Retelling a novel in a film adaption can be challenging. One needs to consider casting, as well as the context and setting of the story and more. Most important, the main theme should be faithfully represented. Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel The scarlet letter (1850) and Roland Joffe’s film (1995) of the same title have certain things in common: both feature the hardened life of Hester Prynne, who commits adultery in Puritan Boston in the mid-seventeenth century. However, the differences between the novel and the film are so prominent that the film can be a problematic retelling. The novel reveals the tragic lives of the characters – Hester and Pearl Prynne, Arthur Dimmesdale and Roger Chillingworth – as the inevitable result of the narrow and relentless Puritan society in the mid-seventeenth century. The film, in contrast, gives its leading roles unrestricted liberty, both physically and spiritually, rather than being subjected to the Puritan morality in the original story. This mismatch between the traits of main characters and their setting in the Puritan town compromises the integrity of the story.
        Joffe presents The Scarlet Letter as an overtly sensual retelling of the novel. The alterations he made in both the plot of the story and the nature of its leading characters are a total distortion of the novel. The film portrays Hester Prynne, starred by Demi Moore, who leaves her husband in Europe and comes to live in puritan Boston in the mid-seventeenth century. Her unconventional behavior and opinions draw attention from the repressed Puritans in town. She then meets the passionate young minister Arthur Dimmesdale, starred by Gary Oldman, whose sermons deeply touch her. The minister is also attracted by her charm and they soon secretly fall in love. After receiving the news that Virginian Indians have killed Hester’s husband, she gets pregnant, bearing the minister’s child. She is nonetheless accused of adultery even if it is not known whether her husband is alive then. In order to protect the respectable minister, she refuses to tell the name of the father and is condemned to wear the scarlet letter A as a badge of ignominy. She is not repentant and continues to challenge the principles of the Puritan society openly. Meanwhile, Dimmesdale also suffers great pain from his secrete guilt. Hester’s husband then appears in town and becomes a killer to take vicious revenge on Dimmesdale. With the help of Indians, Hester and Dimmesdale leave the town finally and enjoy a happy ending.
        Hawthorne’s novel, The Scarlet Letter, allows Hester Prynne to have a freedom of mind, undisciplined by the prejudice and principle of the society. “The world’s law was no law for her mind”. However, she keeps her “freedom of speculation” all within herself. She does not want to irritate the authorities and lose the right to raise her Pearl. Conversely, Joffé apparently attempts to give Demi Moore complete freedom of mind and speech that seem totally unrealistic for a woman in the given setting and time. He glorifies the character of Hester Prynne by making her unbelievably strong, out-spoken and full of righteous justice. He portrays her as a rather wealthy heroine who buys indentured labor to farm the land instead of doing needlework. He even allegorizes Hester as a feminist by making her to confront the male dominated authorities several times in the film. When Demi Moore is accused of heresy because of disregarding “the law of men,” she questions the magistrates that “If the discourse of woman is ‘untutored chattering,’ then why does the Bible tell us that women shall be the teachers of women?” It seems rather bizarre her argument is beyond the magistrates’s power of refutation. More peculiar, Joffe describes her as a true friend to Mistress Hibbins, standing up for her when she is suspected to be a witch at the judicial hearing. Hester says bravely that “Mistress Hibbins is no witch. And she committed no crime beyond speaking her mind.” This overt battle with the public contradicts entirely with the image of Hester in the book as she “interferes neither with public nor individual interests and convenience” (209). Instead of showing Hester as a female character in a setting parallel to Hawthornes’s depiction of Puritan town in 1642, Joffe makes her too avant-garde and aggressive for her period of time.
