2,959 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Sept 26, 2022 9:05:57 GMT
I struggled to get emotionally involved until right at the end I was wondering if the rain curtain is acting as an emotionally distancing 'moat'? And is that a deliberate distancing?
|
|
155 posts
|
Post by bee on Sept 26, 2022 19:35:36 GMT
I struggled to get emotionally involved until right at the end I was wondering if the rain curtain is acting as an emotionally distancing 'moat'? And is that a deliberate distancing? That's an interesting thought. I don't know. It's a great looking effect, but I don't think it was ever used during any actual scenes, just at the start and when they were rearranging the stage between scenes. Since posting before I've been wondering if my lack of involvement was just a case of me knowing how things end for the "good" people in the play, and hence not wanting to invest too much in them to save myself some pain later. I suppose I'm still thinking about it two days later, so they must have been doing something right. Maybe it deserves 4 stars after all!
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Sept 26, 2022 20:04:26 GMT
A friend of mine who had never seen the play before was completely engrossed because he genuinely had no idea what was going to happen next. His companion who had seen it before was less impressed.
|
|
2,959 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Sept 28, 2022 23:14:27 GMT
5 stars from the Telegraph, "Erin Doherty confirms herself as one of our finest young actresses in a magnificent restaging of the 1953 American classic", though the review is paywalled.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by jm25 on Sept 30, 2022 22:37:15 GMT
Saw this tonight and the staging was definitely the highlight, though I agree with others’ comments about there not necessarily being any need for the rain (beautiful though it was!). Could see everything at the back of the stage from my seat up in the Circle but did find myself wondering how well those in the stalls would see it.
Performance-wise, everyone was strong. Not being familiar with the original text (!), I did expect Erin Doherty’s Abigail to feature more than she did. At least I’ll know for next time!
The text itself felt a bit one note, though, and as good as this was in many of the production aspects, I can’t on balance say that I enjoyed it. It certainly felt every minute of the 2 hour 50 minute run time - which was in contrast with the 3 hour 15 minute Aida I saw at the ROH early this week which (for the most part) went pretty quickly!
That said, I’m conscious that this was my impression as someone coming to the play totally fresh. There were a bunch of (presumably GCSE) students in front of me and it did make me wonder how much more I’d have enjoyed it if it were a text I’d had the chance to study at school or even university, or even seen before. Probably would have got a bit more out of it.
|
|
2,959 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 1, 2022 8:32:08 GMT
There's a wide range of newspaper and blog reviews for this - most four star, a couple of five star, the Guardian unenthusiastic and Variety disliking it.
|
|
115 posts
|
Post by alexandra on Oct 1, 2022 15:34:35 GMT
The Old Vic production was 3 hours 45 minutes when I saw it and with a 1930 start! And what year did it finish? A bit late, but this is an underrated post 😂
|
|
2,959 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 1, 2022 17:15:41 GMT
Erin Doherty will be interviewed on Woman's Hour on Monday, I think.
|
|
4,555 posts
|
Post by Mark on Oct 1, 2022 21:44:33 GMT
Purposely kept myself away from reading about the plot or anything about the play and glad I did, because the suspense was great and I found it totally engaging. Scene 2 especially I thought was just brilliant.
Row C 20/21, right on the central aisle - brilliant seats for this.
|
|
1,016 posts
|
Post by andrew on Oct 3, 2022 19:16:56 GMT
I love The Crucible, it's so dark and intense, and this production lived up to that.
I thought the acting in this was almost perfect, Erin Doherty for starters was wonderful as everyone has described, she has got to be one of these talents destined to have a long long career starring in whatever she wants. Brendan Cowell remains one of my favourite actors, I still think back sometimes on how good he was in Yerma, and he brings a different type of intensity to this. At first I was reeling as what sounded like a fairly passable George W Bush impression was happening instead of what should be one of the great characters of American theatre, but he builds it so slowly into his final scene so as to be both as impressive as, and completely different to Richard Armitage's take from a few years ago. Eileen Walsh playing Elizabeth Proctor was heartbreaking, and my favourite ever take on Judge Danforth was put forward by Matthew Marsh, I relished every second he was on stage. My one beef was with Reverend Parris, who I just found a bit unconvincing, although I suspect this was a directorial choice.
