Part 2
Despite the apparent impression that is given from the intro., about hoe solidarity is needed to survive in Massachusetts, a different view is given throughout the play. From reading the script of the play and watching the film, I do get the impression that relationships play a large part in Salem and how the community works and how it is formed. People in the community, while they are separate and distant from the others, seem to need each other; this is shown particularly with Abigail needing Proctor. However, whole some character do seem to need each other, this is different from the solidarity that Miller emphasised was so strong in the introduction to the play. In fact, solidarity is rarely present; although Abigail does need Proctor, this is a bad relationship – not one that represents how close the community are and how much they depend on each other for survival – food and health wise.
The disputes and disagreements exist in Salem, I believe, because of the way the community in Salem is actually very close knit and dependant. The community not being very big also does not help the situation that rises throughout the duration of the play as it means everyone knows, or at least think they know, everyone else’s business.
As Purists, the people of Salem hold up some very strict morals and rules. The strict rules about how to live religiously and righteously do not help life in Salem. People who follow these rules very correctly look down on those who don’t follow them as precisely – for example, Putnam especially gives off an air of superiority when he is around Proctor. They do not take anything – such as a disagreement or clashing of character into account and the path that the village as a community seems to take does not forgive at all. This is probably part of Puritanism.
The inclusion of these disputes and disagreements does add another side to the story and explains some of the actions during the trials in court over the presence of the Devil and evil doings. However, while their presence adds something to the play, it changes the atmosphere a fair bit. Rather than perhaps simply being a community ‘gone wrong’ as it were with the confusion as the trials develop, Salem has a deliberately cruel, more meaningful side to it.
The conflicts in the play do add drama and I think that without them the story might have been seen as a little halfhearted or lame. Also, what community doesn’t have some kinds of disputes or disagreements?
The drama is created by the arguments that occur because of the ever present, under lying grudges between some members of the community. One of these such underlying grudges is the one that Putnam has against Proctor. There has obviously been several arguments in the past about land and this comes out when Putnam accuses Proctor of stealing some of his willed land, ‘You load one oak of mine and you’ll fight to drag it home!’ This quote shows that Putnam feels very strongly about rights and having his ‘share’ of everything, even in this time of confusion and in the midst of all the witchery trouble. Putnam is an odd character; he feels very strong over issues like land, and yet he is willing and even eager for the community to be broken up and the solidarity that his grandfather’s generation apparently survived on, completely lost or destroyed. This seems a little odd, as it is as if he would like it both ways; he would like to see many people brought to justice and yet he still sticks to some of the old habits such as arguing over whose land is who’s and therefore whom it is willed to. Putnam, almost without anyone noticing, does much of the damage during the trials. Sly words slipped in and encouraging comments can be very influential when someone is debating over which choice to make. One example of this is when Putnam adds, ‘This woman (talking about Tituba) must be hanged! She must be taken and hanged!’ The comments introduced the idea of hanging and accentuated the seriousness of the conversation.
The disputes mean that during the trials, people might not be entirely truthful in order to accuse someone who they have argued with. Some members of the community lied or changed their response to a court question depending on what relationships they had.
Part 3
The relationship between individuals and the community is one of the themes that Miller explores in this play. While ‘working’ in the community on their own, many individuals play a large part in the occurrences; changing events with single words or actions. During the play, I think Miller is thinking about how big a difference a single person can have on many – such as Abigail does on the whole community of Salem. Some members of Salem are quite heavily involved in all the events throughout the play and yet others manage to take a much more back row view. Whether it is the more active individuals that move events along single-handily or the whole community powering events is part of the issue.
Individuals that Miller has developed as part of the community but that are heavily pressured or influenced by the people around them is another side to the issue.
An example of one of such people is Abigail. Despite the fact that she started all the fuss in the first place, and therefore you would perhaps expect that she pressurised rather than someone who was pressured herself, she is under a lot of influence. Abigail was under pressure to keep her secrets, the truth, to herself because she knew how much trouble she was going to be in – probably hanged – if she confessed.
Another person under influence from the community was Mary Warren, Proctors servant. She was unable to stand up for herself and during the trials simply followed on to the actions of the others; copied what they said and did. This was shameful in a way; although it was just the way she was, her personality was a weak and confused one. The other girls in the community, in the trials, were the ones that influenced and pressurised Mary. They made her feel that she has to follow them and do what they did.
Parris is definitely under pressure from the community, but this is different as it comes from himself – he feels strongly pressured by the people Salem. In fact, they would have much preferred him if he has been his real self, rather than the person he thought they wanted him to be. He felt that he needed the community’s respect to do his job and live in Salem, which meant that he would do anything to ensure he gained and then kept that respect up.
The court pressurised individuals in the community enormously. For example; Giles was pressured to the point that they actually reverted to physical pressure – they piled rocks on him as torture. This was all to try and obtain information from him. They also pressured other members fro confessions of trafficking with the Devil, even when it became clearer that the person was probably innocent anyway.
Proctor was the individual who emerged as the strong one; the one who would withstand the pressure, despite the consequences of doing so. Proctor represents the truth in the community; he knew what had actually happened and he was willing to take the weight of it on his shoulders and represent it. I believe that all through the play he felt deep regret for the occurrences involving him and Abigail, and representing the truth at the end of the trails and then dying for the truth would have satisfied some of the need he felt to erase the terrible wrong he had done. He seemed to feel a fraud; he felt bad that he had not paid for the events more severely. Therefore, he felt he had got his punishment while fulfilling another objective, standing up for the truth by not confessing and succumbing to be hanged.
Part 4
The trails break up the community and resurface old disputes and disagreements. They caused everyone around to distrust everyone else and be continually cautious – you did not know who was going to be accused next, and who would be doing the accusing.
An example of the community falling apart is the lack of people that turn up to the last few court events. For example, when Proctor’s hanging was announced, less than thirty people from the whole area appeared. While this still perhaps sounds like quite a few people, when you compare the number the crowds that were gathering at the beginning of the court proceeding and announcements, it is a very small number. This shows that while most of the general public had been all for the court decisions and happening, this feeling was obviously dying out in a very large way. There are a few possible reasons for this; and I do not believe that just one cause is responsible – it was a mixture of everything that meant many people who would have come were steering clear. This mixture of reason and feeling was obviously not just the cause of the lack of people at the announcement that is simply just one example of the community changing.
One of the reasons I believe was that so many of the villagers were either in prison, or were dead, having already been hanged for not confessing, that the state of the village was collapsing rapidly. Miller talks about the orphans that are wandering round, with neither of their parents left to care for them. He also mentions the cows that are not being tended and so are presumable also wandering around. Farms were being left to ruin as their owners sat in prison – it is easy to not appreciate the large amounts of time that were passing throughout the play – several months do in fact actually pass. It is easy to understand that people were very concerned, horrified maybe even about the state of the community – for the community as a whole was of course being greatly affected – with people in prison, people dead because of other members of the community turning on them, young children wandering around starving to death, the community was being gradually broken up, bit by bit.
Another reason for the way the community is being broken up and is not still standing, as one together, is that I believe that many people were probably starting to seriously doubt the court, the trials and the whole, massively mixed up and messed affair. It had gone on so long that although people would not have lost interest – their neighbours were being hung and captured – they might have doubted the whole business and it would have lost its initial excitement and most of the surrounding curiosity. As the trials had been going on for such a long time, it is easy to imagine that the rest of the people in the village were not only wary of the honesty and the concerned about the justification of the hangings, but they were also scared. Although I believe towards the end that no new people were being accused, the community were probably still worried about being the next person. This would have also actually turned the community against the courts, and it was probably this that meant the community did not completely crumble – everyone was turning together.
To add again to the list of reasons is the distrust of everyone around. This would have been fuelled by the fright of being accused, you did not know who would suddenly accuse you or not. Therefore, it is likely that you would distrust everyone to ‘be on the safe side’. This of course means that a community just could not really not suffer a terrible amount.
John Proctors confession was very important to the court. It would have reassured people that the other hanging would more likely justified as John was a leader in the community – a main figure whom I think everyone would have known, just as everyone knew the priest, Parris and people would probably believe that John would not have confessed unless guilty. Without John’s confession, it was much more likely that the judges would be shamed and doubted very seriously.
Section 2
The Crucible has a wide range of people involved, which is in contrast to many other plays. Many plays often only have perhaps two or three main characters, with a few ‘backing’ characters. In the Crucible however, there is both a wide number and a wide range of characters included. The range of characters is represented by the different ages – you have Giles and Francis Nurse, both of whom feature in quite a large way in the play, and they are thought to be in their 80’s. At the other end of the scale, you have Ruth and Betty, both of whom are thought to be around 10 years of age. This shows a great difference, which suggests that the play is not simply based around one group of similar people to start off with. However, the play could still be based on a family, with the different generations. The difference in classes of the people involved dismisses that idea, so you immediately come to the only real other option, and that is that this play is based on a whole community. The different classes are shown by the way you have the poor farmers and their wives – Sarah Good and Goody Osborn are two examples here. You then have the slave, Tituba being one example, in fact the only slave we hear about. You then have of course the people who hold the slaves – Putnam and the Judges, as well as Parris are all thought to be quite rich and landowners. Putnam’s wealth comes across near the beginning of the play, so it is soon easy to appreciate the community feel. This use of the wide range of people is a dramatical technique, which Miller employs to make the play work – without the convincing sense of the community, the play would be a lot less than it is.
The events that occur throughout the play add to and show off the sense of a community. One of these such events is the knife which is stuck into Parris’ front door – if you were not living in a community, no one would know you well enough to both want to scare you for some reason and also to know that you would be frightened by the presence of it. A second example of an incident that occurs in the play version of The Crucible is the argument that happens near to the beginning of the play, between Proctor and Putnam over the land. An argument of this kind could only really happen in a community where the habitants have been there long enough to call on their grandparents wills as proof of something, and for others to know other facts about the people such as ‘Your grandfather had a habit of willing land that never belonged to him, if I may say it plain.’
In the film version of the play, there are additional scenes. One of these is another incident when something happens in the community, namely when something has fallen off a wagon passing through and someone is accused, I believe of stealing it off of the wagon.
The language that is used throughout the play is somewhat old-fashioned and sometimes makes use of the Bible, with biblical references to the events. An example of this is when Elizabeth describes Abigail’s entrance to the court as ‘where she walks, the crowd will part like the sea for Israel’. The language is manipulated fairly often, with the order of sentences being changed to make them sound different and unfamiliar to the listener.
Costumes could be used to the advantage of making the feeling of a community even more convincing. Members of the community wearing similar clothing to one another would be a good way to help achieve the goal, as you would automatically associate people with each other if they were wearing similar things. In the film version of the play, we saw that the men all wore broad legged trousers.
The film version does display Salem as a community, but as a new one. The houses and the landscape do not look ‘worn’ – you do not see any examples of old, falling down buildings for example. You can say a lot about the community by arranging the set correctly though; houses grouped together, wide roads for people to travel on, can all help.
I think that Miller included the ‘Echoes down the corridor’ end section to make sure people got everything possible from the play. Without the explanation of what happened after the play has ended, I would have felt left at a loose end and would not have been satisfied. Miller must have decided that he did not want his watchers to feel this, so he added a section, not a long one, just a few short paragraphs that fill in that gap and satisfy the need.
The stage notes, are again added to add both enjoyment to the play through understanding it better and to satisfy Miller’s own want to see everyone understand it – apparently when the first reviews of the play appeared and from them it was obviously that many people had not fully understood it all he was very annoyed and added in to help it all become clearer. In a play, perhaps these notes could appear in a programme that people could read during the interval. If a narrator was simply reading them, I think people would simply get more confused and even irate. It is surely much better to have the words written down so that people can take their own time to understand them and take them in with regard to the play itself.
