Today in class we watched a documentary on the actual events of The Salem Witch Trials. From what you saw, how do the actual events of Salem, Massachusetts compare to Arthur Miller's version of the events in his play, The Crucible? Where did you see Miller taking liberties with history? Why do you think he made the decision to occasionally veer from the truth? From what you can guess, what was Miller's purpose for writing The Crucible? (What larger point about society was he trying to make?)
Write your responses in the comments below. It should be no fewer than seven sentences in length, and your best example of formal writing.
46 comments:
From what I saw of the video the events from both the video and movie are very similar. The only major difference I could point out was that The Crucible made things a lot longer and the video skipped a lot of little details that matter. I saw Miller taking liberties with history by way over exaggerating things. He made things seem so much worst, for example, he made the court seem like it was dictating and putting people in jail for no reason. That is partly true but the court has a right to make decisions for itself. I think Miller made decisions to occasionally veer from the truth so the play would sound more interesting to the readers. Miller's purpose for writing The Crucible was to show the readers how life was back then and how people in the community didn't tolerate witch craft. The society took these type of offenses very seriously.
After reading the play and watching the documentary it seemed like the play followed the basic events of the actual salem witchhunt. However, in the play there was much more attention to detail. The author did take some creative liberties such as exagerating some events. Also, the play did not cover as much as the documentary, it seemed the play focused more on the accusations within or near the town. Also, many things in the play were exagerated to seem somewhat more extreem. I think Miller took there liberties with history in order to make the play seem more interesting.
The play and the documentary were very similar, but from what i read and watched it seemed that the play went into depth a little bit more. There was more details in The Crucible. Miller did take liberties with history because it seemed that he extended things. One of the main reasons why he probably did this was to make sure that he kept the readers attention. Miller might have wrote this to show how serious witchcraft was and to show how the society reacted and pretty much went crazy over witchcraft.
When I compared the movie and play I found them to be pretty similar. They both talked about the way people were afraid of the devil and how it effected their lives. Miller put a lot of detail into his play, but I believe he took liberties with history by stretching the truth and making things more exaggerated. For example, the video explained that once a person was accused of witch craft, they weren’t convicted of it unless someone had concrete evidence against the person. But in Miller’s play he made it sound like people were just getting convicted of witchcraft for no reason. I believe that Miller occasionally veered from the truth to make reality sound more interesting than it really was. But Miller also had a lot of truth in his play. For example he and the movie talked about how the girls started the Salem Witch Trials, and the way people reacted to the accusations of witch craft. Also, Miller put Giles Corey in his play and explained his story just as the videotape did. I think Miller wrote The Crucible to show people how life was during the Salem Witch Trials and how it effected their lives.
From what I saw in the movie and what I read in the play, I think that Miller wanted the events to seem more exaggerated and strung out then what they actually were. The video was meant for the Salem Witch Trials to be more educational and factual, more so than Miller, who wrote the play on more of a fiction level with some facts.In the play I saw Miller taking liberties about who was convicted and how they were punished. The play had mostly the old women who didn't attend church and a few others convicted. But in the video the preacher was convicted later into the trials and a few children. As for the punishments,Mostly people were hanged a couple days after their conviction. In the play they sat in prison for long periods at a time. I think he wanted to veer from the truth to make the play seem more believable. In the movie it was very hard to believe some girls making up that they saw spirits and actually talked to the devil. Eventually people stopped believing them in the end. Miller's purpose for writing the crucible could be that he wanted people to learn about it but, made it so the events were more believable. He wanted to show that many can be fooled into thinking something is real without sufficient evidence, like the peoples of Salem
After i had read the Crucible was telling the point of view from the actuall characters to make the story more interesting. Even if it was what they truly said. The movie stuck to improtant details and stayed more on the main topic of withcraft. The Crucible was more of a story. I think the only reason he would veer from the truth is to make the story readable not boring as it could've been.In the story he made the main characters seem more sane not insane and the movie showed. Overall the Crucible and the movie were fairly similar.Still as in the movie the main characters were very weird.