        Joffe misinterprets Hester’s morality under the Puritan setting by making noticeable change to her sense of sin in the film version. In the novel, Hester firmly believes she has sinned by the liaison with the minister though she never regrets their sincere love. She, therefore, throughout the book, does penance by living an ascetic life in an abandoned cottage at the outskirt of Boston. She is totally deprived of social interactions, with no friends and seeking none; she makes a living doing needlework and raises Pearl alone; she even gives out charity to the even more miserable beings. By doing so, she hopes that atonement can be made for “a union that is unrecognized on earth”. Hawthorne portrays her anguished by the public bitterness and conscious of the shame brought by the scarlet letter, but remains uncomplaining. In the film, however, Hester has no contrition or guilt nor does she think she has sinned at all. Right after Demi Moore is imprisoned because of adultery, she questions Dimmesdale that “Do you believe we’ve sinned? What happened between us has a consecration of its own!” Later in the scaffold scene, she challenges the Governor again on her understanding of sin: “I believe I have sinned in your eyes, but who is to know that God shares your views.” Whereas Hawthorne portrays Hester as a victim of Puritanism principles by presenting her sufferings and defenselessness to the notion of sin, Joffe makes her more like a victor over the “l(fā)aw of men.” Due to the absent conscious of sin in Demi Moore, Joffe is unable to bring to light the transfiguring and ascendant effects taken place in Hester in the novel, which is driven by her sense of sin. Therefore, he fails to underscore her transformation as Hawthorne does, which results from the inhuman nature of Puritan society – the main issue that Hawthorne criticizes.
        As Hester’s guilt-wracked lover, Arthur Dimmesdale, is not only too powerful a character in the film, but he has too much flexibility in expressing his love. In the movie, he does not reveal bravely to be the child’s father only because Hester pleads with him. However, “everything in [his] nature cries out for it.” Joffe’s Dimmesdale no longer has the nature of cowardice and hypocrisy, but is almost as brave and honest as Hester is. He even defends her innocence as he accuses her confinement as “an abomination.” Joffe manages to set up excessive interviews between Dimmesdale and Hester, only to demonstrate that he has true love for her and desperately wants to help her out by risking himself. Even more at the end of the movie, when Hester is about to be executed for witchcraft, Dimmesdale confesses his love and secret to the public: “I love this woman. I am the father of her child. And in God’s eyes, I am her husband.” He then puts the string on his own neck, wiling to die for Hester. By openly challenging the rules of the town, Joffe’s Dimmesdale seems to have a negative view on Puritanism as well. Joffe reverses the role of Dimmesdale to an emotive and courageous man who has a voice for his love and a respect for human nature. This revision is problematic because such qualities are deprived in this repressed “Puritan divine” as decribed in the novel, whose puritanical morality is so deep-rooted.
        Joffe overly emphasizes the emotional appeals to the audience by producing a Hollywoodized happy-ending. In the novel, Hawthorne creates a single powerful climax: all the other human voices and music subdue, left with only the majestic voice of Dimmesdale’s confession and the revelation of the scarlet letter on his breast. At this point, Hawthorne pushes all the tension and suppressed emotions – anguish, sin and repentance – to an extreme that they can bear no more but to be released into the final lyric paragraphs. The peaceful dialogue between Hester and Dimmesdale before his death serves as a powerful form of salvation for the previous vehement narrative as well as the burdened tragic lives of Hester and Dimmesdale. Joffe, however, creates different tension points in his ending. He depicts Hester, as a champion of justice, asks to be hanged together with Mistress Hibbins; then Dimmisdale heroically declares his love for Hester and is willing to dye for her; finally and most absurd, a rebellion by the Indians saves them all, turning the film into an action movie. Joffe introduces digression to release the main tension in the story. Though the ending that Hester and Dimmesdale live happily afterwards might be more comfortable for the audience, it is much less powerful than the one in the novel.
        Joffe portrays both Hester and Dimmesdale as the brave and passionate warriors against the Puritan society’s inhumanity, rather than being victims. Of course, it is good that Joffe believes that Hester and Dimmesdale eventually triumph over the repressed Puritan doctrines, but by giving them much more undisciplined freedom in their nature than Hawthorne does, he seems to deny the fact that they are ever repressed or affected by Puritanism. Assuming that both Hester and Dimmesdale have emancipated spirits almost equivalent to modern-day people, Joffe manages to cross out the imprint left on them by Puritanism in the mid-seventeenth century in Puritan Boston. By depriving those characters of the tragic consequences from the Puritan principles, he undermines the intention of Hawthorne in reforming Puritanism in the novel.