The rain curtain is completely pointless, I think we're all agreed on it. It looks incredibly impressive, I don't begrudge it being there to be honest, but actually the rain has really nothing to do with this play and is just there to be dramatic. A foggy dark stage would probably have been equally effective, although less instagrammable. The rest of the design I quite liked, but I agree that from row B I struggled to see the little flashes of activity that happen from the rear of the stage. The idea is a good one, but there was usually a table in the way of it so I missed a lot that. I think with only a little bit of effort the action there could have been raised slightly higher and the platform removed for actors entrances and exits through the back of the Olivier stage when necessary, then it would have worked brilliantly. Lighting, sound, and the choral work all came together to create the intense, terrifying Crucible atmosphere I want (and without the weird ticking clock the Old Vic sound design used).
I didn't feel any of the length, this is exactly what I want to see from the National Theatre when they put on existing plays, I loved it.
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Oct 3, 2022 21:04:08 GMT
Very much enjoyed this! Fisayo Akinade as others have mentioned gave a highlight performance as Rev Hale and Erin Doherty brings a rage to the show which you can't quite take your eyes off. For me, the weak link seemed to be Brendan Cowell's John Proctor where for most of the show, one doesn't feel very much for his character. At times, it felt like he was playing for the audience over reacting to the drama on stage and I felt a slight disconnect there. Eileen Walsh was brilliant as Elizabeth Proctor and I must echo other's thoughts on the stage design. Very stylish and really sets the tone for the evening as you walk into the Olivier Theatre. The lighting design was great too and I really liked the choral elements as well.
|
|
1,846 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Oct 4, 2022 7:13:57 GMT
Most excellent.
Moments of extreme tension, even though I had seen the play before I was transfixed throughout, a monster of a play. Like Cordelia in Lear one day you just wish Elizabeth gave a different answer.
Only slight criticism was that there was little or no spark between Abigail and John in that moment from which everything builds.
|
|
|
Post by thistimetomorrow on Oct 4, 2022 23:42:55 GMT
Thoroughly enjoyed my first ever viewing of any production of the Crucible. I will definitely be making a return visit.
|
|
3,072 posts
|
Post by david on Oct 9, 2022 13:24:15 GMT
Watched this last night completing my double NT show day. Thankfully my B16 stalls seat was just far enough back not to get too wet with the rain effect. Despite it looking very impressive, i don’t think if it had got ditched it would have had a detrimental effect to my overall enjoyment. Though the only complaint I would have being sat here is that anything that happened at the back of the stage was obscured at times. This really was an excellently staged production of this classic play. With the absence of Fiasyo Akindale, we had Nathan Amzi as Rev Hale. I have to say, I have to agree with andrew with respect to Brendan Cowell. When he was speaking I really couldn’t get his George W Bush sound a like voice out of my head. It really was so similar. Despite this, I loved his acting, particularly in Act 2 during the trial scenes. This really is a wonderful cast that keeps you thoroughly entertained for the entire show. The simple set was incredibly effective alongside a fantastic light design. Alongside. “Blues For An Alabama Sky”, the Nash really have got in my opinion two brilliant shows that were definitely worth the 6 hrs spent on the Southbank yesterday.
|
|
640 posts
|
Post by theatremiss on Oct 9, 2022 14:16:58 GMT
Gutted I couldn’t see this and Alabama at the NT yesterday. Two shows missed thanks to the rail strike and unable to see them before they close due to other commitments
|
|
67 posts
|
Post by ruperto on Oct 11, 2022 9:37:35 GMT
I liked this a lot but didn’t love it. Erin Doherty was - as she always is - fabulous. But of course, whenever you watch The Crucible, you remember that Abigail isn’t actually in it that much. When I saw it at the Old Vic in 2014, I remember thinking “I want more Abigail!”, and it was the same last night. I didn’t totally get on with Brendan Cowell’s Proctor - it’s probably me, but he just wasn’t really how I envisaged the part. But then I’m a Richard Armitage (Old Vic Proctor) superfan, and I also appreciate that a lot of people think Cowell is a great choice, and he certainly acts it very well.
Fisayo Akinade was off as Reverend Hale last night, so we had the understudy, who was fine. But, having seen Fisayo Akinade in a number of more comic parts, I’d been keen to see his take on Hale.
I think my main issue was that at times I felt this dragged a little, and I didn’t feel like that at all when I saw the Old Vic version, which was quite a bit longer - at least three and a half hours long, from memory. I think it was because some of the scenes seemed quite long and dialogue-y and unvarying in terms of movement/staging (not quite the right word, but hopefully you get my drift), perhaps not helped by the minimalist set.
