The Scarlet Letter

Rating:
Summary: Colleen Moore and Alan Hale make it watchable...
Review: Colleen, more famous as a silent film star (Lilac Time, Ella Cinders), does the best she can with this dried out piece of toast of a movie. But to be honest, this just wasn't the role for her. In her last film, Colleen still has it, but Hester Prynne was not the role best suited to her talents.

Several comedic elements were added to a story usually known for it's depressing overtones, and there is a sense of "abridgedness" running through the uneven film. Produced in 1934, some of the uneveness and choppy style can be blamed on early sound film production, but not all.

Alan Hale is in good form as a comedic character, in a style he would use throughout his career. Other such Hale efforts can be seen in "The Adventures of Robin Hood", and "The Sea Hawk", both with Errol Flynn.

Colleen shines in just about anything, if you can find one of her films. "Lilac Time", "Ella Cinders", and "The Sky Pilot" are all good choices. Some of her best work was in comedies.

Overall, this isn't as bad a version of "The Scarlet Letter" as some make it out to be, but it is also not a masterpiece.

***NOTE: Colleen Moore was the first film star to popularize the "flapper" look in the 1920's, most notably with her bobbed, pageboy/dutchboy hairstyle. A shrewd investor, she went on to write a book on how women could invest in the stock market. Colleen also designed a world-class dollhouse now housed in a Chicago museum.

Rating:
Summary: The Gish/Hanson Version Rules
Review: I have seen two motion picture renditions of the Hawthorne classic, this one starring Colleen Moore in her final role and the 1926 silent classic starring Lillian Gish and Lars Hanson. This 1934 film is very different than the silent version. The courtship between Hester Prynne and Pastor Dimmesdale that made up a major portion of the Lillian Gish version is skipped entirely. The absence of this background causes the scene where Prynne receives her 'A' to be less dramatic. Henry B. Walthall plays Roger Prynne in both of these films. As a Walthall fan, I was happy to see the silent star have much more significant air time here than in the 1926 film. Walthall is seen right from the beginning and his character is given the opportunity to explain his feelings more than in the earlier rendition. Roger Prynne "Chillingworth," who makes Hester promise not to admit to being his wife, almost shows sympathy towards Hester's plight. Still, Roger will not grant her request to leave Pastor Dimmesdale (played by Hardie Albright) to his own personal guilt. Roger insists on sadistically contributing to the adulterer's slow torment. As the other reviewers have noted, the Laurel and Hardy wannabe team of Alan Hale and some other guy really fall flat. It is not that humor was inappropriate for the Scarlet Letter. The silent film had Karl Dane as the dopey fellow who speaks to his prospective wife through a courtship trumpet only to get slapped for his "unbridled passions" when he steals a kiss before he leaves. This humor worked because it was subtle. Many of the early talkies offered comedy relief which was often excessive. The Scarlet Letter of 1934 is another example. Despite the silly humor, it is not a bad film. The acting is very good. It is just not an emotionally powerful film like the Gish/Hanson version.

Rating:
Summary: Proves that comedy has no place in The Scarlet Letter
Review: The very first adaptation of The Scarlet Letter was a silent picture released in 1926, but this 1934 version is the first to feature sound. That and the great disservice it does to the underlying story are its only claims to fame. The original novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne is one of the most respected, best-known works of literature to ever grace the printed page, and this adaptation of that great novel is exceedingly strange. Certainly, The Scarlet Letter is a somber, contemplative story, but that is where it's all-too-human heart lies. The makers of this film, for reasons I fail to comprehend, chose to add comedy to the production, thereby producing one of the weirdest movies I have ever suffered through. With a length of sixty-eight minutes, it naturally glosses over much of the emotional and plot-driven wonders of the novel, but its own scarlet sin is the inclusion of a number of entirely purposeless scenes designed to produce laughs. I think I am safe in saying that The Scarlet Letter and comedy do not and certainly should not go hand in hand. We get only the most basic of outlines of Hester Prynne's sin and subsequent life bearing the scarlet letter. The casting of 20s flapper Colleen Moore to play Hester seems to be something of a mistake to my eyes, as I never really saw her as the Hester Prynne I have known fairly well for a number of years now. Arthur Dimmesdale comes across pretty well, although we have no sign until the very end of any of the self-flagellating punishments he inflicted upon himself as penance for the sin he was too cowardly to acknowledge. Henry B. Walthall reprises his 1926 role as Roger Chillingworth, but the depth of his own iniquity is never really laid bare, although we are privy to his plans regarding the unfortunate Mr. Dimmesdale. The child who played Pearl was very good, though, and helped make up for some of the larger faults of the other character representations.