原載于：墨神的凡龕 http://www.thinkjam.org/mercury/archives/2005/03/eiecie2005ie.html

上周看的電影《紅字》（The Scarlet Letter，1995），觸動(dòng)很深?；蛟S一些專家尤其文學(xué)人士帶著原著的條框去定格她的時(shí)候，會(huì)有眾多的非議。但是從電影以及改編劇本的角度來看，不可否認(rèn)《紅字》算是成功之作。

她沒有完全照搬霍桑小說的原貌，事實(shí)上，想要完全照搬也是不可能的。小說從海斯特受到公審開始，而電影卻為她補(bǔ)充了一段前因，使故事更完整，人物行為和性格更突出更具特點(diǎn)。我認(rèn)為，這段海斯特來島，不懼欺辱，不理會(huì)他人眼光，以及叢林巧遇阿瑟牧師等等的安排都為后來打下了堅(jiān)實(shí)的伏筆，這種伊甸園般的場(chǎng)景，一見鐘情的相遇與后來受審，以致丈夫回來后的壓抑痛苦形成鮮明的對(duì)比，是謂欲抑先揚(yáng)吧。……

…… 另一方面，小說以人物心理的刻畫為主，主人公海斯特身上的紅字與阿瑟心中的紅字，甚至作為新一代小珠兒本身就是紅字的象征，三條線索一齊發(fā)展，丈夫不斷的對(duì)牧師進(jìn)行心上的拷問，兩個(gè)有情人也因?yàn)橄鄲凼沁^錯(cuò)備受煎熬。當(dāng)然，一部電影是無法通篇展示心理活動(dòng)的，于是電影《紅字》中導(dǎo)演將這種心理活動(dòng)具象化，用阿瑟的自責(zé)行為，丈夫的復(fù)仇計(jì)劃等等呈現(xiàn)給觀眾，這就是電影語言的不同之處。全篇以小珠兒的口氣畫外音敘述，結(jié)尾也讓有情人終成眷屬，不過最后阿瑟還是由于過度的自責(zé)和內(nèi)疚英年早逝，海斯特也沒有再和別人在一起－－“或許這就是上帝對(duì)他們的懲罰吧”。其實(shí)經(jīng)歷過這么多矢志不渝的忠貞愛情，最后能夠正大光明在一起，一天已是足以，更何況月月年年，不正是那句老話“兩情若是長久時(shí)，又豈在朝朝暮暮”。據(jù)說，結(jié)尾還是按照Dami Moore的意見修改的呢。似乎與原著已經(jīng)相距甚遠(yuǎn)，可是影片所表現(xiàn)的精神和想表達(dá)的內(nèi)涵還是與原著如出一轍殊途同歸了

巨喜歡男主角Gary Oldman演的阿瑟牧師，溫文爾雅的外表下是一顆炙熱的心，他有知識(shí)有風(fēng)度有思想有理想，他希望以真誠打動(dòng)印第安部落“鄰居們”，避免戰(zhàn)爭，他把圣經(jīng)翻譯成他們的文字，想與他們共享教義，他深入部落幫助他們，與他們結(jié)為朋友。可是統(tǒng)治者們竟然利用他的真誠和友誼妄想消滅異族。他才華出眾是少女們的偶像，他與海斯特偶遇一見傾心。他們戲劇性的在聚會(huì)上被多次引薦，他們一個(gè)漂亮驕傲，一個(gè)風(fēng)度翩翩，他們有共同的愛好－－讀書，他們更能看穿彼此的心。怎奈海斯特已嫁作他人婦，于是倆人小心翼翼的相處著，苦苦壓抑著真摯的情感。她不去想他，他前往遙遠(yuǎn)的部落傳道，一切的自禁只為忘記，或許稍許漸淡相思。可是真正的情感卻在這種“禁”中一觸即發(fā)。Gary Oldman將角色的情感用表情甚至眼神和氣質(zhì)表現(xiàn)的淋漓盡致，讓我們的心與他一起流淚流血，一起在禁中煎熬。

