The Crucible: Director Choices
Think about the differences between the play we read and the movie version we watched. Analyze the director's choices to change things or leave them the same. Discuss your thoughts in terms of why you think the director made those changes & whether or not they were effective choices. Do make sure you are using specific scenes or lines to prove your thoughts and ideas.
I didn't see many differences between the story and the movie. I pictured the way the town was set up different in the book as it was shown in the movie. I think the town was set up better than the way i pictured it because it seemed like the movie set it up better.
ReplyDeleteYou're not talking about why you think the director made those changes or why they are or aren't effective. There are quite a few differences between the two.
DeleteI didn't see many differences between the movie and the play, but the ones that that i did see were very noticeable. The way the town was described in the book was very organized and a larger town. In the movie, they showed it as unorganized and rather small. I think that those changes were made to make it look more like a town should in that time period
DeleteAnother thing that stood out to me that didn't happen in the book version was when the girls ran out of the church and into the river. In the book it just talked about them hiding in the corner, not running out of the church. I think these small changes actually make a pretty big difference. They help add detail and emotion to the movie and help get the point across. I do think they were very effective choices to use in the movie.
ReplyDeleteYou're talking some about why you think the director made those changes or why they are or aren't effective. Expand.
DeleteThe only thing that I notice is at the end. In the book we did not read about John's death and in the movie we saw Proctor getting hanged with two other people. In book a light went on John's wife and that was the end. In the book in the court house they did not leave like they did in the movie. They just hide in the corner in the book and ran outside in the movie. I like they changes because it showed different things that did not happen in the book and that was a good touch.
ReplyDeleteYou're not talking about why you think the director made those changes or why they are or aren't effective.
DeleteThe director of the movie left some of the other parts that were in the book out. The director kept some parts out to make the movie more interesting than the book. JUst little parts were taken out. The director also changed a couple of scenes to make the movie a little more interesting. LIke when Mary accused John. They were outside in the sea. As in the play they were in the back of the courtroom. The added in a couple parts to the movie also. Like when Sarah Osborne was on trial. The Movie also showed Sarah on trial and how angry she was that she was accused of witchcraft. Most of the things he added were for the better that made the movie better.
ReplyDeleteDiscuss effectiveness & why you think director made those choices.
DeleteI did enjoy this movie and the play of The Crucible. It was interesting to see all of the fighting and how things played out in the end as things kept questioning in my mind as I was reading and/or watching.
ReplyDeleteTo start off, in the play a "George Jacobs" was only mentioned. But in the movie, George Jacobs in brought in the first hearing of court and later hung due to being accused of witchcraft. When Abigail accuses Tituba with being in the hands of the Devil, Parris whips Tituba for being involved. In the book, I believe he only threatens her. After Tituba get blamed, the girls start ganging up on Mary Warren. They do this throughout the whole movie. When Abigail goes out to see John, they talk about their affair together & they share a kiss. This talk did happen in the play, but only in the movie did they kiss. Not too long after that talk, Abigail follows John into the woods and she talks to him again. Along with the many other people Abigail blames, she never blamed Reverend Hale's wife to the judge in the play but in the movie she did. At the end of the movie, Abigail decides to flee from Salem due to her possibly being killed for all of the lies about witchcraft. She goes to visit Proctor in jail and tries to convince him to go with her. Also at the end, John Proctor, Martha Corey, and Rebecca Nurse were hung in front of the towns people. Before they were hung, they said the Lord's Prayer, with John saying the last line. This was never done in the play. And a random note(wasn't sure where to add this), Andover was never mentioned in the movie. I think they did this because there was a lot of drama and commotion going on, they just left it out.
You caught many things - think about why did the director do this & why if was effective or ineffective?
DeleteSomething that we really struck me as different and actually appreciated the change was the ending to the movie. The ride on the wagon, the people disapproving, and how they chanted a piece from the bible was very inspirational to me. John was known for not being related too much to church and to hear him recite the bible, I thought he was now with god. Another difference in the movie I thought was semi-good was when Abby came to see if John wanted to come to Barbados with him. I feel like she had a sense of regret for killing those people in the end. At first, she really enjoyed the hangings though. The last difference that I found in the movie was when they are interrogating Tituba. Instead of Paris saying she was going to get whipped, he actually does in the movie. This promoted her to lie to them to keep from getting hurt. To me, this was not a pleasant thing to see, but was needed. This emphasized how cruel they were to slaves and how dumb they were. If you were getting whipped multiple times and lying was the only way to prevent it, your going to lie. I believe the director did this just so the movie wasn't boring. Then, the director added some things just to make the movie interesting.
ReplyDeleteGood choices for those changes. Decent job giving insight on that directorial choice.
