The Scarlet Letter | | Cast : | Demi Moore, Gary Oldman | | Director : | Roland Joffé | | Studio : | Buena Vista Home Entertainment | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned | | Released Date : | October 13, 1995 | | DVD Released Date : | August 03, 2004 | | Language : | English (Dubbed) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | July 15, 2005 | | Summary | Shame...on the Filmmakers! | Content
 |
This is the worst version of Hawthorne's book ever! Demi Moore eats dust as an actress. And what's with adding the mute Negro slave who takes a bath, the flaming Injun arrows, the happy ending?
About 4/5 of this movie has nothing to do with the original story. Wooden bathtubs. Nudity. Skinny dipping. Nudity. Stupidity. Nudity. Voyeurism.
I admit I laughed a lot - it's more ludicrous than something by the Marx Brothers.
If you want cheese, get some Velveeta.
If you want corn, get this movie. |
| Rating | | | Date | June 16, 2005 | | Summary | "Who is to say what is a sin in god's eyes?" | Content
| The theme of "The Scarlet Letter" is timeless. We are reminded of the beauty of Nathaniel Hawthorne's vision throughout the 1995 film version, even if it is not an exact adaptation of the text. The film would be more accurately described as a re-imagined form of the novel, committed to screen with just as much passion and originality. The film, like the novel, is a vision all its own, and those faithful to Hawthorne's original work will likely be unhappy with the film for that reason.
However, the most faithful film adaptations of novels are rarely the most entertaining--for then, what would be the point of a film version if nothing new and insightful or creative could be added? A film version of a novel offers very little room for creativity and expression on the part of the writers, because everything is taken from something previously written, so often writers are inclined to leave their own mark on a masterpiece--in this case, "The Scarlet Letter."
What results is a film with the same underlying theme, but with an entirely different execution. "The Scarlet Letter" is an inventive and arresting enough film that it should be judged with some separation from the novel. The film possesses certain qualities that make it nearly a masterpiece, such as John Barry's score, rich with deliriously lush strings and recurring melodies. The cinematography is another asset--grand with vivid colors and picturesque, romantic scenery. Puritan settings are recreated with eye-catching splendor.
It is the romantic nature of the film, as well as the timeless message, that will hold the viewer. A strength of the film is that, although the central love story is heightened, we never lose sense of the story's meaning: "Who is to say what is a sin in god's eyes?" (the last line of the film). This is still a controversial view, and perhaps the book did not make that outright claim (for the novel is open for interpretation). The film, however, does make that interpretation, and it is a powerful one that may explain some of the controversy surrounding the film. In this day, with such political topics as gay marriage on the table, this subject is more relevant than ever (and very controversial).
Demi Moore is the star of "The Scarlet Letter," and Hester Prynne was unquestionably the most daring role of her career. I feel many have been unfair with their appraisals of her performance. Moore is a very good, but perhaps not great actress. She was wise to approach Hester Prynne with restraint, but her performance is not without nuance. It is a sensitive, unforgettable performance and Moore's finest achievement.
The film does have its flaws, undoubtedly. The character of Matuba is under-developed. Some of the sex scenes are over-the-top, such as the use of candles as phallic symbols. Robert Duvall is slightly hammy as the insane doctor, held captive and released by Indians. There are some unnecessary scenes and some unnecessary dialogue, which suggests what the film needed most was a good editor (and perhaps that would have made all the difference, as the film runs well over two hours).
The flaws of "The Scarlet Letter" can easily be over-looked, if one is open-minded to a new vision of Hawthorne's work and the still-controversial theme (and interpretation the film takes). Religious views sometimes imprison us from being with the people we truly love--in Hester's case, she was unable to be with the man she loved (and the father of her child) because of a sin known as adultery and the punishment (death, banishment, the scarlet letter "A" for adultery Hester had to wear on her dress as a symbol of sin) Puritans provided. But is that really right--to punish for god? That is what the novel and film ask us, only the film leads us to an answer (and a happy ending).
The film is controversial because it answers the question. If you love someone, the film tells us, it is okay to be with them even if in religious opinion it is considered a sin. It was a bold statement, and in my opinion a true and beautiful one.
