Between “The Crucible” play and move there are many changes. Some are minor changes and others have effects on the scene as a whole. The movies will change the whole placement of some scenes and even change lines and actions. They are trying to make the movie easier to understand, more entertaining and attempting to pull you more into the story. At the end of the movie and play, which would be act four, there are many changes which affect the scene as a whole it restructures the whole thing, it creates different conflicts, and it changes how you feel at the end of the scene and during it. I thought the changes in the movie made it a lot better than the play honestly, it pulled me in more and got my attention.
In the play at the beginning of act four it is Tituba going crazy saying “No, he comin’
…show more content…
for me. I goin’ home!” (Miller pg 876) as if the devil is coming to get her. She is still in jail locked up at this point. Now in the movie this scene was never shown or even brought up between the characters. I changed the beginning of the scene compared to the play. Also Throughout all of Act four there are flashbacks of the hanging of people and torturing Giles by putting rocks on his chest trying to get him to give information and at the end killing him. While in the movie all of these flashbacks are held at the beginning of the act (Hytner), to structure the scene and to give the audience a idea of what will happen to Proctor and his friends. Restructuring almost the whole act also creates different conflicts and builds suspense for the end of the movie. During the movie Abby didn’t flee Salem because she needed too talk to Proctor which she ended up doing At the beginning of Act four in the movie. She sneaks into his jail cell attempting to get him to leave town with her and apologizes repetitively about putting him in the position he is in. She says she never planned to do this to him she just wanted him (Hytner). This creates a whole new scene in the movie that wasn’t in the play, which creates major conflict. Proctor hates Abigail he reacts very viciously towards her idea lashing out at her and explains to her how he hates her. I made the movie more entertaining than the play because of extra dramatic scenes like this. Also all of the flashback scenes at happened at the beginning of the act rather than throughout it builds major suspense. Hoping Proctor will confess because you don’t want to see the hanging of him that you saw with the rest of the people in the town. It also makes you feel differently and bring your emotions into the movie. The play has your attention but it doesn’t pull you in the whole way while the movie does. A big thing writers of plays, movies, books, etc.
try to do is pull you into what they're writing, get your emotions to react to what's happening. Both the book and the play did this but in different ways. The play mixed with your emotions a bunch between John Proctor and his wife Elizabeth. Elizabeth trying to convince John to save his own life says “Only be sure of this, for I know it now: Whatever you will do, it is a good man does it.”(pg 883). This is so heartfelt because after the affair John had she should never look at him as a good man. She forgives him though and sees the good in him no matter what, she truly loves him and you can really feel that emotion while reading the play. In the movie your emotions are more pulled in and your attention is most likely all in. At the end of Act 5 it just ends with John being arrested, in the movie they show the hanging of John and the others(Hytner). It may have been the most emotional part cause they actually killed the main character. Also the it build so much suspens with them showing the hundreds of hangings before the hanging of Proctor. The scenes in the movie and the play were both emotional but were also
different. Through the Movie and Play so many things were changed or switched around it made them so different, although they had the same outcome and same story line. Both were very good and got your attention and played with your feelings within the story line. The changes although in my opinion made the movie better, i understood it better watching the movie rather than reading the play. In the end both were very different but good.
In conclusion The Crucible book and movie were very much the same and the differences that were present don’t have much of an effect on the viewer. All of the scenes that were added were put there for a dramatic effect. Especially the outdoor scenes in the movie gave a different presence than all indoor scenes would have. Overall, the movie and book were very similar, but the differences added to the movie gave it extra
A major difference between the film and play versions of The Crucible is the setting of the first encounter between John Proctor and Abigail Williams. In the play, John had been in the room with Betty, Abigail, and others because he was curious what was going on. Everyone else then gradually left, which suggested their meeting was more happenstance. In the film, however, John was outside getting ready to leave when Abigail snuck out to tempt him. This portrays Abigail as more actively seeking him out and more invested.
Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible, and the movie with the same name have many differences and similarities, all of which contribute to the individual effectiveness of each in conveying their central message.
When comparing “The Crucible” film to the original play, the film does a better job at presenting the storyline so that it can be easily understood by the viewer. This starts at the opening of the film, with the addition of the woods scene involving the girls. The addition of this scene allows viewers to more clearly comprehend what Abigail and the girls are afraid of being accused of, and gives a better introduction to the storyline than in the play. Throughout the film, there is also a greater number of settings used than in the play. The addition of settings such as the lake during the scene where the girls run into the river make the film more interesting and at times further enhance the suspense and drama within the storyline, such as the jail cell used in the farewell between Abigail and John Proctor. The modification made to the ending of the film also shed light on how gru...
I’m sure you’ve debated with yourself many times the book or the movie. This essay proves to you why the movie version is so much better. John Proctor was without a single doubt the best character in The Crucible. The film did an impeccable job of conveying a much better picture of what truly happened in the years 1692 and 1693. Even though many people may consider the book to be the better version of The Crucible their reasons do not compare to the reasons I have written to prove that the movie is the best version. The movie did a much better version of giving us more details and more personality out of the characters such as John Proctor. In the book, John Proctor was a dry and dull character but in the movie, he is incredibly influential.
