The Scarlet Letter

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!

This version of The Scarlet Letter starring Colleen Moore, Hardie Albright, and Henry B. Walthall was the first one done in sound and the seventh in 10 adaptions according Internet Movie Database. It marked the farewell performance of Colleen Moore who retired from the screen rather than continue in sound where she hadn't done as well as in silent films.

An independent outfit called Majestic Pictures did this one and to give it a nice ring of authenticity it was filmed at what now would be called a Puritan theme park set in Salem, Massachusetts. Author Nathaniel Hawthorne knew this culture well, one of his ancestors was the infamous Judge Hathorne of the Salem Witch Trials which occurred a couple of generations later.

These solemn and dour people who while the action of this film is taking place, 1642-1647, were also busy affecting a revolution over in the mother country that brought Oliver Cromwell to power eventually. Colleen Moore whose husband Henry B. Walthall had disappeared into the American wilderness some years before has an affair which produces a young girl child who is played by Cora Sue Collins.

But this Puritan Society is hard on unwed mothers and the town council deems her punishment to be that she be forced to wear a Scarlett Letter sewn to her garments of dress. Not unlike Jews forced to wear a yellow star of David or gays forced to wear the pink triangle under the Nazis. Walthall returns just in time to see this punishment pronounced, but he does not divulge his identity and he's welcomed in the community because he's a doctor.

Moore will not divulge the identity of the father and that would really rock this smug community as it is the town's pastor, Reverend Hardie Albright. Even back then we had people of the cloth who were not role models.

The problem is that Albright is a believer and he's really just human in a society that does not understand or tolerate human weakness. In the end it destroys him.

The whole novel with all its subtle nuances could not be filmed in a 70 minute running time. Yet I think the film managed to convey all that Hawthorne had to say on the subject. Being an independent film, it lacked production values a big studio could offer. Still the location filming made up for a lot of that.

This version of The Scarlet Letter is not a bad Cliff's Notes version of the classic novel.

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.

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.

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