top of page
Search
RED

"The Crucible"

I get why so many English teachers pick this - the ending had me ranting. It's so frustrating in the best way. Take a bow, Arthur Miller.

Summary:

The play follows the town of Salem - specifically John Proctor and his wife Elizabeth - from the beginning of the historic witch hunt and hangings. John has been secretly having an affair with his former servant girl Abigail Williams. Envious, Abigail attempts a "charm" with some of her friends to kill Elizabeth, but when her uncle, the Reverend Parris, discovers them, the girls say that witches made them do it. Now Abigail has her chance to take vengeance on any she wishes and the judges will follow her acting. It is up to John to stop the madness before it is too late and dooms half the town.

Verdict: 7/10


Wow, I read this at a really convenient time. There were so many parallels with Communism, as the intro astutely pointed out, but also Persepolis and the Iranians constant search for un-religious activities. Or even portions of the#MeToo movement. In each one, it starts with a true threat or fear, but then spirals out of control until you don't know who is telling the truth anymore.

I wasn't sure how this would measure up (so many of the general English Lit reads don't), but this is a fantastic conversation starter. All the themes of corruption, peer pressure, morality, censorship, and justice come together to destroy a community. And when a catastrophe could have easily been avoided! There's so much to be learned from this tragedy.

Like all adaptations, I'm always curious about the changes made to real vs fiction. In this case, the change of ages to include the affair between Proctor and Abigail becomes a major selling point, though likely never occurred. I think this slightly draws the focus away from the true pettiness of the teenage girls and the power they're playing with. I also found it interesting that Miller left out the torture of Proctor’s son (which draws further comparison to Persepolis and using family members as motivators). This is not a criticism of Miller, but rather just curiosity on the different choices.


Although it is fairly clear that Miller is against the church and denies the existence of demons and witches in any capacity. This makes the story a bit different. Instead of protecting from a possible real threat, it's all imagined. Yes, most would have been imagined anyway (that's the point of the story), but to deny that there was any possibility discounts the reality the people were facing as well. Just saying, it changes the perspective of how you view the characters.


Reading through it, it was very hard to keep track of all these names and their motivations. Who doesn’t like who? Does anyone like each other? But by the time you hit Act III, it's a maddening whirlwind of accusations. You just want to scream like a viewer watching their favorite soap opera.




By Act III, all control is lost. Even the reasonable Mr. Hale can't stop this crazy train. The only hope is Elizabeth selling out her husband's adultery. SPOILER ALERT By doing the “right thing” and lying to cover John's mistakes, she condemns herself to the wrong thing. but that makes the court believe she’s wrong.


It’s all opposite. Confessing your guilt let’s you live, but saying your innocent kills you. There’s no way for any of the judges to believe they’re innocent once the girls have said it, which is completely illogical. Especially as the original accusers are shown to be sleeping around and run off with the money by the end - the affair could be “disproved” but the money and disappearance is blatant and damning proof... only now too late. The judges can't backtrack and forsake any control or pride they still have. SPOILER ENDED


All of this could have been avoided simply which makes it all the more frustrating. Frustrating and disturbing plots can be the most profound and cut the deepest, but seeing as they’re based on illogical arguments in this case, it’s hard to wrap my head around or enjoy it.


I could keep ranting. I know the point is that the people in power go against reason, but it makes it angering for a reasonable person. The play affects its purpose, but there’s no justice or resolution, just a lot of conflicting emotions of frustration and respect. Well done, Arthur Miller.

2 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Komentarze


bottom of page