After watching the movie and reading the Crucible, I found they were very similar. They both explained the Salem witch trials well. I believe that Miller took liberties while writing the Crucible by exaggerating things to make them more interesting. He had to keep readers into the play, and not bore them. I think that Miller had to veer from the truth sometimes to keep the play more interesting. For me, I was more interested reading the play, than watching the movie. I always wanted to know what was going to happen next in the play. I think this was why Miller veered from the truth and made the facts more exciting. I think Miller's main reason for writing the Crucible was to inform more people about the Salem witch trials, while entertaining people, and to also show people how big of a deal witchcraft was to society back in the day.
Form what I can see the movie and The Crucible established the same things. They both established that people were getting accused of witch craft just because someone said they were. In the play i noticed that Miller tended to explain what was happening and tell it in full detail, where as the movie just gave a summary of what actually happened. BUt also the play was more of a story based on some factual evidence, where as the movie was pure evidence. I also found that the play was actually more interesting than the movie itself. We saw Miller taking liberties with history when he falsified the truth of what really happened. I think that Miller choose to veer from the truth because it would make the play more interesting and appealing to his crowd. Also how do we know that Miller veered from the truth...how do you that the movie was veering from the truth also? I believe that Miller's point to write this play was to show what was happened in this tme period in history, but also to show what was happening then and maybe in the future to different groups of people.
eh sorry bout the name its my email.
Before reading the book or watching the movie I had not really heard alot about the Salem witch trials. I did hear about them though but had never really learned about them. In my opinion both documents were had much in common with eachother however I feel that the book took more liberties in its writing. Miller had to try and keep the reader/audience's attention. What struck me in both the book and the movie though was that the male dominated Puritain community took the word of four girls on accusing and convicting some prominant people in society. It is very clear though that Miller changed a bit in writing The Crucible just to keep it interesting.
After watching the documentary on the salem witch trials While it seemed more accurate than "The Crucible" Arthur millers story was presented from multiple points of view within Salems community and provided details that added to the interest of the story, whether some of the details were true or not, It doesn't really mater because the overall story did not deviate what really happened. The documentary however added another element such as interesting happenstances outside the salem community and the impact of witchcraft in the other colonies. Witchcraft was a very serious offense and Arthur Miller and The documentary equally portrayed the situations within the time period true to life.
After watching the video in class and comparing it to Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" I saw a couple of major differences. Fist off the video mentioned that "witch trials" where happening not just in Salem, but in many other places in the world. "The Crucible" to me, made it seem like Salem was very iscolated from the rest of the world and it made it seem like the trails were only happening in Salem. I can see though why it wasn't just happening in the small town of Salem. The world was very focused on religion and Puritans looked down on all of the beggars, poor, and outcasts of their communities, which had a large effect of accusing people of witchcraft. Another point that the video brought up was that witchcraft was originally tolerated, until the Pope declared it a herecy which then made it highly looked down on in the Puritan community. In the play it made it seem like witchcraft was always, or for a very long time, was not allowed in thier communities. But mainly I believe that Author Miller's main idea in writing this play was to make a piont that history can easily be repeated, and that we should make careful decisions to not re write the negitive parts of history. For example in The Crucible they mention that some of the girls wrote in the "Devil's Book." This is exactly like today that people that are considered terrorists they are black listed which is extremely looked down upon in our society. These are the main differences I saw between the video in class and "The Crucible."
As I started to watch the movie on the Salem witch trials in class I didn't know that the Crucible and the documentary would be basically the same story! Although their where some differences they told the same story. One difference that I noticed in the documentary was that the women that they described sounded much older than when I read the play. Also when I saw their pictures on the documentary I didn't expect them to look so much like acual witches. Another difference I saw in the play was that they explained only about Salem and not about the other colonies and how the trials affected them. I think that Miller changed the history in the story because he wanted to make it sound more like a story and not a boring play. I know that may sound werid because Salem witch trial's where quite interesting but from the documentary Miller exaggerated some points about the ending of the story. I also beleive that when they where in trial in the play they didn't really give as much evidence as the documentary did about accusing people of witchcraft. I do beleive that Miller's purpose in writing The Crucible was to make people aware of the influence they had back then on this death defining trial of witchcraft. The larger point about society that Miller was trying to make I think was that even though you may not like everybody, that doesn't mean that you should blame them of something that they really didn't do in the first place. I know that maybe a wrong answer but I beleive that it could possibly be a reason! In all they did have many qualities the same in the documentary and the play but also had differences.