But there was still plenty to love. There were some great performances - I found Matthew Marsh mesmerising and terrifying as Danforth. He’s not an actor who has previously been on my radar, but I’m going to keep an eye on what he’s up to…
I was in stalls row C at the side. The two people in front of me had been given plastic ponchos to protect them from the rain effect, which I think they needed, but I don’t think I even felt a splash, and the view was great.
|
|
2,959 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 11, 2022 10:10:02 GMT
Gutted I couldn’t see this and Alabama at the NT yesterday. Two shows missed thanks to the rail strike and unable to see them before they close due to other commitments And Avanti is a sh**show for anyone hoping to travel to London for anything at the moment, whether on streike (most weekends) or just an ordinary weekday! I was hoping London's entertainment venues would join in in putting pressure on them to lose the franchise and renationalisation but I haven't noticed anything from that quarter. It will be NT Lived though so I'm looking forward to that.
|
|
6,304 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Oct 11, 2022 10:50:16 GMT
Gutted I couldn’t see this and Alabama at the NT yesterday. Two shows missed thanks to the rail strike and unable to see them before they close due to other commitments And Avanti is a sh**show for anyone hoping to travel to London for anything at the moment, whether on streike (most weekends) or just an ordinary weekday! I was hoping London's entertainment venues would join in in putting pressure on them to lose the franchise and renationalisation but I haven't noticed anything from that quarter. It will be NT Lived though so I'm looking forward to that. You're very naive if you think London's entertainment venues have any sway in railway franchising.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Oct 11, 2022 12:58:54 GMT
Any production of this play starts at a 4, for me - I don't care if it's in Mongolia with throat warblers, it's at least a 4. Imo, this production does Miller's text justice, as do the creatives and cast.
On the debit side, there are differing academic views on this though I do struggle to think there was a US accent in the late 1600s, let alone John Proctor's folksy twang that comes from regions of the continent not inhabited by Europeans during the period.
Also, I struggled with Abigail's persona. It's clearly an artistic choice but, even when alone with him, there was no trace of female guile about her to show us how/why John strayed from his righteous path. Tbh, from row D, I didn't really fathom Erin Doherty's Ketermine blankness, either.
A Hard Rain a-Gonna Fall was the only allusion I could reach for in relation to the effect though, given Rufus' form, it could be related to climate change .. though, I guess even Bob Dylan was referencing the Biblical flood.
I have no suggestions for how to tease out relevances to the current social and political sh1tshows without undermining the beauty of this work, and maybe you shouldn't (I don't believe Arthur Miller directly references the McCarthy hearings). But it's there if you scratch around; when the girls were doing their collective thing it looked a whole lot like Twitter to me - youthful, determined collectivism/group ID vs. the older Establishment (Mary Warren was interesting on group ID).
The Deputy Governor's shifting power game seemed at times like ex-Barrister Kier Starmer personified. I somehow weaved in the Forde Report on internal battles within the Labour Party, though some might feel that's a little over-egged .. There is something more clearly here about the transgender debate. IMO!
Good to see the National slowly self-righting after a turbulent period journeying to new post-Covid shores
4.5 throat warblings out of 5.
|
|
2,959 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 11, 2022 15:19:35 GMT
You're very naive if you think London's entertainment venues have any sway in railway franchising. Getting the train at weekends, most of those I've chatted to are going to see shows. I follow a lot of northern-based writers and artists on Twitter and they are vocal about Avanti, as is Manchester mayor Burnham. It must be having a noticable impact on show bookings (it certainly has with me). Avanti are, as of this week, on probation and if London arts venues - which bring in a lot of revenue to London both in themselves and food, hotel, shopping built around weekend visitors - chimed in in public or behind the scenes it would be helpful getting the sh**show back on the road. I don't think that's naivety.
|
|
1,334 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Dave B on Oct 14, 2022 7:57:59 GMT
Loved this. Along with Blues for An Alabama Sky, that is two absolute blinders from the NT on at the same time... been a while.
