The Scarlet Letter

Horace Stonehall

**_A glimpse of what it was like to live on the Northeast coast in the mid-1600s_** Hester Prynne arrives at the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1666 (Demi Moore) to set up a homestead in preparation for her husband. As she gets to know the local pastor, Arthur Dimmesdale (Gary Oldman), they get word of tragedy concerning her spouse (Robert Duvall). "The Scarlet Letter” (1995) is notorious for being one of the worst adaptions of a well-known novel ever made, but movies usually make significant changes, such as Coppola & writer James Hart adding a love story to “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” which didn’t hinder that movie from being a popular (modest) hit. Even films based on recent novels make notable changes, such as “Serena.” How much more so with a book from 1850? Adding details on how Hester meets Arthur and how their relationship evolves works in my book. After all, viewers need to know why the protagonists were susceptible to the moral transgression in question. Of course, the reason Hawthorne’s book delayed the revelation of who Hester committed adultery with was to create suspense and provoke shock when it’s revealed to be the minister. Speaking of Arthur, he’s more noble here compared to the book where he’s an over-the-top hypocrite. They made the lumber baron in “Serena” more honorable as well. Or consider Roger Moore, who refused to portray James Bond as a woman-beater after his first movie in the role, which was a hit. Once actors gain an amount of clout, they’ll play the part the way they want to, not the way the book (or scriptwriter or director) technically says. Other changes include the addition of a slave woman, Mituba, but her role is so marginal, it doesn’t matter. Expanding the roles of the Wampanoag and Mi'kmaq peoples (the latter referred to as the Tarrantines) is also so slight that it’s not a big deal. And, honestly, I feel their expansion enhances the proceedings. So, the biggest change, is the ending, which isn’t as downbeat as the book, but isn’t exactly Disney-fied either, if you pay attention to Pearl’s narration. What I like most is how the movie successfully puts you into the setting of the Massachusetts Bay Colony of the mid-1600s and makes the Puritans & others come alive. While this is romantic drama within a historical setting, there are bits of adventure, thrills, moral complexity and theological ruminations, as well as tragedy. It comes across as a mixture of films like “The Last of the Mohicans,” “Rob Roy” and “The Crucible,” the latter not debuting until the year after this one. It runs 2 hours, 15 minutes, and was shot on Vancouver Island in British Columbia, including areas around Campbell River. Other scenes were shot on the other side of Canada in Nova Scotia; specifically in the towns of Yarmouth and Shelburne, as well as the village of Saint Alphonse in Clare. GRADE: B+/A-