Differences Between The Crucible Play And Movie

The Crucible is arguably the greatest pieces of American literature ever written by playwright Arthur Miller. But, in 1996 a film was created to put the words of Miller onto the big silver screen for many people across the nation to see. Although both works were received very well, the two of them have many different elements. These differences from the book to the movie include the setting, the execution of all the victims, the kiss of John and Abigail, where the girls run, and the discussion of John and Goody Proctor. These differences from the book to the movie have affected both in many different ways.

Arthur Miller wrote the play, The Crucible, in 1952 and the movie in 1996. The story is historical fiction depicting the Salem witch trials that took place in Massachusetts in 1692-1693. The movie and the play have obvious differences, however the movie does not stray too far from the original play. The main character, Abigail, in an attempt to steal the love of John Proctor, weaves a web of lies and leads the community to believe that there are witches among them. Ultimately this leads to the trials and hangings of several good people in the village, including John Proctor. The main differences between the movie and play are displayed in plot, setting, and characterization.

Arthur Miller’s The Crucible is an iconic piece of literature that was published in the 1950’s. When Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible, the United States was in the middle of the McCarthyism era where innocent people were being accused of treason without the proper evidence (“Joseph R. McCarthy”). As a result, Arthur Miller became involved and wrote a play to show his beliefs in response to the accusations and haywire going on. Miller used individual characters and portrayed them as a part of his protest. The Crucible was published as a play and made a film. The two are similar, but differences do occur. The play represents these characters with more historical accuracy and believability than the film because individually, the characters

In the story the crucible there are many changes between the play and the movie. Most of them are not very significant changes. There are a few that make people think more though. The first one that is pretty significant is we are shown the girls and Tituba dancing in the forest. This part is mostly for dramatic effect in the visual aspect of the movie. In the play this part is only mentioned as a flashback. Another difference between the play in the movie was in the movie the girls are taunting Mary Warren in and out of court. This adds on to the facts of everyone thinking Mary Warren is insane. Another thing was that Abigail and John met in the forest at one point to talk. This may have lead somewhat to Abigail stabbing herself with the needle

Abigail then manipulates the residents of Salem in order to gain authority over John Proctor and the men in the court slowly lose their authority to hysteria and Abigail. Winona Ryder plays a wickedly version of Abigail Williams which convinces the audience that Abigail is a scary person. Also through the use of close camera shots, this enables the audience to feel the character’s emotions and feel the

The Crucible, an original play written by Arthur Miller, has had a multitude of adaptations come out after its’ release in 1953. Among these adaptations are the movie, The Crucible, directed by Nicholas Hytner and starring Daniel Day-Lewis and Winona Ryder and local performances of the play, such as the one seen at the Civic Theatre. The Crucible is about the people of Salem, MA and trouble of the accusations of witchery after Abigail, the niece of Reverend Parris, has an affair with the married John Proctor and he denies her when she attempts to do it again. Specifically, Abigail’s reaction to the rejection in the movie is portrayed so much more realistic than it is in the play and the entire cast portraying their characters realistically for how it was appropriate for the setting of the movie. Although the movie was exceptional in content, the universal portrayal of the characters was better in the movie. Overall, The Crucible movie version, directed by Nicholas Hytner, portrayed the characters better the play because Winona Ryder portrayed Abigail Williams better than the written play did, and the cast as a whole worked together to create the mood of the historical time period of both the Salem Witch Trials and the communist era. Additionally, even though the written play was amazing due to it being ‘first’, the movie was still better at portraying the development of the characters.

After more than forty years Nicholas Hytner decided to film the movie version of The Crucible by Arthur Miller. As most producers tend to do, Hytner was able to insert his own position while still maintaining the original story line. To get the right reaction from his audience Hytner deleted, altered, and added to the movie. While still following the storyline of the play, Hytner was able to make changes while not changing the play dramatically. While watching Nicholas Hytner's film there were many similarities and differences in the way the characters developed, the scenes, and the feelings of the audience and actors.

Since Arthur Miller wrote the Crucible as a play instead of a novel, I think that helped make the movie and the playwright connect. A difference between how I pictured the movie to be and how it was performed was how the actors looked and acted. I envisioned John not to be so gruff and rough looking. I imagined a more clean cut man. I also imagined Abigail to be more charming and appealing, because that might help explain John’s actions.

The play we read and watched as a movie was called The Crucible. The play and movie had several differences in three major areas those being: the setting, the plot, and the characters. The film was based on the play which is why there were plentiful differences between them. I believe the play was made into a movie to give the event a different view on what was happening as well as make the event more clear as to what was happening throughout the scenes. Making it into a film also adds more drama to it with the music and the way they shot the scenes.

Although not written by Miller, the introductory information for The Crucible establishes his credibility. An editor of Prentice Hall Literature informs the audience of Miller’s knowledge of the subject, “Arthur Miller has chronicled the dilemmas of common people pitted against powerful and unyielding social forces” (Kinsella 1230). The editor verifies Miller’s expertise and past work on other pieces focused on social issues such as All My Sons and Death of a Salesman. Additionally, the background information reveals that Miller based the play off a real historical event. Therefore, the play serves as a convincing example of real life social pressures and the resulting consequences that helps to prove Miller’s argument. While experiencing the play, a personal connection can be formed between John Proctor and audience members who have also experienced persecution. The ability to connect with the character allows the audience to empathize with the argument and consequently be more likely to be convinced by it.

Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible, and the movie with the same name have many differences and similarities, all of which contribute to the individual effectiveness of each in conveying their central message.

In the book The Crucible, it talks about why Arthur Miller, wrote the play. He said the idea came from the book " The Devil in Massachusetts" by Marion Starkey. There are many similarities between the two. They also have their differences. (Miller 1252)

Both texts are very interesting, one is a fictional play and the other is a non fiction graphic novel. The comparison found in this essay is the comparison of the graphic novel vs play and how the story and style of writing is better. I think the Crucible is better in the writing style because having a play over a comic is better by making it easier for me to understand. I get confused when I read comics like Maus; it seems everything is out of place or just mind boggling. I think the Crucible is better because it is easier for me to comprehend by the outlines the play is more out there where I can feel how they feel and the graphic novel is really confusing.

In ‘The Crucible’ by Arthur Miller, there are numerous elements of dramatic tension in Acts 1, 2 and 3. First of all, we must establish that the town and play revolves around the ideology of theocracy and its effects on the people of the village; Miller explores the feeling of paranoia, fear and tension throughout the play by setting that people’s grievances can lead to sinister motives. Miller conveys the idea of a society at war with itself in the violent language used by the villagers towards one another.

The title of The Crucible effectively helps us to understand the play in a deeper and more thorough way as the definitions of the noun ‘crucible’ reflects the themes of the play such as moral, reputation, courage, righteousness, hysteria and truth. It also foreshadows the severe and unjust persecution of the upright characters who hold on to their beliefs and moral values, as the word ‘crucible’ comes from the Latin word ‘crucibulum’, which derives from the word ‘crux’. ‘Crux’ is also the root word of ‘crucifixion’.