The Salem Witch Trials video compared to the book The Crucible was more realistic in that it was a documentary based on known facts, while The Crucible was loosley based on facts and was meant to be somewhat entertaining. As for Miller, he took liberties with history by making some things harsher than they were and baisically stretched out the truth. I believe Miller did this to add suspense to his play and keep the audience at the edge of thier seats. Millers purpose for writing The Crucible was to show the beiefs and way of life of the Puritan people. The Crucible also showed how a society became paranoid and fell into hysteria.
Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible was very similar to the actual events that took place in Salem, Massachusetts. Although Miller accurately conveyed many of the events that occurred in Salem, for the purposes of entertainment he deliberately stretched the truths’ about the Salem Witch Trials. By adding events that never actually existed and perhaps even altering the personality’s of some characters, Miller made his play more appealing to the viewers. For example, John Proctor and Abigail Williams never actually had an affair; Miller just included this for added drama. He also wrote at the end of the play that more and more people refused to give false confessions when it was opposite of that; more and more people were giving false confessions because it was the easiest way to guarantee that they wouldn’t be hanged. Miller wrote The Crucible to demonstrate the fragile emotions of the Puritans when it comes to evil and the devil. He also showed the hysteria that could break out from a few objectionable accusations.
The Salem Witch Trials video compared to the book The Crucible was more realistic in that it was a documentary based on known facts, while The Crucible was loosley based on facts and was meant to be somewhat entertaining. As for Miller, he took liberties with history by making some things harsher than they were and baisically stretched out the truth. I believe Miller did this to add suspense to his play and keep the audience at the edge of thier seats. Millers purpose for writing The Crucible was to show the beiefs and way of life of the Puritan people. The Crucible also showed how a society became paranoid and fell into hysteria.I think that Miller was trying to show how a single society can start to fall apart. In the video some of the accused did things that proved they weren't witches, like the minister who said the prayer "letter perfect" and was still hung, which is a good example of parinoia. Overall Miller did a good job of showing what it was like to live in a Puritan society in the late 1600's.
After reading "The Crucible" and watching the movie in class i could see that their were some similarities to the information given in the book and movie. They both Portrayed how the towns people were a fraid of the devil some what changing their lifes. Some details that Miller wrote in the book weren’t all fact some was made up. This is what he used to pull the reader in to the story and spice it up a little so it wasn't a boring fact stating story. Yet with this false info it did not over exadurate what actually happened in the witch trials. they also both stated that people were being falsly accused of practicing the art of witch craft just because someone was reading a stange book or because the people thinks its fun to accuse these people. Yet i liked how the documentry didn't focous on just the town of Salem it also focoused on other towns and colonies were in the book it stayed with the town of Salem through out the whole thing.
After watching the movie in class, I think that Arthur Miller’s play “The Crucible” is very similar to the events that happened in Salem, Massachusetts. The events in the book and the actual events were mostly in parallel. Miller took liberty in stretching most of the information and exaggerating actual events to some certain extents. To me, this made the play more exciting and interesting. I think this is why Miller veered from the truth when writing the play, by stretching the truth he kept his readers wanting more from the story. Miller wrote “The Crucible”, I think, to teach the readers about the Salem Witch Trials and how much of an affect witchcraft and other possible evils had on the Puritans.
The actual events in the movie compared to the play the crucible were more realistic and showed how Miller took liberties to make the play more enjoyable.He made the play a better read by changes history in a way that makes the play differ from just watching the history channel.In the play he made it seem like if you didn't like someone and called them a witch they would immediately go to jail. In the video they showed how anyone could be convicted and punished. Millers purpose for writing the crucible was to show how one little thing can change the whole community.one little fear can lead to the killing of many innocent people. Many problems in the community and in the whole world.
After reading Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible" and watching the movie in class, you could say that they were actually very similar. The difference is that "The Crucible" was told from more of a first person point of view, and the movie was a documentary. Miller obviously took liberty in "stretching" the truth a little bit, or maybe adding detail to some of the events, because he needs to keep the readers interested. The play also made it seem like the witch trials only took place in Salem, but the movie proved otherwise. The movie showed different cities around Salem where people were also having "witch hunts". The documentary undoubtedly got more to the point, and just bluntly stated the facts. Miller made the choice to steer away from the truth sometimes to spice things up a bit in his play. I believe that Miller wrote this play to show how crazy some of the people were back then, and how serious they took witchcraft to offense.
A lot of things with the play and the movie were very similar. The Crucible had more attention to detail and did not say to much about things out of the town of salem. The movie was more focused on the broader image of the event. One thing that miller did make a big change was that i do not think the movie said that John Proctor was ever hung. Many of the liberties he took when writing crucible was to make it have a more intersesting plot so he would get more veiwers for the play and people would read it. When he wrote the crucible the theory to it was that we are a very vulnerable and insecure people. If there is something we do not understand and do not like we will try to destroy it.
I found that the Crucible and the documentary were very similar and interesting. The Crucible focused on an actual story, which had events that were real and common in those days. i like to hear about all these rumors that the puritans had and their beliefs. I was surprised that they would jump to conclusions though, like how if they found an odd mark on a persons body, they would call them a witch. I don't like their thinking, and I'm very glad i did not live in that time. The Crucible doesn't differ that much from the documentary only that the Crucible is specific on a story and the documentary is a broad view of the Salem Witch Trials. Both were very interesting to hear about.
After watching the documentary and reading the play, I saw many simularities between the two. To me one of the major differeneces in the documentary, was they seemed to focus more on the punishments, of those who were exucsed of being witches. In the play it was more about the town, the people, and the events of the apparent witchcraft. Miller seemed like he wanted you, to get the members of the play's point of view, by him switching to the different households and showing how the different people handle things. I think Miller made some decisions to veer from the truth so he could grab the readers attention, and keep them interested throughout the whole play. Miller's point of writing the play was to show how the people tolareted witchcraft back then. Also how easily it is so believe something just because other people say its happening.
After watching the movie and reading the play The Crucible by Miller i concluded that they are alike in many ways. I would say that one of the big things I pointed out that was different was that the movie focused more on the hard facts and went over more imformation. The play The Crucible, went into a lot of the little details and everything he wrote seems like it was worse than it really was back then. He gave specific examples of people being accused and it seems like he streched the truth alot to make the story more interesting. I think Miller took the liberties with history to make make the storyline of the play better, and maybe he was even a little bit bias of the situation.
In my opinion, both the documentary and story are, in many ways, very similar. Both illustrate the series of events and describe the consequences of prejudiced actions. The only major difference between the two is that The Crucible is more honed in on the story of the one main group of people. The documentary goes deeper into history to uncover clues and reasoning for the inconceivable events that unfolded in those terrorizing years. Miller did, on the other hand take some liberties with history when he described the courts. He led his audience, at least me, to believe that there was at least some fairness and justice in the court systems. The documentary, however, gave me the idea that there were no rules or regulations in the courts. Nevertheless, this did give me a better picture of how the accused were treated based on their social standings much better than the documentary did. I believe that Miller wrote The Crucible to open people’s eyes to the wretched occurrences that went on during the Salem witch trials. To be honest, very few people want to watch a long, boring documentary on a topic they know close to nothing about, but an invigorating play, that’s a whole new story. It paints a vivid picture of the conditions and characters of the chronicle.