我也“禁”了幾天，總想認(rèn)真寫篇blog，可是感情還草草未準(zhǔn)備妥當(dāng)，直到這種感覺突然迸發(fā)時(shí)，就象海斯特聽到了丈夫的死訊，那種欣狂還略顯自責(zé)的的情感，于是我將即日的壓抑噴發(fā)出出來，歷練、凝固成一首“禁”。

禁
（2005.3.9）
誰用發(fā)絲捆綁住靈魂
心痛得呼吸都變得無力
誰的尺子試探著距離
遙遠(yuǎn)的無法測(cè)量的縫隙

誰用雙手包裹住抗拒
怎么還能聽見風(fēng)的嘆息
誰的信仰踐踏著心靈
如何能萌生出春的痕跡

鎖不住的心 情不自禁
忘了誰的誰 又想起誰的背影

誰用眼光鎖住了神奇
神奇般望穿了銅墻鐵壁
誰的剪影住進(jìn)了圣經(jīng)
圣經(jīng)點(diǎn)燃了似火愛情

誰用美麗來點(diǎn)綴衣襟
衣襟織繪著猩紅的字
誰的勇氣刺破了禁令
碎片散落了一地的光陰

鎖不住的心 情不自禁
忘了誰的誰 又重回誰的記憶

    這部電影是原著的改編版，結(jié)局比原著好太多，使得看客也多滿足了幾分，個(gè)人而言如果這樣一種環(huán)境下發(fā)展下來的故事又變?yōu)榱吮瘎?，那?shí)在沒有看下去的勇氣，畢竟生活是為了愉悅自己，還是喜歡一些具有正能量和幸福感的片子。
    剛開始發(fā)展得比較慢，可能是因?yàn)槲冶粍⊥噶说脑?，所以前部分看得有點(diǎn)急躁，但故事發(fā)展到了后半部分，情感糾葛和情節(jié)曲折還是十分引人入勝，看得膽戰(zhàn)心驚不敢放過任何一幕，英文版字幕雖然有些詞生澀難懂，但有一些英語詩歌常識(shí)的人應(yīng)該不會(huì)覺得理解意思很困難。喜歡劇中的男主角，尊重愛的人又不缺乏勇氣，相比起來原著中就沒有如此完美了，這部電影如此讓我喜歡還有一個(gè)原因是里面不缺乏善良的人兒，被認(rèn)為是巫師的鄰居一家增添了不少溫情的色彩，還有萌萌噠的女兒讓人不禁心生喜愛。
    片子中景色的選取也很美好，浪漫自然原始，總歸是一部成功的電影。

《紅字》，是美國小說家霍桑最著名的作品之一。這里要和小說進(jìn)行比較的，是1995年黛米摩爾主演的電影版本。
    
    同樣是《紅字》，故事框架似乎差不多，但是就像我以前提到的《活著》的電影和小說一樣，《紅字》的電影表現(xiàn)的是現(xiàn)代得多的東西。不僅如此，為了影片的票房考慮，電影中還增加了許多商業(yè)元素。借用我同學(xué)的話來說，就是以為買錯(cuò)碟了；簡直面目全非……小說原著的文筆流暢，但是由于作者的時(shí)代局限性，也就是其個(gè)人對(duì)于未來發(fā)展的迷茫，所以看起來十分壓抑。電影就要酣暢許多。明顯的一點(diǎn)就是，影片中的牧師，比我想象中要狂野許多，看開頭的時(shí)候，我還以為這是一個(gè)“紅字”和“皮襪子”的混合體呢。


