Hexenjagd

Arthur Miller wrote the play on which this movie was based in 1953. 1953 in the United States was the height of the Red Scare, with McCarthy and Nixon among others seeking to hunt down and destroy Communists - often with little or conflicting evidence, and often to the ruin of those accused on such flimsy evidence. Miller couldn't write a play depicting the abuses of the Communist witch-hunt, so he did the next best thing - he wrote a play based on the incident in American history that might be the closest thing to the Communist witch-hunts: the Salem Witch Trials of 1692, in which rumours led to suspicions, and personal jealousies and ambitions led to accusations and people lied about their neighbours and friends in order to deflect attention away from themselves and innocent people were forced to confess to witchcraft because if they denied it (no matter their innocence) they'd hang and the courts became less interested in discovering the truth than in rooting out the evil. It's actually quite a good parallel.

This 1996 movie is based on Miller's play, and the screenplay for it was written by Miller himself. It's a sometimes chaotic movie - quite in keeping with the subject matter (either the official subject matter of the 1690's or the unofficial subject matter of the 1950's) - but in its chaos one picks up the basic point of how easily otherwise good people with normally good intentions can get caught up in evil ways. The devil may well have been on the prowl in Salem in 1692 - not through the accused but rather through their accusers and the system that encouraged and empowered the accusers.

Generally speaking the performances here were pretty solid. Both Daniel Day-Lewis (as John Proctor) and Winona Ryder (as Abigail Williams) carried themselves well and the supporting cast was strong. The portrayal of life in a 17th century Puritan community is a little bit difficult to relate to, and even the Puritan manner of referring to virtually all married women as "Goody" (short for "Goodwife") grates for a while and sometimes creates confusion for the viewer in trying to keep the characters straight, because it's so unusual to modern ears - although, on the other hand, it does provide an air of authenticity to the movie.

One can only be grateful that the Witch Hunt ended fairly quickly (although a good number of people were executed.) The Communist witch hunt lasted unfortunately longer with a greater number of people being scarred for life by the experience (and, indeed, some losing their lives as a result of it.) One would like to think that we've progressed over the years, although the demonization of Moslems since 9/11 - although is hasn't perhaps reached the depths of 1692 or the 1950's - suggests that the possibilities for such excesses are still present with us. (7/10)

"The Crucible" is slow, but it doesn't make the film bad. It is a very impressing, beautiful, well-acted and well-done film.

The story of passion, lies, madness, witchcraft and tragedy kept my attention. The adaptation of Arthur Miller's play is superb.

Joan Allen deserved her nomination for the Oscar as best supporting actress and Daniel Day-Lewis should have been nominated.

A must see.

Rating: 9/10

Sometimes, movies that are designated as "classic" suffer from a strange sort of reverse- discrimination. That's probably the reason why it took me so long to actually see this version of "The Crucible", as I thought of it as "old" or "not exciting enough". What I quickly discovered, however, is that Arthur Miller's tale here is truly one for the ages. It's a shame I waited this long to see it!

For a basic plot summary, "The Crucible" is a story set during the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Abigail Williams (Winona Ryder) and a number of her teenaged female friends are screwing around in the woods one night (typical teenage rebellion kind of stuff) when they are discovered and charged as witches. What Abigail and the gang quickly discover is that in front of Judge Danforth (Paul Scofield), "acting the part" of witches gives them a great deal of attention and power. Things get ugly fast and pretty soon the entire community is in an uproar over who may or may not be a witch. Enter John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis) and wife Elizabeth (Joan Allen), a common sense-driven couple who seemingly have the best chance to put an end to this madness. Yet, with John having a shady history with Abigail, they all ended up sucked into the lies and deceit, forcing difficult choices to be made regarding character and honesty.

Not being as much of a theater enthusiast as I am of film/TV, this was just the second Arthur Miller work that I had seen ("Death of a Salesman" with Dustin Hoffman being the first). That playwright has an incredibly keen sense of universal human themes and how to manipulate them to create high drama. Though "Crucible" is set hundreds of years ago, I can confidently say that it will endure (in some form or another) for hundreds of years more. The characters, emotions, and plots feel like they could happen today or tomorrow. This film touches on such common, deep-seated issues as:

-The power of religion (both good and bad) -The effect of mass hysteria on an uneducated community -The propensity of one lie to be followed by more -The lengths humans will go (or the shortcuts we may take) to preserve our names and honor -The conflicting romantic notions of both teenagers and adults

So, despite carrying a reputation that can get a little "weighty", "The Crucible" is really quite a simple film, concocting a plausible scenario and then letting human nature take its course. I recently saw the film "The Witch", a movie that shares much in theme with this earlier effort, and feel that the two measure up to each other quite well. If you enjoyed one, I think you will feel the same for the other.

Overall, I was blown away by the simple, yet spectacular, quality of the writing and acting in "The Crucible". It will stimulate a lot of deep thought on the part of the viewer without getting overly complex or confusing. I think that there will be more Arthur Miller stories in my future!

Based on possibly the greatest play ever written, The Crucible is a fabulous movie - it's hard to believe that it was actually distributed by 20th Century Fox, and not an independent company. Why it took so long to be adapted for the big screen is just baffling to me. Thank God that the genius behind the original text, Arthur Miller, was permitted to write the screenplay - and get an Oscar nomination for it! The cast are all to die for, with Winona Ryder proving she doesn't always have to play lovable characters like Charlotte Flax in Mermaids (1990), or Jo March in Little Women (1994) - her performance as the malicious Abigail Williams is just as outstanding. In her Oscar nominated portrayal of Elizabeth Proctor, Joan Allen leaves an indelible impression of marvellous acting. I was in tears in the scene where she and John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis) fall in love all over again. I sincerely hope that The Crucible will be shown in schools/colleges in years to come, to remind us of the horror that occurred in 17th century Salem. A work of cinematic genius.

Thanks to the director who let Arthur Miller do the screenplay- so the movie is a honest rendition of the great play. Daniel Day Lewis is very good- and the movie is true to the original. Winona Rider also does well- but Joan Allen is excellent. This is a true classic of American Theater and since we can't always get to a live performance the movie is a good substitute... recommend every student of am. lit see it and anyone who wants to delve into the deceit of the human spirit... nothing is new people are still jealous and still vindictive and Miller writes of these two traits so well. The whole cast does a credible job