74 posts
|
Post by ruperto on Oct 11, 2022 9:37:35 GMT
I liked this a lot but didn’t love it. Erin Doherty was - as she always is - fabulous. But of course, whenever you watch The Crucible, you remember that Abigail isn’t actually in it that much. When I saw it at the Old Vic in 2014, I remember thinking “I want more Abigail!”, and it was the same last night. I didn’t totally get on with Brendan Cowell’s Proctor - it’s probably me, but he just wasn’t really how I envisaged the part. But then I’m a Richard Armitage (Old Vic Proctor) superfan, and I also appreciate that a lot of people think Cowell is a great choice, and he certainly acts it very well.
Fisayo Akinade was off as Reverend Hale last night, so we had the understudy, who was fine. But, having seen Fisayo Akinade in a number of more comic parts, I’d been keen to see his take on Hale.
I think my main issue was that at times I felt this dragged a little, and I didn’t feel like that at all when I saw the Old Vic version, which was quite a bit longer - at least three and a half hours long, from memory. I think it was because some of the scenes seemed quite long and dialogue-y and unvarying in terms of movement/staging (not quite the right word, but hopefully you get my drift), perhaps not helped by the minimalist set.
But there was still plenty to love. There were some great performances - I found Matthew Marsh mesmerising and terrifying as Danforth. He’s not an actor who has previously been on my radar, but I’m going to keep an eye on what he’s up to…
I was in stalls row C at the side. The two people in front of me had been given plastic ponchos to protect them from the rain effect, which I think they needed, but I don’t think I even felt a splash, and the view was great.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 11, 2022 10:10:02 GMT
Gutted I couldn’t see this and Alabama at the NT yesterday. Two shows missed thanks to the rail strike and unable to see them before they close due to other commitments And Avanti is a sh**show for anyone hoping to travel to London for anything at the moment, whether on streike (most weekends) or just an ordinary weekday! I was hoping London's entertainment venues would join in in putting pressure on them to lose the franchise and renationalisation but I haven't noticed anything from that quarter. It will be NT Lived though so I'm looking forward to that. |
|
7,052 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Oct 11, 2022 10:50:16 GMT
Gutted I couldn’t see this and Alabama at the NT yesterday. Two shows missed thanks to the rail strike and unable to see them before they close due to other commitments And Avanti is a sh**show for anyone hoping to travel to London for anything at the moment, whether on streike (most weekends) or just an ordinary weekday! I was hoping London's entertainment venues would join in in putting pressure on them to lose the franchise and renationalisation but I haven't noticed anything from that quarter. It will be NT Lived though so I'm looking forward to that. You're very naive if you think London's entertainment venues have any sway in railway franchising. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Oct 11, 2022 12:58:54 GMT
Any production of this play starts at a 4, for me - I don't care if it's in Mongolia with throat warblers, it's at least a 4. Imo, this production does Miller's text justice, as do the creatives and cast.
On the debit side, there are differing academic views on this though I do struggle to think there was a US accent in the late 1600s, let alone John Proctor's folksy twang that comes from regions of the continent not inhabited by Europeans during the period.
Also, I struggled with Abigail's persona. It's clearly an artistic choice but, even when alone with him, there was no trace of female guile about her to show us how/why John strayed from his righteous path. Tbh, from row D, I didn't really fathom Erin Doherty's Ketermine blankness, either.
A Hard Rain a-Gonna Fall was the only allusion I could reach for in relation to the effect though, given Rufus' form, it could be related to climate change .. though, I guess even Bob Dylan was referencing the Biblical flood.
I have no suggestions for how to tease out relevances to the current social and political sh1tshows without undermining the beauty of this work, and maybe you shouldn't (I don't believe Arthur Miller directly references the McCarthy hearings). But it's there if you scratch around; when the girls were doing their collective thing it looked a whole lot like Twitter to me - youthful, determined collectivism/group ID vs. the older Establishment (Mary Warren was interesting on group ID).
The Deputy Governor's shifting power game seemed at times like ex-Barrister Kier Starmer personified. I somehow weaved in the Forde Report on internal battles within the Labour Party, though some might feel that's a little over-egged .. There is something more clearly here about the transgender debate. IMO!
Good to see the National slowly self-righting after a turbulent period journeying to new post-Covid shores
4.5 throat warblings out of 5.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 11, 2022 15:19:35 GMT
You're very naive if you think London's entertainment venues have any sway in railway franchising. Getting the train at weekends, most of those I've chatted to are going to see shows. I follow a lot of northern-based writers and artists on Twitter and they are vocal about Avanti, as is Manchester mayor Burnham. It must be having a noticable impact on show bookings (it certainly has with me). Avanti are, as of this week, on probation and if London arts venues - which bring in a lot of revenue to London both in themselves and food, hotel, shopping built around weekend visitors - chimed in in public or behind the scenes it would be helpful getting the sh**show back on the road. I don't think that's naivety. |
|
1,828 posts
|
Post by Dave B on Oct 14, 2022 7:57:59 GMT
Loved this. Along with Blues for An Alabama Sky, that is two absolute blinders from the NT on at the same time... been a while.
Nathan Amzi was on in place of Fisayo Akinade and he was great, I didn't even realise he had stepped into the role until seeing the cast note on the way out. I find myself thinking about Friday Rush tickets going on sale in a few hours..
|
|
|
|
Post by edi on Oct 20, 2022 11:37:53 GMT
you can really empathise with her Abigail, just a young jealous girl squirming to survive unduly intense societal pressure. In fact, if you just watch the first half hour, you'd think she was the anti-hero of the piece. Her performance felt the polar opposite, to me, of Samantha Colley's Abigail at the Old Vic, who felt utterly frighteningly malevolent from the start.] Partner and I saw this for the very first time yesterday and had no prior preconceptions. This is exactly the bit where seemed to disagree. Partner saw Abigail as the clear and ultimate anti hero. I saw her as a victim of her time and also greatly resented that she as a very young girl, much less life experience than the Proctors, is somewhat the party to "blame". An older man and a younger , almost child, woman.... I greatly disliked that the closing commentary firmly cemented her role as the wrong one. I hated the word they described her fate... |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Oct 20, 2022 16:00:14 GMT
you can really empathise with her Abigail, just a young jealous girl squirming to survive unduly intense societal pressure. In fact, if you just watch the first half hour, you'd think she was the anti-hero of the piece. Her performance felt the polar opposite, to me, of Samantha Colley's Abigail at the Old Vic, who felt utterly frighteningly malevolent from the start.] Partner and I saw this for the very first time yesterday and had no prior preconceptions. This is exactly the bit where seemed to disagree. Partner saw Abigail as the clear and ultimate anti hero. I saw her as a victim of her time and also greatly resented that she as a very young girl, much less life experience than the Proctors, is somewhat the party to "blame". An older man and a younger , almost child, woman.... I greatly disliked that the closing commentary firmly cemented her role as the wrong one. I hated the word they described her fate... And this is exactly what the problem with this production is. You shouldn't be feeling like that at the end of this play, you should be feeling that at the beginning of the play and then have your empathy for Abigail melt away while the reverse happens with John's character. This production flubs that entirely because of some very odd directorial choices, performances and miscasting. There were many times throughout when the words I was so familiar with did not match what I was seeing on stage and while I thought both leads 'acting' was on point, their characterizations were completely off or bungled by bad direction. My main problem with Brendan was his physicality and how he carried himself. He thunders onto the stage and waddles about arms bowed looking like he has just walked out of the gym on 'arm' day, looking for a fight. I have only ever seen John previously portrayed by thin framed, slightly geeky looking men and I think portraying him in any other way is a disservice to the character. He is meant to be an average weak but good man who makes some very bad choices, but who finally grows some balls when his legacy is at stake. He and his wife are meant to be the victims of this tale and more importantly, you are supposed to like him and I didn't like this John Proctor at all. He was a sulky, narcissistic 'Bro' baby, who constantly looked on the brink of roid-rage blaming everyone else for his own mistakes. Because of this there was little subtlety in the performance and no arc for the character, he was the same the whole way through the play. Also because of his size they had to cast 2 almost comically large nightclub bouncers as 'guards' as other wise he could've just Hulked out, took out the frail elderly gents who dealt out his punishment with one hand, grabbed his wife and kids, threw them over his shoulder and fled the town. There was literally no point that I felt sorry for this hulking boob of a mans plight or felt he was in any kind of danger and despite mostly enjoying Act 1, I couldn't wait for him to scream 'LET ME HAVE MY NAAAAAAME' because it would finally signal that the end was nigh. Someone above said they had forgotten Abigail was such a slight character who isn't in the play much, well yes in this version she is all but invisible, when she should be a cunning, manipulative hurricane of pure evil. In this production she is little more than a silent but deadly...you know where this is going...who plants a poisonous seed, and leaves everyone else to bring it to fruition. Things are not helped by the fact that in every one of her major scenes where her evil is meant to spew forth and we see what she truly is, we are instead 'treated' to a Sinead O'Connor B-side from her Celtic era which robs the character completely of it's potency and the story of its villain. This girl should have you quaking with fear in your seat! Here it feels more like the other children and the law are the evil manipulative ones, when she should feel like the ringleader who is strong arming them both. The fact that this component is missing makes it just look like everyone in the town is a complete idiot, as this Abigail doesn't even feel like she does anything wrong. Maybe it is trying to be 'meta' and flip the material to emphasize the stupidity of the villagers and the era by putting the blame (maybe) rightly as you say on the adult who should've known better and less on the child who knew nothing and just fought back the only way she knew how. But if that is so, it really is a complete betrayal of the original text, this isn't Fatal Attraction. This girl seduced Proctor and knew exactly what she was doing from Day 1 and throws a rather insidious tanty when her plans fail. She is also not just getting back at the Proctors, she is killing half the town. She is in no way a 'hero' of any sort. Removing the 'Trump' from the story lessens the impact of the material which on one hand is still completely relevant with todays political gaslighting and 'because I said so' Twitter politics. But no longer really rings true as far as people in criminal cases willing to plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit (the Memphis 3, Michael Peterson) for freedom or their lives. Is John Proctor's pride now just seen as a little silly, while Abigail's Trumpian gift of just walking away from the devastation she will cause wherever she goes Scott- free now a completely acceptable new normal? That narrative may work for certain modern day 'movements', but for the sake of the rest of us, I really do hope not. |
|
|
|
Post by edi on Oct 21, 2022 9:51:06 GMT
Partner and I saw this for the very first time yesterday and had no prior preconceptions. This is exactly the bit where seemed to disagree. Partner saw Abigail as the clear and ultimate anti hero. I saw her as a victim of her time and also greatly resented that she as a very young girl, much less life experience than the Proctors, is somewhat the party to "blame". An older man and a younger , almost child, woman.... I greatly disliked that the closing commentary firmly cemented her role as the wrong one. I hated the word they described her fate... And this is exactly what the problem with this production is. You shouldn't be feeling like that at the end of this play, you should be feeling that at the beginning of the play and then have your empathy for Abigail melt away while the reverse happens with John's character. This production flubs that entirely because of some very odd directorial choices, performances and miscasting. Interesting. I never read the play. Was Abigail written as an evil antihero? For my modern eyes, a 17 year old is a child and not fully accountable for their actions. For my modern eye, a 17 year old girl against a grown man is never the one in the wrong. A 17 year old knows no better. In addition she lost her parents, so she is vulnerable. In addition, a 17 year old potentially being shamed for dancing naked in the woods. I think I would lie in that situation too. I think it is a situation that got out of hand, and a bunch of girls who never had any power in a male dominated society suddenly enjoyed their power and they didn't know how to stop the situation getting worse and worse. It is the adults only who could have stopped it. But his is my take, admittedly from a modern point of view. But for this reason I liked how Abigail was portrayed, I just didn't like her 'end story' |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 21, 2022 13:07:35 GMT
I haven't seen this yet, but we did it at school and I rewatched the Hytner-directed film version recently so it's fairly fresh in my mind, and I think the play is very 'problematic' in its misogyny. The witch craze was a mania lasting several centuries, killing as many as 60,000 to 100,000 people, and the victims were almost all women - an estimated 80% in Europe and the Americas. It's rather odd and sadly telling that the most famous 'artistic' take on this Holocaust-like period of murderous misogyny was written by a man (who was cheating on his wife at the time of writing) and has as its main villain a young girl (the historical Abigail was even younger) and main victim an adult man. I'm hoping this version addresses that somehow (I'll be watching the NT Live when it comes round).
|
|
5,139 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Oct 21, 2022 16:51:16 GMT
Finally succeeded at NT Rush so will be seeing this next weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Oct 21, 2022 17:27:53 GMT
Aye, aye, aye...
This play is not even remotely misogynistic unless you see the world through the very distorted lens of ALL men are bad and ALL women are good and neither is capable of being the other.
Was the era it was set in minsogynst, of course (the one we live in now ain't much better) and the same goes for the witch trials. But that is NOT what the play is about, it is using that era for a very specific purpose and turning it into anything else completely destroys the power of what the play is actually trying to say.
Abigail is a very bad person. A bad person is a bad person regardless of gender or age. This is main theme of the play, evil comes in all forms, human and societal. If you are only ever going to tie evil to a specific gender or group, yikes, life is going to take you on some very interesting twists and turns for you...
The play is about how ONE bad person (who in this case just happens to be a young woman) can use societal fears to manipulate people into getting what they want with disastrous consequences. If this makes someone a hero then I guess Donald Trump is a hero for using the same devices to win a presidency and then destroy an entire political system and the mental well being of 330 million people because he lost one. Are Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson heroes for doing the same to achieve Brexit? Or is it somehow different just because they are men? I'm sorry but to me it is all the same, manipulation to achieve ones goals without a single shred of empathy for the people you are destroying is exactly the same no matter what your gender is.
This is what the play is trying to teach us. Look out for people who may not be what they seem and shows us the manipulations they use to get us to do what they want. We have a million tv shows, films, plays, musicals, songs and real life experiences of BAD men, can we not just have one about a bad woman without turning it into something it isn't? Or do bad women simply not exist?
The fact that this production is leaving people who don't know the material with that option makes me hate it even more.
The main 'victims' of this play are all women who are already victims of the misogynistic time they live in and fake crimes they are accused of. They are all being killed off by a woman who is using that very same misogyny and belief system for her own gain. For me that makes her even more insidious. John is not the main victim here at all, his wife is. Abigail is trying to get his wife killed so she can take her place and she is doing so without conscience. She is manipulating and bullying a bunch of vulnerable children into killing a bunch of vulnerable women for her own gain. She is a manipulative psychopath who will stop at nothing to get what she wants and when she doesn't get that she simply walks away Scott-free and leaves everyone else to pick up the pieces.
John only becomes a victim because he does the right thing, but by the time that comes everyone in the town has become a victim. The men have all lost the women they loved. The children are all are left to explain things without a single shred of knowledge about what's really been done to them or what they have done. Failing to see or acknowledge what this person has done because you are swayed by the moral ambiguities of the time, her gender, other characters moral failures and modern political sensitivities, is doing a serious disservice to the play and what it is actually trying to say.
That for me would be the very definition of the word 'problematic' as is the implication that only men are capable of such despicable acts.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 21, 2022 18:56:01 GMT
Aye aye aye...
Miller took a horrific historical event, altered the ages, relationships and motivations of real historical characters and turned Abigail from a historical child age 11 or 12 years old, with a 9 year old friend, to a sexually active and scheming 17 year old and made her motivation sexual jealousy for John Proctor, whose age is reduced from the historical 60. There is no evidence in the historical record that Williams and Proctor even met before the trials. Miller, who was married, was having an affair with Marilyn Monroe at the time of writing - it's not just about the Communist 'witch hunts' (and, unlike witchcraft, Communism is actually real). As I said, 80% of the victims of this historic persecution were female, and yet this is the major play about this period and it is centred on a man and with a sexually motivated young woman as the villain. Why do this? The same story could have been told, powerfully and with resonance, without adding that major sexual element, but Miller chose to make it up and add it.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Oct 21, 2022 19:52:44 GMT
Aye aye aye... Miller took a horrific historical event, altered the ages, relationships and motivations of real historical characters and turned Abigail from a historical child age 11 or 12 years old, with a 9 year old friend, to a sexually active and scheming 17 year old and made her motivation sexual jealousy for John Proctor, whose age is reduced from the historical 60. There is no evidence in the historical record that Williams and Proctor even met before the trials. Miller, who was married, was having an affair with Marilyn Monroe at the time of writing - it's not just about the Communist 'witch hunts' (and, unlike witchcraft, Communism is actually real). As I said, 80% of the victims of this historic persecution were female, and yet this is the major play about this period and it is centred on a man and with a sexually motivated young woman as the villain. Why do this? The same story could have been told, powerfully and with resonance, without adding that major sexual element, but Miller chose to make it up and add it. It's a work of fiction loosely based on an event, not a documentary. He took a story and turned it into something else, that is hardly a crime or new. The play is what it is and the meaning behind it is what it is and it doesn't need to be changed into something with a less powerful message than the one it already has. It shows the horrors of the Salem witch trials which were based on the existence of mythical evil where many innocents died and infuses it with a woman who is actually evil and walks away Scott-free. Not that much of a stretch to me and hardly misogynistic unless of course you find any criticism of women misogynistic. Miller's personal life is of no interest to me, I pay money to see his work not to sit there and cast aspersions as to how or why he wrote what is considered one of the greatest plays ever written. If you have such a problem with this person why would you even want to see/support his work. Anyways I've said my piece, not point harping on about it. Enjoy hate watching The Crucible x |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 21, 2022 20:21:58 GMT
If you have such a problem with this person why would you even want to see/support his work. We studied all Miller's major plays at school (English and drama teachers must have been obsessed) and I was cast as John Proctor in a school production, so I still take an interest in seeing versions of these plays. Most of Miller's plays have had fresh productions in London and Manchester recently and I thought it was odd that the one that seemed most relevant in the era of internet pile-ons and cancel culture was not staged, so I rewatched the Hytner film version, and seeing it again as an adult, knowing more about both Miller and the history of the witch craze and Salem, and watching it so soon after #MeToo, the misogyny in the piece was more striking. I'm not saying Miller isn't a great writer, but he was a human with flaws and prejudices and the attitudes of 70 years ago, which are not those of today (my Mum still has them - you should hear her on Me Too and 'poor Prince Andrew'). |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Oct 21, 2022 21:31:06 GMT
If you have such a problem with this person why would you even want to see/support his work. We studied all Miller's major plays at school (English and drama teachers must have been obsessed) and I was cast as John Proctor in a school production, so I still take an interest in seeing versions of these plays. Most of Miller's plays have had fresh productions in London and Manchester recently and I thought it was odd that the one that seemed most relevant in the era of internet pile-ons and cancel culture was not staged, so I rewatched the Hytner film version, and seeing it again as an adult, knowing more about both Miller and the history of the witch craze and Salem, and watching it so soon after #MeToo, the misogyny in the piece was more striking. I'm not saying Miller isn't a great writer, but he was a human with flaws and prejudices and the attitudes of 70 years ago, which are not those of today (my Mum still has them - you should hear her on Me Too and 'poor Prince Andrew'). As I said before his personal life is of no interest to me, it is the play and it's subject matter that interests me. Miller was far from a perfect man, though it must be said I struggle to think of a single skinny, quite unpleasant looking man with glasses that I know that would have passed up the opportunity of having an affair with Marilyn Monroe (yes I realize that is a misogynistic statement...but...facts) and he did marry her later on, it wasn't just an affair. His motivations behind writing the play were more to do with McCarthyism than hating on women and I don't think someone who writes such amazing plays that are as full of empathy for his characters as he does could possibly be a 'bad' person, no matter what mistakes he made in his personal life. He believed based on certain events from the court documents that they actually had had a sexual relationship of some kind, though it was not revealed at the time. The changes in their ages is pretty self explanatory to me, no audience was going to find a sexual relationship between a 60 year old and a 9 year old palatable. Considering the storyline, you could hardly change the children's characters to boys as a bunch of teenage Warlocks frolicking naked in the woods was hardly going to work. The only way the play could possibly work is if the main protagonist was female, plus it also makes the story far more potent because not only is it a child doing it, but a female. This all falls into the paranoia of the McCarthy era where anyone could've been the one pointing the finger trying to save themselves and little to do with his personal life. I think he is far too intelligent emotionally and as a writer to do such things. As the facts of the play stand, Abigail sent 40 innocent people to jail and 20 innocent women to the gallows based on a manipulative, vindictive lie and John Proctor had a very short affair with a 16 year old girl (when the age of consent was 12) while his wife was pregnant. He confessed to his wife immediately and then later to the courts and died for his sins, while Abigail walked away Scott-free. You can decide for yourself whose 'crimes' were the worst, but I know which sword I'm falling on here and it has nothing to do with their gender. Adding modern day politics and slurs on the writers character into the equation is not going to change the facts of the piece or what it stands for. I don't think I have to agree with all aspects of the MeToo movement to be considered a supporter of women rights. I also have many thoughts on the Prince Andrew situation that go far beyond simply 'hang the pedo'. Both are extremely complex situations that need to be be discussed in an adult and intelligent manner and honestly I still don't believe that has happened yet beyond the usual 'because I said so' Twitter politics. Though I highly doubt I'd fall anywhere near 100% on your Moms side  |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 21, 2022 22:06:36 GMT
Miller made the relationship between Abigail Williams and Proctor up. I think subject of the witch craze (and other questions around other theories like ergot poisoning) are interesting enough in themselves without the need to sex it up (Norman Cohn's series of histories are fascinating and constantly relevant). There are plenty of discussions around the misogyny which some of us find in this play, including some on twitter and in some reviews of this NT production. I'm going to see it when it is NT lived, having booked to see it live back in May but having to cancel.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Oct 21, 2022 22:36:00 GMT
Miller made the relationship between Abigail Williams and Proctor up. I think subject of the witch craze (and other questions around other theories like ergot poisoning) are interesting enough in themselves without the need to sex it up (Norman Cohn's series of histories are fascinating and constantly relevant). There are plenty of discussions around the misogyny which some of us find in this play, including some on twitter and in some reviews of this NT production. I'm going to see it when it is NT lived, having booked to see it live back in May but having to cancel. He didn't 'make it up'. There was a section in the court documents about an interaction between Proctor's wife and the child that led him to believe she'd had some kind of sexual relationship with the husband. 'There was one entry in Upham in which the thousands of pieces I had come across were jogged into place. It was from a report written by the Reverend Samuel Parris, who was one of the chief instigators of the witch-hunt. “During the examination of Elizabeth Procter, Abigail Williams and Ann Putnam”—the two were “afflicted” teen-age accusers, and Abigail was Parris’s niece—“both made offer to strike at said Procter; but when Abigail’s hand came near, it opened, whereas it was made up into a fist before, and came down exceeding lightly as it drew near to said Procter, and at length, with open and extended fingers, touched Procter’s hood very lightly. Immediately Abigail cried out her fingers, her fingers, her fingers burned. . . .” In this remarkably observed gesture of a troubled young girl, I believed, a play became possible. Elizabeth Proctor had been the orphaned Abigail’s mistress, and they had lived together in the same small house until Elizabeth fired the girl. By this time, I was sure, John Proctor had bedded Abigail, who had to be dismissed most likely to appease Elizabeth. There was bad blood between the two women now. That Abigail started, in effect, to condemn Elizabeth to death with her touch, then stopped her hand, then went through with it, was quite suddenly the human center of all this turmoil.' Regardless it doesn't really matter, he needed a starting point for his play and that was what he decided on, it's his play and he can write what he wants to. Twitter and whoever else wants to can say what you like, it doesn't mean its true. If I wanted to sure I could find that in there and without even looking very hard, but I don't believe that is the intention of the play or it's creation, it is a by product of looking at something from a completely different era. |