DeleteThroughout the play, the you get to see first hand the true emotions of the characters. Seeing the characters and how they react to the chaos and the convictions of many people. The book makes this hard for us to see the true meaning of how bad Salem really is. Considering the book tells us that the whole town of Salem is crazy, and they are continuing to put people in court. The fact that people are persuaded to convince the court that they are guilty or innocent was just a way to stir up more commotion. I think that in the story that they should have not ended the book with Elizabeth assuming that her husband John is dead. I do wish that they would have continued the book on more to connect to the ending in the movie. The movie showed us that John got to see Elizabeth one last time before he confessed. Then he made the decision upon himself that he was going to be hung in front of the townspeople. I thought the story would have been better if the story slowly regressed.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth doesn't assume. She knows. In theatre, you can't show a person in the gibbet. Also, John & Elizabeth do see each other in the play before his "confession." I think you really needed to take a look at the major differences & talk about why you thought the director made those changes as well as how effective they were.
DeleteWe read the play "The Crucible," and we also watched the movie. There were several differences between them, and there is a reason for this.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of the movies, it shows the girls dancing around the fire. We only hear about this in the play. I think that the director does this so that you get more of an idea of what the whole movie is about, and you have a better understanding of what the trials are about. In the movie, they automatically assume that Betty is sick because of witchcraft. In the play, they wait for Hale to come before they actually say that it is witchcraft. I think that the director does this to make the movie more dramatic. In the movie when John and Abby are alone, they kiss. This adds more tension because you wonder if John still has feelings for Abby. In the movie, you see John's kids. You know of them in the play, but you don't really have anything to do with them. This makes you feel more emotion when John in hanged. You feel even worse for him because you know he has a family and you know what they look like. In the movie, when Abby runs away, she tries to get John to come with her. This also adds more tension because you don't want John to fall for Abby again. At the end of the play, we have to assume that John was hung. In the movie you actually know that he has been killed. This in more effective because it brings out more emotion. It also brings closure to the audience knowing for sure what happens.
There are many differences between the play and the movie. I think that most of the things added in the movie are effective and add to it. I think the director knew what they were doing and did a good job.
Good choices & thoughts.
DeleteThe Director changed the ending of the movie with the ending of the book. At the end of the book he had the light shinning on Elizabeth, and at the end of the movie he had the three praying before they were hung. When Abagail and the girls run away it the book director kept it the same in the movie as well, which helps keep the movie straight with the book since he left it the same. The setting when John and Abagail were talking abut Elizabeth had a different setting then I pictured in the book play, The setting in the book had me picture John and Abagail in Johns house instead of the forest.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't discussed why the director made those choices or the effectiveness of those choices.
DeleteI believe that the biggest scene the writer left out in the play we read was the hanging of John Proctor. I think that it really added to the movie because in the play we assume that he got hung but we aren't really sure. In the play it ends on Elizabeth but in the movie it ends on John getting hung and saying the Lords Prayer. When they all said the Lords Prayer it made the scene way more dramatic. I think they should have had that scene in the book because it makes things more understanding.
ReplyDeleteHe is... that is the light streaming in & the drums rolling. They just can't show him in the gibbet on stage in the theatre. More thought. Not much discussion on why the director made those choices or the effectiveness of those choices.
DeleteBoth The Crucible play and movie adaptation were powerful pieces of art that capture both emotion and history in a theatrical sense. Although there were changes made from the play to the movie, the essence of the situation was kept in both.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest changes made include the order in which things appeared and happened. Time was not as obvious in the movie universe. It was harder to tell how long the witch trials had been going on. In the play, lines included the time passing as did the italicized setting words. In the movie, the plot was sped up to add drama and intensity as well. Because of this, scenes that would’ve taken place as a whole got split up and separated to fit the screen. An example of this is at the very end when Elizabeth and John meet two separate times in separate locations rather than have such key plot points happen back to back.
Another change was one that was mental. Watching the movie, I felt much more involved in the plot. The music adds intensity that was not felt otherwise. The transitions were felt as well. This was not possible in the play because of scene changes. Of course, the play would have a pit band but it would not have been as clear and as drawing as it was in the movie.
The ending definitely had the most major changes. I have already mentioned the changes between Elizabeth and John but that was a drop in the bucket. Elizabeth’s last words were spot on but the play’s last words itself were not kept the same. The director’s choice to have the three recite their prayers was a smart choice and definitely helped accent the movie. This was not as much an option for the play. In the play however, others that were not Rebecca Nurse, Martha Corey, and John Proctor recited their prayers.
The movie does a much better job of showing the reaction of the townspeople as well. When the three were hanged, their reactions were known. This was not as much known in the play. There were other times as well. Seeing how people reacted to Abigail when she ‘parted the seas of Israel’ and how the people in the crowd of the court reacted.
Both the play and the movie had strong theatrical choices that accent the plot and the situation. Though different, both are exceptionally good. Changes had to made of course but they were changes that needed to be made. The director should take pride in his adaption. The changes were worth it.
Good choices & thoughts.
DeleteThe Crucible is a very powering story and movie to watch. John Proctor was the type of person that the town depended on. He was one to stick up for others especially his wife. The towns people had a lot of respect towards him. In the movie I felt like John and Elizabeth didn't have the "private" moment that they were expecting. She was trying to convince him to admit what he did. I felt that the setting in the movie wasn't like the book where they were in the room by themselves. I feel like they should have kept that the same because it was a giant part in the play having him try and come up and earn the courage to confess.
