Does Changing ‘Scarlet’ Make for a Red-Letter Day? : Alterations Made Film Better Than Book

Let me be the first person to stand up and say what no critic seems to be willing to admit: Nathaniel Hawthorne is boring, pedantic and redundant. I held that opinion when he was first shoved down my throat in high school honors English class. In fact, I disliked him so much I concentrated on Emerson and his Transcendentalists in college to avoid Hawthorne, and I carried this opinion into my own teaching career. When faced with the choice of introducing my ninth-graders to Hawthorne or Truman Capote, I quickly opted for Capote. So it was no skin off my teeth when Roland Joffe, Demi Moore, et al., decided to re-envision “The Scarlet Letter” (“Puritans Go Hollywood,” Calendar, Oct. 13). Had they followed the book religiously (no pun intended) the film would have been a failure.

Hawthorne’s book was a morality tale for its time. That is one of the key reasons it was so heralded among the masses. Sex was the vilest sin of women (and in many places still is--anyone been to Iran recently?). “The Scarlet Letter” taught goodwives and their daughters how awful it could be. Joffe, however, saw his own truth--hopefully a new, modern truth--in Hawthorne’s ponderous prose. He has a right to do that.

No book has only one message to impart to every reader. That’s what I used to teach my students. You interpret the book by bringing your own life experiences to it. If that combination helps you bring something larger out of it, then the book is a classic. Otherwise, it is just popular fluff.

*

So Joffe interpreted Hawthorne’s story to be a testament to the true beauty and power of love. I, for one, agree with him. Love has to be part of the original text or why else would Hester, a proper Puritan woman, so willingly surrender? And why else did Dimmesdale grieve so over his own actions?

Simple lust was reviled and easily repulsed in their time. Only something deeper than a roll in the hay could make them take such terrible risks. And only something deeper, some truer feelings for Dimmesdale and his position, could keep Hester’s secret within her for so many years.

Joffe chose to illuminate his impression of the novel and I enjoyed it. I enjoyed watching a woman taking as much control of her destiny as her time and place allowed. I enjoyed watching a love scene that involved all pleasure and no pain. No ice picks under the mattress, no gang rapes on the pool table, just two people thoroughly enjoying the interaction of their bodies. That is a rarity in American film these days.

Finally, as to changing the ending, he’s right there too. If the message is that love prevails, then love has to prevail. If you don’t like it, read the book. I dare you to get through the first four chapters.