60 year old John Proctor and 11 year old Abigail Williams would not have a had an affair in real life, but in this film, The Crucible, and the play The Crucible, they did. In the movie and play their characters were tweaked from real life events. People in the entertainment business aren’t looking to make the movie or play accurate to history. But rather to make it engaging to the audience so they can make money and produce more false history reenactments. Nicholas Hytner, the director, and Arthur Miller, the playwright, are two examples of how this is use it to their advantage.
The spectral evidence used in the movie seemed kind of out there and like a hoax, this was one example of the entertainment made parts of the movie. In addition to this being a hoax, it was also dramatically told to the judges, for example fainting, getting cold, and pointing in the corner of the ceiling saying they see the devil were all used in this movie. But if they can see the devil doesn’t that make them a witch too? Another way the director, Nicholas Hytner, made the movie entertaining is when Betty wanted to jump out the window to see her mom because she was scared. When John Proctor and Abigail were behind the meeting building and he told her that he would cut off his hand before reaching for her again. Her actions were not what would be expected of women of that time period. She may have used words over physical contact but to make it more interesting the director chose to make it intimate. If this would have happened at all even with the giant age difference these two wouldn’t have a relationship like this. In the text we read in class it states that they didn’t dance or celebrate holidays. But the judges didn’t look or act very shocked when they were told of the dancing; possibly showing that even though it set of these trials that it isn’t the main focus of the movie but just an intriguing way to open.
Pariss seemed to like children a little more in the film but, in the play it said he didn’t like them at all. He cared whether or not his child got better from her “illness” showing a difference between movie and play where he didn’t care as much. The actors couldn’t show symbolism as easily in the play unlike the movie. For example three people standing in a triangle, in the movie the camera was pointing down on them sort of like a bird's eye view to show the formation, but in a play the audience couldn’t see this. Another example is when John, Abigail, and Elizabeth were standing in the line and the judges asked Elizabeth if John had committed adultery, how the angles were switched and how it focused in intensely in the pause Elizabeth had before answering yes or no to his adultery confession. The actors could not have shown this, because in a movie they can make the point of interest by zooming in on the person's face or actions. The play also couldn’t show the water scene as seen in the movie because they would have needed a big pool for the cleansing and rebirth of the towns folk. This is very inaccurate because not all the townspeople would be there to witness this event but it was shown that about everyone was there cleansing. But this scene is crucial because that is when Mary Warren decides that she will say that she saw the devil accompanied by John Proctor so that she would be saved. Mary also didn’t want to go against her friends, especially because Abigail was threatening all the other girls to follow what she was doing. In the beginning Tituba was brewing in cauldron and saying “spells” in a different language but in The Devil in Salem passage she was in the kitchen reading palms and telling stories of magic. Another example on how the movie could do more than the play.
As shown in this movie and the play people should check up on facts of historical events before assuming the movie or play they’ve seen is accurate. To sum it all up both directors were talented at changing some details so that the normal person wouldn’t notice but to us Globies we caught on right away.
No comments:
Post a Comment