ReplyDeleteIn the book, after John rips up the paper he signed it just says that he is escorted out. In the movie it was shown that he was escorted out on a wagon with his hands chained along with Martha Corey and Rebecca Nurse. I felt like the book didn't visualize what was completely going on or how many people were going to get hung.
Another big difference was when John was getting ready to be hung along with the two other females. As they were standing up there, the audience was showing their fear and trying to hold back their tears. The three were up infront of the crowd and they also began to say an Our Father. Simultaneously the three were hung as the prayer came to an end. In the story a light just shines down on Elizabeth so there assumption is that he was hung.
There are a few major differences from the movie and the book. Only watching one and a half days of the movie led me to these differences. I'm sure the movie created many more. In the end, they still follow the same plot which allows the audience to stay in line.
Good choices. I'd like more on why you think the director chose to have the characters say the prayer & show the sadness of the crowd. How effective was it?
DeleteIn order to make this play more 'movie like' more characters were added and scenes changed to get it to make more sense. A major scene changed was having John officially die at the end. It made more sense to have this than in the book where you had to assume the death of John and I don't think the movie would have made sense had they stopped it with Elizabeth. Some parts that were added didn't seem effective or necessary such as the part where John ran out of court and into the river and the town followed him to get rid of the "bird." I also don't think the part with Hale quitting the case and leaving was shown well at all, he may have said he was quitting once but I didn't feel his absence was prominent.
ReplyDeleteDo remember that in theatre you cannot show a person on the gibbet... movies can do magic but the death would be difficult to show in any other way on stage. You are correct in thinking with movie stoppage. I'd still like more with why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness.
DeleteThe director made a few changes in the scenes compared to what the book would have had. For instance the in the book most of the stuff took place within the court house, but in the movie the they were outside much more. An example of this would be when Mary Warren went in to confess about lying. Abigail and the other girls ended up running outside into a pond. There was nothing mentioned about a pond in the book. I don't really know what the water had to do with anything.
ReplyDeleteAnother would be when Elizabeth and John Proctor were talking at the end. In the book they were talking in the court house, but in the movie they were talking outside on a hill by the water. I think talking outside was a better idea because they have a little more privacy.
Also watching the movie it was always raining outside. In the book there was nothing said about any rain. I feel like it was a good idea to put it in the movie, because the mood was gloomy. The rain was a good add in to show that the mood.
Another one would be that at the end of the movie Elizabeth never saw Proctor get hung, but in the book she watched out of the window in the court house. In a way i feel like it should have shown her there watching Proctor be hung, but at the same time, it was a good thing that she didn't. I would never be able to watch a close person be killed in front of my own eyes.
Why do you think the director made those choices?
DeleteWhile watching The Crucible, there were some obvious changes that the director made but also some important similarities. After finishing the entire movie, I believe that the director made some very effective choices, both with the changes and the things he kept the same.
ReplyDeleteThe director kept many of the lines the same or very close to the lines in the play, but one difference stood out to me. The director ended the movie with John Proctor, Martha Corey, and Rebecca Nurse reciting the Lord's Prayer before they were hanged. In fact, they were hanged just before they could say "amen." I found this change that the director made VERY effective; I was tearing up as the movie ended. I think one reason this is so effective is because it shows how faithful these three really were. They were willing to die to honor the Lord, and they took that will them until their final moments.
One scene that seemed a little different to me as I watched the movie was the scene that John met with Abigail to keep Elizabeth out of court. I did not picture this scene to be in such a personal place(the forrest). This still worked for the conversation, though.
For similarities, I believe the director did a very great job showing the relationship between Elizabeth and John. He utilized the lines about "cold" and "winter" and really showed us how tense their relationship was. Then, by the end, he showed how strong their bond truly was and how much they loved each other. It was very touching and brought a great emotionally realistic feel to the movie.
I really enjoyed the movie, with all of the differences and all of the parts that the director kept the same. The movie was very effective is expressing the true story of the Salem Witch Trials.
Good thoughts.
DeleteIn terms of changes comparing the text and the movie, there were a few changes, but not a ton. In this this movie, the changes were quite minor and didn't distract from the effects themselves, but I'm going to discuss a few examples to show what did change.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the entire beginning of the movie was way too fast-paced. I understand that the movie had to be shortened, but I don't think that the way the beginning half of the movie was effective. In my opinion, the beginning setting and background information is the MOST important. It sets the foundation for the entire story, so why in the world would you rush through it? It didn't skip very many things and the things that did change were minor, but I think that the foundation should've been supported better.
In the end of the text The Crucible, Elizabeth Proctor is shown at the end by herself in the light and the audience is to assume that John was hung. But in the movie, John and Elizabeth are given a moment to speak by themselves before he confesses. Although the showing of the hanging was not distracting, I felt that the environment/scene was quite ineffective. While reading, I pictured the scene taking place in the courtroom, like when Elizabeth was brought in to testify about John's lechery. I was also quite surprised about how emotional John was crying-wise. I expected John to be furious, not crying, about his testimony and death. I completely understand why John reacted that way because it makes the situation more real-life, but it's just different than I pictured it.
