THE CRUCIBLE - Arthur Miller

I feel very fortunate to have studied "The Crucible" back in Year 10 and again for the HSC in Year 12. I thought then, and have continued to think that it is in my top three favourite pieces of literature of all time... along with "Catcher in the Rye" and "Catch 22" (something about starting with the letter C perhaps). And I have seen the Daniel Day-Lewis movie since, but aside from that, haven't looked back in on the work as either a piece of writing or a performance. So I've anticipated going back to this play and seeing if I felt it still stands up.

In a word... Yes.

In its original context, Arthur Miller wrote this as a searing indictment of the Communist "witch hunt" being conducted by Senator Joe McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee. Even a hint of having communist tendencies, or sympathies, or even conversations ... or not even that, even the hint or suggestion of any of those things could call you before the Committee. People were required to name names, and the pressure on careers and the potential for incarceration was such that people were encouraged into even making up names, and falsely pointing the finger at other parties... often innocent parties... to ensure their own safety.

And a great way to provide an analogy for these metaphoric witch hunts was through a story about the actual witch hunts of Salem in 15th century America. It's great grist for the dramatic mill, and Miller didn't simply take the vague idea of the witch trials but his researched delivered a story based on the actual names and specifics of a brief but disgraceful chain of events that resulted in 30 people were found guilty of witchcraft and 19 of those hanged. The use of real names and real outcomes adds an even more sickening depth to the story.

So let's get to the play.

The Crucible

It's the late 1600s in puritan America and the town of Salem is a particularly pious and publicly Christian community. And, as luck would have it, it's a time when a number of crop and animal related issues occurred. Work of the devil? Let's put that on hold.

It's also a time in which some of the young and allegedly head strong girls and young women of the community have been capering and dancing in the woods at night (oh my stars!). Some have even made daring statements about being able to create poultices and potions with profound effects. Which leads to more base level naturist experimenting, and then to accusations of witch craft against others and so on.

So, with crops, and herds, and even newborn births experiencing a statistically higher than usual rate of failure, some scientifically challenged but religiously enhanced members of the community, particularly the more pious ones, are quick to attribute these outcomes to witches. It couldn't be nature... God wouldn't forsake them... it must be the devil. And from there, evidential outcomes weren't even essential. Accusations began to be accepted as proof, and even accusations of strangeness, or difference, or insufficient church attendance were levied at people and weaponised.

Into this situation stumbles average-joe farmer, John Proctor. In the midst of the "you're a witch" hysteria sweeping the town, John's wife Elizabeth Proctor (or Goody Proctor, short for Goodwife) sacks a young maid, Abigail Williams, who it is subsequently revealed John had slept with while his wife suffered a lengthy illness. John admits this to his wife, and his remorse at this out of character lapse and his complete self-disgust, and that might have been an end to it. Abigail is sacked but still harbours feelings for Proctor, mixed with a will for revenge.

But as the story starts, ten year old Betty Parris lies in bed, dreadfully ill and being tended to by the families West Indian slave Tituba. Betty's father, local preacher Samuel Parris had busted Betty along with some other towns girls and Tituba dancing naked in the forest and involved in some pagan practice. Preacher Parris puts one and one together... and he questions the ringleader of the girls, his own niece Abigail Williams, who denies all allegations. The preacher isn't buying it and brings in first witchcraft expert and Puritan preacher Reverend John Hale to investigate, and then as the situation careens out of control, Judge John Hathorne and Deputy Governor Thomas Danforth.

There are a lot of engaging story threads running through the play as it gains momentum. Their is Abigail’s desire not to be found out for exaggerations and false witness, and so she orchestrates an apparently convincing display alongside other girls in court that apparently demonstrates how they were being controlled by spirits, and specifically those controlled by Tituba. Tittuba, threatened with the blame for all, initially holds strong to her truth that she had no involvement before pressure leads her to say what the court wishes to hear.

There are many other story elements but I’m rushing this a bit. The one that is central to my appreciation of the play is John Proctor, having realised he has fallen short in his own measure of integrity, that when offered a chance of freedom if only he’d sign a document alleging false claims against others, that he could not put his names to lies… even though making that stand would see him killed.

The versions I saw

Because I’m a bit rushed I’ll limit these descriptions. The two pro-shot versions I saw were surprising different given they worked from the same script. One of the key differences were the portrayals by the two actors… both very enjoyable but with significantly different choices.

