After watching "The Crucible", my feelings are mixed. This movie was an intense motion picture to watch and even more intense for me to interpret. The story itself is not hard to interpret, but trying to convey my feelings on it is difficult.
The story of "The Crucible" is very basic: a community, mad with hysteria, brings itself to its downfall. The story centers on Abigail Williams, played by Winona Ryder. She was the maid of John Proctor and his wife, Elizabeth, played by Daniel Day-Lewis and Joan Allen. Elizabeth suspects John of adultery with Abigail, so she and John agree to fire her. Abigail resorts to witchcraft to try and win John's heart, but when her uncle (the Reverend of their village's church) witnesses her dancing with other young girls of the community, she and her cousin are set into a panic. Their dancing was believed to be sinful and full of witchery. The next morning, Abigail's cousin Ruth is paralyzed in bed and this confuses the town. They think that the devil is the one to blame. This sets into motion the hysteria and suspicion of witchcraft and communication with the devil. No one in the village was safe from being condemned by Abigail and her dancing friends. The witch hysteria calls for immediate attention. Enter Judge Thomas Danforth, played by Paul Scofield. There are many trials and many innocent people getting accused of witchery, and no one is exempt, not even John or Elizabeth. The inevitable comes to pass.
I thought that this movie was poorly acted. There were some standouts in lead roles, but the supporting roles seemed to have been overlooked. There are four leads in this movie: John Procter, Abigail Williams, Elizabeth Proctor, and Judge Thomas Danforth. John Procter is played with lackluster enthusiasm by the great, two-time Academy Award Winning Daniel Day-Lewis. He seems to lack passion or care until the last scene, but by that time, I had lost hope and resigned myself to his weak performance. It is slightly unfair, though, that I say this, seeing as it was a pretty good performance, but I am naturally going to be biased as I have seen him in so many considerably better performances, some of the best of film ("My Left Foot", "There Will Be Blood", etc.). He should have thought before he set the bar so high for his work. The other bad lead role was Abigail, played horrifically by Winona Ryder. I'll admit, her performance was bad, very bad, but it didn't help that throughout the movie, I despised her character. Even so, I am one to appreciate devious and villainous characters if they are played with villainy and passion. She gave an uninspired performance, to say the least. One of the lead roles that was superbly acted was the role of Elizabeth, played by Joan Allen. She plays her with such subtlety that I couldn't help liking her performance. She was the only member in the cast to receive an Academy Award nomination. The other wonderfully played lead role was the role of Judge Danforth, played magnificently by Paul Scofield. He played Thomas Moore in "A Man For All Seasons", which won him an Academy Award. He is such an implausibly underrated actor; I wish to see him in more roles. He is type-casted in this role, playing another law official, but it's for the better.
The writing is nothing to complain about. It follows fairly accurate with the play, although there are some differences, as you would find with any movie based on a previously written material. This movie, though, has an advantage. It was written by Arthur Miller, the same man who wrote the original play. There weren't too many noticeable differences. One scene played out outside, rather than in the courthouse where it was originally set. The dance of the girls was shown in the film, but in the play it was only talked about, but there weren't too many differences. Naturally, the dialogue was drawn out longer, but the duration of the movie is longer then the duration of the play. I liked the satiric aspect of the movie. If one of the girls had a grudge to bear with any member in town, they would recall an instance in the past that would make officials believe that the person was a witch. I thought that it was funny in a way, but the directing made it less comedic and more pitiful and dramatic. The scenery was dreary and tired and worn down. The filming was bland and forgettable. "The Crucible" lends itself better as a play than a movie. This play was based on an event happening at the time that Miller wrote it.
Senator Joseph McCarthy was spitting out accusations everywhere that people were Communists. If they denied that they were Communists, then they were thought guilty and were declared Communists, but if they admitted to being one, then they were let off the hook. This modern day witch-hunt known as "McCarthyism" mirrors Miller's play almost exactly.
The movie had many flaws. It made me feel uncomfortable and eerie, which makes me not like it, but thinking over that, I realize that that is possibly the director's intention, and if so, then well done. I can only recommend it to people that are interested in the witch-hunts. It wasn't that boring, it was actually entertaining (in a strange way), but it was very predictable. It was a strange movie, the acting was OK, the story is good, but the direction was weak. There were some very tense moments on screen, which made for thrilling cinema, but its faults are greater then its perks, but I think it would be worth it to check it out.