I thought that the movie represented the text very well and was effective overall, and I thoroughly enjoyed all of it. This type of information/story is very different from "classic" texts and things, but I really enjoyed the new perspective about how history really was back in the 1600s.
Good thoughts. I'm wondering how much of the beginning you thought was too fast paced. Through the woods or even more?
DeleteThe screenwriter of, "The Crucible," the writer of the play is the same person. In my opinion, I feel as if while doing the play and the movie, they tried to keep it the same and I think that it was easier to follow that way. The movie and play also were full of differences. In the play we had assumed that Proctor was hung and that he died however, in the movie, they actually showed him getting hung so we knew that he actually did get hung. Also in the play they never mentioned the courtroom with all the citizens running out and going to a river. In the movie after the trial, they all ran to a river. No one really knows why. At the end of the movie, before Proctor, Rebeca Nurse, and Mary Warren got hung, they all were praying the Our Father. In the book it does not mention that they pray before they die. In the play they should have added these details so we knew more of how the atmosphere of the ending was and they should have clarified more in the play as well if Proctor actually did get hung or not.
ReplyDeleteThey cannot on stage show John's death. Movie magic can make it happen whereas live theatre doesn't have those nifty effects. I'd still like more with why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness.
DeleteI liked the movie better because I am more a movie guy than reading books. I think that the director in the movie should've shown some of the beginning with Abigail and Proctor so that we would've got a little more background of the story. A major thing that the director did differently in the movie was showing that proctor was going to die, unlike the book where we had to infer it.
ReplyDeleteNeed more thought; why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness.
DeleteI like what they did in the movie better because they added alot. Such as at the end they show you that John dies instead of just assuming he dies, and also how the three of then say the our father before they die also adds a lot. Mostly everyone knows that they are innocent and doing this to save other people from being killed so when they say the prayer that is showing that they believe in god. In the movie I feel that they jumped around a lot and all of it didn't happen exactly like it did in the book. They also added more people in the movie and I feel like the movie was easier to follow than the book was. When John runs out of the court and into the river and all of the citizens follow him I don't think that was in the book and that kind of added more to the movie. I also like in the movie how you can tell what they are feeling and how they are feeling by how they act, in the play you can tell by some of the stage directions but it is easier to see in the movie. I think they were both very good, but I followed the movie better than I did the play.
ReplyDeleteMore on why the director made those choices.
DeleteIn the movie we could actually see the people and their reactions. I really liked being able to see a face while we were watching the movie. They did leave a few of the parts out and jumped around a little in the movie but it was still good. They also add a few things like them praying right before being hung at the end. That was a very good touch. The director made a very good choice by doing this because it portrayed the atmosphere at the time of the hangings. They also showed how the people didn't want them to be hung. All of the people in the crowed were either crying or weeping. They also added int the effects like the rain and the wind. Which add a great deal of effect to the movie. In the play write you can't imagine all of the special effects like in the movie. That was a very good choice.
ReplyDeleteI'd still like more with why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness.
DeleteI honestly didn't see any differences. The movie pretty much followed the play word for word. The movie did have to cut out a few small parts, but only to keep the time down.
ReplyDeleteThe directors choice to leave the movie almost identical to the play was very smart because it added to the drama. The play was already very dramatic and the visual of the movie made it all the more histrionic.
In my opinion, leaving the movie very similar to the play was a great choice. Many books published recently have had movies made about them, and the directors often change pretty substantial parts to add more to the movie. I personally find it very annoying when they change such important parts because you know in your mind what happens in the book and the movie is really just to visualize our thoughts and emotions.
Overall, the directors choice to leave parts like John's confession the same as the play was a pretty important and intelligent decision. I liked the play how it was and I wasn't disappointed with the movie at all.
I wish you would have done more with the additional scenes that were in the movie & how that may have had an effect.
DeleteI think the director made a few changes between the play and the movie. I thought some were very effective while others were not so effective. I like how at the end before the three were hung, they prayed the Our Father. It shows how much they respected and honored God. They were willing to die for him in order to prove that they were not bonded with the Devil. Another change the director made was when the girls all ran out into the river after seeing the yellow bird, a.k.a "Mary Warren", in the court house. I thought it was neat but i didn't think it was very effective. I think the girls ran out because he thought it would bring more attention to them. I don't think they needed anymore than what they already had. Overall I thought the movie was good but some of the director's choices were not as effective as he thought they might be when he made them.
ReplyDeleteI'd still like more with why you think the director made those choices.
