Scene In The Play example essay topic

The well-mounted adaptation from Arthur Miller's was originally written to criticize McCarthyism in the 1950's. His play was written in 1953 with a clear intention, which is to make his audience feel and think that they are in the play themselves. He made a point that the reason the play was staged was not about the story line but it is about how the characters from the play itself represent themselves (audience) and their own behavior towards irrational assumptions and accusations. The story takes place in a small town in New England in the mid 17th century.

It is about what a group of girls had done in one night, just dancing around some 'soup' and they were seen by a priest. These girls were accused for witchcraft. As the rumor spread about witchcraft, the people of Salem were all easily convinced that the outbreak of witchcraft has started all these false assumption lead to more accusations and more executions. The film starts with the dancing in the woods. It was clearly shown on screen that they had danced around a boiling cauldron, which was claimed as 'soup'. As in the play, this scene was put off stage and the reason Miller put it that way is, it makes the audience suspicious, whether the dancing actually happened whilst the film showed evidence and made a mark in the audience that it really happened.

The trials scenes were terrific, but as the judges, Hathorne and Danforth, they were somewhat frail in personality. They do not have as much power / authority in the play. In the book, they had full power over everything. They can do anything they want. They could order people around but the film shows nothing by that character. They were somewhat comedic and chicken hearted (cowardly).

At the end of the play where John Proctor (Daniel-Day Lewis) and his wife Elizabeth Proctor (Joan Allen) the had their little 'chat', where John has decide whether he wants to keep his life or throw it away. This scene in the play was in a cell, which made the atmosphere more tense and claustrophobic. They also added the scene where the two of them kissed which was a very good idea to boost the romance meter from the play. The cast of this film was excellent. The character Abigail played by W iona Ryder was superb. Her personality suits her character.

How she acts around John was outstanding. She showed he sexual desire towards him very clearly even tough it was not stated in the book. The character John Proctor wasn't supposed to be that demonstrative. He was supposed to be a quiet man who respects everyone. But what Daniel has shown is, he was too aggressive and in the play, the part where he says " God is dead", what Miller meant is that God is no where near the people, that the people do not see the light of God and the were not thinking about God at all.

When in the film, he shouted out in the open, with his legs in the sea, making the viewers think that he is also into witchcraft when he was only mocking the court- mainly the judges (Hathorne). Elizabeth Proctor were 'OK', Joan Allen suits her character she is playing. Even tough in the play itself it was stated that she has raised a ' cold home' which made her somewhat dull, she, in the film shown passion, zeal, and her obsession towards John. The way she acts around John, her physical self was a little too much.

She wasn't supposed to do all that touching with John. There were some scenes added and some were cut off. The added scenes gave the story away too much as in giving out the main idea of the story line and made up the viewers mind on what has happened whilst the play, all the added scenes were put on off stage where it made the viewers reflect about it. The cut scenes were so crucial that some of the key design of the story was not archived. When Elizabeth was arrested, lines were taken off. In the play Elizabeth said. ".. when the boys wake up, do not speak of witchcraft to them... ". while in the film the boys just came budging into the scene crying to their mother.

At the end of the film, the last scene, the director stopped the screen at John Proctors execution rope hanging on the right side. This gives time for the viewers to think and recall on what happened through out the film. The script in the play was also watered down to make it more plausible for the viewers to understand. The play has lost its poetic touch and its density. The art director made an excellent way through out the film. Every detail from the mid 17th century was picked out, from buckles on the hat and to the tables in the courtroom.

It really brought the light of the 17th century into the 21st. As for the conclusion, this film is worth seeing and it would be nice to think that it can be a vital and as stimulating as the play. I have my doubts however, and it seems all too obvious that it will be the play that is remembered but the injustice itself..