红字

        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.

    这部电影是原著的改编版，结局比原著好太多，使得看客也多满足了几分，个人而言如果这样一种环境下发展下来的故事又变为了悲剧，那实在没有看下去的勇气，毕竟生活是为了愉悦自己，还是喜欢一些具有正能量和幸福感的片子。
    刚开始发展得比较慢，可能是因为我被剧透了的原因，所以前部分看得有点急躁，但故事发展到了后半部分，情感纠葛和情节曲折还是十分引人入胜，看得胆战心惊不敢放过任何一幕，英文版字幕虽然有些词生涩难懂，但有一些英语诗歌常识的人应该不会觉得理解意思很困难。喜欢剧中的男主角，尊重爱的人又不缺乏勇气，相比起来原著中就没有如此完美了，这部电影如此让我喜欢还有一个原因是里面不缺乏善良的人儿，被认为是巫师的邻居一家增添了不少温情的色彩，还有萌萌哒的女儿让人不禁心生喜爱。
    片子中景色的选取也很美好，浪漫自然原始，总归是一部成功的电影。

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……

原载于：墨神的凡龛 http://www.thinkjam.org/mercury/archives/2005/03/eiecie2005ie.html

上周看的电影《红字》（The Scarlet Letter，1995），触动很深。或许一些专家尤其文学人士带着原著的条框去定格她的时候，会有众多的非议。但是从电影以及改编剧本的角度来看，不可否认《红字》算是成功之作。

她没有完全照搬霍桑小说的原貌，事实上，想要完全照搬也是不可能的。小说从海斯特受到公审开始，而电影却为她补充了一段前因，使故事更完整，人物行为和性格更突出更具特点。我认为，这段海斯特来岛，不惧欺辱，不理会他人眼光，以及丛林巧遇阿瑟牧师等等的安排都为后来打下了坚实的伏笔，这种伊甸园般的场景，一见钟情的相遇与后来受审，以致丈夫回来后的压抑痛苦形成鲜明的对比，是谓欲抑先扬吧。……

…… 另一方面，小说以人物心理的刻画为主，主人公海斯特身上的红字与阿瑟心中的红字，甚至作为新一代小珠儿本身就是红字的象征，三条线索一齐发展，丈夫不断的对牧师进行心上的拷问，两个有情人也因为相爱是过错备受煎熬。当然，一部电影是无法通篇展示心理活动的，于是电影《红字》中导演将这种心理活动具象化，用阿瑟的自责行为，丈夫的复仇计划等等呈现给观众，这就是电影语言的不同之处。全篇以小珠儿的口气画外音叙述，结尾也让有情人终成眷属，不过最后阿瑟还是由于过度的自责和内疚英年早逝，海斯特也没有再和别人在一起－－“或许这就是上帝对他们的惩罚吧”。其实经历过这么多矢志不渝的忠贞爱情，最后能够正大光明在一起，一天已是足以，更何况月月年年，不正是那句老话“两情若是长久时，又岂在朝朝暮暮”。据说，结尾还是按照Dami Moore的意见修改的呢。似乎与原著已经相距甚远，可是影片所表现的精神和想表达的内涵还是与原著如出一辙殊途同归了

巨喜欢男主角Gary Oldman演的阿瑟牧师，温文尔雅的外表下是一颗炙热的心，他有知识有风度有思想有理想，他希望以真诚打动印第安部落“邻居们”，避免战争，他把圣经翻译成他们的文字，想与他们共享教义，他深入部落帮助他们，与他们结为朋友。可是统治者们竟然利用他的真诚和友谊妄想消灭异族。他才华出众是少女们的偶像，他与海斯特偶遇一见倾心。他们戏剧性的在聚会上被多次引荐，他们一个漂亮骄傲，一个风度翩翩，他们有共同的爱好－－读书，他们更能看穿彼此的心。怎奈海斯特已嫁作他人妇，于是俩人小心翼翼的相处着，苦苦压抑着真挚的情感。她不去想他，他前往遥远的部落传道，一切的自禁只为忘记，或许稍许渐淡相思。可是真正的情感却在这种“禁”中一触即发。Gary Oldman将角色的情感用表情甚至眼神和气质表现的淋漓尽致，让我们的心与他一起流泪流血，一起在禁中煎熬。

我也“禁”了几天，总想认真写篇blog，可是感情还草草未准备妥当，直到这种感觉突然迸发时，就象海斯特听到了丈夫的死讯，那种欣狂还略显自责的的情感，于是我将即日的压抑喷发出出来，历练、凝固成一首“禁”。

禁
（2005.3.9）
谁用发丝捆绑住灵魂
心痛得呼吸都变得无力
谁的尺子试探着距离
遥远的无法测量的缝隙

谁用双手包裹住抗拒
怎么还能听见风的叹息
谁的信仰践踏着心灵
如何能萌生出春的痕迹

锁不住的心 情不自禁
忘了谁的谁 又想起谁的背影

谁用眼光锁住了神奇
神奇般望穿了铜墙铁壁
谁的剪影住进了圣经
圣经点燃了似火爱情

谁用美丽来点缀衣襟
衣襟织绘着猩红的字
谁的勇气刺破了禁令
碎片散落了一地的光阴

锁不住的心 情不自禁
忘了谁的谁 又重回谁的记忆

Gary是我看《红字》的唯一原因。

忘了哪个大导演说了，导演死在影片上，演员死在角色上。而gary总是那种，能死在角色上的演员。看到的是，坏警察，吸血鬼，甚至是sid，而不是Gary Oldman

电影《红字》的结局是对原著一次大胆的改革。让那个懦弱的躲在坚毅女人身后的男人摆脱了原著给我的不良感觉。

我必须说，露点露的有些浪费，就像章子仪那个裸替，根本没有存在的必要。而且，两个人丝毫没有什么化学反应。但是，并不妨碍gary眼神中的深情。

Demi Moore的眼睛很漂亮，给我一种结霜的葡萄的感觉，可是，嘴型过于刚毅，脸型也是，身材总给我一种壮壮的感觉。Hester应该是那种外型柔弱，内心刚强的女人。可是，Demi Moore却是那种外形和内心都很strong的。