DeleteThe play was well written and I think the movie was a good match. There were some small differences just like any other movie, but I thought it reflected the play well. The movie however, really provoked your emotions more than the play. The fact that you could see how characters acted and looked made a person feel more into it. Like feeling sad when John refuses to confess, or the one that stood out for me was how much hate I had for Abby for being a pain. Just being able too see the characters made me feel more into it rather than just reading the story. I also developed a dislike for Paris for how he acted toward proctor, and throughout the whole story I could not believe the ignorance to innocent people. I do understand that their lifestyle was different and they had strong christian beliefs, but it was hard for me to watch innocent people be killed by the court and to see how ignorant they were towards the accused and how much they believed the girls.
ReplyDeleteYou're not really answering the question. Need to discuss choices that the director made & its effectiveness.
DeleteFor the most part I thought that the director stayed fairly close to the book. There were some differences though. In the beginning of the book, it talked about how Parris saw some girls dancing in the forest. In the movie, the director really brought that scene to life and instead of just telling us, he showed us. I felt that was a good change from the book to the movie. Also in the movie, it actually showed the people getting hanged in the middle of Salem. In the book, it was just sort of mentioned that the people were being hanged. In the book, it never said anything about the whole village watching and cheering, but in the movie it was very clear that the whole village was there. I think this was a somewhat good choice because it really made you think of how terrible the whole situation was. I think that the director of the movie really made the book come to life and showed a lot more than the book told.
ReplyDeleteI'd still like a little more with why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness.
DeleteWhile the movie followed the book fairly well, there were definitely some differences. For starters, when the girls are sick at the beginning of the play, we only see Reverend Hale at the Proctor's house, where Putnam comes and asks the Reverend to visit their house and give Ruth a looksie. In the movie, Reverend Hale begins in Putnam's house, and Proctor comes and steals him away to tend to Betty.
ReplyDeleteAnother change is the addition of a few court scenes. In the play we saw one, but the movie multiplied them, and made them seem more realistic.
The most important change I noticed between the play and the movie was John's relationships, not only with Elizabeth, but also with Abigail. There were some added scenes with John and Abigail, such as the one where she visits him in the jail cell before she jumps ship. There also seemed to be a lacking scene with Elizabeth. He didn't taste the soup, as well as other things that really showed how John tiptoed around his wife. The point was still portrayed, but not as effectively.
ALSO---- Goody Nurse. Really? They had to kill her? In both? She was such a sweetheart. :(
You did use Proctor where I think you meant Parris a few times. I'd still like more with why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness.
DeleteThere were some differences from the play to the movie but there is also many similarities between the two. The differences were very effective. The biggest difference that stuck out to me was the very end where Goody Nurse, Goody Corey, and Proctor started to say the Lord's Prayer at the very end. It help prove how innocent these people actually were. Having the ending be Proctor left being the last on still praying and then cutting it off right before he could say "amen" was very effective because it pulls at your emotions. Another difference was the order in which the scenes happen. The movie jumped around a lot and it made the movie a little confusing. There was also an audience during the court hearings in the play but in the movie they were all put in a different room and brought in.Similarities from the two was the dialog. Most of what was said in the movie and the play was very close. That helped me too in knowing what was happening.
ReplyDeleteI think that overall the movie was effective even though there were some differences.
I'd still like more with why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness.
DeleteThere was some differences between the play and the movie, some bigger than others. One difference was at the very beginning when the girls were dancing and had the fire. In the play we found out about it after Abigail confessed and we found out the Reverend Parris had said he discovered one of the girl's dresses. The movie started with this being the first scene so we already had the background information of what really happened in the woods. Another difference was where John and Elizabeth spoke at the end. In the book they were inside and given some privacy, but in the movie they were outside. In the movie I felt they were able to speak with more privacy and weren't interrupted until John yelled that he wanted his life. One more item that differed from the play to the movie was the hanging of John Proctor. When reading the play we just had to assume that he was hung. In the movie we saw John Proctor being hung at heard his praying the Our Father with Rebecca Nurse and Martha Corey. These were some of the differences that I really noticed between the play and movie. I felt the change of showing the scene in the woods first and seeing John Proctor say the Our Father before he was hung was effective choices. The scene change when John and Elizabeth wasn't any more effective. Other than the changes made, I felt the movie followed the play very well.
ReplyDeleteI'd still like more with why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness.
DeleteWe read the story "The Crucible" and have also watched the movie. I found some differences between the two, but not as many as I thought I would. One of the differences was was during a court hearing. In the story, when the girls saw Mary Warren's "spirit bird," they just screamed and hid in a corner of the church. In the movie, however, the girls ran out of the church and into the river. I think this was a good move on the director's part. I think this made the part much more dramatic. This is an important part in the story because it was when John Proctor was accused of witchcraft. The movie did a much better job of showing the importance of this scene.
ReplyDeleteAnother difference between the two was the beginning. The beginning of the story did a really good part of describing the scene and all the characters. It gave great background information. In the movie though, the beginning seemed very rushed. I understand why they did this because a movie can only be so long, but I think they left out some very important information. If it wasn't for reading the story, I wouldn't have really known much about John Proctor and how well-respected he was.
There may have been a few more small differences, but not any major ones that I noticed. I enjoyed both the story and the movie, but if I had to choose, I would choose the movie. Some scenes in the story seemed to drag on and were hard to understand, while the movie seemed to flow a lot better and was able to keep me interested throughout the whole thing.
