THE SCARLET LETTER (1995) A Film Review by Ted Prigge Copyright 1998 Ted Prigge
Director: Roland Joffé Writer: Douglas Day Stewart (based "freely" on the novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne) Starring: Demi Moore, Gary Oldman, Robert Duvall, Lisa Jolliff-andoh, Edward Hardwicke, Robert Prosky, Roy Dotrice, Joan Plowright, Malcolm Storry, Dana Ivey
My theory when watching a film adaptation of a novel, whatever it may be, is that the film can do anything it wants with it; it just has to work as a film itself. After all, if a film is EXACTLY like the book, why are we wasting our time watching it? Can't we just pick up the book and get a better picture of everything? When discussing this, I always bring up Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of Stephen King's "The Shining," a film that is like the book for about the first 50 or so pages, and then takes off in a completely different direction, yet is much more fun and all-around better than the book, which soon pulls all of its punches and ends in a manner that goes beyond cheap.
The main thing that this version of "The Scarlet Letter" has in common with the famous novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne is the title and the basic set-up. It still tells the story of Hester Prynne, a puritan woman who has an affair with the local priest which results in a baby, and is forced to wear a scarlet-colored "A" on her chest to show everyone that she has sinned. And it features all of the same characters, and ALMOST ends the same way, but that's about all that these two have in common.
This, in my estimation, would be totally fine if it all worked out as a film. If this could become a good film by doing what it does with its source, then by all means I would personally have no problem with it. But I have many problems with this. Instead of being a symbolism-laden parable about hypocrisy and set-morals, it decides to become a condemnation of Puritan lifestyles, not because they're a bunch of hypocrites, but because, hey, they won't have sex!
That's barely the least of the problems. I wish there was just one main thing wrong with this film, but there are so many problems, ranging in size, that this film just completely topples over, and instead of being the "passionate" and "erotic" story it tries to be, it becomes "dull" and "laughable." Are we supposed to be moved in any way by that scene where Hester is bathing and her young female servant girl decides to take a peak at her through a hole in the door? Introducing interracial homosexual undertones would be fine if it fit at all with the rest of the film. Here, it just induces laughing.
I'm actually somewhat shocked that this film is so terrible, because apart from the laughably horrible casting of Demi Moore as Hester (!!!), you have what is a really competent cast...or at least is supposed to be competent. You have Gary Oldman, a totally amazing actor, in a very strong role, perhaps the toughest role in the entire story: Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale, the priest who boinks Hester, whose identity is not revealed, and who is forced to live what with he thinks is guilt for "lowering" himself to having an affair. You also have Robert Duvall, one of the best living actors, as Hester's husband, Roger, who is believed to be dead in the beginning, but who comes back to disguise himself as someone else and to try and torture not only Hester but Arthur as well. And in smaller roles you have the normally very competent Robert Prosky as a head servant of the society, and the great Joan Plowright as a woman who is believed to be a witch because she has a dirty mouth. Look away from Demi Moore's name in first bill and you see what is a great cast in what could have been a great movie.
But alas, they have opted to remove some of the parts of the book which really would have helped this out, primarily because it's a big budget (somewhere in the range of $60 million) Hollywood fiasco, and since many Hollywood distributors take their audiences for idiots (look at "Godzilla" if you don't believe me, but just take my word for it), they have to dumb it down. The novel starts off when the "A" is placed on Hester's chest, long after the affair; the film spends a ghastly hour filling in the beginning, trying to make this a romance, even though the main reason Hester loves Dimmesdale is because she saw him swimming naked (!!!), and the main reason Dimmesdale loves Hester is because she has a big chest (they had silicon back then? okay, bad joke).
The good thing about the book was it didn't give a shit about all that; it's more concerned with the aftermath, and revolves around the inner problems the characters face. Sure, the book spends hundreds of pages dealing with inner toil, but the thing is it worked. Spending an hour on the romance, especially as silly as it is presented here, is a big fat waste of time, and the second hour, instead of dealing with the aforementioned inner toils, reduces itself to melodramatic and ridiculous action.
And then there's the ending. The book ends in a way that is literally proposterous, but is simultaneously sad enough to become tragic and satirical. This film opts for a "happy" ending, with a big action showdown between Indians (!!! - how many time do I have to do this?) and the Puritans, featuring fire, carnage, and lots of people running around screaming. It also aims for its totally ridiculous and ignorant message, that the Puritans were evil because they tried to stop sex and illicit affairs when the Puritans were really evil because they were a bunch of big fat hypocrites.
Not that the film is totally without merit. Gary Oldman, despite having to do some really ridiculous stuff, does give what would be a good performance. You can almost see him trying to bring out some of the emotional and satirical depth of the novel in certain scenes, as if he actually took the time to read the book and understand what it's about (because we all can tell that no one else did, unless you count screenwriter Douglas Day Stewart reading a couple pages of the Cliffs Notes for this). Duvall, try as he must, actually comes off as laughable, giving what easily ranks as his worst performance, though in all reality it wasn't entirely his part. However, as we are speaking about acting, I suppose I should mention Joan Plowright, who should be embarrassed for her performance in this: she comes off as if she took muscle relaxers before every shoot. And there's Demi...I won't even waste the time.
The really weird thing about this is that anytime anyone mentions this book to anyone who went to high school, including me, you get a nasty look. This really is one of the most painful and excruciating novels to read, and it's all the more worse because you're forced to read it and disect it. Hawthorne may have been able to weave a complex and satirical story which has great ideas, but for any entertaining value, this comes up snake eyes. Yet when you watch this film, you automatically yearn for the novel and how it didn't treat you like a moron, and didn't come off as being completely dull. At the least you could get into a debate over morals or hypocrisy with this, which is a lot better than talking about how you didn't like what is basically a really dull, overly-melodramatic, and completely incompetent love story.
MY RATING (out of 4): *1/2
Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews