Awful - The Scarlet Letter (1979) Discussion

[–] ykjunebug 17 years ago

I agree...it was pretty bad.

'Cause With Every Passing Second Comes A Second Chance

reply

i HATE miniseries, i HATE time pieces, i HATE having to watch stupid videos in class, and with all my prenotioned HATRED for these things, the movie was made beautifully and very well.

i'm not a fan of the scarlet letter, but i respect hawthorne's work, like i respect most things i don't myself find appriciation for. and the mini was no exception. the acting was intense and realistic (though the sfx weren't... but hey, it was 79') and the story line and dialogue was perfect to the book, which is rare nowadays in remakes.

i wouldn't take the time to defend a movie that i didn't feel deserved a little praise, and who knew it would come from me!

oh, and a little side note, Meg Foster's eyes are beautiful. she gives a whole new intensity to the roles she's in by just gazing silently.

~ "...Yes, the lectures are optional. Graduation is also optional." ~

reply

[–] michael1951 17 years ago

I'm crazy about Meg Foster. I think she deserved an Emmy for this performance but unfortunately wasn't even nominated, and I think she's the best Hester in any of the film adaptations (and I've seen all six of the major ones). I have an enormous respect for Lillian Gish, but Hester wasn't a petite beauty. She was a strong, athletic woman, and Meg fits this to the nines. On top of that, the key to Hester is her "passive aggressive" personality, and Meg captured this perfectly.

Unfortunately, though, this is just not a novel that works as a miniseries. It drags on and on, and this is a novel that shouldn't run more than 90-100 minutes in any film adaptation. This miniseries throws in everything and the kitchen sink, even the introductory "Custom House" chapter. And incidentally, Hawthorne's introductory "Custom House" chapter was comic, poking fun at contemporary politics, not the serious sort of thing that it's portrayed as here.

The two best adaptations of this novel are the German production directed by Wim Wenders and starring Senta Berger (1973) and the Westinghouse Studio One television production from 1950 with Mary Sinclair. Both are somewhat difficult to find but well worth watching.

Hi! My name's Mike, and I'm a recovering Demi-basher.

reply

[–] RiffRaffMcKinley 16 years ago

Well, look what they had to work with-- one of the most dull, overrated books of all time. So, hey-- I guess they got that right!

And, yes, Meg Foster's eyes go beyond freaky. Her eyes are what freaky has nightmares about.

"Don't let a suitcase filled with cheese be your big fork and spoon." -"Everybody Loves Raymond"

reply

[–] cutie_pie2442 16 years ago

We are watching this in school right now and it is torture. It is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It looks like it had a budget of almost zero. Also I can not even look at Meg Foster because her eyes are so scary.

I the Detroit Tigers

reply

[–] dazepurple 16 years ago

i think her eyes are beautiful and they mind me of cats eyes really

reply

[–] IsoldeJaneHolland 16 years ago

I like her eyes, too, they remind me of a mermaid. I think it
was more her habit of never blinking that renders them so
unnerving. That must have been the fashion at the time; this
film was made the same year as Jesus of Nazareth, and that
director always bragged that Robert Powell's Jesus (picture
Meg Foster as a man with a beard!) never blinks once in the 4
hour production. Powell also has wide, fathomless, light eyes.

Let's face it, such eyes are unnerving, and very effective in
extreme close-up when presenting an otherworldly character.

reply

[–] jollygreengiant108 15 years ago

agreed, very boring

reply

[–] LaPfieffer92 11 years ago

wow, never seen so many idiots in one forum. you people have no taste, this was an excellent production of a great novel! no go back to your holes until you develop some taste in classic literature.

reply