The characters of The Crucible change vastly throughout the piece. Central figure John Proctor is not an idealized hero, known to be a blunt, stubborn man, given to speaking his mind. He stalled at the chance to save many condemned in order to save his own name. It is interesting that Miller uses a man like Proctor as a central figure. Proctor was thought of highly in his village but was no means a rich, extravagant member of his society. Miller believed that tragedy was not confined to the rich and important, but that the story of an ordinary man’s failure in life was just as moving and terrible. His greatest moment comes in act four where he surrenders his own life to save him losing his good name among the people who trust and respect him.
The journey between John and Elizabeth is vast from the beginning of the play where we see their relationship very frosty and cold. On the first introduction of the two characters together this coldness is portrayed to us with Proctor’s declaration of his only intent to please Elizabeth and Elizabeth’s cold acceptance. However at the end of act four we hear the warm and passionate exchange between the two characters as Elizabeth opens her heart to John and although not wishing for him to testify to Witchcraft desperately wanting him to live so he could bring up there unborn baby together. We can see and sympathise with how each of the relationships are being affected by the pressure they are being put under. This, as with the characteristics of the characters, allows us to become even more involved in the plot.
Elizabeth shows signs of her forgiving love for Proctor at his trial.
Proctor admits to adultery with his former servant and claiming he can see the Devil without wife Elizabeth knowing of this. Elizabeth is called to confront the council and denies John’s adultery fully knowing of John’s happenings with Abigail. She acts this way obviously thinking that if she were to say yes then John would be condemned. The audience can see through Elizabeth’s actions that she still has feelings for her husband and is horrified to find John had already confessed of his adultery.
The way Elizabeth used false emotions towards John, in being “cold” towards him was maybe to see how John would react towards her. Maybe to see if he still shared the love that she truly still has for him. Obviously she still would have been hurt by John’s temptations but she is still willing to forgive him if he is worthy. I think Miller tries to show that she could of easily forgiven John but chooses to dwell on the situation to see how much John misses the love and passion they will have had. Act four shows Elizabeth’s true colours towards John as she breaks at his decision to take his own life in order to save his own name.
Sensual adolescent, Abigail Williams, flattered by Proctors early attention had now become offended by him turning his back on her. Proctor had realized their so-called relationship must not further and it disgusted Abigail. She reacted by condemning Elizabeth proctor as a witch. John at first doesn’t react to this, afraid of his secret between him and Abigail being released. He stalled for days, until he came to his senses and forced himself to admitting his former relationship with Abigail. In order to save his wife Elizabeth from the rope. Reverend Hale had suspected something with Abigail from the start. He pleaded with the councilors that they were mistaken with their condemning and insisted to release the innocent. Abigail continued pointing the finger to condemn witches and soon enough the attention grew towards her. Hale insists that she be put to trial and the decision is taken. On the other hand, Abigail herself had realized she had taken it to far and when John told of his happenings with her in front of the council with her present she fled Salem overnight.
Councilors: Danforth, Hathorne and Parris, knowing of their mistakes, unbelievably force themselves to commit to continuing the trials to find someone else guilty in order to keep their respect in the community. They were known as accurate prosecutors and the fact that their main suspect had disappeared, they would be too embarrassed to reveal such a thing, even though they were sending more than ten innocent people to be hanged everyday. Miller gives us the impression that the prosecutors were totally evil, monsters rather than human beings.
Critics of the play have complained that Miller over-emphasised the malice and overall cruelty of the Crucible. He assures critics that his representation of the councilors was under-emphasised and where shown In the Crucible more human than the records showed.
The councilor’s decisions to continue the trials are in someway similar to Proctors dilemma. The council refuses to admit to their wrongs to save their respect. Just as Proctor had refused to let his secret of adultery be let out in danger of losing his good name. Miller uses this to communicate to the audience how certain people live like this and treat other people in society. The fact that some people see thier own principles far more important than other peoples.
Proctor condemned to as the devil is asked to sign a confession. He commits to this but after he signs he suddenly realizes the importance of his own principles and integrity and would believe himself damned knowing of the false confession. He sees his honour more important that life itself and he has himself hanged. He final words to his wife:
“How may I live without my name? I have given you my sole, leave me my name.”
This was a very emotional time for John and especially Elizabeth. She tries to stay calm throughout and refrains from advising or criticising John. She lets him make his own moral decision even though she loves John and doesn’t want him to die.
