatively speaking anyway (I've seen versions of Jane Eyre with a beautiful Jane, and versions of Moby Dick where Ahab wins!). The three main characters - Hester, Chillingworth, and the tortured Reverend, are all sensitively and accurately portrayed. The story is compacted, of course, but the essential elements are there.

The only real let-down is the inclusion of strange, slapstick comic characters who show up every ten minutes, like clockwork, to perform some unfunny bit of business. A perverse part of me kinda liked them, maybe because they were so crass, and such an obvious attempt to lighten the mood. I also got a strange joy out of seeing some totally inappropriate costumes among the villagers, including what appeared to be a group of Conquistadors (!) loitering in the background.

It's amazing that, despite these horribly incongruous elements, the film works pretty well.

This film is probably most notable, in hindsight, as containing the last cinematic performance from Colleen Moore, one of the great "silent" stars of the 1920s. Ms. Moore's portrayal of Hester Prynne is neither great nor representative, but it does reveal the actress had the ability to carry on making pictures with sound. Sadly, the available material proved unworthy of Moore.

This is an uninspired, and unnecessary, attempt at a more comic version of Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter"; it is more listless than lighthearted. The drama is provided by the classic literary trio of characters: Moore as Hester Prynne, Hardie Albright as Arthur Dimmesdale, and Henry B. Walthall as Roger Chillingworth. The comedy is provided by Alan Hale as Bartholomew Hockings, William Kent as Sampson Goodfellow, Virginia Howell as Abigail Crakstone, and others. In a close call, but the comedy side of the story is slightly more entertaining.

Mr. Hale's performance is the most enjoyable of the comic players; significantly, he is able take all the attention off Mr. Albright, during one of the latter's dramatic sermons, as Reverend Dimmesdale. Mr. Walthall, who performed the same character in the far superior 1926 version, with Lillian Gish, is interesting to watch; but, his attempt at a faithful portrayal of Chillingworth does not match the surrounding production.

Adorable Cora Sue Collins plays "Pearl" Shirley Temple-like -- this is understandable, given the time of release -- consider, especially, the scene when Ms. Moore and her little girl take swords, begin a dancing march, and chant, "Boom! Boom! Boom!" Cora, take a bow!

Made in 1934 not long after the 'talkies' took over from the silent era this is one of the many versions of the classic novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne. It has been made many times and I still love the 1995 version with Demi Moore and Gary Oldman. Here we have Colleen Moore (who was a star of the silent era) playing the fallen woman Esther Prynne – ordered to wear the scarlet letter 'A' for adultery to ever mark her sin and shame.

Hardie Albright plays the Reverend Arthur Dimmsdale and they still do that acting without words that was reminiscent of earlier filmatic days. They manage to get a lot of chemistry going despite the limited dialogue in places. There is also some humour ably supplied by a strong supporting cast. One of which is an early appearance of Alan Hale who went on to appear in many of Errol Flynn's films.

It is a poor quality audio but it does not detract from the overall feel of this time piece of a film. Made about history it has become a part of cinema history in its own right. I really enjoyed it as I love films from all eras. If you are a film history fan then this will be one you will be pleased to have seen.

This is an adequate and generally faithful screen version of Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter". It is sometimes lacking in energy and dramatic tension, but both the story and its heroine are tough to do justice to on screen, and of the various attempts to do so, only the silent version with Lillian Gish has ever really worked. This features Colleen Moore as Hester, and it brings out the main points of the story well enough.

Moore's performance is actually good in its own right, but it does not really fill the shoes of Hawthorne's conception of Hester. That's nothing against Moore, a good actress, and indeed she makes this version better than the 1990s attempt, which was nearly unwatchable despite having a cast of well-regarded performers. As Dimmesdale, Hardie Albright gives a mostly plain performance, though there are times when this actually works in bringing out the character's inherent weakness of will. Henry B. Walthall gives a good portrayal of the vengeful Roger.

Most of the sequences work in telling the essentials of the story without frills. Some of the screen time is devoted to comic relief by Alan Hale and William Kent, which provides some light moments, although it never really fits in with the rest of the movie.

Overall, it's a solid effort for its time that does get across the main themes of the story. With a little more character development, it actually might have been rather good.

This movie was made by Majestic Films and has fallen into the public domain. If you'd like to see it, click the link on IMDb and you can either watch it online or download it for later viewing.

"The Scarlet Letter" begins with a prologue which, frankly, was really, really stupid and sought to undo some of the impact of the film. It talked of Puritans and their harsh ways and then described them as being '...a necessity of the times'! What?! What idiot decided to hedge the film's bets by trying to make the Puritans seem like cool folk--and nothing like Hawthorne's novel! This film features some rather familiar actors. Colleen Moore is in the lead, and while she is pretty much forgotten today, was a huge star at the time and in the late silent era. In addition, the ubiquitous Henry Walthall and William Farnum (both silent stars) are on hand as is Alan Hale. Oddly, Hale has been inserted as comic relief--and I certainly didn't think that this novel was a comedy!! However, apart from this inappropriate addition and the stupid prologue, the rest of the film is reasonably close to the novel and is quite good--though some of the more allegorical aspects have been removed--making the story more straight-forward and less symbolic. The only noticeable shortcoming in the film I haven't mentioned is the lack of incidental music--a sure sign of a low-budget production. Still, with such a small budget, the acting and production as a whole was worthy of Hawthorne's novel.