Arthur Miller’s The Crucible shows not only what really happened during the time period of the Salem Witch Trials in 1693, but the work also shows that the U.S. government arrested supposed communists during the H.U.A.C. trials led by U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy just like the theocratic government in Salem did to alleged witches during their time (Glass). The most artful iteration of this particular story is one in which the character of John Proctor is portrayed by Daniel Day-Lewis in Nicholas Hytner’s 1996 film adaptation of Arthur Miller’s original work. The characters in the film are historically accurate because one can hear the actors’ intonation and accurate accents for the time period and their body language during their superb performance.
…show more content…
This is the primary reason that this version is more often sought out than Miller’s original, written version. Modern audiences are able to physically see how the characters are portrayed, and along with the dialogue and the performers’ inflection and tone, it is easier to envision the setting in which the story is portrayed. Even though in the written version readers can understand what the characters are saying, the movie version is superior for a modern audience because the unique accent and intonation of colonial New England language is often not understood by the common reader. Similarly, modern audiences may have difficulty understanding the role of unspoken, physical body language within a story so riddled with maliciousness and deceit …show more content…
With Hytner’s version, the film has won several awards, and professional reviews have nothing but positive things to say about the movie. On the big screen, the characters are easier to understand; their accents, clothing, mannerisms, and even utter lack of constitution to deal with the events of the story come to life. Miller’s original written play, however, cannot be forgotten by audiences. Without reminders, like those provided by Miller in the play, the misuse of government power and modern “witch hunts” may never come to an end, and members of modern cultures may often consign themselves to the same fates as those of the people of Salem Massachusetts. For the sake of expediting this much needed understanding in our modern world, however, Nicholas Hytner affords worldwide audiences this social warning in a way that is both accessible and
This is the primary reason that this version is more often sought out than Miller’s original, written version. Modern audiences are able to physically see how the characters are portrayed, and along with the dialogue and the performers’ inflection and tone, it is easier to envision the setting in which the story is portrayed. Even though in the written version readers can understand what the characters are saying, the movie version is superior for a modern audience because the unique accent and intonation of colonial New England language is often not understood by the common reader. Similarly, modern audiences may have difficulty understanding the role of unspoken, physical body language within a story so riddled with maliciousness and deceit …show more content…
With Hytner’s version, the film has won several awards, and professional reviews have nothing but positive things to say about the movie. On the big screen, the characters are easier to understand; their accents, clothing, mannerisms, and even utter lack of constitution to deal with the events of the story come to life. Miller’s original written play, however, cannot be forgotten by audiences. Without reminders, like those provided by Miller in the play, the misuse of government power and modern “witch hunts” may never come to an end, and members of modern cultures may often consign themselves to the same fates as those of the people of Salem Massachusetts. For the sake of expediting this much needed understanding in our modern world, however, Nicholas Hytner affords worldwide audiences this social warning in a way that is both accessible and