The Crucible by Arthur Miller has been transformed through many mediums. To name two, the film starring Daniel Day-Lewis and Winona Ryder, and the live play by the cast at the Evansville Civic Theatre. Both forms captured the theme and emotion expressed by the story, but the film conveyed the message in a more clear, concise manner.
In the film, things such as costuming, setting, and actors can make or break the quality of a production. In this case, it made the film display the era of the Salem Witch Trials. The sets of each scene brought to life the every day of the characters during this time period. Each house was furnished with likewise tables, chairs, and beds. The location the movie was shot in also looked truly like a lone and isolated place. This is extremely important, because without the setting matching the time period, it would be harder to convey when the story was taking place, or what the theme was.
Costuming was done brilliantly, with every cast member dressed accurately for Massachusetts in the 1600s. For the women, there were plain, conservative dresses with aprons, bonnets, and simple shoes. For men, dark pants, hats, and ivory shirts with black and brown jackets. For example, at any point in the film you will notice that each character is
…show more content…
wearing an outfit of dark, monotone colors. With this in mind, it adds to the gray, dark tone over the events that occur in this movie. The choice of actors for this movie is phenomenal.
The cast did an amazing job of portraying their characters. Accents were polished and well added when they were needed, as well as dramatizing their lines to make a scene more lifelike and extreme. Obviously, these actors are well known for these skills, being that they are professionals. Winona Ryder’s character, Abigail, could have come off as flat, with little motives or reasons for her acts of attention seeking, but Ryder made her multi-dimensional. Daniel Day-Lewis’ character, John, may have seemed like a foolish man of disloyalty and hatred, but Day-Lewis filled him with raw emotion, and made him a character that the viewers could rally
behind. Even with all of these strong points of the film, some say the live action interpretation, such as the Civic Theatre’s 2017 performance, was better performed. While there is no doubt that talent was showcased in the play, the sets could not have been as dedicated and the costumes were not as full on as in the film. This viewpoint holds some validity because in live performances there is plenty of room for error, and the cast had seemingly no mistakes. On the other hand, movie scenes can have several takes before the final shot is chosen. Because of this, the film will by default end up being the more practiced and flawless version of The Crucible. The movie is an easy choice due to the dedicated, professional cast, the historical setting, costuming. The editing and background music also help add to the mood of the story. Overall, the 1996 film version of The Crucible by Arthur Miller is the best medium when asked to decide between it or the live action play by the Evansville Civic Theatre.
Author Arthur Miller, of The Crucible an excellent job of showing the cruelty of the witch trials. The movie based upon The Crucible, is almost an exact replica of the book. When showing many similarities, it also had some vast differences. These differences don't have much of an effect on the actually story. They are added for dramatic effect and to entice the viewer. Although there are many similarities there are some vast differences.
1. Both Arthur Miller, the author of The Crucible, and James McTeigue, the director of V for Vendetta, both convey the idea that 'governments should be afraid of their people'. Both texts express how the governments could control their people; however that control can lead to anarchy. Miller explains how the people ‘were not quite the dedicated folk that arrived on the Mayflower, [as] a vast differentiation had taken place, and in their own time a revolution unseated the royal government… at this moment of power'. Expressing how the people were controlling the government and how they were consumed by the power that they held. McTeigue expresses how the government would initially manipulate the people with how they controlled them, by treating them as lower class and enforcing laws. However, V’s rebellion, starting with blowing up the Old Bailey, caused the government to slowly begin losing control over its people as V conveyed his message and the power slowly shifted as the people
By giving this imagery, their relationship is highlighted even more in the film than the play. The filmmakers chose to do this in order to make the purpose of the witch trials as clear as possible, which is further helped by
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.
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.
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.
Overall, the film adaptation of The Crucible, is a fairly enjoyable and faithful representation of Miller’s original play. The film goes hand in hand with the play, and provides the emotion input that the play may lack for some. Lead by Daniel Day-Lewis, the cast is mostly solid and is able to actively portray the emotions of the characters and the hysteria of the village. While some characters can fail to deliver as expected, the film is still enjoyable and can be helpful in expanding your knowledge of the play. The film adaptation of The Crucible is a well produced version of the play that not only serves as a companion to the play, but an entertaining and though provoking experience.
Miller, Arthur, and Christopher Bigsby. The Crucible: a play in four acts. New York [u.a.: Penguin Books, 2003. Print.
What does the word crucible mean? The word crucible means a severe test or trial. Throughout the novel, The Crucible, many of the characters go through their own crucible. These trials have a major or minor impact on the characters life throughout the novel. These trials all come together creating the story based on the calamity in America around 1952, which inspired Arthur Miller to write this well known novel. In the novel, there are many different examples from various characters about life lessons and choices. Although the book and play are very similar they do share many differences.
The Crucible by Arthur Miller The Crucible is a fictional retelling of events in American history surrounding the Salem witch trials of the seventeenth century, yet is as much a product of the time in which Arthur Miller wrote it, the early 1950s, as it is description of Puritan society. At that particular time in the 1950s, when Arthur Miller wrote the play the American Senator McCarthy who chaired the ‘House Un-American Activities Committee’ was very conscious of communism and feared its influence in America. It stopped authors’ writings being published in fear of them being socialist sympathisers. Miller was fascinated by the Salem Witch Trials and that human beings were capable of such madness. In the 1950s the audience would have seen the play as a parallel between the McCarthy trials and the Salem Trials.
The Crucible by Arthur Miller raises many thought provoking issues throughout the play, including the importance of personal integrity, injustice in society and the rights of the community versus the rights of the individual.
'A container in which metals are heated, involving a change. A severe test or trial.';
1. Bowers, Kristen. The Crucible by Arthur Miller: Literature Guide. San Dimas, CA: Secondary Solutions, 2006. Print.
Arthur Miller’s The Crucible is a play that was first performed in 1953 in the United States of America in the midst of the persecution of alleged communists during the era of McCarthyism. Although the play explicitly addresses the Salem which hunt, many find that the play is an analogy to McCarthyism due to the striking similarities in which the people behaved. Miller highlight the different groups of characters in order to reveal overlying ideas of the play such as: Self preservation, power, and hypocrisy.