Cheap The Crucible (Video) (Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder) (Nicholas Hytner) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of The Crucible

"The Crucible" is based on a real historical incident: the Salem witchcraft trials, which resulted in the execution of 19 individuals in late 17th century New England. Miller's play and screenplay could also be read as a metaphor for the anti-Communist "witch hunt" led by United States Senator Joseph McCarthy in the mid-20th century (a crisis which Miller lived through).

The film is a chilling exploration of religious fanaticism, paranoia, scapegoating, mass hysteria, and sexual guilt. Winona Ryder turns in a disturbingly effective performance as the young woman who is the flashpoint of the crisis. Daniel Day-Lewis and the luminous Joan Allen are superb as a married couple who become entangled in the trials. And a special mention should be made of Bruce Davison, who is both loathsome and pitiable as the minister who plays a key role in the trials. Davison's excellent performance eerily foreshadows his role as the mutant-hating senator in the film "X-Men." Good costuming and set design add to the overall effectiveness of the film.

Ultimately, I see "The Crucible" as, in part, a cautionary tale of the danger of allowing religious dogma to dictate public policy. But whether or not you see a political message in film, I believe that all can appreciate the fine work done by the filmmakers and cast.

Brilliance achieved.
I have never seen a stage version of The Crucible (although I have read and studied the play many times), but I can safely recommend this film as the most brilliant film adaptation of a play (ranking along side 'Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?') that I've ever seen. Boasting a cast that includes Daniel Day Lewis, Winona Ryder, Paul Schofield and Joan Allen this film managed to pass unnoticed beneath the public eye. It was directed by Nicholas Hytner (of 'The Madness of King George' fame) and the screenplay was written by Miller himself, if this is not enough to make the general public haul themselves off the sofa, I don't know what is. The thing I liked most about the film was that you could finally see events that were only reported upon in the play (such as what really happened in the woods, and the trials of the lesser characters). What makes the film even more poignant is the fact that it is based on true events which took place during the Salem witch hunts. I am aware that Miller only wrote the play to comment on the McCarthy communist witch hunts (which labelled Miller himself as a left wing sympathiser), but now that the 'red threat' is over, the film becomes a saga about how our beliefs can influence our relationships with other people. Joan Allen was robbed of the Best Supporting Actress Oscar by Juliette Binoche, and she turns in a stunning performance as the truly holy Elizabeth Proctor, almost defiled by Winona Ryder's equally brilliant woman scorned. My favourite among the cast was an actress I hadn't seen before and haven't heard of since: the actress (Karon Graves?) who played Mary Warren, the girl who knows she and her friends are lying, but when she tells the truth, Abby points the finger at her. I dare you to watch this and not enjoy it.

"Your justice would freeze beer."
Although the playwright Arthur Miller was also the screenwriter for this production starring Winona Ryder and Daniel Day-Lewis, the film bears little resemblance to the play in tone and impact. Director Nicholas Hytner has abandoned the intimate, almost claustrophobic atmosphere of the dark, interior scenes in the play, in favor of an expansive setting, with many scenes set outside, including panoramic shots of Salem in 1692, full of costumed "citizens." The expanded setting makes the psychology and motivation of the witchcraft hysteria more difficult to determine, since the intensity of the settlers' repressed, interior lives is not obvious. The explanatory notes which Miller incorporates into the play about land disputes, religious controversies, and personal animosities, which led to specific individuals being accused and arrested for witchcraft, are seen only peripherally.

As a result, we see Winona Ryder, as Abigail Williams, and her coterie of bewitched girls, screaming hysterically and accusing innocent women of witchcraft without the background which would make these accusations plausible. Her previous relationship with John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), in the absence of other motivations, seems to be the primary reason for her behavior, but this thwarted love does not explain the extent of her rage and, especially, the involvement of the other girls. Day-Lewis is reduced to the role of victim, and one of the hallmarks of his acting, his subtlety, is absent here, except in a wonderful final scene with his wife, played by Joan Allen. Details of the scenery also ring false--houses in this period were very small because of the difficulty of heating, one third the size they are here, and the church/meeting houses were modest in accordance with religious restrictions against unnecessary display.

This is a Hollywood version of the witchcraft trials, capitalizing on the sensational at the expense of the complex and subtle forces behind the accusations of witchcraft--the Indian wars which were just ending, the growing independence of individuals, the increasing resentment of hard-line theocratic rule, the abolition of traditional property laws, and most importantly, the lack of any societal role whatsoever for young women, who were not old enough to assume a woman's role and who, bored and left out of decision-making, were on their own in dealing with their adult feelings. The film is beautiful, and the acting, though one-dimensional, is as effective as it can be in the absence of fully-developed motivation for the girls' hysteria. The "witches" are reduced to cartoons here, and Miller's parallels between these trials and the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, which give the play a modern context, are missing. Mary Whipple