红字1995

        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 “law 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.

    这个片看第一遍的时候，我感动得一塌糊涂。今天又翻出来看了一遍，废言几句。
    一个女人得坚韧和伟大，是第一次看完以后的总结。她坐船三个月到一个陌生的地方独自开始新的生活，买地、安家、雇人、耕种，本身就不是一个平凡的女子会承担的责任。更何况还要面对新环境中人群的挑战和压力：人们异样的眼光、邪恶牧师的骚扰。
    正如邻居希莉所言,她的丈夫虽然娶了她的人但是却得不到她的心。一个年轻漂亮、聪明勇敢而又博览群书、思想独立的女人，内心很难被真正虏获。同样地对于丁亚涩，一个年轻英俊、对上帝虔诚的牧师而言，势必要把他的一生献给钟爱的事业了。可是他们偏偏相遇了。我很喜欢这一段，应该是全剧中最美好的部分。别说两个年轻漂亮强壮有力的身体对彼此的吸引（连我也被惊羡了，看来不管男女我都是很好色的），也是精神的契合让他们走到一起。他们眼神接触时留下刹那间的空白，继而又惊惶失措地逃避。Gery Oldman在Moore的纯净坦诚的笑容中不能自拔，害羞而无助，却是满眼的柔情。
    短暂的温情在那样的历史背景下显得多么无助而卑微。她丈夫的噩耗，怀孕，受审判被关押，在狱中诞下一女。坚韧的女人在里面哭泣，痛苦的男人在雨中流血以减轻内心的伤痛。社会的伤疤用一个“红字”贴在女人的身上，人心的侮辱作为惩戒－－这是最残酷的刑罚。女人丈夫的归来加重了气氛的阴险。疯狂的报复以最阴暗的方式部署，人性的脆弱在那时显露无遗。接下里就是一连串的杀戮，直到最后他们都站在绞刑台上……
    我始终看到一张坚毅而伟大的脸，正义的控诉，坚贞的情操。她从来没有卑微的时候，虽然她也感到痛苦和无奈。而相比于女人的坦荡和神圣，那个和神在一起的男人却背负着女人的保护和罪恶的圣明，痛苦地苟延，让所谓的道德扭曲善良的心灵。直到面对死亡，他才大声喊出："I love this woman. I am the father of her child. And in god sight, I am her husband！" 天啊，他终于释放了自己。看到这里会不会有人泪流满面？
    我想是不会再看第三遍了。演员表达得很到位，凄美的故事结合复杂的社会时代背景，情节布置得很从容。大概因为小说本身也不错吧。不会去看小说了。
    

“我很敬重和爱这个孩子的父亲，而我不可能也不能说出任何给他带来伤害的话。”

向这样的女人致敬。

所有的宗教禁忌都是人们凭空想象出来的，有宗教信仰不代表就有崇高信仰，有一时的信仰不代表能坚守一生。真正的崇高信仰是严于律己、宽于律人。

所有的信仰之争、主义之争都是权力之争和利益之争。只有为人类和广大人民的终极幸福而追求的才是值得称道的。

人类从最初原始社会的夭折、饥饿、寒冷、病痛、乱伦到现代社会的长寿、美食、温暖、舒适、爱情，每经历过一次王朝的更替和帝国的消逝和民众的觉醒、民主和独立，人类的文明都在螺旋式的上升。

我坚信人类会因为文明而永恒。

话说自由是魔鬼，因而新教徒们肆意地在新大陆踩场，天真的Hester踏足饥饿的陷阱；在这里，Arthur的赤裸会被溪流拥抱；赤鸟在林木中享受无忌的诱惑。因为自由是魔鬼，所以天空与大地做起了爱，所以偷情可以不戴套，鬼祟可以不关门，就连浴室也可以开小洞。不好意思，这里是美洲大陆——自由与梦想的国度。就像Harrier阿姨的大剧透：美女和帅哥就该在一起。

那些怀抱可爱情怀的童鞋们，The Scarlet Letter里头有伟大的爱吧，也有撼人的信念吧，不过在我看来，爱情只是网名，真相却是自由。从开场，Hester就在奋力挣脱律法的约束，试图自个儿开展一番生活，同时也在挣脱邻舍们的目光闲言，挣脱乡俗礼节的规范，似乎凡尘的一切皆成束缚。Hester就不该属于此地，但她是天使还是魔鬼？也许她是魔鬼，因为自由在这里就是魔鬼，那么她的心头镌刻着自由，说不准是从火星跑来的魔鬼。这或许就是为什么作为天使的Arthur终遭迷惑。不过看来，就连Arthur也在追逐自由。即使最后把真相大告天下，难道不是在以死亡作为自由从而逃脱心灵深重的焦灼么？电影里，女人对自由的感知是基于无知，而那男人的自由便是基于畏惧。当忠贞比纵欲更难面对，Hester从容地选择妥协；当负罪变得比自缚更让人悲痛，Arthur的抉择无疑是死亡。这分明不是什么女权主义下的坚韧，也不是责任当前的大无畏精神，只是自由赋予了自由的牢笼，而两名臆想的灵魂在自我设定的阴霾里逃窜罢了。

在基督的历史里，女性头顶丑陋的帽子被指作罪恶的源头。伊甸园里有禁果孕育的自由，但这自由里的魔鬼并非单纯地等同于罪恶。上帝仅告诉了他们自由化身为一道门，然而是哪一道终究还是Hester与Arthur的选择。

很难判定改编的结尾不会涉及到90年代中期好莱坞电影总体偏向的小温情格调。各位耳熟能详的不是Forrest Gump （《阿甘正传》）、The Shawshank Redemption（《肖申克的救赎》）就是Léon（《这个杀手不太冷》），残忍里不乏温存。然而，到底是什么时候有情人终成眷属就意味着一定是大团圆结局？看不到即使是Titanic里爱得生生死死轰轰烈烈的Jack 和Rose到头来也抵不住现实中Revolutionary Road的百般无奈么？相遇后的Hester和Arthur就好似找到了生存与奋斗的理由，然而结局一旦获得了这以爱情代言的自由，谁又能保准偏左的Hester和靠右的Arthur不会出现信仰分歧？有的恋人适合谈情，而有的则该经营家庭。有时候在人怀念过往的同时，表明他并不满足于现状，电影里头Pearl的旁白，我读出了一点这样的意味……由谁来判定究竟是原著还是电影要更悲剧些？谁要来定义罪恶？谁又要来定义自由？

一不小心，我这样的延伸似乎给纯粹的爱情片加上了突兀的讽刺色彩。本片的改编带有矛盾，电影The Scarlet Letter究竟是反宗教或是颂扬宗教，Roland Joffé的作品大概偏向于前者。但毕竟，还是有人会看到看不见的事物。撇去怀疑主义，我还是老实看电影的好……