Two things ruined this movie for me. One is the awful cattiness of the women in the community; early on, we are treated to a number of "in my day" or "they should have let us women take care of Hester's punishment" speeches; while those kinds of thoughts or expressions probably do apply here, there is far too much of it in the movie. What I really hated was the addition of a duo of dolts adding a Laurel & Hardy aspect to the movie. First they exchange smart remarks and the little guy finds himself supporting a heavy wagon on his back while his partner putters around interminably with a grin on his face, but later on the two become involved in a romantic triangle of sorts. The big guy takes it upon himself to tell the little guy's chosen sweetheart just how much the little guy loves her; he does this by whispering back and forth to her through a marriage trumpet-naturally, the rather undesirable woman thinks the big guy is the prospective bridegroom-this Three's Company-esque situation only gets worse when both men accidentally see a pair of her "nethergarments" lying about. This scene and these silly actors have no place at all in Nathaniel Hawthorne's remarkable story, and such inane, totally out-of-place comedy totally destroys the serious mood surrounding the Reverend Dimmesdale's overbearing guilt and Hester's praiseworthy steadfastness and struggle.

This movie completely fails to capture the passion and emotion of the story it proposes to tell. Without the needless comedy, it would be woefully incomplete yet watchable; with the ill-fated attempts at humor, it is hardly worth watching at all.

Rating:
Summary: Proves that comedy has no place in The Scarlet Letter
Review: The very first adaptation of The Scarlet Letter was a silent picture released in 1926, but this 1934 version is the first to feature sound. That and the great disservice it does to the underlying story are its only claims to fame. The original novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne is one of the most respected, best-known works of literature to ever grace the printed page, and this adaptation of that great novel is exceedingly strange. Certainly, The Scarlet Letter is a somber, contemplative story, but that is where it's all-too-human heart lies. The makers of this film, for reasons I fail to comprehend, chose to add comedy to the production, thereby producing one of the weirdest movies I have ever suffered through. With a length of sixty-eight minutes, it naturally glosses over much of the emotional and plot-driven wonders of the novel, but its own scarlet sin is the inclusion of a number of entirely purposeless scenes designed to produce laughs. I think I am safe in saying that The Scarlet Letter and comedy do not and certainly should not go hand in hand. We get only the most basic of outlines of Hester Prynne's sin and subsequent life bearing the scarlet letter. The casting of 20s flapper Colleen Moore to play Hester seems to be something of a mistake to my eyes, as I never really saw her as the Hester Prynne I have known fairly well for a number of years now. Arthur Dimmesdale comes across pretty well, although we have no sign until the very end of any of the self-flagellating punishments he inflicted upon himself as penance for the sin he was too cowardly to acknowledge. Henry B. Walthall reprises his 1926 role as Roger Chillingworth, but the depth of his own iniquity is never really laid bare, although we are privy to his plans regarding the unfortunate Mr. Dimmesdale. The child who played Pearl was very good, though, and helped make up for some of the larger faults of the other character representations.

Two things ruined this movie for me. One is the awful cattiness of the women in the community; early on, we are treated to a number of "in my day" or "they should have let us women take care of Hester's punishment" speeches; while those kinds of thoughts or expressions probably do apply here, there is far too much of it in the movie. What I really hated was the addition of a duo of dolts adding a Laurel & Hardy aspect to the movie. First they exchange smart remarks and the little guy finds himself supporting a heavy wagon on his back while his partner putters around interminably with a grin on his face, but later on the two become involved in a romantic triangle of sorts. The big guy takes it upon himself to tell the little guy's chosen sweetheart just how much the little guy loves her; he does this by whispering back and forth to her through a marriage trumpet-naturally, the rather undesirable woman thinks the big guy is the prospective bridegroom-this Three's Company-esque situation only gets worse when both men accidentally see a pair of her "nethergarments" lying about. This scene and these silly actors have no place at all in Nathaniel Hawthorne's remarkable story, and such inane, totally out-of-place comedy totally destroys the serious mood surrounding the Reverend Dimmesdale's overbearing guilt and Hester's praiseworthy steadfastness and struggle.

This movie completely fails to capture the passion and emotion of the story it proposes to tell. Without the needless comedy, it would be woefully incomplete yet watchable; with the ill-fated attempts at humor, it is hardly worth watching at all.