I'd still like more with the effectiveness of those choices.
DeleteIn the movie the Crucible, there were similarities and differences in the directors perspective. I believe that the play was very similar to the movie, but there may have been a few changes. There were not as many changes as what you regularly see in a movie versus a book. The director really showed an effective ending. reading the play, you are imagining a loyal and courageous John Proctor at the end when he is being hung. In the movie, it really showed how much has changed about John. At first, he was strong and fearless. By the end of the play and movie, he was weaker and was ready to confess his sins, and do what was right for his name. When watching the movie, the thing that stuck out to me the most change-wise is the very ending when Rebecca Nurse started rehearsing the Our Father prayer. John Proctor and Martha Corey join along. They spoke the prayer before they were released off the platform. John was able to say the whole prayer but not get to say amen at the end. This really split the movie from the play. When I read the play, I imagine the characters and their reactions very differently. The stage directions in the play, you got a different perspective than in the movie. Their actions in the movie switched around everything. The movie made me understand the Witchcraft a lot better. I did not like about the different directors notes is the pace. In the play, the pace was slow, you learned a lot about the characters while reading. In the movie, you need to know the people in order to follow the story line. The beginning of the movie, I felt like we sped through Act 2 in the first ten minutes. The actors in the movie gave you a full look of what the characters personalities are, and what may happen to them by the end. And lastly, when Abigail and Proctor were left alone, they never did kiss in the play, but they kissed in the movie. The director did this to show suspicion to if Proctor is over Abigail, or what will happen with their relationship. It also shows the mischief Abigail has up her sleeve. Overall, the director in the movie did give a great effect to the outcome of the play. I do believe that the play and the movie do very well relate.
ReplyDeleteI'd like more with why you think the director made those choices.
DeleteThere is a lot of differences between the book and the movie. I think that the movie left out quite a bit of words that were in the book. The movie makes more sense than the book just because the movie has better description and the book only had a few pictures. The movies characters seam like they acted more like they would, in the book it just didn't seam like the characters talked as much.
ReplyDeleteI think that the directer should have left all of the wording in because then it is not that confusing and with all the wording it helps things flow better. I liked at the end how the director added in the three getting hung in the end were they are saying a verse in the bible " The Lord's Prayer" because it really shows that the three had a good relationship with God and that they were innocent. I think that the directors choice in doing this was a good idea because it makes us realize that some people are telling the truth just in a different way and some people have a hard time doing that. The only person who saw that was telling the truth was Mr. Haile. Toward the end when John was signing the paper Mr. Haile Told John that he should not lie or he will hang, Haile knows that John is just confessing to Witchcraft to end the conflict about everything.
Good start. Keep going with why the director made those choices & how effective they were.
DeleteI enjoyed both the play and the movie of "The Crucible." Each one had it's positives and it's negatives. They were in fact just a slight different in ways in which I liked.
ReplyDeleteThe book obviously was very detailed. I got to know the characters a lot more than what I did in the movie. The movie lead me to get to know the characters more visually than personality wise. The order was for sure different. Not blown out of the water different, but the movie did skip or twist a few scenes orders around. None of which made a difference to the plot but changed my visual or memory of what I had when I was reading the play. For example, when John and Elizabeth talk about the house being cold it was a lot earlier in movie then in the play. The biggest changed for me was seeing the interaction between characters rather than trying to read and decide if the connection was strong or not. The part where John and Elizabeth talked before he was going to confess in the movie was a different mood than I had imagined. It was a lot stronger and more passionate than I pictured them being as I read the play. The last thing that I thought was a positive in the movie was Proctors' children. I don't remember them being mentioned as often in the play as in the movie. Also talking about children, Putnam's daughter, Ruth, made more of an impact on me in the movie then in the play. I feel as if I got a sense of what she was really trying to do. In the play I leaned toward Abigail as the one who started all of it and continued, when really it was more of Ruth.
All in all, the play and the movie both had the moral concept of the story. Some points were stronger in each than the others. The order was mixed and mingled. Characters were more prominent in one more than the other, and vise versa. I really enjoyed both to be honest.
Abigail still had a huge impact on what happened in the movie as well as the play. Ruth was important (especially with George Jacobs.) Why do you think the director made these choices?
DeleteThere are lots of scenes that are similar and different in the movie compared to the book like lots of other movies and books. I think that in this movie it was like the book a lot except a few things. The first one was when the girls we out dancing around the "potion" instead of using a frog that they said jumped into it, she used a chicken and was chanting. When they were in the court also in the book there was an audience when they were being questioned and brought in where in the movie it was just the Danforth and the people he was questioning. I also thought John and Elizabeth were closer then they were in the book because I thought they didn't get along at all in the book, but in the movie they were apart at the beginning but grew a lot closer in the end. At the end when the three of them got hung they prayed where in the book we didn't even hear of them getting hung we just knew by context. There are many differences in the movie in the book, but I think these are the ones that really stood out to me.
