The Crucible (movie)
Sep. 24th, 2009 10:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ceebeegeeAfter visiting Ipswich, Mass. (which is near Salem) in July for my cousin Larson's wedding, I watched a terrific miniseries about the 1692 witch trials. And then this week I saw the 1996 movie adaptation of The Crucible. Miller wrote the screenplay, and he did a terrific job--as heavily stage-bound and unnaturalistic as the play is, he really adapted it well to the screen. For instance, the second act, which takes place entirely in the Proctor farmhouse on one night, is spread out over weeks, and you see some of the events that the Proctors discuss. The one big change I didn't like was how much he cut the scene in the forest between John and Abigail--her monologue was eliminated, and I LOVE that monologue, it is so creepy and poetic and wonderful. "...As bare as some December tree I saw them all--walking like saints to church, running to feed the sick, and hypocrites in their hearts! And God gave me the strength to call them liars, and God made men to listen to me, and by God I will scrub the world clean for the love of Him! Oh, John, I will make you such a wife when the world is white again!"
The performances are all very strong, especially Daniel Day Lewis as John Proctor, Joan Allen as Elizabeth Proctor and Paul Scofield as Judge Danforth. And I actually quite liked Wynona Ryder as Abigail--she can be a little mannered for me sometimes but I thought she did a good job here. Her (and the director's) take on the character was interesting--more waifish and little-girl-lost, especially in her first scene alone with Proctor, than the Homewrecking Temptress as she is typically portrayed. This is entirely appropriate since when you think about it--John Proctor is completely at fault for their affair. A teenage girl in a sexually repressed society who is therefore completely unaware of her own sexuality, an orphan living in the scraps of her uncle, who's working in someone else's home--he was obviously much more in control of the situation than she was, and is therefore more to blame. Now, what Abigail goes on to do is her responsibility--I'm certainly not defending that--but you can't help feeling for her at the beginning of the story. She really is lost. I've just seen so many harpy Abigails* that I liked this take on it.
This, by the way, is NOT to say that the historical Abigail and John actually had an affair--she was 11 and he was 60 in 1692, so no, they did not. I was annoyed when listening to the commentary track to hear Miller drone on about how even though the actual people were 11 and 60, they'd been "mentioned together" in the historical documents and that this was "what I think happened." Absolute nonsense! Miller, just admit you used dramatic license. There's nothing wrong with that, everyone understands why you did it and it helps structure a great story. But don't try to bolster support for it by making shit up. There is no way in hell an 11 year old girl and a 60 year old man had an affair in Salem in 1692! If anything happened, it was molestation and I strongly doubt there would've been any mention or hint of that in the record. It's even more annoying because at the end of the play version of The Crucible, Miller's script says "legend relates that Abigail ended up as a prostitute in Boston." NO, IT DOESN'T. I've never read that anywhere. Stop trying to make Abigail look even more like a whore. Proctor, who seduces a young girl, goes out a hero, for God's sake--let's make Abigail just as dimensional.
Miller reminds me a bit of Philippa Gregory, author of The Other Boleyn Girl, which asserts that Anne Boleyn really DID commit incest and practice witchcraft, and when called on this completely fanciful version of history (even Anne's enemies didn't believe the charges--even her HUSBAND, who wanted her GONE--didn't believe the charges) coyly mentions secret historical sources. She insists her book is completely historical, which is why I dislike her so. There's nothing wrong with artistic license--just admit that's what it is and stop slandering the dead.
*Years ago, in Virginia, the play group of my home parish, St. Andrew's, was performing The Crucible (they were using the altar as a stage, which I thought was extremely cool. Hey, we're (Anglo-)Catholics, there's a very fine line between performing and celebrating Mass! Anyway, one of the supporters of the group, my grandmother's best friend June Hansen (a well-known Equity actress and Helen Hayes award winner in DC) asked me to look in on the rehearsals and give the director any feedback I might have--I guess this was at his request, I certainly made it clear to him he was free to reject or accept my thoughts, as he wished. I watched a little bit of the first scene--this scene is set at the Parris's household, and Betty is catatonic and we hear how the night before, Parris caught the girls dancing in the woods. Proctor comes over and eventually he and Abigail are alone together. She tells him "'tis nothing--my uncle caught us dancing in the woods, is all" and he replies "you'll be clapped in the stocks before you're twenty." And she melts, saying "give me a word, John, a soft word."
Well, the way this scene was being performed by my church group, John says the stocks line (and the preceding lines) to her sternly, as though he were lecturing her. There was absolutely no flirtatiousness between them--he is stern and stiff, holding her at arms' length. The director asked me for any feedback, and I said "uh, you may want to consider exploring some of the subtext in that scene--it's more interesting if John is still attracted to her and he's fighting against that." Not to mention--it's hardly even subtext when the script itself adds it--the stage directions say that John is smiling on that line and she responds with "a giggle." It's this buildup that leads to "give me a word, John--a soft word." The director looks at me in confusion--"really? You think I should put that in?" Well, YEAH! Arthur Miller thinks so too! May I introduce you to THE SCRIPT? I know Miller's asides are long but they're actually quite helpful.
