Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on The Crucible
Essays on The Crucible
Essays on The Crucible
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
When I watch a good movie I feel pulled into a different universe it’s almost like your actually there.In the movie The Crucible its very good at pulling you in and putting you in the shoes of the people who had to go through the witch trials. This is in part to actor Daniel Lewis who plays John Proctor in the film, it’s almost like you know him it really shows you who he is and where he came from. Looking in the other direction the play shows a more human approach to The Crucible in some peoples opinions.The Crucible is best performed in the form of a movie because of the realistic settings and great performance by the actors. I think that the movie The Crucible did the best at portraying the characters. In the movie you can really see all the pain and stupidity of the events that took place in Salem in 1692. The characters in the movie The crucible i think were chosen wisely as they look the appropriate age and just look the part. In the the play I do not think it showed it nearly as good as the actors were older in the play than the movie. In the movie the props and outfits displayed by the characters were much more realistic and accurate to the time period. The movie really lets you get into the characters roles and see them as the colonists they play in the play …show more content…
The emotion that John proctor shows in the movie is very realistic and convincing. When you watch his parts in the movie the way he talks is just like I would imagine a person living in 1692 to talk like. In the movie when your watching his parts the camera angle is very good at portraying his story well and showing his emotions without him having to speak. In the play your sitting ten foot away from the actors if that and you cant see the emotion as well. The way he acts in the final scenes of the film really showed me what it would’ve felt like to be in that
A major difference between the film and play versions of The Crucible is the setting of the first encounter between John Proctor and Abigail Williams. In the play, John had been in the room with Betty, Abigail, and others because he was curious what was going on. Everyone else then gradually left, which suggested their meeting was more happenstance. In the film, however, John was outside getting ready to leave when Abigail snuck out to tempt him. This portrays Abigail as more actively seeking him out and more invested.
I’m sure you’ve debated with yourself many times the book or the movie. This essay proves to you why the movie version is so much better. John Proctor was without a single doubt the best character in The Crucible. The film did an impeccable job of conveying a much better picture of what truly happened in the years 1692 and 1693. Even though many people may consider the book to be the better version of The Crucible their reasons do not compare to the reasons I have written to prove that the movie is the best version. The movie did a much better version of giving us more details and more personality out of the characters such as John Proctor. In the book, John Proctor was a dry and dull character but in the movie, he is incredibly influential.
The Crucible is an incredibly influential play no only in the fact that it displays many important themes, but it also portrays how a theocracy impacts societal actions. The Salem witch trials were the culmination of the problems with theocracy. The actions of society, not only are impacted by their personal thoughts, but also in religious undertones affect them. Act two in the play portrays not only all of these themes, but also some important events leading towards the witchcraft hysteria. Act two in the play portrays how theocracy ultimately leads to chaos.
I’m sure you’ve debated with yourself many time the book or the movie. This essay proves to you why the movie version is so much better. John Proctor was without a single doubt the best character in The Crucible. The film did an impeccable job of conveying a much better picture of what truly happened in the years 1692 and 1693. Even tho many people may consider the book to be the better version of The Crucible their reasons do not compare to the reasons I have written to prove that the movie is the best version. The movie did a much better version of giving us more details and more personality out of the characters such as John Proctor. In the book, John Proctor was a dry and dull character but in the movie, he is incredibly influential.
The movie recreating The Crucible written by Arthur Miller does a great job bringing everything to life. When reading a book, the reader oftentimes have a certain idea of what the character would look and sound like. When I read the book followed by watching the movie, I found that the characters that I had created in my head were perfectly matched by the actors and actresses that featured in the movie. Although the movie and book are very similar and show few differences, the handful of things that were changed, or added in the movie tend to stick in our brain rather than the similarities.
Overall, the film adaptation of The Crucible, is a fairly enjoyable and faithful representation of Miller’s original play. The film goes hand in hand with the play, and provides the emotion input that the play may lack for some. Lead by Daniel Day-Lewis, the cast is mostly solid and is able to actively portray the emotions of the characters and the hysteria of the village. While some characters can fail to deliver as expected, the film is still enjoyable and can be helpful in expanding your knowledge of the play. The film adaptation of The Crucible is a well produced version of the play that not only serves as a companion to the play, but an entertaining and though provoking experience.
The Crucible by Arthur Miller The Crucible is a fictional retelling of events in American history surrounding the Salem witch trials of the seventeenth century, yet is as much a product of the time in which Arthur Miller wrote it, the early 1950s, as it is description of Puritan society. At that particular time in the 1950s, when Arthur Miller wrote the play the American Senator McCarthy who chaired the ‘House Un-American Activities Committee’ was very conscious of communism and feared its influence in America. It stopped authors’ writings being published in fear of them being socialist sympathisers. Miller was fascinated by the Salem Witch Trials and that human beings were capable of such madness. In the 1950s the audience would have seen the play as a parallel between the McCarthy trials and the Salem Trials.
I will be directing a scene from Act 3, of the play The Crucible by Arthur Miller.
The Crucible, play and movie, do an exquisite job of displaying the utter turmoil within Salem and other towns held together by Puritanism. In both interpretations of the story, intolerance and hysteria leads Salem down the path of disintegration. Arthur Miller comments on why he wrote such a story:
People dying for no reason resonates in a lot of ways. Even in real life if people die
The Crucible was written by Arthur Miller; he also wrote a screenplay. Arthur Miller was very purposeful when he wrote the Crucible. He encountered some incidents that related to this historical story, and that is where he got his inspiration. The text and the screenplay had some major differences between them, along with some minor differences. Some differences altered the story while others had little to no effect.
Author Arthur Miller, of The Crucible an excellent job of showing the cruelty of the witch trials. The movie based upon The Crucible, is almost an exact replica of the book. When showing many similarities, it also had some vast differences. These differences don't have much of an effect on the actually story. They are added for dramatic effect and to entice the viewer. Although there are many similarities there are some vast differences.
The Crucible discusses what went on during the time period of the Salem witch trials. After being exposed to three different forms of the story, the movie is the best. The book was good as well and I feel that the movie matched up better than the play. Movies are perfected when they are being filmed, while plays have the potential for mistakes. The movie version, specifically the one with Daniel Day-Lewis as John Proctor, portrays the story of The Crucible much better than the play that was watched for class.
The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, tells the story about a Puritan Community in Salem, Massachusetts, that in 1692 unjustly executed 19 people because of false accusations of witchcraft. It was a year filled with doubts, paranoia, and accusations that led to a tragic end to the Puritan community. John Proctor is an important character in the play, and through his qualities of pride, braveness, and selfness, he plays a major role in helping Miller advance the theme that honesty is the best policy.
I over all have enjoyed the Crucible, although all of it is pretty ridiculous. It's so weird that people were being sentenced to death because they “saw the devil”, when the court did not have any definitive proof of this. I thought that Act Three was very good and that Act Four was kind of a let down.