影片刚开始时，表现出Hester的与众不同，比如独立。倒是很到位。同样，露点，毫无意义。不知道导演安的什么心，但是，《红字》几乎是Demi Moore一个人的电影，所以，她在影片中强大的有些让人害怕。无论是面对宗教、面对丈夫、还是面对情人，都过于强势。

最后，不知道为什么要找一个形象如此，如此@#$%^&*的人来演Hester的丈夫。处理的有些妖魔化了。莫名其妙。

gary承认在1995年和Demi Moore一起主演《The Scarlet Letter》时他曾醉得厉害。“我知道我在那部电影里，因为我看见了，”他说，“但是关于如何拍摄的，我真是一丁点儿印象都没有。”这是最令我惊讶的，一丁点儿印象没有，却能那么精准的表现出，深情和压抑。让我怎么能不爱他！

早就有人说过，文字和电影是不同的表达方式。表达方式的不同也让内容发生了变化，有些时候，这种变化甚至发生在本质精神上和核心人物的性格上。
我觉得，一个好的电影改编。首先的要求这个导演驾驭大场面的能力。像名著，多数时候是波澜壮阔的篇章，错综复杂的情节和性格深沉的人物组成的。如果没有驾驭能力，就要顾此失彼。再者，他还要有很好的把握影像表达的素质。不过，最最重要的，是这个改编者的思想深度，也就说他可以和原作者达到什么样的精神沟通。
回过头来说《红字》。
如果不是因为我看了书，我觉得我实际上没有那么多的耐心看一部离自己很远，很多地方看不明白的一部长达两个多小时的阴沉电影。不过，说实话，现在的节奏这么快，人们追求的是速食的快乐。我能在上下班的地铁上阅读完这本书也是一件奇迹。就我本人来说，基本上是没享受到什么阅读的快乐。不过，名著的魅力并不是用你看了这本书能获得多少快乐的来体现的。
虽说我更喜欢电影，但是也不得不承认，电影和书基本上是南辕北辙了。
在小说中，海斯特白兰是在宗教和环境的压抑下生存不得不伪装起坚强来反击的，电影中的这个女人，从头到尾都很强。那种强，不但体现在体魄上还有精神上，甚至可以说，有很多女权意识的萌动在里面。在电影的最后，海斯特问：我为什么要留在这？为他们所接受，为他们所驯服？然后，这个女人毅然决然的要离开。事实上，根据我的理解，既然小说发生的背景是一个受压抑的阴暗年代，那么，那个时候的女人是根本不可能说走就走的。电影增加了海斯特独立意识觉醒的光辉，这是原作者内心隐隐的想要表达却囿于时代和思想的局限没有表达出来的。于是，海斯特的形象固然光辉了，可是却有些不现实。那种年代，如果女人生出了这种思想，我想，只有被钉在耻辱架上问吊的唯一结局。
电影给了黛米摩尔太多戏，让我觉得这就是一部女人的励志史诗。小说中的海斯特从始至终就认为自己是罪恶的，但是电影中她昂起了高傲的头，从没承认过自己的爱情是罪恶。
我更喜欢电影，是因为故事发生的年代太久远，故事发生的背景我不甚了解。我更愿意接受电影中有几个具有同情心的妇女在帮助海斯特，更愿意接受在海斯特受训的时候牧师走上前去，还有，最后，在海斯特生死攸关的时刻，他站出来说，我爱这个女子，我是这个孩子的父亲，在神的眼中我是这孩子的父亲。这其实已经颠覆了原著中丁梅斯代尔的全部人格。在原著中，他虚弱，他懦弱，他伪善，他冷酷甚至残忍。明明敢爱为何不敢承担责任？圣坛的光辉吸引着他使他不能放弃自己高洁的名声。说起他在肉里陷刻红字和鞭挞自己，与其说这是他对爱情的忏悔不如说这个宗教的腐朽毒液侵蚀后的必然结果。他对海斯特毫无怜悯，反而认为他们是或许诱惑堕落的一对，这一切都有悖他自认为圣洁的内心。这才是他痛苦的根源。
那些泯灭人性的清教教条，是霍桑想要控诉的，但最终他含而不露。也许是没勇气也许是自己也没有看到自己内心这种诉求。因为人性的纠结和深厚历史的纵贯，这部小说得以名垂青史。
或者可以说，电影改编不成功，因为内涵和精髓有些离题甚远。不过，我倒认为这更符合现在的人欣赏的视角。电影的最后，牧师和白兰以及珠儿一家三口走了，这是一个很美好的结局。总而言之，人们希望通过电影得到的，是美好的享受和期盼，而原著的精髓就是一个十足的悲剧。
推崇电影。可是，想要领略名著的魅力还是去看原著。