The 2014 version from the Old Vic starred Richard Armitage as Proctor in a production that earned the show Best Revival at the Olivier awards, and earned the lead best Actor. It’s a very powerful and brooding delivery, probably in keeping with many previous portrayals. Armitage’s Proctor is incredibly conflicted and over-wrought and the entire production carries a tone and a sound design that keeps it all feeling dark and foreboding.

Australia’s own (how I love saying that) Brendan Cowell took the lead in the 2023 production filmed at the Olivier Theatre production at the National Theatre. Cowell strips the role back and delivers a more put upon everyman, perhaps less dramatic and powerful and more an average man stumbling his way towards a moral decision. This version in general… and I’m not entirely sure of what elements contributed to this… seemed less ethereal and a slightly more easy to follow rendition of the script. Just a vibe. And Abigail in this version seemed less assured controller of events and more young woman caught up in her own lies and trying to panic-survive with ad hoc contrived solutions.

Both VERY good versions… I’d suggest watching both if you can.

My thoughts

While the writing and original performance of this play has a historical context in which it resonates particularly poignantly, it still hits (unfortunately) in the present day.

Hysteria, both genuine and performative, is used to sway public opinion and even legal results.

Mythical solutions (witchcraft in this case but in contemporary times, xenophobic stereotypes and minority blame attachment to name a few) are given as explanations to appease broad sections of the public while offering a blame and a scapegoat.

Related to that, authorities seek populist solutions, even ones they know to be untrue or flawed, as a way retain their positions and power.

And the better-late-than-never heroism of John Proctor… the decision to make a stand and live up to his ideals at great cost… is still a potent moral signpost especially in any period of tough times when rights are eroded and unreasonable punishments are meted out.

As I said, I am especially lucky to have studied this twice during secondary school as it gave me a guided tour through the themes, but I’d like to think any reader or audience member could make those connections through their own viewing or reading of the play.

Is it’s message timeless? Maybe. It is certainly as relevant today as when it was written, and who can say if that will continue. Is it still one of the great plays. I haven’t changed my mind… this is still one of the greatest plays I have seen, read or studied. While it covers a past event, its portrayal of an even older event help to unmoor it from a fixed point in time so that it remains an allegory to any time in which “witch-hunts”, scapegoats, mob mentality and hysteria take root.

I realise that there is a play called “John Proctor is the Villain” in which the character is re-evaluated, with special consideration to the fact he was a predator and child abuser for starters. Well, he was, wasn’t he. Can’t argue with that. I haven’t seen the show and don’t know much about it other than my guesses, so I can’t really argue or agree with the points it makes. But I understand the central idea of that play and agree the central character could do with a bit of post-modern revisiting and deconstruction and I do not seek to defend him or justify his bad acts because of his final good deeds. And of course it’s worth remembering "The Crucible" this is a fictionalised depiction of real-life characters and real-life events.

So, WITHOUT focusing on John  Proctor (real or fictional) per se, the trope of a flawed person finding their integrity at the last is not new. I think it was even borrowed from this work and used in stories like the French film “The Return of Martin Guerre” and its American retelling “Sommersby” in which a flawed man returns home, faking to be someone else, and then making a decision to be put to death as a good man rather than live as the bad man he was. It’s French so it’s complex, but you get the gist. One grand heroic act as a means to redemption. And that ELEMENT of the story remains powerful and still rings true even if more thorough assessments of Proctor indicate he was considerably more than just a little flawed.

Miller’s decision to tackle a contemporary problem with a piece of work that endangered his career has in it some echoes of John Proctor’s decision to make an integrity based stand. I suspect the very people he was critiquing weren’t even fully aware this piece was about them. While I have already stated that “All My Sons” showed Miller’s capacity for dialog and intricate dovetailing plotlines, I feel this work will continue to attract more and greater currency due to its ongoing application to modern but seemingly unchanging times.

I’ve rushed the end of this blog a bit, particularly the summation of the play, because real life is dragging me elsewhere, but I do want to emphasise this IS one of the truly great plays and would not only work anywhere (including of course Goulburn) but I believe at any time.

Materials accessed

“The Crucible” - script (1953). Available many places but commercially and for free including this link from the Internet Archive.

“The Crucible” - pro-shot video (2014). Available by subscription on Digital Theatre.

“The Crucible” - pro-shot video (2023). Available by subscription on National Theatre at Home.