Another powerful object used in the set from the start was the crooked pulpit that was attached to the wall upstage towards the left. As discreet as this object appeared to be at the beginning, it may have carried a symbolic message. This crooked pulpit was an illustration of the distorted religion and mentality that lay within this segregated town of Salem. “I have come five mile to hear him preach only hellfire and bloody damnation… There are many others who stay away from church these days because you hardly mention God anymore.” – Proctor (p23). This shows that even a covenanted Christian minister like Parris is inadequate in his job; he is merely hiding behind his religion in order to save his name in the town. “Theology, sir, is a fortress; no crack in a fortress may be accounted small” - Hale (p55) This is an unusual statement to make considering the current state of the church and the minister who runs it. Furthermore, it shows that religion is used in the wrong way in this peculiar world. Both of these quotations are emphasising the state of the town’s religion and beliefs and are essences of what the crooked pulpit resembled.
The next area to be assessed is the use of costume and outfit of the characters in the play. The most effective use of costume in my view was the way that Danforth and a few of the other court officials were dressed. The black suit that he wore was a fine resemblance of his evil, malevolent and vindictive character “Hang them high over the town! Who weeps for these weeps for corruption!” (p116). His dim costume also strikes an intense contrast with the unnaturally white and illuminated courtroom. This itself also articulated a strong metaphor concerning Danforth’s unsophisticated and one-dimensional methods of drawing lines and divides when it came to friends and foes (in other words his dim personality). “You must understand that a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road in between.” (p76).
The costumes worn by most other characters were further emphasis of the puritan simplicity and attitude that the actors on stage exhibited. “I felt it was incredibly important that the costumes weren’t too mimsy. Quite often an approach to this play is to go down the puritanical route which is very clean, quite anal and tightly corseted.”. A prime example of this was Elizabeth Proctor, who wore a very plain and tradition grey dress; which in her part was very effective considering the plain and simple manner in which she was presented.
Another interesting fact was that both Proctor and Giles were dressed in leather working garments unlike the rest of the onstage characters. This seemed to create a subtle effect that seemed to single them out from everyone else, which was very successful given that both of them shared the common attribute of being two of primary characters who possessed the ‘moral authority’ of the storyline (the other one being Rebecca).
One aspect of this production that I genuinely loved was the sheer emphasis of the ‘dramatic irony’ in the storyline. The prime example of this was at the very end of Act One, where the suspicion had reached a maximum and the time had come to try to get to the bottom of things and the interrogation began “(grasping Abigail) Abigail, it may be that your cousin is dying. Did you call the devil last night?” (p35). This part was the first area which added fuel to the ‘dramatic irony factor’. While Hale was saying these words, he seemed to grasp Abigail in a somewhat ridiculous fashion; as if he was implying something that was almost sexual. Abigail was always presented in this play as a flirtatious character with the typical characteristics of a temptress. “Give me a word John. A soft word (her concentrated desire destroys his smile)” (p17). However, despite her success in enticing the characters on stage, she was not in any way sexually attractive to any members of the audience. This instantly caused the members of the audience to feel frustrated and ridiculed by the actions of the characters, hence – instantly creating a disapproving impression of Abigail. Most importantly however, it served the function of creating a disagreement between the main characters and the audience and thus distances the spectators from the stage. This in addition to the use of setting mentioned earlier made the audience feel like the ones on the outside.
By making us feel like the outsiders, we were almost able to see through the inside. Since generally, outsiders are able to perceive and see through what insiders are too blind and unable to see. Therefore, we all knew exactly what was going on behind the twisted and evil plots of Abigail, while the characters on stage cannot. Ironically enough, this is exactly what Arthur Miller wanted. As mentioned before, we were seeing through his eyes and metaphorically, this was like him seeing through the inhumane regime of McCarthyism while the common citizens of the US were unable to comprehend such things.
After the unusual gestures that Hale used, Tituba soon entered the scene. Suddenly, it seemed almost out of nowhere, Abigail appeared to just randomly accuse Tituba of the crimes she herself had probably been guilty of. “She made me do it! She made Betty do it!” (p35). Even though this type of reaction towards Tituba’s entrance to the scene was already in the stage directions, it was enhanced further by the way Abigail was acted by Sinéad Matthews. While she spoke those words, she seemed to choke and stutter through her speech. The audience, who already formed a negative impression of Abigail were obviously highly suspicious of what she was doing and at this point, I felt that she simply was making it up as she went along. I was personally very surprised by the tremendously over exaggerated manner that the actors responded. It created a sense of frustration for the audience when Hale suddenly responded to Abigail’s accusations in the exaggerated way that he did “Woman, have you enlisted these children for the devil?” (p36). Because Hale was presented so dramatically, it was irritating to see just how gullible and foolish he and other members of the town were.
As the scene progressed, the time eventually came where Tituba ‘confessed’ to the charges of witchcraft that were inflicted upon her. “He say Mr Parris must be kill! Mr Parris no goodly man, and he bid me rise out of my bed and cut your throat!” (p38). As a 21st century audience, we were instantly aware that there was no way that Tituba was telling the truth. While she confessed, Tituba was presented as a frenzied, out-of-control type of character. The way that she overstated her speech made the audience feel that this was like an anticlimax to the huge build-up beforehand (i.e. the constant persuasion Hale used). Once again, Hale’s gullible reaction created a very frustrating feeling for the members of the audience. Eventually, the two ended up on stage in a ridiculous pose that made the audience cringe in disbelief. As ludicrous as the acting was, it created a very positive effect in highlighting the sheer dramatic irony of the play and this was definitely one of the best features of the book that this production managed to achieve.
This however also created a somewhat negative effect. Since the dramatic irony was emphasised in a less serious tone, the following event lost the frightening factor to it that Arthur Miller may have wanted to portray. “I know that its paranoid centre is still pumping out the same darkly attractive warning that it did in the fifties”. I must admit, while reading the text in the very last lines of the first Act “I saw George Jacobs with the devil, I saw Goody Howe with the devil… etc” (p39-40), I genuinely found the text quite frightening considering how gullible everyone in Salem seemed to be; the idea of all these people possibly being hanged was chilling. However in the actual production of the play, Betty, Abigail and the rest of the cast moved forward towards the front of the platform while it was being pulled back. Their hands were raised in the air while they continued to speak the names of those they accused and they were eventually blanked out from the stage, which appeared almost comedic. On the other hand, the whole striking fear effect is probably not as applicable to the modern day audience as it may have been to an audience of 1953. Arthur Miller’s primary intention for using the fear factor was to relate it to idea that McCarthyism was something to be afraid of. Yet in 2004, McCarthyism is no longer as significant, hence the fear factor within the play was probably eradicated in order to strengthen the effects of other factors.
The end of Act Three possessed the same hysterical and anticlimactic qualities as the end to Act One. The pretence of Abigail and the rest of the girls was once again acted in a rather ridiculous fashion to put off the audience. “Abby, you mustn’t… I’m here, I’m here… Never, never”. To put it rather bluntly, the girls seemed to be shaking as if they had been given an electric shock. In this scene, Danforth appeared to be the one serving the same function as Hale in the end of Act One; being the gullible one who fell for the puerile actions of the girls. “(growing hysterical) Why can they only repeat you?” (p93). The way that Danforth was presented in this scene highlighted his typically one dimensional character as described earlier. To the girls, this was nothing more than a playground game. On the other hand – Danforth was treating it seriously.
Danforth also played the gullible role of Hale in Act One when he appeared to be charmed by Abigail. While he spoke the words “Abigail. I bid you now search your heart and tell me this…” (p87), he had gone down on one knee and was treating her as if she was a princess. This, like in Act One served the same purpose as to distancing the audience from the opinions of the characters on stage (since the audience did not feel sexually attracted to Abigail). In addition to all of this, what struck me most was the fact that the expression on Mary Warren’s face was blemished with genuine fear for what was going on; the audience on the other hand were not scared in the slightest. Hence – this once again underlined the difference in opinions between the audience and the characters on stage, the audience being the ones in the knowing, thus emphasising the dramatic irony shown in Act One. The only problem however lay in the fact that Proctor’s outbreak of hysteria at the end of this scene was somewhat suppressed due to the state of mind the audience was in following the juvenile actions of the girls. The whole disturbing sense of “I say god is dead” (p96) was dissipated.
