Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
75 of 80 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great Adaptation of an American Masterpiece, July 19, 2002
Since Miller helped write the screenplay and one of his sons produced or coproduced the movie, it shouldn't be a shock that the movie is so faithful to the original text where it needs to be and broadens the story where it needs to, as well. Miller knows how to write for the stage, and he apparently knows how to write for the screen, also. After seeing so many "classic" books and/or plays butchered by Hollywood, this movie is a real delight, despite its morbid and all-too-realistic story. This movie has become an essential to my Grade 11 American Literature classes, spectacularly complementing their reading of Miller's play and several pieces from the Salem Witch Trial era.Ignoring the play's historic flaws and inaccuracies (that's another debate for another time), Miller brilliantly captured the essence of the Salem Witch Trials in his play and has conveyed them to the screen. Hatred, fear, jealousy, hypocrisy, religious mania, attention-seeking, conviction, strength, determination, repentance, and a host of other emotions and character traits are vividly brought to life by a superb cast: Daniel Day-Lewis is a great John Proctor (nobody else could have done better), Winona Ryder is very good as the conniving and bitter Abigail Williams, Joan Allen was nominated for an Oscar for her portrayal of Elizabeth Proctor, and Paul Scofield should have won an Oscar for his cold-hearted portrayal of Justice Danforth. The conflict between Proctor and Danforth is what sustains the play's momentum for the second and third acts (about the last hour and fifteen minutes of the movie), and Lewis and Scofield bring that epic conflict to life: the classic good v. evil, with the sides getting somewhat mixed up as to who is who. . . . Lewis plays the flawed hero to Scofield's self-righteous and vindictive villain with palpable energy. How Scofield's performance was overlooked by the Academy is just another example of their oblivion. He gives me the willies with his methodical, calculating delivery of Miller's chilling dialogue: "Who weeps for these weeps for corruption" (among a bunch of great lines from the play/movie). This isn't simply a play enacted in front of movie cameras (like Death of a Salesman). The director uses his camera very effectively, capturing some great close-up moments, unique perspectives and camera angles, and bringing a sense of "bigness" to the whole story. The play can seem very isolated, with its sparse sets and black-and-white costumes. Miller also expands the movie to begin well before the play does (giving the movie-goer information that he must have assumed the play-reader would already have) and extending it beyond the conviction of Proctor to include his execution, along with that of Rebecca Nurse and Martha Corey. Just as a side note, each of those three was hanged in a separate group in the original trials--great symbolism from Miller, including each larger original group of victims in the final trio. Also great symbolism in Proctor's Christ-like physical placement in the middle of the two "sinners," as he takes their sins upon him--the crucifixion is represented very effectively. Bottom line: You won't see a better adaptation of a play to movie anytime soon. Nothing essential is left out, and some nice details are brought in to give the movie a distinction from its original source, the play. If you can make it through this play and not be outraged by the injustice and hypocrisy, then you have a heart as cold as Danforth's. What Miller would likely want you to do is apply that outrage to similar situations that go on every day, just as he intended with his original play (the McCarthy hearings, the "Red" Scare). At least watch the movie, though.
|
|
|
25 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
"Because it's my name and I cannot have another . . .", February 14, 2008
If you can watch this film and not go through every emotion you own, then you need to check yourself for a pulse.
Of course, I'm being a bit silly with my opening to this review, but the reality is that this is a film that will touch you on every imaginable level if you can get past the era in which the story takes place and the hysteria of that time period. Rehashing the plot is a waste at this point as almost every student in America has read this play in their 11th grade English class, but this story is as relevant today as the day it was written and the time in which the story takes place.
Arthur Miller wrote this story as an indictment against McCarthism and although that time has past we still have similar witch hunts today and, sadly, always will. 1970's had us pointing fingers, thanks to Anita Bryant, anyone we thought might be a closet homosexual. The 1980's had us pointing fingers at anyone who had more wealth than we did (much like in "The Crucible"). The 1990's had us pointing fingers at family members based on so-called "recovered memories" of sexual abuse (later proven to psychological hogwash, but a clever way to get back at and smear the name of a family member we didn't like). And this century has us pointing fingers at anyone Middle Eastern as a terrorist. I recall immediately after 9/11 our leading law enforcement official, John Ashcroft, going on national television and warning us to be on the look out for "those that don't belong." To me, that was government sanctioned racism at its worst. I was hurt by 9/11, but I was hurt even more by that reaction to it. This cuts to the heart of Miller's story wherein anyone can point a finger at anyone and destroy a life, a family, a community for personal gain and that gain can be financial, emotional, political, or whatever. As long as we have people that are motivated by hate, fear, and power, this story will remain timeless and will never be irrelevant.
As far as the performances go, I can't think of finer acting off the top of my head than those in this film and most especially by Daniel Day-Lewis whose final lines will stir your very soul and Joan Allen who can play some one so cold with such depth of feeling. Like Lewis, her final scenes are unforgettable. You simply can't walk away from this film the same person you were before you saw it. It is truly that moving. All the supporting cast members are familiar faces and all do an outstanding job, especially Winona Ryder in what is probably the best performance of her young career.
her character's obsessive and selfish desire to have the one man she can't sets the ball in motion in this story and she, sadly, has no real regrets. She is conflicted in knowing that her actions are basically wrong, but that they are still somehow justifiable. Ryder truly captures the soul, or lack thereof, of this character. She is extraordinary here.
The screenplay is adapted by Miller who wrote the play itself and makes the shift from play to screen seamlessly. The direction is confident and appropriately claustrophobic. He allows his actors do their thing without heavy handed influence. The score is terrific and stirring, and the cinematography has almost a documentary feel to it.
Rent or buy this modern masterpiece; it is worthy of your attention.
One last note. So many know this story, but, surprisingly, few seem to adequately understand it's title. I thought the below might be helpful:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines "crucible" as:
1. A severe test, as of patience or belief; a trial.
2. A place, time, or situation characterized by the confluence of powerful intellectual, social, economic, or political forces.
|
|
|
23 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliance achieved., July 4, 1999
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.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
DVD ~ John Malkovich
DVD ~ Gregory Peck
DVD ~ Henry Fonda
DVD ~ Josef Sommer
