The Scarlet Letter

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.

"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, a public domain title available through numerous video and DVD sources, I find its real fault is its slow pacing, and sometimes the performance of Hardie Albright 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, and making it's Turner Classic Movies premiere January 28, 2024, but others will find themselves falling asleep long before the movie is over. To learn more about the Hawthorne literary classic, just read the novel. (**)

I have to confess that - aside from the broad brushstrokes - I'm largely unfamiliar with the novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne, and so am not able to speak to the faithfulness of this movie to that story. Judged on its merits as a movie, this wasn't bad. The struggle against sin and hypocrisy was fairly well represented, the judgmentalism of the early Puritan community in which its set is clearly portrayed. Having said that, it's rather bland and unemotional at times (which, admittedly, fits the stereotype of an early Puritan community) although in the few scenes in which there is emotion (I think particularly of the closing scene with Dimmesdale's public confession) that emotion is well portrayed. The settings here seemed wrong. In particular I thought the homes that were shown looked far too comfortable for the 1640's. Some of the performances (especially I thought that of Hardie Albright as Dimmesdale, with the exception of that closing scene) seemed a bit forced, although I appreciated the attempt to mix some humour into a movie that could have been very heavy, as Alan Hale and William Kent portray the attempts of Hockings to help Goodfellow court the widow Crakstone, although in some ways (again, I haven't read the novel) that seemed unconnected to the overall story. In the lead role, Colleen Moore was good as Hester Prynne, although she didn't dominate the movie in the way you would expect the lead to do. In terms of the overall quality of the movie compared to others of the era, I find the 1930's a strange decade. Some of its films seem quite modern, while others seem very old. This version of "The Scarlet Letter" seems to fit into the latter group. 4/10

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.

Colleen Moore was without doubt one of the best silent actresses, especially in comedy. Her wit, charm and energy were infectious - even in interviews late in life she still shone. How sad it is, therefore, that she retired so young - only 34 - and that she went out on a film such as this one. Not that this is a terrible film - it has some strong moments - and Colleen is actually very good, but it is hardly worthy of her talents and is certainly not a good showcase for them. She plays the tragic single mother in the Puritan community with strength and dignity and is well matched by Hardie Albright who is very strong as her priest-lover. But Colleen is never allowed to be funny - the part is a grim one. How much more suitable she would have been to something like "It Happened One Night". To waste a great talent like hers is appalling.

Ironically the worst thing in this movie is the attempted comic relief with Alan Hale and William Kent playing a couple of buffoons chasing an eligible widow. They really fall flat.