I haven't been reading as much lately (bad Melissa), BUT I saw something interesting today as I flipped through the t.v. channels: a trailer for a new movie based on Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter. The movie stars Emma Stone (Superbad, Zombieland) who pretends to lose her virginity in order to advance a gay friend's popularity. Because high schoolers are the MEANEST individuals on earth, they instantly begin to chastise Olive for her promiscuity. Olive combats the harassment by proudly displaying a red "A" on her chest.
...Now, I haven't read this book in about five years, but did I read something different? I don't really think this accurately reflects the plot of The Scarlet Letter even remotely except for the "A" Olive wears on her shirt and the title ("Easy A"--hahahhahahahaa! That's actually quite clever). Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against adapting classics to modern films. I think it's fun and I don't take it too seriously. I like 10 Things I Hate About You, She's the Man, and similar films. But it seems like Hollywood is kind of stretching for this one. I think the adaptation starts out well enough, but what about the ending of the book (if I remember correctly, there is a lot more guilt and a lot less "girl power"). I just don't understand how the themes of The Scarlet Letter can remain intact during its translation into a high-school teen comedy. Does anyone else feel that this classic is a strange choice for this project?
Watch the trailer on the official site.
And because I love this cartoon from The New Yorker, and it's somewhat relevant: