John Wickerson
Mrs Reece
Tuesday, 1 May 2007
‘The Crucible’ is always played exactly in its historical context with Puritan clothes and sets, it is rarely updated. What dramatic features does Miller employ to ensure the play maintains its relevance for a 21st century audience?
In this essay I intend to discuss how Arthur Miller ensures that his play, which is set in Salem, Massachusetts, in the late 17th century, is still appealing and pertinent to a 21st century audience. Miller wrote ‘The Crucible’ in 1953, during the zenith of the McCarthy affairs in America. In 1692, the hysteria was owing to the alleged infiltration of witches under the command of Satan, while Joseph McCarthy was concerned with the supposed infiltration of Communists into American society. In both cases there were many innocent people accused and arrested, and panic bit into both communities. The play is relevant nowadays for many reasons: because it links with the situation in Afghanistan, it is exciting to watch because of the high tension and quite fast pace throughout, it incorporates dramatic irony to make the audience part of the action, and because it can appeal to so many different types of people.
The reason why the whole Salem tragedy came about was because of an ancient paradox: a paradox still thriving and very relevant today. The paradox was the balance between individual freedom and prohibitive rules. The people of Salem had a religious theocracy, which was designed to keep the community together and to prevent any disunity in the neighbourhood. In this respect, the theocracy worked well. However, all governing systems must have rules of prohibition, or they simply will not work. Evidently, in Salem, the time had come when the repressions of order became too harsh in comparison to the dangers against which the order was set. The witch-hunt was a sign of the disarray when the balance began to swivel towards more individual freedom.
An example of this paradox in modern society is the war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was ruled by a religious theocracy, under the command of the Taliban. In order for the theocracy to be effective, the Taliban imposed prohibitive rules, such as the rule that all men must wear beards. Perhaps it was excessive individual freedom that led to the September 11th tragedy. Clearly, ‘The Crucible’ is a parable for many events like the Afghanistan situation with the Taliban. Just imagine the reaction of the Taliban if a child had started playing at ‘being an American’, like in ‘The Crucible’ children play at being witches. The anger and fear generated would have been just the same, despite being separated by over three hundred years. Even though times have changed since 1692, human nature is still identical, and tragic events like these will continue to happen because of our nature.
It is futile writing a play that has a very relevant message to give to its audience, if the audience doesn’t stay until the end of the play. By using a structure that builds the tension progressively through the play, Miller ensures that his audience are kept firmly on the edges of their seats. He uses a climactic curtain at the end of each act, to entice the audience back to their seats after the interval. An example of this is the ‘cliff-hanger’ at the end of the first act, when the girls are hysterically accusing other women of being with the Devil.
‘On their ecstatic cries
The curtain falls.’
There are also two or three moments in the play of extreme tension, for example Elizabeth’s crisis in the third act.
“Danforth: Answer my question! Is your husband a lecher!
Elizabeth: (faintly) No, sir.”
Miller also employs a fairly generous helping of dramatic irony, for example, when the audience knows that Proctor has admitted to lechery, but Elizabeth doesn’t. This creates frustration, helplessness and disappointment in the audience, which, on the contrary, makes the play more enjoyable and memorable, because the audience is drawn into the action. Another possible instance of dramatic irony is the setting of the play: we are told at the start of the play that we are “in the spring of the year 1692.” This seems an ironic season to set such awful events.
One reason why this play can be enjoyed even today is because it can appeal to so many different types of people. It is based on real events and real people, so historians may find it educational. Teenagers and young adults will be enthralled by the action sequences, and females tend to enjoy love stories, for example, when Abigail is flirting with Proctor, “John – I am waitin’ for you every night.” Cultured people will revel in the artistic quality of the play, for example, the series of rapid, rhythmic entrances and exits in the first act, whilst younger viewers will be entertained by the excitement of the girls’ hysteric mimicking of Mary Warren, even if they do not understand the play. Having said that, the play is quite easy to understand, so the majority of the population would be able to understand the play at least at a simple level. By making ‘The Crucible’ suitable for all these people, Arthur Miller has ensured that it will still be enjoyed in the 21st century.
The dictionary definition of a crucible is a ‘small melting-pot’. I think that ‘The Crucible’ is an appropriate name for this play, because the heat gradually becomes more and more intense throughout the play as if the characters are in a crucible, and because the word carries overtones of witchcraft. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading ‘The Crucible’, and even though it is about events that happened over 300 years ago, it still holds an uncanny relevance because, sometimes, we can see ourselves in Arthur Miller’s characters. Perhaps ‘The Crucible’ can so relevant that it helps to stop terrible tragedies like the witch hunts happening again in the future.