    從表現(xiàn)出來的思想上看，原著主要討論的是人的罪，即人皆有罪。而通過贖罪和將罪行袒露出來，可以使靈魂得到升華。這和作者本身是清教徒身份以及對(duì)家族以前犯下的罪過產(chǎn)生的宿命感分不開的。而且，作者雖然覺得當(dāng)時(shí)對(duì)人思想的禁錮是不對(duì)的，但是，他對(duì)變革也抱有懷疑態(tài)度。但是電影就不一樣了。時(shí)代向前推進(jìn)了不是一點(diǎn)半點(diǎn)，現(xiàn)在思想解放已被公認(rèn)，所以在影片中，海斯特的言行就更加堅(jiān)定?；羯Ｖ皇窍蛭磥砀Q探，而導(dǎo)演卻是回望，自然占了很大便宜。因此，再在電影中單純的表現(xiàn)人皆有罪的思想便會(huì)顯得不合時(shí)宜甚至怪異晦澀了。是以海斯特的丈夫的戲份被明顯減少了。那么用什么來填補(bǔ)思想的空白呢？電影中表現(xiàn)海斯特和牧師間的愛情的戲份增加了，印第安人的戲份也明顯增加了。特別是后者，甚至帶來了影片結(jié)尾的大規(guī)模戰(zhàn)斗場(chǎng)面，也許導(dǎo)演想為沉悶的全局制造一個(gè)高潮吧。恐怕用心白費(fèi)了，因?yàn)楹髞韽?qiáng)安上去的大團(tuán)圓結(jié)尾實(shí)在突兀。


    小說中海斯特是迷茫的，她為了愛人而拒絕說出情夫的名字，又因?yàn)槔⒕魏涂謶职l(fā)誓不向他人透露自己丈夫的身份。電影中海斯特是堅(jiān)定的，從不認(rèn)為自己有罪，也完全站在愛人的一邊。在影片中她去警告了牧師約瑟，而影片剛開始海斯特乘馬車去找房子的時(shí)候，鎮(zhèn)上的人都在看她，說明到鎮(zhèn)上的人不多，每個(gè)新人都很受關(guān)注，約瑟不可能不知道海斯特的丈夫的身份。事實(shí)上，從后面的情節(jié)中可以知道，他知道的。海斯特的不同表現(xiàn)表明，霍桑對(duì)愛情和教義本身就存在迷茫，他既肯定兩人之間的愛是偉大的，是上天的賜予，又認(rèn)定通奸是罪。電影導(dǎo)演明顯是將“愛情”這種人性需求放至第一位。他在為兩個(gè)人的行為辯護(hù)。


    電影對(duì)“女巫案”的映射部分還是保留的很好，也算是忠于原著了。但是小說中描寫紅字被海斯特裝飾的異常美麗在電影中幾乎沒表現(xiàn)出來，更別提原著結(jié)尾海斯特是又回到這里，自愿帶上紅字，度過余生；而海斯特因?yàn)樯屏寄芨芍饾u被眾人接受也絲毫沒有提及，這恐怕是因?yàn)橐獮橐鲇捌Y(jié)尾的戰(zhàn)斗而不得不舍棄了吧?；谝陨蟽牲c(diǎn)，我認(rèn)為，電影在表現(xiàn)海斯特的堅(jiān)韌善良方面比原著差遠(yuǎn)了。商業(yè)和思想似乎從來都是蹺蹺板的兩端，我個(gè)人認(rèn)為本片在這兩端的平衡上處理的不好。


    影片中還有一個(gè)意象分擔(dān)了紅字的重量，那就是一只紅色的小鳥。紅色的小鳥出現(xiàn)過兩次，后來在女奴的描述中又出現(xiàn)過一次。都是在影片的前半部分。第一次是在海斯特勞作時(shí)，小紅鳥引她看到了牧師裸泳的情景。這無疑是給海斯特心湖投下了一塊巨石。按現(xiàn)在的話說，大概是：哎呀媽呀，太震撼了！第二次則是海斯特終于和牧師在一起的時(shí)候，小紅鳥飛進(jìn)了海斯特的房子里，女奴看著紅鳥忘情地沐浴。第一次海斯特想捕捉紅鳥卻終沒有抓到，第二次紅鳥自動(dòng)飛到她的房間里但最終又飛走。紅鳥可以說既是海斯特的媒人又是她和牧師間幸福愛情本身的象征。又因?yàn)樗区B，也象征著海斯特甚至可以說眾多婦女的精神解放。說道它的人性解放含義，它在影片中還間接地出現(xiàn)了一次，即海斯特的女奴被騙去審問時(shí)，女奴表達(dá)出來的。對(duì)于這個(gè)我將其理解為，人性一旦嘗到了解放的滋味，就會(huì)給人深刻的影響，再想將其束縛起來，是很難的。個(gè)人不太贊成小紅鳥的出現(xiàn)，首先，它搶了紅字“A”的戲；其次，它的出現(xiàn)有始無終，在影片大團(tuán)圓結(jié)局中也沒露個(gè)臉，反倒使人覺得它指代不明。
http://xmxxm.blogcn.com/index.shtml