I saw a couple of differences, like the child admitting she lied during the trials. I think he changed that to create a shorter but just as truthful story because they did say that one of the girls admitted to it years later. There was more truth in the video but it did not give the whole story, or tell the perspective from as many views as in the crucible. I admit i was a little bored a the beggining of the story but it dragged you into the history of the witch trials as you went along, the movie dragged on with facts about facts, so i think the author tried to make the crucible well and interesting to the young reading population. Even the characters were real in this book but it is still a book, and like any secondary source its got some things wrong, even the video could be wrong on some points because of the lack of information or the persons view who wrote the information down.
From watching the movie and reading the crucible, I concluded that they were both similar and different. In Millers play, The Crucible, the witch trials took place in Salem Massachusetts. Also, there were a group of girls that was lead to believe they knew who was a witch and who was with the devil. These girls accused many people, from old women to children, of being witches. All of these things accrued in Millers play and the movie. However, in the movie a woman named Sarah Good was accused of being a witch and was hanged. In the play, Sarah good was also mentioned. But you couldn’t tell if she was hanged, because her husband was hanged instead. Also, in the movie it didn’t tell us if Abigail and Sarah Goods husband were engaged in sexual activities, like it did in Millers play. I think Millers took liberty with his play to make a point. What I got from Millers play was that Abigail accused Sarah Good, so that she could be with Sarah’s husband. I think Millers purpose for the play was to show how people really took witch craft seriously, and how many people died even thought they were innocent.
Most of the events that took place in the actual Salem Witch Trials ocurred in Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible, according to the movie. There was a group of girls that went around acusing people of witches, those accused were hung, and thos who admitted to witch craft were not killed but were rather just thrown in jail. Arthur took liberties with history when Marry warren, in the story, confessed to falsely testifying that people were witches. In real life, one of the girls confessed only after the Witch Trials were done, but in the story, Mary confessed while people were still being accused of witchcraft. I think Arthur did this to speed up the story a little bit but also to provide a new twist in the plot. I think that Miller's purpose for writing The Crucible was to show how accusing and suspicious the Puritans were. They were always curios about a person if they did something wrong, such as not going to church, and were always ready to blame those who were not as holy as them for illegal activities and practices, like witchcraft.
The History Channel Documentary we watched in class was both similar and different to the play "The Crucible" by Arthur Miller. Of course the play was generally truthful in comparison to the actual events of the documentary, but Arthur Miller’s piece was historical fiction, not non-fiction like that created by the History Channel. Arthur generally added a few details to make it more of an interesting narrative than a factual based documentary. It is evident that Arthur took the time to read over the court records of the Salem Witch trials of 1692 because he used the names of the people listed in the court documents, such as Tituba, Sara Good and Judge Hathorne. On the other hand, Arthur Miller’s play gives off the perception that the only accusations of witches in Colonial America occurred in the small Massachusetts town, but the documentary proved that to be false. There were numerous other “witch hunts” in other parts of Colonial America with the first accusation in colonial times coming in 1648. In conclusion, if I was to need to obtain factual information for a research paper on the witch hunts of Colonial America I would turn to the History Channels Documentary, but on the other hand, Arthur Miller gave a fair amount of factual knowledge while entertaining the reader with fictional details not included strictly factual based documentary.
The Crucible and the documentary were both very similar. Although, The Crucible exaggerated the truth a little bit. In the video it told how the court would need proof before accusing someone of a witch. In the story the accused were just getting trialed and hanged everywhere, with no real proof except the word of the girls. Also, the documentary was obviously more informational and the play more fictional. Miller took liberties with history so the play would be more interesting. There really wouldn't have been much of a story if he hadn't. Miller's purpose for writing The Crucible was to show people that they were repeating history during the Cold War, but I think it was also to teach people about judging others and "innocent until proven guilty."
In both the film and the play, The Crucibles, there were some very similar events. The Puritans took the words of the Bible very seriously. Enough so that they became very paranoid, when they heard their perfect holy community may have witchcraft among them. If the only way to cleanse their society of these sinners was to hang them, (after supposedly, giving them a fair trail) then so be it, they did just that. Miller took liberties with history by adding the affair between Abigail and John Proctor. As far as I can remember, the movie never said anything about this actually happening. He probably decided to add this to make his play more intriguing to his audience. I think Miller's purpose in writing The Crucibles was to show how people, our own neighbors, can so easily point the blame at someone else, in order to save themselves from their own sins. Just like when Abigail says that, it was Tituba who mad her do all those sinful things, that night in the woods.
