The Crucible
3/4
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder, Joan Allen, Paul Scofeld, Rob Campbell
Rated PG-13 for Intense Depiction of the Salem Witch Trials
The Salem Witch Trials were one of the most unspeakable miscarriages of justice in US history. Fueled by religious fanaticism and paranoia, these trials (and there were a few of them in many towns at the time) cost many people their lives. Of course, when Arthur Miller wrote "The Crucible," he wasn't writing a historical play. He was writing a vicious dramatic satire that pointed an angry finger at Senator Joseph McCarthy and his dramatic attempts to root out communism in the United States.
The film takes place in Salem, Massachusetts (duh). Abigail Williams (Ryder) is going with some of her friends to a little ceremony deep in the woods with the local slave, Tituba (Charlayne Woodard). There, they do a ceremony to get the boys interested in them. In today's world, it would be a harmless bit of fun. But in a Puritanical community in 1692, it was evidence that the devil had possessed the girls. To save their own necks, they claim (and act) that they were possessed. Salem is already a tinderbox, ready to explode, and this little lie brings chaos to the town. Neighbor turns on neighbor. An accusation means guilt. No one is safe.
The cast is spot on. Daniel Day-Lewis is good in an unusually low-key performance as John Proctor, one of the few voices of reason in this tale of madness. Day-Lewis is one of the most magnetic actors around, and many of his characters (Bill the Butcher in "Gangs of New York" for example) are larger than life in some way. But the power of his performance comes from his lack of theatrics, which makes the moments when all his passion and frustration come bursting out all the more powerful.
As the manipulative Abigail, Winona Ryder is truly special. In the play, Abigail is a cunning and calculating vixen. Ryder plays her as an infatuated young girl who makes a mistake and makes another in order to get out of it. She enjoys being in control at first, but it is only when things go too far that she realizes what she truly has done. Joan Allen got her first Oscar nomination playing John's wife, Elizabeth, whose only crime was to come between John and Abigail. Paul Scofield is truly good as the judge who takes things farther than anyone imagined or wanted.
I appreciate how Hytner gives the characters true motivations for their actions. As is the case in many instances such as this, people are driven by things other than what they say. For example, Reverend Parris (Bruce Davison) is mad at John Proctor due to the fact that Proctor thinks that he's more concerned with his reputation than preaching the word of God. Another example is that Thomas Putnam (Jeffrey Jones) is angry at Giles Corey (Peter Vaughn) due to a land dispute. This dichotomy is highlighted by Hytner and adds another level of depth to the play.
Still, the film is closer to a misfire than a success. It does pack a power punch, but it lacks atmosphere. From what I recall of the play, the film version (which was penned by Miller himself) is significantly different than the original text. That's not the problem, although it does make the film's points less clear. More troublesome is the direction by Nicholas Hytner. When a filmmaker adapts a play, he must open it up to replace the immediacy that a live performance has (see "Rock of Ages" for what not to do when adapting a play for film). In this case, Hytner has done that a little too much. The film version lacks the claustrophobia that the play has, which dilutes the tension. Additionally, some scenes are more cryptic than they should be, and John Proctor's motivations for the final act are pretty hazy. The worst offense is an instance of awful editing. There was a time when I thought the film had repeated itself and had gone a different direction unexpectedly. This kind of thing is unacceptable.
A common saying is that we learn about history in order to prevent ourselves from making the same mistakes again. Clearly, Miller meant for his play to not only be an indictment of rage against McCarthyism and the lives it destroyed, but a warning for what can happen when fear and power mix unchecked. But will those who read it take heed? Yes and no. Looking back on it, we can say that both instances were horrible acts of injustice and hiss at those who were responsible. But we lack the gift of foresight. Our modern fear isn't demonic possession or communism. It's terrorism. Just look at Peter King's investigation into the "radicalization of American Muslims." Although it wasn't as bad as McCarthyism because it wasn't allowed to go that far, the thought of it should chill every American. The bottom line is that we can say that we were wrong the last time, but this time its different. This play proves how heavy a price a witch hunt can be, regardless of motivation.
