For my essay I’m writing about the similarities and differences of The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, and Three Sovereigns for Sarah, by Victor Pisano. The Crucible came out in 1953, first as a play. Later on, it got created into a movie. Three Sovereigns for Sarah was released in 1985 as a movie. The Crucible is not historically accurate, some of the character’s jobs, incidents, and ages were changed to be more interesting. They both have similar plots, in each story. People were accused of witchcraft, went to the trial, and were hanged if they said they weren’t witches. Three Sovereigns for Sarah is the more accurate story, the ages and events were closer to what really happened. Both stories took place in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692. One
…show more content…
I think that the video was definitely more graphic during the hangings, in the story it didn’t describe how it would happen. Also, The Crucible left out the part where the bodies wouldn’t get buried, but thrown into a ditch. The part that was for sure shown better in the movie was when Abby and the afflicted were acting out. It seemed more realistic and believable. For the printed version the thing that made it more effective was how the overall story was set up. I think it was easier to follow while reading. It was also more clear having the story be from third person view so it wasn’t focusing on a certain group of people, it was just the whole town. I don’t know for sure why there were differences, but I infer it was because like I said the different views. After watching the movie I feel like I understood the whole story in general actually seeing it with actors. The message that I received from The Crucible and Three Sovereigns for Sarah was the same. I think both stories wanted to send the same message out but differently. By one story having the affair including it made the play more interesting to read and having the movie being accurate made it better if you wanted to know the
I think that the video was definitely more graphic during the hangings, in the story it didn’t describe how it would happen. Also, The Crucible left out the part where the bodies wouldn’t get buried, but thrown into a ditch. The part that was for sure shown better in the movie was when Abby and the afflicted were acting out. It seemed more realistic and believable. For the printed version the thing that made it more effective was how the overall story was set up. I think it was easier to follow while reading. It was also more clear having the story be from third person view so it wasn’t focusing on a certain group of people, it was just the whole town. I don’t know for sure why there were differences, but I infer it was because like I said the different views. After watching the movie I feel like I understood the whole story in general actually seeing it with actors. The message that I received from The Crucible and Three Sovereigns for Sarah was the same. I think both stories wanted to send the same message out but differently. By one story having the affair including it made the play more interesting to read and having the movie being accurate made it better if you wanted to know the