ReplyDeleteI'd still like more with why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness. John & Elizabeth do grown closer in the play just like the movie.
DeleteThere were a few changes between the movie and the play that we read. In the movie there were some differences that I think they did so that the audience could grasp the idea of what the Salem trials were about. I think that it was a good thing that the director sort of changed some things, but not a lot, because then the audience could relate some to something similar to something like that in our life today. Some of the things that he had changed from the play to the movie is when Betty was sick right away in the beginning of the movie, Abigail came in and was getting very mad and angry and flustered with her because she knew she was with her, so she was violently shaking her and then all of a sudden she slapped her acrossed the face. Another fact that I do not remember reading about in the play was that Betty's mother had passed away. Betty's father was the one who saw the girls and Tituba in the forest dancing.
ReplyDeleteWhen the girls started acting like Mary and acting like a bird, they "got scared" and they started to crawl over top of the pew in the church. When we were reading the book I didn't picture the Reverends in their older ages. I also didn't remember reading about before elizabeth was taken away, that she talked to her two sons. They were also brought up in the end when Proctor was about to be hanged, that he wanted to keep his good name so he could teach his sons the rest of his longer life.
I think that it was a good thing that some things changed so that we as audience could focas more and compare the two of them.
I'd still like more with why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness.
DeleteThe movie "The Crucible," and the story "The Crucible," Were not very different. Yes, certain scenes were switched up and settings were changed but this did not change the story or alter it. Lets go over what little things did change.
ReplyDeleteThe movie changed a lot of settings! In the book, when john and abby were alone talking, they were in the room with Betsy but in the movie, they were outside behind the building.
Another scene was when the girls were pretending to be getting attacked by mary warrens spirit, they were in the courthouse. In the movie, they ran to the river or lake when marry turned on john.
In the book, the actions and scenes were not as violent as they were in the movie. John would yell and physically 'hurt' Abby and others.
At the end of the movie when John and Elizabeth were talking, they were near the ocean and the wind was blowing hard. In the book, they were in the court house alone behind closed doors.
I think the director left out some certain parts to shorten the story and also to make the movie a little more enjoyable. Most of the book takes place in the courthouse or in some sort of building. Would you rather watch a movie that takes place inside somewhere all the time or would you rather watch a movie that takes place outside more? Exactly. I thought the beginning of the story was sort of rushed just so they could shorted the story and make the rest of the movie enjoyable..... until the end.
I'd still like more with why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness.
DeleteThere were some differences between the book and the movie. There were a few of these changes that stuck out in my mind.
ReplyDeleteIn the book they made Tituba sound like everyone looked down on her and she was just another annoying servant but in the movie they made her look like all the girls shined light on her. When they were dancing in the woods the girls were looking at her for what to do and it was like she was a God for doing all of this for them. The movie showed it like she was the one and only person and was praised for doing it. I didn't picture that in the book. The director may have done this to make it more powerful and what summoning actually ment to the girls.
One major change that I noticed was John and Elizabeth's scene skipped around. John told Elizabeth the house was cold then they came back after a scene and fought but that scene was altogether. I think the director did this so you could tell they weren't getting along then have the tension build so the tension felt bigger when they started to fight in the next scene. I think this was a good choice because if you didn't read the book you wouldn't really know the tension was really there but by John telling Elizabeth it was cold it made the scene at the beginning of the fight colder than it would have been if they wouldn't have separated the scenes. I think this was a wise choice.
The last thing was there was nobody in the court when John was in there. The director might have done this so the town would be more surprised on what was going on because if they were all in the court chances are they couldn't hear each other anyway and was easier to keep people out. It was wise so it wasn't so chaotic and we could understand it better.
The book and movie were good with some differences.
I'd still like more with why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness.
DeleteAt the end of the movie, It showed the last three to hang, they started to recite to Lord's Prayer. I read more in depth about the Salem Witch Trials, and when the last people were scheduled to hang, only one said the Lord's Prayer. The people believe they were hanging an innocent man. This man was accused of stealing people's land and manipulating people. After he recited the Lord's Prayer, people were Yelling to let him go. One person in the crowd, a minister, reminded them about what this man had done, and then continued to hang him. In the text, Elizabeth is left there by herself, then the play comes to an end. Personally, i think the ending to the movie is the best ending. It is well-related to the real ending of the witch trials in Salem.
ReplyDeleteThe beginning starts out as the girls dancing in both the texts and the movie.The movie goes more in depth with the girls and the dancing. Although this is an added detail to both, the dancing was actually frowned upon in the community. Again while reading further into the witch trials, this had a different beginning. This all started in the Parris household. It was actually Abigail and Betty that start this mess, by acting out in fits. They started it as a game then realized how serious it got in the village. Just like in the text and the movie, these to had the other girls in the village play along in their game.
In the middle of the movie, it shows the village and how it is slowly falling apart. In the text you can’t very well grasp the idea of the village falling apart. You have an idea of it, versus in the movie you get a visual of it. In the movie if you pay attention the little things such as the weather and people, you will see from the beginning to the end, the weather gets worse and worse. On the last scene, you see a perfect sky with some wind. The weather dies down just as the witch trials doe down in Salem. The weather acts up just as the “witches” are being called out and the village in a wreck.
