`Scarlet Letter' is irrelevant to Hawthorne's novel

---

RATING: * * *

---

by Chris McKenzie

---

Well, in an effort to appease everyone, I'll begin by setting up the plot to the movie:

In 17th-century New England, Hester Prynne, a young Englishwoman, arrives at a Puritan colony to establish a home while awaiting the arrival of her husband, Roger. Hester (Demi Moore) immediately starts raising eyebrows in the town with her not-so-Puritan clothing and her brash mannerisms.

Very quickly, the town's minister, Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale (Gary Oldman), meets Hester, and before he realizes she's married, falls in love with her. In turn, Hester, who married Roger only for convenience, finds her true love in Rev. Dimmesdale. But, ever loyal to God's law, they don't act on their passions.

That is, until Roger turns up missing and presumed dead after Indians attack his ship. Hester and Dimmesdale mate, and lo and behold, Hester gets pregnant. By law, she was supposed to mourn Roger for seven years and so, technically, committed adultery. She decides to protect Dimmesdale's reputation and sacrifice her own by not revealing who the father is. As punishment, she is sentenced to wear a red letter "A" on her chest to remind everyone of her adultery.

Now, those who read the book should be able to see the big difference between the book and the movie: None of what I just described happens in the book. The book begins with Hester leaving prison with her brand-new punishment emblazoned on her dress. In the movie, Hester gets her punishment after an hour and 15 minutes, more than half of the film length, have gone by.

Thus, most of this movie is a hypothetical situation that leads up to the book; it fills in a lot of the blanks that are left ambiguous in the Hawthorne text.

That can be good for the lazy modern American viewer. But it robs the story of one of its best elements; in the book, the reader doesn't know who the father is until toward the end. In fact, much of the situation surrounding the story is never explicitly stated. It's almost as much a mystery as a romance.

But the movie takes all the mystery away and reduces the tale to being a straightforward love story. Then the question remains: Is it a good love story?

Well, yes, taken by itself, the movie is an average, acceptable linear love story. The only thing that separates it from other similar love plots is the unique irony of Dimmesdale, who, as the town's religious authority, is forced to denounce Hester and her sins, thus making him a hypocrite.

But this kind of irony is usually associated with tragedy. And, indeed, in the book, tragedy is what you get -- in the end, Dimmesdale dies. But this is a Hollywood adaptation, and therefore, you must have a happy ending. So, Hester and Dimmesdale ride off into the sunset, together, while the purists wretch.

That won't be all that makes them unhappy, though. There are probably a dozen plot elements in the movie that are making Nathaniel Hawthorne turn in his grave.

For instance, Indians played no part in the book, but in the movie, they're essential ... mainly to give the movie its happy ending.

Also, the Hester in the book, though certainly a strong and independent character, isn't quite the Renaissance woman that the movie makes her out to be. All of it smacks of political correctness, but then, what else is new?

One of the best parts of this movie is the villain, Roger Prynne/Chillingworth. No, Hester's husband didn't die in that Indian attack. After spending several years amongst the Indians who adopt him, he goes to find Hester, only to discover she's had a baby in his absence. Determined to find the adulterer, and to make Hester's life miserable, he poses in the colony under the name Chillingworth, offering his services to the town council. Robert Duvall fills this role superbly; his is one of the best villains that I've seen in a while.

As a date movie, The Scarlet Letter is definitely a good candidate, especially for those who don't know the story too well. Then again, any well-read couples that see it will have plenty to talk about over coffee afterward.

This item appeared in the Arts & Entertainment section of the October 27, 1995 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.