Even though this scene did not do justice to my favourite character John Proctor in Arthur Miller’s actual text, overall I believe it still benefited him. The dramatic irony was a way of highlighting his choric role. Since the actions of the other characters on stage were ridiculed to such an extent and the audience was driven against them, the crowd has been driven to share the same opinions as he did, for he too was one who saw through all the mass hysteria and deception. “They’re pretending Mr Danforth… Lies, lies…” (P92)
Another aspect of the book that I believe this production highlighted brilliantly was the tragic effect that Arthur Miller intended to create. “Every tragedy is the story of how the birds come home to roost. You do something, and then you try to undo it and it won’t undo; it keeps pursuing you until it catches up with you”. In other words, his intention was to create a sense of loss, an inescapable fall from a great height. I believe that Proctor’s catch-22 situation was highlighted very vividly. The scene with Elizabeth on page 109 made it very obvious to the idea that Proctor was going to lose whatever he chose to do. There was not any intimacy in the play up to this point and there was none at this point either. Both had stood in the corner of the stage and the body language of the two made it very obvious that they were distant. It made the audience feel very sympathetic towards what was happening to Proctor. He was not only in a no win situation, there was little support or advice from his loved ones. “John, it come to naught that I should forgive you, if you’ll not forgive yourself. It is not my soul John, it is yours.” (p109)
The ripping of his own confession on page 115 was done in a very emotional fashion and it made the crowd feel traumatized by Proctor’s actions. After he ripped the piece of paper, his eyes had somewhat widened and he shot a very blank and psychotic stare at Danforth, it appeared almost as if he had been driven to insanity by the conspiracy against him. “I can. And there’s your first marvel, that I can.” (p115) The facial expression that he asserted was as if he was saying “You can take my life but you’ll never take my pride.” His bloodied face was an emblem of all the pain he had already been through while fighting this huge battle against the corrupt court. As he lifted and kissed Elizabeth with great passion, it made the audience feel at a huge climax, because it was actually the first time the two had been intimately and physically together.
But for me, Proctor’s triumph seemed somewhat short lived and in vain. He had saved his pride “Because it is my name!”; he had made a sacrifice for others “I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang!”; he had done the honourable thing “I do think I see some shred of goodness in John Proctor” and his relationship with Elizabeth was healed. Yet still, Proctor was going to die and since the audience had formed such a favourable and positive opinion of him, we didn’t want him to die. I think the point when he caught Rebecca as she was about to fall was done very effectively and it underlined Proctor’s good character and integrity.
The final emphasis of the tragic effect was subtly expressed in Elizabeth’s final quote. “He have his goodness now. God forbid I take it from him.” Since this quote was so understated and underplayed as Elizabeth had been throughout the play, it killed the whole idea of triumph in what Proctor had done. As the play was about to end and Proctor was about to die, I didn’t feel any positive or satisfying vibe. Instead I felt emotionally overcome with a tragic sensation that left me speechless and perhaps even upset by the death of the righteous man in the play. The only person who seemed to possess the iconoclastic figure and moral authority of the town was dead, the choric role was gone…
Overall, I think this an excellent production of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. It effectively portrayed most of the characters as Arthur Miller had described them in the original book, and the message Arthur Miller had intended to send was ingeniously conveyed. Even though the play was only a mere two and a half hours, I was highly impressed with the amount of detail that was illustrated from the book. In particular, some of the key lines from various characters which had a significant effect on me were vividly presented by the excellent actors and actresses.
The setting was very vivid, the costumes were simple yet highly creative, the characters in general were presented very uniquely and the didactic message Arthur Miller wished to depict was carried out clearly. Despite the fact that some areas of the play were underplayed as mentioned earlier, they were compensated by highlighting the significance of other areas. This is an excellent reproduction and unique interpretation of Arthur Miller’s original work and I absolutely loved it.