Although "The Crucible", by Arthur Miller, was much more interesting than the video, they had a few major differences, but a lot of similarities. I believe Miller changed the play a little bit to make it more exciting and for people to always want to know what’s next. He took liberty by adding a ton more detail and exaggerating things from what the actual Salem witch hunt was like. Both the play and the movie explained witch craft and how a lot of people were blamed to be witches just because. Personally, I think Miller wrote “The Crucible” because he wanted the people in our society to know what things were like back then and to show how interesting witch craft and how their society acted towards it.
The Crucible and the movie we watched today in class were alike in many ways. The Crucible was telling the story from a different point of view and included many more of the finer details such as how people accused others of being a witch. The Crucible, however, was also more exaggerated and i doubt that all that was said in the play was true. For example, the conversations held with Proctor and Abby involving their love affair may not have been completely real. However, I believe Miller tried to tie in juicy conversations such as Proctor and Abby's love affair because honestly, who doesn't like that kinda gossip? In general, I think he was trying to convey that when people get too caught up in stories or beliefs, they start to do things that make no sense, things that are just down right wack-a-doodle. I also think he means to show us how silly these "witch hunts" were because we still, in a way, have similar "witch hunts" of our own.
The movie we watched in class and the play " the Crucible" were similar. Both explained how the witch trials carrie on in Salem Massachusetts. I think that Miller put in some things to the Crucible that weren’t all true and just to intrest the reader. He probably did so then the play wouldn’t drag on and become boring. Watching the movie helped me understand the witch trials more and gave me a better understanding of what went on in Salem. I liked learning more about different things that went on during the witch trials than I did reading a story that focused on partially one group of people in one colony. Writing the Crucible, however, Miller did show us now that the pilgrims took this problem very seriously and the sad thing about it is that people died because of lies and rumors. People did this to get out of trouble or to get back at someone.
The Crucible and the movie we watched today in class were alike in many ways. The Crucible was telling the story from a different point of view and included many more of the finer details such as how people accused others of being a witch. The Crucible, however, was also more exaggerated and i doubt that all that was said in the play was true. For example, the conversations held with Proctor and Abby involving their love affair may not have been completely real. However, I believe Miller tried to tie in juicy conversations such as Proctor and Abby's love affair because honestly, who doesn't like that kinda gossip? In general, I think he was trying to convey that when people get too caught up in stories or beliefs, they start to do things that make no sense, things that are just down right wack-a-doodle. I also think he means to show us how silly these "witch hunts" were because we still, in a way, have similar "witch hunts" of our own.
I think that, for the most part, the events in the Crucible were similar to what really happened in the Salem witch trials. The only difference that I noticed was the play by Miller over exaggerated the details a little. I saw Miller take liberties with history by, as I said before, over exaggerating details, and by stretching the truth. Even though some events that Miller wrote about in his play were not completely accurate, I think that he chose to veer from the truth to keep his audience interested. By adding a little drama, he kept them wanting to see more and more of the play. I think that Arthur Miller's purpose for writing the Crucible was to prove how intollerant people are of other people's differences. He also might have wanted to inform people about the Salem witch trials.
The movie we watched in class and Arther Miller's The Crusible were very similar. When I read The Crusible over the summer I didn't realize that the characters were factual from the real Salem witch-hunts, which surprized me. You can tell Miller did his homework when writing the play. To make his version of the witch trials more interesting, Miller bent truths of what really happened. He took liberties such as changing certain actions of characters, according to the documentary. For example, the documentary said that the slave, Tituba, was the first of few others to confess, when in The Crusible, she claimed innocence and was put in jail. Also, when Tituba confessed, she was the one to throw others under the bus when she supposedly signed the book of the Devil with previous signatures of which she recognized. This differs from the play because Betty and Abigail started shouting out names of other women in the town who were then interrogated of witchcraft. Similar aspects of both histories includes names, locations and particular events. It may be possible that Miller decided to alter some historical events to fit his story because he wanted to make his plot more interesting or he may have heard a different version of the story or because he had a purpose of showing how ridiculous accusations could be made believable. In doing so, Miller may have been trying to prove a point of warning for future generations to come. He set an example of the Salem witch-hunts to be "innocent until proven guilty". This event was an abominable catastrophe and should not be repeated.