Let us remember what Oscar Wilde once said about works of art (which this film surely is) that spark debate: "Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital." If one applies that to the novel, written over a hundred years ago, then we know that the theme is still timeless. And if applied to the film--we know it was completely new. Something to be said for a film that takes a 150 year-old theme and makes it new again. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 30, 2005 | | Summary | The Scarlet Letter without the flashing light of purity | Content
| Freely adapted from Nathaniel Hawthorne's novel, it retains some elements but mostly reorients the story completely. The love story is kept, except that it was secret in most of the book and is made public for us the audience from the very start. The vengeance part of the story is emphasized by the Indian war that this vengeful ex-husband starts out of pure perversity since he has nothing to win out of it, far from it, since it will mean his own end in his own guilt like a revenge turned sour. The witch part is definitely emphasized too, even too much, but does not reach the level of the Crucible, even if it is in a way the same pattern that is followed. Here the film does not miss but rather avoids the fundamental point of the Crucible : witch-hunting was a political activity covering the greed of some landowners for the land of their neighbors. And we completely miss the nature part of the original story. All these drawbacks and shortcomings are compensated with a lot of love, passion, frustration and desire. The two main actors are brilliant in expressing the most extreme passion repressed and hidden away with pure willpower and maybe some condescending rejection for this society that was born in the dream of the freedom of a New Jerusalem and ended up in the drama and tragedy of the darkest and cruellest human passion, hatred based on jealousy. The film is probably a brilliant success at showing how righteousness can easily become criminal sectarianism, if not even worse if there is anything worse like fundamentalism. But in the end I missed nature's light that I remember is flashing and shining in this story. The end is nothing but a flight and not an escape. One can escape such a situation only by transforming it not running away like some fearful doggy.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
|
| Rating | | | Date | May 17, 2005 | | Summary | What were they thinking?! | Content
|
We are watching this movie in English class, and I believe our teacher remarked, "Hawthorne is turning in his grave." Too true. Unfortunately, Puritan society has been remade into a place that is only scandalized when it suits them to be. The rest of the time we simply have lots of random nudity, violence, and sex.
Demi Moore, playing Hester Prynne, is a rebel from the beginning. She angrily stands up to her elders and betters, and does many things that "are just not done!" She follows an unrealistically colored red bird into the forest, where she sees Dimmesdale skinny-dipping. She is enamored by this, and suddenly she looks like a wild woods-queen (her hair is down, she wears a garland of flowers in her hair, etc.) She returns only to find out it is the Sabbath, removes the wreath, and sets off to Church.
Apparently, Puritans have no problem with their minister being late to his own sermon, for Dimmesdale has time to stop in the woods and help this unescorted maiden with her cart (deeply stuck in mud). Then he boyishly suggests they change horses, he'll ride hers and she'll ride his (oh, how romantic!) and they show up at Church. There, and later over some Bible books, they bond.
When Chillingworth is apparently killed in an Indian attack, Dimmesdale decides to come to Hester's house in the middle of the night to break the tragic news (even though he finds out early in the day.) She is instantly horrified, and grabs Dimmesdale and pulls a curtain, where she talks in hushed whispers as her chest throbs. Then she pulls him and they end up in the shed, where they make love in the slowest sex scene imaginable. In the meantime, Mituba, some random servant Hester has, decides that what her mistress is doing is sexually stimulating, and we have flashes of her undressing in front of the unrealistically colored red bird. Hmmm....
Chillingworth, in the meantime, is not dead, but made to run the gauntlet as all the Indians beat him with sticks. Then we have images of him dancing around with a slaughtered wild animal (or animal skin) on his head. Hmmm, again...apparently, for Chillingworth to feel revengeful he needs to be insane and have no dignity at all...otherwise how COULD he feel such a basic human emotion as jealousy...
Some scenes of Dimmesdale mortifying his flesh...blood running down poles...Hester giving birth...etc...
Apparently, this continues into a stirring political speech for women's freedom in the end, and Dimmesdale and Hester are together to lead the rest of their highly implausible, improbable love lives together, in their staunch and pathetic happiness. By the end, I doubt many of us care about them at all--but never fear, for it's the unrealistically colored red bird that matters, you know...for it embodies Satan, or so it seems! After all, it's Scarlet,too...they kept to the book, well, kind of...*drips some more sarcasm*
Altogether appalling.
|
| Rating | | | Date | April 24, 2005 | | Summary | It's good. I think people have a problem with Demi | Content
| OK, you should of read the bood in high school, if not... read it. This addaptation is brilliant. I won't go into the plot, nor the ohh so deep meaning (bad word). I feel this movie was over looked because people had or still have a bad opinion of Demi Moore. Maybe they are scared that she is a strong actress who chooses roles that make her a target for the "People Magazine" crowd. She is a great actress, we are lucky she works, we need her to work more. Gary is always brilliant. Again, you probally know the story, this movie works...unlike say The Great Gasby... they needed to have a scrip not just copy the book. Pardon my spelling, I'm a writer yet my grammer and spelling suck. That's why computers exist. |
|
Picture 01 (20)