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder, Joan Allen, Paul Scofeld, Rob Campbell
Rated PG-13 for Intense Depiction of the Salem Witch Trials
The Salem Witch Trials were one of the most unspeakable miscarriages of justice in US history. Fueled by religious fanaticism and paranoia, these trials (and there were a few of them in many towns at the time) cost many people their lives. Of course, when Arthur Miller wrote "The Crucible," he wasn't writing a historical play. He was writing a vicious dramatic satire that pointed an angry finger at Senator Joseph McCarthy and his dramatic attempts to root out communism in the United States.
The film takes place in Salem, Massachusetts (duh). Abigail Williams (Ryder) is going with some of her friends to a little ceremony deep in the woods with the local slave, Tituba (Charlayne Woodard). There, they do a ceremony to get the boys interested in them. In today's world, it would be a harmless bit of fun. But in a Puritanical community in 1692, it was evidence that the devil had possessed the girls. To save their own necks, they claim (and act) that they were possessed. Salem is already a tinderbox, ready to explode, and this little lie brings chaos to the town. Neighbor turns on neighbor. An accusation means guilt. No one is safe.
The cast is spot on. Daniel Day-Lewis is good in an unusually low-key performance as John Proctor, one of the few voices of reason in this tale of madness. Day-Lewis is one of the most magnetic actors around, and many of his characters (Bill the Butcher in "Gangs of New York" for example) are larger than life in some way. But the power of his performance comes from his lack of theatrics, which makes the moments when all his passion and frustration come bursting out all the more powerful.
As the manipulative Abigail, Winona Ryder is truly special. In the play, Abigail is a cunning and calculating vixen. Ryder plays her as an infatuated young girl who makes a mistake and makes another in order to get out of it. She enjoys being in control at first, but it is only when things go too far that she realizes what she truly has done. Joan Allen got her first Oscar nomination playing John's wife, Elizabeth, whose only crime was to come between John and Abigail. Paul Scofield is truly good as the judge who takes things farther than anyone imagined or wanted.
I appreciate how Hytner gives the characters true motivations for their actions. As is the case in many instances such as this, people are driven by things other than what they say. For example, Reverend Parris (Bruce Davison) is mad at John Proctor due to the fact that Proctor thinks that he's more concerned with his reputation than preaching the word of God. Another example is that Thomas Putnam (Jeffrey Jones) is angry at Giles Corey (Peter Vaughn) due to a land dispute. This dichotomy is highlighted by Hytner and adds another level of depth to the play.
Still, the film is closer to a misfire than a success. It does pack a power punch, but it lacks atmosphere. From what I recall of the play, the film version (which was penned by Miller himself) is significantly different than the original text. That's not the problem, although it does make the film's points less clear. More troublesome is the direction by Nicholas Hytner. When a filmmaker adapts a play, he must open it up to replace the immediacy that a live performance has (see "Rock of Ages" for what not to do when adapting a play for film). In this case, Hytner has done that a little too much. The film version lacks the claustrophobia that the play has, which dilutes the tension. Additionally, some scenes are more cryptic than they should be, and John Proctor's motivations for the final act are pretty hazy. The worst offense is an instance of awful editing. There was a time when I thought the film had repeated itself and had gone a different direction unexpectedly. This kind of thing is unacceptable.
A common saying is that we learn about history in order to prevent ourselves from making the same mistakes again. Clearly, Miller meant for his play to not only be an indictment of rage against McCarthyism and the lives it destroyed, but a warning for what can happen when fear and power mix unchecked. But will those who read it take heed? Yes and no. Looking back on it, we can say that both instances were horrible acts of injustice and hiss at those who were responsible. But we lack the gift of foresight. Our modern fear isn't demonic possession or communism. It's terrorism. Just look at Peter King's investigation into the "radicalization of American Muslims." Although it wasn't as bad as McCarthyism because it wasn't allowed to go that far, the thought of it should chill every American. The bottom line is that we can say that we were wrong the last time, but this time its different. This play proves how heavy a price a witch hunt can be, regardless of motivation.
Comments
Post a Comment