红字1995

这部由霍桑的小说改编的电影 让我第一次觉得原来电影也可以比原著好看
小说中亚瑟牧师是个懦弱的男人 不能保护自己所爱 最后死在了普林的怀中 一个悲剧收场 留下的是这样的遗憾与无奈 但是在电影中 加里奥德曼的亚瑟牧师却是一个坚贞勇敢热情无畏的男人 赋予了亚瑟又一种生命 虽然他也胆小害羞 虽然他也被封建礼教束缚 可是当自己的女人站在绞刑架上的时候 他站了出来 对人群对世俗对上帝高喊:我是孩子的父亲 在上帝眼中 我是她的丈夫 那一刻我也激动的想大喊 怎样的勇敢让他可以在背负这么多沉重之后终于面对这一切 终于喊出了几年来无法承担的责任 其实男人是要比女人苦的 女人虽然被世俗唾弃 但她是坦荡的 是高尚的 她无所畏惧 但是男人呢?无法触碰自己心爱的女人 无法拥抱刚出生的孩子 在人前仍旧做他高尚的牧师 讲他的经布他的道 谁也无法了解他内心隐忍的苦痛 而这一刻 他终于能站起来 终于能摆脱束缚 终于能拥抱爱人和孩子了 但是他却不再拥有上帝的微笑 同样面临被绞死的命运 这时候的印第安人来袭而造成的大团员结局是我觉得最无法接受的 生硬的可以 但还是希望给我一个这样的大团员结局 大概最近悲剧看多了 或者也没有那么生硬了 大家知道亚瑟有印第安人罩着 还敢把他怎样?
影片的场景服装都很好 颜色也漂亮 我截了几张图 发现任何一张拿出来都可以画一张古典主义的油画了 记得最深的就是普林偷看亚瑟洗澡那场戏 她本来是束着头发的 看到亚瑟之前放了下来 还戴上了一顶花环 让我想起夏娃和伊甸园来了 传说这一段加里有露点 但是操蛋的是我居然买了删节版...

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

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……

        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.