Discussing the way Arthur Miller creates the dramatic impact at the end of Act 2

Authors Avatar

In this essay, I will be discussing the way Arthur Miller creates the dramatic impact at the end of Act 2. I will be focusing on the effect that the end of the Act has on the audience, I will also show how Miller presents the characters as more or less powerful I will also show how Miller uses language to differentiate between the characters how the presence of characters that don’t say anything, affects the tension, and the atmosphere of the play, I will furthermore consider how the writer would have to end the Act with some sort of exciting event, to keep the audience’s attention prior to the interval.

When the Audience go to the theatre, they want to be entertained, so as plays go, in this one quite a lot goes on!

At the beginning of Act 2, Cheever enters the scene and greets Proctor,

                

“Cheever:  good evening to you, Proctor

                  Proctor:   why, Mr Cheever. Good evening

                  Cheever: Good evening, all. Good evening, Mr Hale

                  Proctor:  I hope you come not on business of the court

                 Cheever:  I do, Proctor, aye. I am Clarke of the court now, y’ know”

Here, Cheever addresses Proctor, the audience would be feeling quite tense after what Proctor says, they would be waiting for some kind of reaction from him. Proctor hopes Cheever is not on court business because of Cheever’s reputation of being over zealous and hiding behind the law, and it would mean that he could be arresting innocent people, and that he is at Proctors house which could mean that he might arrest Elizabeth. When Cheever speaks of his new position, he says it with an element of pride and is foreboding, he would be boasting which would show that he could be quite shallow and full of himself, it would have been said in a pompous sort of way. He was probably only appointed to the position because no one else would want to put families through the torment of ‘name calling’, but he was probably the only one selfish and churlish enough to put the families through it.

Join now!

At certain instances Arthur Miller uses strong and emotive language in this play,

                        

 “ That bloody mongrel Walcott charge her”

When Giles says this, he delivers it by use of a short, strong voice, the audience wouldn’t just have noticed the word ‘bloody, but the nature of it, the character must have felt very strongly about it to say it the way it was said, the maliciousness and hatred comes across so strongly the audience cannot help but remember it. At the time that this play was set, any utterance of a word referring to the underworld ...

This is a preview of the whole essay