|
343 posts
|
Post by properjob on Oct 21, 2022 23:37:45 GMT
I saw a great play about the issues being discussed in this thread in Washington DC called "John Proctor is the villian". It is set in a class of teenagers, mainly girls studying The Crucible looking at the play through thier contemporary eyes. Unfortunately I can't find the script for sale anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Oct 22, 2022 1:42:07 GMT
I saw a great play about the issues being discussed in this thread in Washington DC called "John Proctor is the villian". It is set in a class of teenagers, mainly girls studying The Crucible looking at the play through thier contemporary eyes. Unfortunately I can't find the script for sale anywhere. I would be very interested in seeing this lol |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Oct 22, 2022 3:20:57 GMT
Miller made the relationship between Abigail Williams and Proctor up. I think subject of the witch craze (and other questions around other theories like ergot poisoning) are interesting enough in themselves without the need to sex it up (Norman Cohn's series of histories are fascinating and constantly relevant). There are plenty of discussions around the misogyny which some of us find in this play, including some on twitter and in some reviews of this NT production. I'm going to see it when it is NT lived, having booked to see it live back in May but having to cancel. Ok I have just watched the first 40 minutes of the film on Disney+ (which I have not seen in probably 15 years) and if this is your most recent experience of the material I can see where you're coming from now. There is a lot of violence against women in the film that is not in any of the live productions I have seen and it is far more visceral in its EXTREMELY condensed form. All of this stuff is done with dialogue in the play as apposed to physical acts in the film, so by comparison the film does actually seem quite misogynistic. Still not seeing it in the story itself however and Abigail's actions in a more condensed form make her appear every bit as repugnant in the film as she is in the play. At the 40 minute mark and after adding an additional scene showing the initial dancing incident (interestingly the girls all cast love spells on the husbands of the wives they all later accuse of witchcraft) the trials are just beginning. That means there it is probably a little over an hour of dialogue cut already, which does not help when something like the 10 minute kitchen scene is cut to down to 10 snipy lines with none of the nuance and affection of the original scene. Tiredness and my inability to stomach Wynona Ryders truly atrocious performance any longer has forced me to give up for the evening, so I shall resume it again in the morning with fresh eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by edi on Oct 22, 2022 7:01:52 GMT
I came away not believing Abigail as the main anti-hero but I don't think it's fully the production's "fault".
- I have my modern idea of what is wrong and what is right
- I took interest in the real story and the official line is that that Abigail did not know the Proctors. Abigail is a small child in the real Salem.
- the play or real Abigail did not kill 40 people. The townspeople argued between themselves and accused each other. A child might have started it but adults did the rest.
|
|
|
|
Post by edi on Oct 22, 2022 7:10:03 GMT
But a quick Internet search revealed I am pretty much alone with my opinion
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 22, 2022 11:19:13 GMT
There's an interesting essay online about revisiting it in the era of Me Too. Btw I would thoroughly recommend Norman Cohn's history series beginning 'The Pursuit of the Millennium'. The second, 'Europe's Inner Demons' deals more specifically with the witch craze, the third, 'Warrant for Genocide', with anti-semitism. Cohn was prompted to write on this field by his experience working in Intelligence in wartime, and stationed in postwar Vienna and interrogating Nazis and meeting refugees from Stalinism. The books are fascinating and very depressing in equal measure when you see these patterns in human behaviour over and over.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Oct 22, 2022 13:50:36 GMT
I came away not believing Abigail as the main anti-hero but I don't think it's fully the production's "fault". - I have my modern idea of what is wrong and what is right - I took interest in the real story and the official line is that that Abigail did not know the Proctors. Abigail is a small child in the real Salem. - the play or real Abigail did not kill 40 people. The townspeople argued between themselves and accused each other. A child might have started it but adults did the rest. That is the insidious nature of a psychopath, they plant a seed in someone's mind and then the victim does the rest. Psychopath are born with a malfunctioning brain, so the fact she is a child of whatever age is moot. Abigail lies to everyone and knows exactly what she is doing and what effect it will have on others. The fact she didn't hang them with her own hands doesn't matter, her lies hung them. It is conspiracy to commit murder. The worrying thing about people here taking Abigail's side because she is a helpless child tells me that if they were there, they too would've more than likely joined in the hangings of innocent people...this troubles me greatly... |
|