Nathan Amzi was on in place of Fisayo Akinade and he was great, I didn't even realise he had stepped into the role until seeing the cast note on the way out. I find myself thinking about Friday Rush tickets going on sale in a few hours..
|
|
|
Post by edi on Oct 20, 2022 11:37:53 GMT
you can really empathise with her Abigail, just a young jealous girl squirming to survive unduly intense societal pressure. In fact, if you just watch the first half hour, you'd think she was the anti-hero of the piece. Her performance felt the polar opposite, to me, of Samantha Colley's Abigail at the Old Vic, who felt utterly frighteningly malevolent from the start.] Partner and I saw this for the very first time yesterday and had no prior preconceptions. This is exactly the bit where seemed to disagree. Partner saw Abigail as the clear and ultimate anti hero. I saw her as a victim of her time and also greatly resented that she as a very young girl, much less life experience than the Proctors, is somewhat the party to "blame". An older man and a younger , almost child, woman.... I greatly disliked that the closing commentary firmly cemented her role as the wrong one. I hated the word they described her fate...
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Oct 20, 2022 16:00:14 GMT
you can really empathise with her Abigail, just a young jealous girl squirming to survive unduly intense societal pressure. In fact, if you just watch the first half hour, you'd think she was the anti-hero of the piece. Her performance felt the polar opposite, to me, of Samantha Colley's Abigail at the Old Vic, who felt utterly frighteningly malevolent from the start.] Partner and I saw this for the very first time yesterday and had no prior preconceptions. This is exactly the bit where seemed to disagree. Partner saw Abigail as the clear and ultimate anti hero. I saw her as a victim of her time and also greatly resented that she as a very young girl, much less life experience than the Proctors, is somewhat the party to "blame". An older man and a younger , almost child, woman.... I greatly disliked that the closing commentary firmly cemented her role as the wrong one. I hated the word they described her fate... And this is exactly what the problem with this production is. You shouldn't be feeling like that at the end of this play, you should be feeling that at the beginning of the play and then have your empathy for Abigail melt away while the reverse happens with John's character. This production flubs that entirely because of some very odd directorial choices, performances and miscasting. There were many times throughout when the words I was so familiar with did not match what I was seeing on stage and while I thought both leads 'acting' was on point, their characterizations were completely off or bungled by bad direction. My main problem with Brendan was his physicality and how he carried himself. He thunders onto the stage and waddles about arms bowed looking like he has just walked out of the gym on 'arm' day, looking for a fight. I have only ever seen John previously portrayed by thin framed, slightly geeky looking men and I think portraying him in any other way is a disservice to the character. He is meant to be an average weak but good man who makes some very bad choices, but who finally grows some balls when his legacy is at stake. He and his wife are meant to be the victims of this tale and more importantly, you are supposed to like him and I didn't like this John Proctor at all. He was a sulky, narcissistic 'Bro' baby, who constantly looked on the brink of roid-rage blaming everyone else for his own mistakes. Because of this there was little subtlety in the performance and no arc for the character, he was the same the whole way through the play. Also because of his size they had to cast 2 almost comically large nightclub bouncers as 'guards' as other wise he could've just Hulked out, took out the frail elderly gents who dealt out his punishment with one hand, grabbed his wife and kids, threw them over his shoulder and fled the town. There was literally no point that I felt sorry for this hulking boob of a mans plight or felt he was in any kind of danger and despite mostly enjoying Act 1, I couldn't wait for him to scream 'LET ME HAVE MY NAAAAAAME' because it would finally signal that the end was nigh. Someone above said they had forgotten Abigail was such a slight character who isn't in the play much, well yes in this version she is all but invisible, when she should be a cunning, manipulative hurricane of pure evil. In this production she is little more than a silent but deadly...you know where this is going...who plants a poisonous seed, and leaves everyone else to bring it to fruition. Things are not helped by the fact that in every one of her major scenes where her evil is meant to spew forth and we see what she truly is, we are instead 'treated' to a Sinead O'Connor B-side from her Celtic era which robs the character completely of it's potency and the story of its villain. This girl should have you quaking with fear in your seat! Here it feels more like the other children and the law are the evil manipulative ones, when she should feel like the ringleader who is strong arming them both. The fact that this component is missing makes it just look like everyone in the town is a complete idiot, as this Abigail doesn't even feel like she does anything wrong. Maybe it is trying to be 'meta' and flip the material to emphasize the stupidity of the villagers and the era by putting the blame (maybe) rightly as you say on the adult who should've known better and less on the child who knew nothing and just fought back the only way she knew how. But if that is so, it really is a complete betrayal of the original text, this isn't Fatal Attraction. This girl seduced Proctor and knew exactly what she was doing from Day 1 and throws a rather insidious tanty when her plans fail. She is also not just getting back at the Proctors, she is killing half the town. She is in no way a 'hero' of any sort. Removing the 'Trump' from the story lessens the impact of the material which on one hand is still completely relevant with todays political gaslighting and 'because I said so' Twitter politics. But no longer really rings true as far as people in criminal cases willing to plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit (the Memphis 3, Michael Peterson) for freedom or their lives. Is John Proctor's pride now just seen as a little silly, while Abigail's Trumpian gift of just walking away from the devastation she will cause wherever she goes Scott- free now a completely acceptable new normal? That narrative may work for certain modern day 'movements', but for the sake of the rest of us, I really do hope not.