After I read and watched the film about Salem and read "Crucible" The play it was extremely similar to the main events in the video. The play dug deeper into the details and actions then the video did. I saw Miller taking the liberties by he over exaggerated some of the historical events. The video I thought covered more material and had more up front facts that were pulled out. The play focused more on the accused and who was accusing, then the punishments. I think Miller had to over exaggerate the play to keep his readers interested and wanting to read more. I think the video was made for more of a learning/educational purpose, and the story was made for enjoyment as well as an educational purpose. The "Crucible" and the video i think both show how peoples actions and words can affect more then just themselves. It can grow to more then ever imaginable.
I was absent on the day we watched the movie therefore, I can not answer this question. I am simply completing the assignment of logging on a posting a blog.
"The Crucible", by Author Miller, was actually very similar to the events that took place. Although most were true, Author Miller did stretch the truth. For example, he wrote that many people would not confess, but in fact it was the exact opposite. Once they realized that was the only way to not be hung for sure more and more people started to confess. He obviously did this for entertainment purposes. The reson that he sometimes streched the truth was because he needed to convey his message as powreful as possible. Author was trying to point out how fragile a society could be. He also demonstrated that a few accusations could turn into mass hysteria. All in all it was a great play.
For the most part, the play and the movie we watched matched up pretty well. The Crucible really drove home the opinion that the girls were making the whole thing up, but the doccumentary didn't seem so sure. I think that the author was just trying to create a tangible antagonist in the play, instead of using actual facts. You cant make a play about some girls who may or may not be under a spell. Every story needs a bad guy, and by revealing so early that there is no magic going on, the author creates a lot of irony. Only the readers know that the girls are faking, and we just have to sit there and take it as people are killed for no reason. In a way its frustrating, because you feel like you could reach in and tell people the truth, but you can't, and innocent people are hanged.
When I read The Crucible and watched the documentary, I noticed a few things. First off, Arthur Miller didn't stray very far from the truth when he wrote The Crucible. Most of the things he said were in fact the truth; he just stretched it a bit. A good example of how Arthur told the truth is in the death of Corry Giles. Corry Giles was killed both in real life and in the Crucible by having his chest crushed under the weight of rocks because he wouldn't plea any way to the charge of witchcraft. Arthur did stretch the truth in how many people he implied that died. In my interpretation of the Crucible, he implied that the girls’ accusations got almost every woman and several men in Salem village arrested. But the reality is that only 24 people died. Arthur decided to veer from the truth because he was writing a drama and he needed to spice tings up a bit. I think that Arthur's main reason for writing the Crucible was to remind people that history tends to repeat itself if you don't learn the lessons the first time around.
After I read the Crucible, and watched the documentary I noticed some differences. In my opinion the video was mainly based on facts but didn’t tell the entire story, or show the prospective form all the views as in the Crucible. The book mainly took place in Salem but the movie sowed some other cities outside of Salem that were also having “Witch Hunts.” I believe that Arthur Miller took the liberty to make the movie more easy to follow and enjoyable.
(this is my 7th try so i do not even think it will work)
The documentary and the video had many simularities and differences. They both were about the Puritans and their ridiculous accusations of witches amongst themselves. The documentary went into far less detail than the play. While the play focused more on a single storyline, the documentary had a wide variety of facts and imformation. Plus the documentary was entirely factual while Miller tened to veer from the truth in order to make the play more interesting. For instance, he made the punishments seem more intense than they actually were. I also found that the video was easier to take in than the play because there was way too much detail in The Crucibl
Post a Comment