    All the encounters are reunions after a long separation in the world. I guess, Hester and Arthur must have seen much affliction before they meet each other. Their love sprouts like the seed of evil, and bursts into bloom.
     Red roses in prison, which offer the fragrance and fragile beauty to the dying prisoners, have already predicted a vivid metaphor at the beginning. Love is beautiful, like rose; yet love is cold and painful, like its thorn.
    I don’t understand the treatise on Good and Evil in transcendentalism of Emerson, I don’t understand the concept of salvation in the Bible, more don’t understand the puritan tradition in the United States. The scarlet letter, for me, is not only a piece of love history, but also a confession related to the original sin. With the fall of Adam and Eve, human beings are originally sinful. The Bible tells us love covers over all wrongs. Moreover, the innocent is not the one to blame. A kind-hearted and honest couple, once trapped in the puzzle of extramarital affair, they are destined to walk into a dilemma——since the flame of love and the perfection of morality mostly can’t live together. As in Paradise Lost, the hero and heroine choose to suicide in their blissful love.
    There are no ugly loves, nor handsome prisons. For Arthur, Hester is undoubtedly beauteous in looks, and seductive in personality. For Hester, when Arthur says I love you affectionately to her, she can feel the love that he bears patiently in this man’s eyes and hands, even silence. In their seven years, determination, hypocrisy, and self-deception are all human nature; in their whole life, long waiting, sense of guilt, and endurance for the contempt are all atonement. In my eyes, Hester veritably has the right to say love although her purity and courage deviate from morality and ethics. Love is colder than death——their love is holy but miserable, like the sacrificial offerings on the altar.
    The bible says that love can bear all things, hope all things, and endure all things. Miss Hester keeps silence for their forbidden love for seven years, while Mr. Arthur pays for this piece of virtueless love at the cost of his life. Who dares to say that the affection between Hester and Arthur is not true love? Common customs tear their bodies apart, but their souls will stay together forever. They feel each other in their stomachs, and they enjoy the ecstasy of sex. Who dares to say that sex doesn’t mean love? There is no doubt that Pearl is the crystal of their love.
    Love is a kind of curse, and love is a lonely carnival. The Scarlet Letter not merely tells the process of romantic love, it tells the ending of love——more accurately the consequence of love that knocks on everyone’s soul. When Arthur falls down on the scaffold due to the heavy burden in mind, when Hester’s ashes are buried beside Arthur after many years, have they ever regretted for the things they had done, including love and the confession of love? Love is colder than death——Hester and Arthur break the curse——chains of morality, and the sublimation of their love burns all the people’s eyes.
    With a bloody letter A on his naked chest, Arthur died in Hester’s arms——he is finally released. However, his deep love for Hester will never disappear. The moment when Arthur eventually stands in front of the multitude and shouts loudly I LOVE THIS WOMAN, we witness a scene of extraordinary love, and the shameful letter A is endowed with new meaning.
    Every character in the book is adorned with a letter A. Hester and Arthur are the undertakers of A. Those righteous people in New England who propose to punish Hester with A——they are the makers of A. And those crowds of onlookers are witnesses of A. Hester’s husband is a dirty dog——he is the enquirer of A. Little Pearl is compared to the fruit of sin, and she is the savior of A. I think the scarlet letter A can be considered as Adultery, Able, Admirable, Amour, Angel, Advance, and even America.
    In the end, Hawthorne writes, On a field, sable, the letter A, gules. I seem to see a woman kneel on the wasteland, in front of her there is a tomb. The woman is so devout that she looks like a statue of a nun. She firmly believes that there will be a new era some day, a bright and heavenly era.
    Love is colder than death. Hester and Arthur, have already lost their names, bodies and souls.
    Now, maybe I should go to read Moby Dick by Melville. That’s for Hawthorne.