|
|
|
Post by edi on Oct 21, 2022 9:51:06 GMT
Partner and I saw this for the very first time yesterday and had no prior preconceptions. This is exactly the bit where seemed to disagree. Partner saw Abigail as the clear and ultimate anti hero. I saw her as a victim of her time and also greatly resented that she as a very young girl, much less life experience than the Proctors, is somewhat the party to "blame". An older man and a younger , almost child, woman.... I greatly disliked that the closing commentary firmly cemented her role as the wrong one. I hated the word they described her fate... And this is exactly what the problem with this production is. You shouldn't be feeling like that at the end of this play, you should be feeling that at the beginning of the play and then have your empathy for Abigail melt away while the reverse happens with John's character. This production flubs that entirely because of some very odd directorial choices, performances and miscasting. Interesting. I never read the play. Was Abigail written as an evil antihero? For my modern eyes, a 17 year old is a child and not fully accountable for their actions. For my modern eye, a 17 year old girl against a grown man is never the one in the wrong. A 17 year old knows no better. In addition she lost her parents, so she is vulnerable. In addition, a 17 year old potentially being shamed for dancing naked in the woods. I think I would lie in that situation too. I think it is a situation that got out of hand, and a bunch of girls who never had any power in a male dominated society suddenly enjoyed their power and they didn't know how to stop the situation getting worse and worse. It is the adults only who could have stopped it. But his is my take, admittedly from a modern point of view. But for this reason I liked how Abigail was portrayed, I just didn't like her 'end story'
|
|
2,959 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 21, 2022 13:07:35 GMT
I haven't seen this yet, but we did it at school and I rewatched the Hytner-directed film version recently so it's fairly fresh in my mind, and I think the play is very 'problematic' in its misogyny. The witch craze was a mania lasting several centuries, killing as many as 60,000 to 100,000 people, and the victims were almost all women - an estimated 80% in Europe and the Americas. It's rather odd and sadly telling that the most famous 'artistic' take on this Holocaust-like period of murderous misogyny was written by a man (who was cheating on his wife at the time of writing) and has as its main villain a young girl (the historical Abigail was even younger) and main victim an adult man. I'm hoping this version addresses that somehow (I'll be watching the NT Live when it comes round).
|
|
4,428 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Being Alive on Oct 21, 2022 16:51:16 GMT
Finally succeeded at NT Rush so will be seeing this next weekend.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Oct 21, 2022 17:27:53 GMT
Aye, aye, aye...
This play is not even remotely misogynistic unless you see the world through the very distorted lens of ALL men are bad and ALL women are good and neither is capable of being the other.
Was the era it was set in minsogynst, of course (the one we live in now ain't much better) and the same goes for the witch trials. But that is NOT what the play is about, it is using that era for a very specific purpose and turning it into anything else completely destroys the power of what the play is actually trying to say.
Abigail is a very bad person. A bad person is a bad person regardless of gender or age. This is main theme of the play, evil comes in all forms, human and societal. If you are only ever going to tie evil to a specific gender or group, yikes, life is going to take you on some very interesting twists and turns for you...
The play is about how ONE bad person (who in this case just happens to be a young woman) can use societal fears to manipulate people into getting what they want with disastrous consequences. If this makes someone a hero then I guess Donald Trump is a hero for using the same devices to win a presidency and then destroy an entire political system and the mental well being of 330 million people because he lost one. Are Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson heroes for doing the same to achieve Brexit? Or is it somehow different just because they are men? I'm sorry but to me it is all the same, manipulation to achieve ones goals without a single shred of empathy for the people you are destroying is exactly the same no matter what your gender is.
This is what the play is trying to teach us. Look out for people who may not be what they seem and shows us the manipulations they use to get us to do what they want. We have a million tv shows, films, plays, musicals, songs and real life experiences of BAD men, can we not just have one about a bad woman without turning it into something it isn't? Or do bad women simply not exist?
The fact that this production is leaving people who don't know the material with that option makes me hate it even more.