Anyway, getting back to the movie, as I said the performances are all great, and the last scene between John and Elizabeth will blow you away. Truly fantastic acting between the two of them. And the direction is quite strong as well--in the commentary track, Nicholas Hytner says how he and the crew had this fancy that the Devil had entered the camera, and at times, there was a Devil's-eye-view. For example, the "yellow bird" that the girls "see" during Mary Warren's testimony comes swooping down on the girls--I thought that was great. It was filmed at some uninhabited island in Cape Ann, and the whole thing just looks gorgeous.
The performances are all very strong, especially Daniel Day Lewis as John Proctor, Joan Allen as Elizabeth Proctor and Paul Scofield as Judge Danforth. And I actually quite liked Wynona Ryder as Abigail--she can be a little mannered for me sometimes but I thought she did a good job here. Her (and the director's) take on the character was interesting--more waifish and little-girl-lost, especially in her first scene alone with Proctor, than the Homewrecking Temptress as she is typically portrayed. This is entirely appropriate since when you think about it--John Proctor is completely at fault for their affair. A teenage girl in a sexually repressed society who is therefore completely unaware of her own sexuality, an orphan living in the scraps of her uncle, who's working in someone else's home--he was obviously much more in control of the situation than she was, and is therefore more to blame. Now, what Abigail goes on to do is her responsibility--I'm certainly not defending that--but you can't help feeling for her at the beginning of the story. She really is lost. I've just seen so many harpy Abigails* that I liked this take on it.
This, by the way, is NOT to say that the historical Abigail and John actually had an affair--she was 11 and he was 60 in 1692, so no, they did not. I was annoyed when listening to the commentary track to hear Miller drone on about how even though the actual people were 11 and 60, they'd been "mentioned together" in the historical documents and that this was "what I think happened." Absolute nonsense! Miller, just admit you used dramatic license. There's nothing wrong with that, everyone understands why you did it and it helps structure a great story. But don't try to bolster support for it by making shit up. There is no way in hell an 11 year old girl and a 60 year old man had an affair in Salem in 1692! If anything happened, it was molestation and I strongly doubt there would've been any mention or hint of that in the record. It's even more annoying because at the end of the play version of The Crucible, Miller's script says "legend relates that Abigail ended up as a prostitute in Boston." NO, IT DOESN'T. I've never read that anywhere. Stop trying to make Abigail look even more like a whore. Proctor, who seduces a young girl, goes out a hero, for God's sake--let's make Abigail just as dimensional.
Miller reminds me a bit of Philippa Gregory, author of The Other Boleyn Girl, which asserts that Anne Boleyn really DID commit incest and practice witchcraft, and when called on this completely fanciful version of history (even Anne's enemies didn't believe the charges--even her HUSBAND, who wanted her GONE--didn't believe the charges) coyly mentions secret historical sources. She insists her book is completely historical, which is why I dislike her so. There's nothing wrong with artistic license--just admit that's what it is and stop slandering the dead.
*Years ago, in Virginia, the play group of my home parish, St. Andrew's, was performing The Crucible (they were using the altar as a stage, which I thought was extremely cool. Hey, we're (Anglo-)Catholics, there's a very fine line between performing and celebrating Mass! Anyway, one of the supporters of the group, my grandmother's best friend June Hansen (a well-known Equity actress and Helen Hayes award winner in DC) asked me to look in on the rehearsals and give the director any feedback I might have--I guess this was at his request, I certainly made it clear to him he was free to reject or accept my thoughts, as he wished. I watched a little bit of the first scene--this scene is set at the Parris's household, and Betty is catatonic and we hear how the night before, Parris caught the girls dancing in the woods. Proctor comes over and eventually he and Abigail are alone together. She tells him "'tis nothing--my uncle caught us dancing in the woods, is all" and he replies "you'll be clapped in the stocks before you're twenty." And she melts, saying "give me a word, John, a soft word."
Well, the way this scene was being performed by my church group, John says the stocks line (and the preceding lines) to her sternly, as though he were lecturing her. There was absolutely no flirtatiousness between them--he is stern and stiff, holding her at arms' length. The director asked me for any feedback, and I said "uh, you may want to consider exploring some of the subtext in that scene--it's more interesting if John is still attracted to her and he's fighting against that." Not to mention--it's hardly even subtext when the script itself adds it--the stage directions say that John is smiling on that line and she responds with "a giggle." It's this buildup that leads to "give me a word, John--a soft word." The director looks at me in confusion--"really? You think I should put that in?" Well, YEAH! Arthur Miller thinks so too! May I introduce you to THE SCRIPT? I know Miller's asides are long but they're actually quite helpful.
Anyway, getting back to the movie, as I said the performances are all great, and the last scene between John and Elizabeth will blow you away. Truly fantastic acting between the two of them. And the direction is quite strong as well--in the commentary track, Nicholas Hytner says how he and the crew had this fancy that the Devil had entered the camera, and at times, there was a Devil's-eye-view. For example, the "yellow bird" that the girls "see" during Mary Warren's testimony comes swooping down on the girls--I thought that was great. It was filmed at some uninhabited island in Cape Ann, and the whole thing just looks gorgeous.
