As Bruxas de Salém

An evening's dancing in the woods catches attention, Reverend Parris has to make an intervention, as young girls are all dishevelled, subjects raptured and bedevilled, although confessions may just lead to their redemption. But the ball begins to roll and can't be stopped, within this crucible of faith doors are unlocked, aspersions, defamation, no evidence, or firm foundations, as the innocent are harvested and cropped. A chance to be redeemed is offered up, John Proctor takes the pen, signature put, alas defeat is soon retaken, the next day he'll not awaken, he's the devil incarnate, it's quite clear-cut.

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)

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!

There is nothing I like better than a good play for the stage, even when it is on screen. This is the second time I have been able to see this worthy conversion of Arthur Miller's classic play adapted to the screen. Nicholas Hytner certainly earnt his wages; and all the cast should have received a good pay-rise. Convincing scene-setting in Massachussets at the end of the 17th Century with heavy wood-framed farm buildings and typical North European immigrant peasants' clothing, all beautifully filmed. Arthur Miller himself collaborated on the script, allowing certain poetic licence in modernising some of the speech forms, which, in the original play – written around 1952-1953 – reflected speech patterns of the times.

I blow the dust off my 1973 Penguin copy of the play, and can follow some of the scenes almost verbatim. Thus the effect is dramaturgical rather than cinematographic, a little like Branaghan doing his versions of Shakespeare. A pleasing result indeed. Highly recommended for conoisseurs of fine acting in the classic sense. Neither of the two leading actors – Daniel Day-Lewis and Winona Ryder – will let you down.

The Salem Witches have been the cause of a few forays by writers, historians and so on: really the whole affair seems to typicalize people's appetites for forming psychosis-like manias, often on the grounds of nothing very concrete. I mean to say, the devil exists in the minds of those who invent it; the same cause as the `reds under the beds' phobia of the 1960s and 1970s, today transformed into `Islam Terror' around every corner. The clothing is different, but the mentality producing the phobias is not.

`The Crucible' in this excellent adaptation make this poignantly clear. My vote is slightly higher than the present IMDb average.

The Raymond Rouleau French version of the fifties featuring Simone Signoret and Yves Montand as the Proctors seems to have vanished in the air.It's never on French TV and it's not available on tape or DVD either.In the fifties this could not be filmed in the USA ,because it was a highly topical issue,hence the Rouleau version which was first a stage production.

Actually,this masterwork is so strong that it can't be connected only with MCCarthyism.Its scope reaches far beyond.It's a plea for tolerance,freedom of thinking and dignity of the human being wherever and whenever they may be endangered.An excellent cast does the play justice.Daniel Day-Lewis gives a powerful performance (I say God is dead!)that few of his peers can equal.Wynona Ryder is efficient in her ambiguous part.Joan Allen gives a subdued but moving interpretation.Paul Scoffield personifies the inhuman law with authority.Bruce Davison ("Willard"'s hero ,1971).

All in all, a magnificent show ,thanks to all concerned.