Arthur Miller's The Crucible

[Cooper]

If you're not familiar with Arthur Miller's award winning play, I'd suggest doing some quick research on the Salem Witch Trials (1600's) before seeing it. It's an excellent revival with an outstanding and memorable cast. I see a lot of Tony nominations in it's future.

 

It's almost 3 hours long, does seem to drag at times but when it ends, you'll wish there was more. Hard to single out any one actor for his/her performance. It's simply a very gifted and talented cast. There is some "creepy" music playing in the background during the show but it does help build the suspense. The scenery and costumes are lacking but the use of the large windows and chalk board will stand out. The curtain opens and closes for change of setting. I found the young girls playing the accusers to be excellent as were the actors playing John and Elizabeth Proctor, and the actress playing Tituba.

 

If you've been to the Salem Witch Museum, they do reenact this play. Lots of HS students in attendance as the play, "The Crucible", is part of their studies.

 

I had no problem purchasing a ticket at TKTS.

 

Coop

[mike carey]

The Crucible is a great play, relevant in more ways than one with 21st century US society. It's on my list to see. (Edited from 20th C.)

[edjames]

I saw this production last night. It is excellent. Once again, director Ivo Van Hove has introduced a different interpretation to this Arthur Miller classic much as he did in A View From The Bridge. Sure to be a double Tony nominee for both productions.

Although based on Miller's classic, this production does not seem to have a timeframe, so forget the Salem Witch trials, this production may have been set in some far reaching religious cult set in the Western US.

The set is sparse. It almost resembles some institutional setting from back in the 40's or 50's. Overhead fluorescent lights, a large chalkboard and school room chairs and tables are the only set props. Contemporary costuming.

Of note is the excellent cast of mainly Brit actors and actresses. Notably, openly gay actor, Ben Whishaw (London Spy, The Danish Girl, and "Q" from the James Bond films) plays John Proctor, a man who along with his wife is accused of witchcraft/devil worship. He is convicted, tortured and hanged. Excellently played, this performance is sure to win a Tony nom. (OK guys, for those of you who think Ben is a cutie, he does strip off his shirt at the end of Act One.) Beyond that the action is so compelling the length of the production and the acting doesn't seem to get into the way.

Again, so many wonderful performances, although recent Oscar nom Savorise Ronan doesn't seem to have a major role.

Bravo to Ivo Van Hove for once again casting a major openly gay actor in a key role.

Yes, there is a strange. almost new wave, soundtrack that plays throughout the show and yes it does become annoying.

However, all in all, an excellent show and highly recommended.

 

Now..onto a pet peeve. The woman in front of me arrived and proceeded to drape her coat over the back of her seat onto my legs! I told her to remove it immediately. She called over the usher who told her it was OK! I immediately told both of them that if she did not remove the coat from "my space" I would call the theater manager. She removed it. She was from Scotland and preceded to sink deep into her seat and fall asleep throughout the show. Tourists!

[+ WilliamM]

Now..onto a pet peeve. The woman in front of me arrived and proceeded to drape her coat over the back of her seat onto my legs! I told her to remove it immediately. She called over the usher who told her it was OK! I immediately told both of them that if she did not remove the coat from "my space" I would call the theater manager. She removed it. She was from Scotland and preceded to sink deep into her seat and fall asleep throughout the show. Tourists!

 

Ed, you have blocked PMs, so the only way I can respond is on the site. You have every right to be upset.

 

Do you know whether she flew from Scotland that day, and made a human mistake of doing more than she could during her first day in NYC?

[edjames]

No, she was just bored...

I don't give her the benefit of the doubt.

She was a really good looking woman around 50. She was with her grown son. Quite simply William, SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER.

[edjames]

Back to the topic, Mr. Brantley liked it too.

 

The review to too large to cut and paste into this thread, but here is the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/theater/review-in-arthur-millers-crucible-first-they-came-for-the-witches.html?rref=collection%2Fdu-guide-theater%2Ftheater-guide&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest-stories&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection

[+ WilliamM]

Ed, Thanks for such an excellent review. I liked the last New York revival of "The Crucible," but am not sure I will get to see this revival.

 

That was the reason I started the Ethel Merman-Mary Martin thread, so there are other Broadway-related topics to discuss. Lucky mentions the need for as many diverse theater threads as possible when he first thought of this forum.

[Cooper]

The Crucible is a great play, relevant in more ways than one with 20th century US society. It's on my list to see.

 

Mike, You raised a interesting point about the relevancy of this play to modern days. Although the play deals with the story of the Salem Witch Trials during 1692-1693, it was written by Arthur Miller in 1953 during the height of McCarthyism as a protest to the government's blacklist of accused communists. Miller (among others) was questioned by the House Committee on "Un-American Activities" and refused to identify others he had attended a meeting with. He was convicted of "contempt of Congress" for not cooperating.

 

The Crucible tells the story of a young girl, now rejected by her married lover, who makes false accusations against innocent people. She solicits the help of her friends and, as a result of their bizarre tales and behavior, many innocent individuals were imprisoned and suffered a harsh death.

 

Yes, even today, the intent of this play is relevant to current events. It's a good connection to know before seeing it.

 

Hope you get to see it. It's definitely one of the best plays (non musical) currently playing on Broadway.

 

Coop

[mike carey]

I hope so too, @Cooper. It was one of the texts I studied in high school English. What I meant to say was that it was relevant to the 21st century; that it was relevant to the 20th century goes without saying. I've changed my post.

[TruthBTold]

I have not seen the current Broadway production of the play. After reading the review, I was more amazed, however, at the viciousness of many of the reviews toward the production and even of the work itself. It seems that many of the goers particularly hated the score done by Phillip Glass. As it was not a musical I can't imagine it was loud enough to drown out the majority of the dialogue. Although it was not my favorite Miller play I think it got across the point he was trying to make about the viciousness of times like the McCarthy era. Moreover for the majority of the population the atrocities are not something they want. However, they also don't work hard to stop things until it all catapults toward crisis. Then it is too late. I think all of us here realize we are not the majority and have grown up with the fear of that realization. We (or at least I) get afraid when I see that a majority that seems not to want to see that similar times are afoot. It is good that there is a production that in its small way attempts to do so. P.S. There is also a complaint about how long the production is. Ever sit through a production of O'Neill's The Iceman Cometh?

[edjames]

I wish you could have been more specific about which reviews you are referring to. The reviews I read were very good (NYTimes, TimeOut, USA Today, NYDaily News, etc.) Variety gave it a poor review.

http://www.playbill.com/article/critics-review-broadway-revival-of-the-crucible-com-384633

 

The score is distracting and, it interferes with the dialogue. It pulls your concentration away from the text of the play.

 

Sorry but the play is not too long, it's the intellectual level of the audience that is too short! And, yes, I've sat through Iceman and was enraptured.

 

ED

[+ WilliamM]

And, yes, I've sat through Iceman and was enraptured.

 

Me Too. And I have done standing room at the Met for Wagner operas, like "Parsifal" and greatly enjoyed the experience.

[TruthBTold]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. It was the review provided in the post (NY Times) and its comments. I have seen Iceman a few times and always wished a good edit had been done. Someone told me that O'Neill has mandated that none of his scripts can be trimmed. Not sure if its true.

[+ beethoven]

I've seen this wonderful play several times, but was very disappointed when I saw it last night in New York. First of all, it's VERY long, and by the end, I was just wishing it would be over. Second, Ciaran Hinds mumbles, and doesn't give a very strong performance. The realist elements -- such as a propane stove and a sink with running water, and Ciaran Hinds' double-breasted suit -- didn't bother me. The play, which I think is a realistic play, was staged like a Greek tragedy. I had difficulty empathizing with the characters -- believe it or not!! -- which never happened when I saw this powerful play before.

Some friends of mine hated it, and some liked it. Well, that's show biz.

[uwsman2]

Saw it tonight and found the performances very powerful. Hinds was NOT mumbling tonight. Maybe it is the difference between seeing it Tuesday night, when their voices are rested, and Friday night, when they are midway through the week's performances. Wishaw is incredible!