Sunday, November 29, 2015

How historically accurate is the movie The Crucible?

Movies are all about entertaining the audience. The viewers want to see exiting, fascinating movies. And it’s not easy to create such a movie. Often facts are passed over because they don’t fit in the story. And more often, facts get changed in a more interesting way. In the following paragraphs I’m going to check the movie “The Crucible” in those aspects.
Although The Crucible was originally written as a play, Arthur Miller decided to make a movie out of it. And that’s not easy. You have to fit the very well developed characters of the play in a movie and present the story in an interesting, capturing way. But you still need a few new things, your own touch in the movie. And Miller did a great job with it. The first thing he did was he changed the beginning. The original one was just a description of a room and therefore not usable for a movie opener. It’s too boring and doesn’t capture the audience. So he changes it. He gets rid of the original scene and creates a fictional one in which he lets a group of young woman dance around a fire in the forest. The perfect symbol for the topic of the film – Witchcraft. Now he has the attention of the audience. Next to that he changes the appearance of many of the characters. So he made John Proctor a lot younger. In reality he was 60 years old. In the movie he is presented as a guy in his 30s. Also his affair with Abigail Williams is fictional to dramatize the story. Also she was eleven and not seventeen years old.
Furthermore, he shrinks down the number of characters in order to make the film easier to understand. So he symbolizes the several judges with their opinions and believes in just two judges. He also decreases the number of girls in the “crying out” for the same reason: Too many characters only confuse the audience because it’s not possible to develop all of them far enough in the story to make sense. Additionally, he renamed some of the characters in order to avoid the confusion of similar names. So he renamed Ann Putnam Junior into Ruth Putnam so that the audience wouldn't confuse her with her mother, Ann Putnam Senior.
Arthur Miller and Nicholas Hytner did a good job in putting the story of the Salem witch trials into a movie. Although there are many historical inaccuracies like the witch dance in the forest at the beginning, it’s still a good, and mostly accurate movie. Many things were simplified or reduced, but I think that’s acceptable because this is a movie meant for entertainment. It’s not a documentation and should neither be a primary source for any kind of investigation. But that doesn’t mean the movie is totally wrong. It gives you the gist of what happened in Salem at that time. And it does what it was meant for: It entertains.

No comments:

Post a Comment