Authors
Guijarro González, Juan Ignacio
Topics
Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismLiterature, Culture, and AestheticsCultural Studies and Interdisciplinary ResearchJUAN IGNACIO GUIJARRO GONZÁLEZ Universidad de Sevilla (Resumen)El estreno en 1995 de una fallida adaptación cinematográfica de The Scarlet Letter con Demi Moore en el papel principal ofrece una excelente oportunidad para revisar anteriores versiones de la novela canónica de Nathaniel Hawthome. En 1926 el director sueco afincado en Estados Unidos Victor Sjostr óm dirigió una de las tres plasmaciones del texto que se filmaron en Hollywood en la época del cine mudo, una etapa que a menudo parece haber caído en el olvido de la critica. Obviamente el rodar una película en aquellos años implicaba trabajar con una serie de limitaciones discursivas considerables, teniendo en cuenta que aún no se habían implantando ni el uso del sonido ni el de la fotografia en color. A pesar de que la sugerente adaptación de The Scarlet Letter protagonizada por una estrella indiscutible del cine mudo como Lillian Gish es un fiel reflejo de dichas limitaciones, la película logra superarlas de forma convincente al ofrecer en una narrativa tan simple como lírica una atractiva reescritura del texto de Hawthome en la que afloran algunas de las cuestiones esenciales en las complejas relaciones entre el discurso filmico y el literario .In 1995 Hollywood released a new cinematographic adaptation of one of the central texts in the U. S. literary canon, The Scarlet Letter. In this new version of Nathaniel Hawthome's c1assicnovel, the leading role ofHester Prynne was played by Demi Moore, not only one of the highest-paid actresses in Hollywood in the I990s, but also the undisputed sexual icon ofthe decade, as her performance in the film Striptease c1early confirmed only one year later. This new rendering ofHawthome's text was poorly received in general both by the critics and the public , since it was a long and tiresome movie which failed not only as an adaptation, but also as a film in itself.! Logicall y, the release of this new version offers a unique opportunity to revisit the previous adaptations of The Scarlet Letter. In his book Cine y literatura the Spanish poet and critic Pere Gimferrer asserts that the richer, more complex and ambiguous a Iiterary text, the higher the number of potential film adaptations it will generate (64), and as examples to illustrate this theory he mentions the cases of Don Quixote and Wuthering Heights. Unquestionably , Hawthome 's The Scarlet l. The negative reception of film crines was generalized: the review published by Kenneth Turan in The Los Angeles Times did not differ much in tone from the one Angel Femández Santos wrote for El País under the explicit title of "Burdo destrozo del talento ajeno. " 22 luan Ignacio Guijarro GonzálezLetter also belongs in this list, since a total of six different film versions of the novel have made throughout the twentieth century. In 1972 the Gerrnan director Wim Wenders shot in Galicia a modest and rather cold production ofthe novel,' which had already been adapted in 1934, and -surprisingly enough three times in only 15 years during the silent era of Hollywood: in 1911, 1917, and 1926. 3 One ofthe defining features of Hawthorne's text is its focusing on the internar life of the three central characters and exploring their psychology in depth, while external action is reduced to a minimum. Therefore, it would seem that such a text would especially resist being adapted to the screen. How can one explain the insistence on facing the challenge of filming the sarne novel so many times during the early days of cinema? Perhaps the most logical explanation to this enigma lies in the fact that -as several film critics and historians have pointed out- in its very beginning cinema often had to rely on adaptations of literary classics in order to earn a certain degree ofrespectability. Interestingly enough, a second reason has also been suggested:'classic literature' was not being ignored by the industry. It had a double role. Firstly it was used as a weapon to resist pressures on the film business by those middle-class reforrners who held the cinema to be an evil int1uence on society. .. . Secondly, ... it was hoped that adaptations of 'good' literature would do more than reassure the middle classes that cinema was not a dangerous new social disease, and would actually entice them through the turnstyles. Thus, adapting literary classics was part of the industry's strategy to gain for itselfboth a clean reputation and new business. (Izod 96)Moreover, in her overview ofthe issue Lupack quotes a critic who in 1911 stressed the potential educative role of adapting texts like The Scarlet Letter: "It is the masterpiece of the ages that especially invites filming, and the reason for it is very plain . . . . After all, the word ' classic' has sorne meaning. It implies the approval ofthe best people in the most enlightened times.. . . It is the business ofthe moving picture to make them known to all" (4). Of all these different versions of The Scarlet Letter , the one made in 1926 is extremely appealing for a number of reasons. Although it is far from perfect, this silent rendering can be regarded as an acceptable recreation ofHawthome's text on the one hand, and as a remarkable film of great Iyricism on the other. Nowadays, in the age oftechnology and special effects, it is all too easy to forget that not long ago movies were made in very different conditions. The 1926 adaptation of The Scarlet Letter dates back to a time when cinema was still a rather new artistic discourse far from consolidated which suffered from severe limitations. Films were silent, so that instead of dialogue there were just intertitles illustrating the most relevant scenes," and, in addition to that, they had to be photographed in black and white, since color technique was not still 2. Wenders' film was in fact a Spanish and West-German co-production and part of the cast and the crew were Spanish; the role of Hester Prynne was played by Senta Berger. 3. In addition to these six cinematographic adaptations, in 1979 PBS produced one with Meg Foster in the leading role.
About
PublishedJan 1, 2001
TypeArticle
Citations0