真爱一生

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...

    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.

        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.

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。

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