The main 'victims' of this play are all women who are already victims of the misogynistic time they live in and fake crimes they are accused of. They are all being killed off by a woman who is using that very same misogyny and belief system for her own gain. For me that makes her even more insidious. John is not the main victim here at all, his wife is. Abigail is trying to get his wife killed so she can take her place and she is doing so without conscience. She is manipulating and bullying a bunch of vulnerable children into killing a bunch of vulnerable women for her own gain. She is a manipulative psychopath who will stop at nothing to get what she wants and when she doesn't get that she simply walks away Scott-free and leaves everyone else to pick up the pieces.
John only becomes a victim because he does the right thing, but by the time that comes everyone in the town has become a victim. The men have all lost the women they loved. The children are all are left to explain things without a single shred of knowledge about what's really been done to them or what they have done. Failing to see or acknowledge what this person has done because you are swayed by the moral ambiguities of the time, her gender, other characters moral failures and modern political sensitivities, is doing a serious disservice to the play and what it is actually trying to say.
That for me would be the very definition of the word 'problematic' as is the implication that only men are capable of such despicable acts.
|
|
2,959 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 21, 2022 18:56:01 GMT
Aye aye aye...
Miller took a horrific historical event, altered the ages, relationships and motivations of real historical characters and turned Abigail from a historical child age 11 or 12 years old, with a 9 year old friend, to a sexually active and scheming 17 year old and made her motivation sexual jealousy for John Proctor, whose age is reduced from the historical 60. There is no evidence in the historical record that Williams and Proctor even met before the trials. Miller, who was married, was having an affair with Marilyn Monroe at the time of writing - it's not just about the Communist 'witch hunts' (and, unlike witchcraft, Communism is actually real). As I said, 80% of the victims of this historic persecution were female, and yet this is the major play about this period and it is centred on a man and with a sexually motivated young woman as the villain. Why do this? The same story could have been told, powerfully and with resonance, without adding that major sexual element, but Miller chose to make it up and add it.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Oct 21, 2022 19:52:44 GMT
Aye aye aye... Miller took a horrific historical event, altered the ages, relationships and motivations of real historical characters and turned Abigail from a historical child age 11 or 12 years old, with a 9 year old friend, to a sexually active and scheming 17 year old and made her motivation sexual jealousy for John Proctor, whose age is reduced from the historical 60. There is no evidence in the historical record that Williams and Proctor even met before the trials. Miller, who was married, was having an affair with Marilyn Monroe at the time of writing - it's not just about the Communist 'witch hunts' (and, unlike witchcraft, Communism is actually real). As I said, 80% of the victims of this historic persecution were female, and yet this is the major play about this period and it is centred on a man and with a sexually motivated young woman as the villain. Why do this? The same story could have been told, powerfully and with resonance, without adding that major sexual element, but Miller chose to make it up and add it. It's a work of fiction loosely based on an event, not a documentary. He took a story and turned it into something else, that is hardly a crime or new. The play is what it is and the meaning behind it is what it is and it doesn't need to be changed into something with a less powerful message than the one it already has. It shows the horrors of the Salem witch trials which were based on the existence of mythical evil where many innocents died and infuses it with a woman who is actually evil and walks away Scott-free. Not that much of a stretch to me and hardly misogynistic unless of course you find any criticism of women misogynistic. Miller's personal life is of no interest to me, I pay money to see his work not to sit there and cast aspersions as to how or why he wrote what is considered one of the greatest plays ever written. If you have such a problem with this person why would you even want to see/support his work. Anyways I've said my piece, not point harping on about it. Enjoy hate watching The Crucible x
|
|
2,959 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 21, 2022 20:21:58 GMT
If you have such a problem with this person why would you even want to see/support his work. We studied all Miller's major plays at school (English and drama teachers must have been obsessed) and I was cast as John Proctor in a school production, so I still take an interest in seeing versions of these plays. Most of Miller's plays have had fresh productions in London and Manchester recently and I thought it was odd that the one that seemed most relevant in the era of internet pile-ons and cancel culture was not staged, so I rewatched the Hytner film version, and seeing it again as an adult, knowing more about both Miller and the history of the witch craze and Salem, and watching it so soon after #MeToo, the misogyny in the piece was more striking. I'm not saying Miller isn't a great writer, but he was a human with flaws and prejudices and the attitudes of 70 years ago, which are not those of today (my Mum still has them - you should hear her on Me Too and 'poor Prince Andrew').
|
|