The Crucible is a play that was written in 1952 by Arthur Miller. This play takes place in Salem, Massachusetts, where witch trials were held in 1692. Miller is able to combine nonfiction and fiction in order to make this story dramatic and entertaining. A few decades after The Crucible play was published, a movie version was released. There are various differences between the book and the movie version. The movie added various scenes, elaborated on others, as well as omitted some scenes. The movie expressed Arthur Miller’s book in a very dramatic and exaggerated way. It made the reader have a better understanding of some points in the book and emphasized ideas more clearly, such as jealousy and hysteria.
Analysis of The Crucible by Arthur Miller ‘You have made your magic now, for now I do think I see some shred of goodness in John Proctor.’ Assess the developments in John Proctor’s character that validate this statement. How does Miller create a sense of tension and suspense in the build up to this climatic moment in Act 4? In Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible he has used many dramatic devices in order to create tension and build up to the climaxes of the story.
I’m sure you’ve debated with yourself many time the book or the movie. This essay proves to you why the movie version is so much better. John Proctor was without a single doubt the best character in The Crucible. The film did an impeccable job of conveying a much better picture of what truly happened in the years 1692 and 1693. Even tho many people may consider the book to be the better version of The Crucible their reasons do not compare to the reasons I have written to prove that the movie is the best version. The movie did a much better version of giving us more details and more personality out of the characters such as John Proctor. In the book, John Proctor was a dry and dull character but in the movie, he is incredibly influential.
In school, you often read research and then at home you watch television. Reading is more associated with educational purposes, and television with entertainment. When I read the play, it felt real. I was reading interviews with real people, about real events. The book, because of its strong grasp of reality, then made the events more powerful because the felt more like reality. When watching the movie, the mind can easily disconnect by thinking it is just a movie. It does not enhance the fact the everything being seen in the movie actually happened. Although it is actors on the screen, they are representing real people, who experience the sadness and trauma of the events. Emotions are also easier to be read than seen. When reading, one’s brain creates the tone. Words are associated with tones, so when reading a very intense sentence, the mind makes the dialogue more dramatic. Thus, making the reading more climatic. When the police play the tape of Aaron McKinney after he was arrested, he gives a detailed description of what he did and why he did it. In the movie, Aaron relays the details with a hint of despair, in my head Aaron gave the same responses but with a more sinister tone. To me this had a greater effect than the movie. It made me more agitated at Aaron, instead of the movie trying to produce more guilt. Emotions are what make watching and reading so enjoyable, and in the play, emotions
The movie recreating The Crucible written by Arthur Miller does a great job bringing everything to life. When reading a book, the reader oftentimes have a certain idea of what the character would look and sound like. When I read the book followed by watching the movie, I found that the characters that I had created in my head were perfectly matched by the actors and actresses that featured in the movie. Although the movie and book are very similar and show few differences, the handful of things that were changed, or added in the movie tend to stick in our brain rather than the similarities.
Authors often have underlying reasons for giving their stories certain themes or settings. Arthur Miller’s masterpiece, The Crucible, is a work of art inspired by actual events as a response to political and moral issues. Set in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692, The Crucible proves to have its roots in events of the 1950’s and 1960’s, such as the activities of the House Un-American Committee and the “Red Scare.” Though the play provides an accurate account of the Salem witch trials, its real achievement lies in the many important issues of Miller’s time that it dealswith.
Another major difference in the mood of the play and the movie is in the funeral
A wise human once stated, “People are quick to believe the bad things they hear about good people”(Unknown). Bound by the nature of humans, many are hasty to believe inaccurate accounts, no matter the circumstances, whether the accounts have evidence, or if they have any veracity to them. In Arthur Miller’s, The Crucible, the hysteric citizens of Salem, Massachusetts experience an outrageous witch hunt movement, accumulating a hefty death total of twenty citizens. The play begins with Reverend Parris, a relatively new Puritan minister in Salem, whose daughter, Betty Parris, is stuck in a coma-like state. Parris reveals that his niece Abigail, was seen dancing with Betty, and Tituba, Parris’ black slave from Barbados. Concerned about his reputation,
Whenever a written work is adapted into a movie, artistic changes have to be made to create an effective film. The play The Crucible relied heavily on complex dialogue passages and took place in a very small group of settings. Due to time constraints, the movie could not include all of the book’s dialogue and still be entertaining. Thus, the director culled out the most important passages, often separating complex 1 setting scenes in order make the movie easier to understand. The director also used a wide assortment of camera techniques to highlight what portions the director wanted viewers to feel emotional about. Overall, I felt that The Crucible movie adaptation was done well.
The Crucible is an incredibly influential play no only in the fact that it displays many important themes, but it also portrays how a theocracy impacts societal actions. The Salem witch trials were the culmination of the problems with theocracy. The actions of society, not only are impacted by their personal thoughts, but also in religious undertones affect them. Act two in the play portrays not only all of these themes, but also some important events leading towards the witchcraft hysteria. Act two in the play portrays how theocracy ultimately leads to chaos.