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.

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

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.

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.

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.