The Scarlet Letter

It baffles me when people criticize a movie after reading the original book and feel that it doesn't measure up. This movie review delves into the film's plot and characters, providing insights into its strengths and weaknesses without drawing direct comparisons to the book. For those curious about the movie's storyline and overall quality, this review offers a comprehensive analysis. Of course, I really enjoyed this movie based on Nathaniel Hawthorne's novel after watching it on YouTube through my smart TV. I had never seen the 1926 or 1995 versions of the novel, so the 1934 film is the only version I know and love. Disney lovers may also like this film, which stars Hardie Albright, the voice of Bambi, as a young adult deer.

I found Pearl, the kid in the film, to be adorable. It was unfortunate that the other children wouldn't play with her because they seemed to mimic their parents' behavior. One especially difficult child appeared to have his harridan mother's personality. The comedy between two original characters that everyone criticizes adds a refreshing change to an otherwise somber, yet beautifully told story. Overall, I really love this film; that is my last word.

"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. (**)

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.

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.