The story of "The Crucible" is very basic: a community, mad with hysteria, brings itself to its downfall. The story centers on Abigail Williams, played by Winona Ryder. She was the maid of John Proctor and his wife, Elizabeth, played by Daniel Day-Lewis and Joan Allen. Elizabeth suspects John of adultery with Abigail, so she and John agree to fire her. Abigail resorts to witchcraft to try and win John's heart, but when her uncle (the Reverend of their village's church) witnesses her dancing with other young girls of the community, she and her cousin are set into a panic. Their dancing was believed to be sinful and full of witchery. The next morning, Abigail's cousin Ruth is paralyzed in bed and this confuses the town. They think that the devil is the one to blame. This sets into motion the hysteria and suspicion of witchcraft and communication with the devil. No one in the village was safe from being condemned by Abigail and her dancing friends. The witch hysteria calls for immediate attention. Enter Judge Thomas Danforth, played by Paul Scofield. There are many trials and many innocent people getting accused of witchery, and no one is exempt, not even John or Elizabeth. The inevitable comes to pass.
I thought that this movie was poorly acted. There were some standouts in lead roles, but the supporting roles seemed to have been overlooked. There are four leads in this movie: John Procter, Abigail Williams, Elizabeth Proctor, and Judge Thomas Danforth. John Procter is played with lackluster enthusiasm by the great, two-time Academy Award Winning Daniel Day-Lewis. He seems to lack passion or care until the last scene, but by that time, I had lost hope and resigned myself to his weak performance. It is slightly unfair, though, that I say this, seeing as it was a pretty good performance, but I am naturally going to be biased as I have seen him in so many considerably better performances, some of the best of film ("My Left Foot", "There Will Be Blood", etc.). He should have thought before he set the bar so high for his work. The other bad lead role was Abigail, played horrifically by Winona Ryder. I'll admit, her performance was bad, very bad, but it didn't help that throughout the movie, I despised her character. Even so, I am one to appreciate devious and villainous characters if they are played with villainy and passion. She gave an uninspired performance, to say the least. One of the lead roles that was superbly acted was the role of Elizabeth, played by Joan Allen. She plays her with such subtlety that I couldn't help liking her performance. She was the only member in the cast to receive an Academy Award nomination. The other wonderfully played lead role was the role of Judge Danforth, played magnificently by Paul Scofield. He played Thomas Moore in "A Man For All Seasons", which won him an Academy Award. He is such an implausibly underrated actor; I wish to see him in more roles. He is type-casted in this role, playing another law official, but it's for the better.
The writing is nothing to complain about. It follows fairly accurate with the play, although there are some differences, as you would find with any movie based on a previously written material. This movie, though, has an advantage. It was written by Arthur Miller, the same man who wrote the original play. There weren't too many noticeable differences. One scene played out outside, rather than in the courthouse where it was originally set. The dance of the girls was shown in the film, but in the play it was only talked about, but there weren't too many differences. Naturally, the dialogue was drawn out longer, but the duration of the movie is longer then the duration of the play. I liked the satiric aspect of the movie. If one of the girls had a grudge to bear with any member in town, they would recall an instance in the past that would make officials believe that the person was a witch. I thought that it was funny in a way, but the directing made it less comedic and more pitiful and dramatic. The scenery was dreary and tired and worn down. The filming was bland and forgettable. "The Crucible" lends itself better as a play than a movie. This play was based on an event happening at the time that Miller wrote it.
Senator Joseph McCarthy was spitting out accusations everywhere that people were Communists. If they denied that they were Communists, then they were thought guilty and were declared Communists, but if they admitted to being one, then they were let off the hook. This modern day witch-hunt known as "McCarthyism" mirrors Miller's play almost exactly.
The movie had many flaws. It made me feel uncomfortable and eerie, which makes me not like it, but thinking over that, I realize that that is possibly the director's intention, and if so, then well done. I can only recommend it to people that are interested in the witch-hunts. It wasn't that boring, it was actually entertaining (in a strange way), but it was very predictable. It was a strange movie, the acting was OK, the story is good, but the direction was weak. There were some very tense moments on screen, which made for thrilling cinema, but its faults are greater then its perks, but I think it would be worth it to check it out.