The Scarlet Letter (1934)

Taking its place alongside many of the screen's classic thrillers of the 1930s, The Scarlet Letter has never been seen in a high quality version on home video... until now. Though inspired by one of the all-time classic novels, the story told here is as bizarre as any told by Hollywood as revenge-crazed madman Chillingworth proves to be one of the of the movies' greatest figures of the macabre. In Puritan New England, an era of torture and witch burnings, Chillingworth's mind snaps upon hearing of his wife's adultery and illegitimate child. This man of medicine becomes a "mad doctor" and uses his insane power over people's minds and bizarre medical treatments to attain his vengeance. Having lived with Indian tribes, the doctor possesses a knowledge of weird, primitive drugs, which he uses to torture his victims -- such as a peculiar plant harvested from a dead man's corpse in a graveyard, used to torture the Reverend Dimmesdale in one of the eeriest sequences. This classic 1934 film was the first sound version of the great American masterpiece by Nathaniel Hawthorne and was produced on a spectacular scale, now specially restored for the first time from the 3mm nitrate original camera negative.

Lame but better than Demi Moore

I am going to disagree with the previous reviewer. Humor is completely inappropriate for The Scarlet Letter. Hawthorne's novel exuded unremitting gloom. I have not seen the silent version for many years but feel it was superior to this one if memory serves. This 1934 entry has perfectly dreadful acting from nearly everyone. Colleen Moore was an actress who did not transition well to talkies. Her style of acting is all too similar to a silent movie performance. It is overly emotional. She does not deliver lines well either. I use this film version in my English classroom because it at least sticks to the main story line of the novel. Another reviewer on this site regrets the omission of the courtship scenes displayed in the silent version. No such scenes occur in the novel, which begins with Hester's punishment as does this film. October 31, 2008

Forgery!

This is NOT the 1926 Gish version as promoted on the DVD cover. Amazon would be advised to correct the 1926 label from their product title, as this is an inferior 1930s version. Buyer be warned! January 12, 2008

Wrong film

The film on the disc in the box is NOT as the box claims Victor Sjostrom's wonderful silent version of The Scarlet Letter, which I have seen, but the very poor sound version from the 1930s. I suggest that Amazon ceases to advertise it as the 1926 version. January 7, 2008

Hawthornes's Immortal Novel receives poverty row treatment

"The Scarlet Letter" (Majestic, 1934), directed by Robert G. Vignola, is the first sound screen adaptation to the immortal novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne, set in 18th century Massachusetts, starring former silent movie comedienne Colleen Moore in what was to become her final screen appearance.

Filmed eight years after the silent MGM 1926 success that starred Lillian Gish and Lars Hanson, this sound adaptation differs from the earlier film in both continuity as well as production values. In the silent version, Hester Prynne (Gish), a seamstress whose husband is away at sea, meets the Rev. Arthur Dimmesdale (Hanson), who falls in love with her unaware that she is married. However, she becomes pregnant with his child and after the baby's birth, she keeps Dimmesdale's secret that he is the father in spite of the punishment she must face. In the sound version, set in 1642, the story starts off almost immediately in which the viewer finds Hester Prynne (Moore), already a mother, holding her infant daughter, Pearl, in her arms, standing in front of the congregation. She is on trial for having the child out of wedlock and because she refuses to name the father of her baby, for her humiliation and punishment she must wear the scarlet letter "A" over her bosom for the rest of her natural life. Henry B. Walthall, who plays Roger Prynne, Hester's middle-aged husband in both 1926 and 1934 versions, appears in the near beginning of the story while in the silent version, his character makes his appearance almost an hour from the start of the film. In the two versions, his character returns home from his long sea journey to find his young wife has beared forth a child that is obviously not his, thus, and to save face, decides to be known through the community as Doctor Roger Dillingwell. Hester, in turn keeps her husband's identity a secret, knowing that his avenge is to learn the father's identity. Moving forward to 1647, Hester's daughter, Pearl (Cora Sue Collins), now five, must face her own humiliation by being an outcast to the neighborhood children, who refuse to play with her, and being insulted by their mothers, unaware as to why she is being treated just as cruelly as her mother, who steps in on Pearl's behalf after one scene finding Pearl getting mud thrown at her by the other children. As for the Rev. Arthur Dimmesdale (Hardie Albright), he silently suffers for being worshiped by his congregation, unable to confess to all, through a promise he had made to Hester to keep silent, that he is the one responsible for Hester's guilt, and continues to suffer until the climax.

While "The Scarlet Letter" in 1926 was intelligently made and still holds up surprisingly well today, the 1934 adaptation might have equaled the earlier had it not been for its low production values and very slow pacing. Some of the dialog spoken has good intentions and meaning, but then sinks with some unnecessary comedy scenes (mostly by Alan Hale and William Kent) and poorly spoken dialog that unbalances the continuity to the story. At times I wonder what it would have been like had MGM itself remade "The Scarlet Letter" with Lillian Gish reprising her earlier role, with possibly Fredric March or Franchot Tone playing Dimmesdale. Would it have been a failure or would it have been in the class of MGM's other literary works of that period, which include the 1935 releases of "David Copperfield," "Anna Karenina" and "A Tale of Two Cities?"

Personally, after seeing "The Scarlet Letter" of 1934 several times, which is currently a public domain title available through numerous video sources, I find it's real fault is its slow pacing, and sometimes the performance of Hardie Albright, whose character plays weak, but fails to bring forth the strong points to his character. Aside from the actors mentioned, the movie includes screen veterans William Farnum, Virginia Howell and Jules Cowles (who can also be seen in the 1926 version). Film buffs will delight into watching this rarely seen find, which did enjoy some frequent revivals during the early years of Cable TV in the 1980s, but others will find themselves falling asleep long before the movie is over. But steer clear of the Demi Moore 1995 "free adaptation.". To learn more about the Hawthorne literary classic, just read the novel. (**) January 9, 2006

Secret repentance kills the soul and the body

This adaptation of Hawthorne's novel is not a masterpiece according to today's cinematographic art. But it is an essential historical document on how the novel was seen in these old years, and how the cinema worked : with no special effects and no computers, not even color. And moreover it is an essential film because the vision of the novel and of the plot is, though short and simple, extremely faithful. We hence have a full drama of impossible repentance imposed onto one sinner by the other. Repentance has to be public or it is not. We also have a drastic vision of the punished woman becoming the glorified person whereas the man who goes unpunished by society is tenfold more punished by his own soul and guilt. Punished to death. This is the very reversal of the puritan vision by life that thus appears as denying any righteousness to puritanism. The point on which this film is rather deficient is the vision of the child. In those days it xas not that easy to get a child to perform this role, the role of Pearl. It is slightly regrettable because the child is the real center of the novel, in spite of what some may think. She is the real heroin and the true winning victim. At this level there is some cynism on the part of the novel and this film renders it very well.

Dr Jacques Coulardeau

June 8, 2005

More reviews at Amazon.com ...