Elizabeth is far more less complex than her husband. She is more of an embodiment of goodness rather than the spite and coldness Proctor and Abigail speak of. Perhaps Miller ought to have done more in his presentation to determine this more.
It is ironic that Abigail doesn’t seem to change at all throughout the play. It’s people’s perception of her that changes. Evil at the start, evil at the end. She lies through her teeth condemning many women as witches to get herself of the hook. She eventually takes it too far and brings suspicion among herself. It is also very ironic that she doesn’t appear in final act four, after it was she that created everything and that she is responsible for many deaths of all the women she condemned.
Arthur Miller engaged the audience to a large extent, and he also manages to get across a historical story at the same time and prove a point. I believe that through extensive character detail he has made it possible for us to understand exactly how the different characters are feeling, and why they behave the way they do. Miller also plays on our emotions by amplifying our own faults through the characters, as in the case of Abigail using the whole situation to her advantage, and being very manipulative and sly, all of which are characteristics that we don’t like in ourselves. For example, Abigail was using the whole situation to get back at John Proctor, she wanted him but he didn’t want her, and in trying to gain his affections, she involved all of the people of Salem. During the play Abigail had one goal (John Proctor) and she didn’t care how she achieved this.
I also think Arthur Miller makes it very easy for us to pick out good and bad characters at the beginning of the play, its all laid out black and white. But some of the characters switch sides as the play goes on, at the beginning of the play I found Rev. Hale was very single minded. However as the play developed he was one of the two people who could see sense in the whole situation. Towards the end of the play many characters became undistinguished as good or bad.
Arthur Miller also puts the audience in a very frustrating position because we can see how wrong and how crazy the characters are being, It’s just as if he’s putting us in the position of God. The audience would get very angry at the fact that only Proctor and Hale can see sense, even though it takes two acts for them to see it. An example of this would be John Proctor’s reaction to Abigail stumbling in with a needle in her stomach, claiming that Elizabeth is a voodoo witch.
"Why she done it herself I hope you aren´t takin´ it for proof, Mister".
Abigail claims this to get back at Proctor, the audience however are led to believe that she did it to herself, even though it is not directly said in the text.
All of this would make the audience very frustrated and angry, and would make us start to blame and damn some characters that completely ignore the things that seem obvious to us. In this case I’m going to point out Judge Danforth because he is so wrapped up in his own little world and doing what he thinks is "right". At first Danforth only frustrated me with his ignorance, but as the story line commenced I found my frustration turning to anger and my anger into hate. Abigail also frustrated me because she manipulated the situation for her own benefit and to get at Proctor.
One thing I noticed was that Miller, at the end of each act leaves the play in a state of climax. At the end of act one Miller draws the curtain on the girl’s firing frenzied and false accusations of witchcraft against many women in Salem, act three ends with the dramatic exit of Hale "I denounce these proceedings, I quit this court!" Through this approach it always keeps the audience on the edge of their seats. Leaving the audience with a climax at the end of each act allows the audience to toy with their emotions and the ones portrayed in the play.
It keeps the audience swept up in the story line, almost like a soap opera today, where each episode ends with a dramatic last scene, ensnaring the audience and ensuring they watch the next episode because they want to know what happens next. In fact, The Crucible is in many ways parallel to a modern day soap opera, in that its success as a whole depends on how involved the viewers, or audience, become with the characters and the story line. Human psychology is such that to become involved in something, we have to be able to relate to it, in the case of a play, the situations portrayed and the reactions of the characters. Therefore they have to be true to life. This is one of the reasons Miler’s play is so successful.
I also think that the fact that it is based on history, the story is true to time and the story is kept historical even through the language, which adds fascination.
The violence in the play is shocking, mentally and physically; it even makes us reflect after the play has finished. I think Miller is trying to make us think about morality, group mentality, Puritanism, good/bad and self-interest. The play includes interesting messages about how reasonable individuals can become completely irrational and get carried away when they become part of a mob.
But in the end, who is to blame? Puritanism, Abigail or Danforth? The play is deliberately complex and multi-faceted, and not in plain and simple black and white, even though the characters themselves are black and white. In my opinion everyone’s to blame, If one person would have seen sense or not added to problem or admitted it was a hoax it would have never happened. If Abigail hadn’t added to the story it wouldn’t have happened. If Judge Danforth hadn’t of been so single-minded he would have seen through straight through Abigail’s sweet and innocent routine, and so on. But at the end as in many situations in our own lives no one is completely to blame. Very rarely is anything one person’s fault.