Sometimes when you generalize that the text didn't give you an indication of what was going on, inaccuracies show. Those things are there. I'd still like more with why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness.
DeleteFor the most part the play and the movie were pretty much the same. Their were some differences between the two, but in general the main story line is the same. One of the differences between the two was when they were in court with all of the girls. When they saw Mary Warren in bird form coming for them in the play they just stayed in the corner screaming and crying, but in the movie they ran outside and into the water. The director may have wanted to make it more dramatic by doing this, and I believe that it worked. Another difference between the two was at the end. In the play it just showed Elizabeth alone with light coming down on her showing that John just died. In the movie however it ended with John, and two other ladies saying the lord's prayer then getting hung right there.
ReplyDeleteI'd like even more insight.
DeleteThere so changes the director made when he created the movie. He added some parts and changed some other ones. One example is in he end of the book, Elizabeth was standing with the light to represent John realizes who judges him. At the end of the movie John, Rebecca, and Martha were reciting the Our Father before they got hung. One part he added was when Abigail and Mercy were running away and she stopped to talk to John. She did not do this in the book. We found out from Paris in the next scene. I believe both of these add to the movie and create more emotional for the viewer. There were some minor parts that were changed. Things like the weather outside or where they were standing during a scene or even how much happened during a scene. For instance, I don't recall it ever raining in the book but it did in the movie. In the last act Elizabeth and John were standing outside in the movie but in the book, they were in the courtroom. One last example it the scene where Elizabeth and John were eating. It seemed a lot shorter in the movie and it cut out the beginning of the scene where John tries the soup before Elizabeth came down. All of these just added to emotion they wanted to get through to the viewer.
ReplyDeleteNeed more with why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness.
DeleteFrom watching a portion of this movie, I could definitely tell that there were some differences when comparing it to the written play. Although they are the same story line for the most part, there are some minor details that make them slightly different. Many scenes in the movie have much more detail than in the written portion. For example in the court scene where all of the girls that were involved with witchcraft they supposedly saw a bird they ran out of the building and continued to run and scream in the movie scene, although in the book they only hid in a part of the courtroom to try and escape it.
ReplyDeleteAnother difference that I personally liked was in the final scene of the movie when they actually showed John Proctor getting the rope layed around his neck and getting shoved to his death. In the written version that do not go into this much detail, so we can only assumed that that was when his life came to an end.
I also feel as though in the written play, John Proctor took much more time and put more thought into whether or not he would confess to his sin of adultery. Where as in the movie they only showed his thinking for short bit and then revealing what he had to say. I did not like this because I think that if they would have shown more of him debating on how to answer, then it could have been more suspenseful and intriguing. Although there were a few good and bad differences, I still very much enjoyed the story line whether it was the written version or the movie.
I'd still like more with why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness. Specifics work best
DeleteI think that the changes they made were good changes. One of the changes is inn the end where they changed it from the elizabeth sitting in the room to John and the two other girls getting hung while saying the lords prayer I think this was a good change to the story because it makes you realize that 19 innocent people died like this for no reason other than the girls revenge. another change they made was in the book the girls run away on a boat they never acknowledged this in the movie over all I think that the changes they made were for the better.
ReplyDeleteNeed more with why you think the director made those choices & their effectiveness.
DeleteBetween the play and the movie there are a few powerful changes. These changes may not seem huge to anyone who has not read the play, but after reading the play these changes give more insight into how the people think.
ReplyDeleteDuring the movie there are many scene changes that did not happen in the play. John and Abby were not outside when she told him that it was all pretend. There was also another scene where Abby and John were outside in the woods and he threw her around a bit, really showing John's violent side. John also had a ton of anger that was shown and definitely did not help when everyone accused him of siding with the devil. The emotions that John showed in the movie really shocked me, he seemed very stoic and unemotional in the play. He even attacked a few people in the movie and that was not in the play. Of course it didn't change how I saw John, from the play you could tell he was a non-believer and that he was not willing to soil his name more than he had to.
Many characters were just brought to life in the movie, making it all seem more real. John seemed more angry and bitter about the affair. Abby seemed more childlike around John, but more vicious around the girls and in court. Mary seemed to be more easily led than in the play. She didn’t sound as strong as I had imagined while reading. Hale seemed to be less sure of himself as the minutes ticked by, from the beginning you could tell he didn’t feel like there were many signs of witchcraft. He became less and less sure of himself and also decided to be against the court. In the play the emotion he had was not shown as well as in the movie. Now, Danforth wanted to convict everyone, he wanted to rid Salem of evil and the devil. He was willing to take away anyone who was accused. Except Hale’s wife. In the play Abby did not accuse Hale’s wife, but in the movie she did. Danforth refused to accept that a minister’s wife could be conquered by the devil. I found that odd and contradictory from what he previously said about anyone being able to be taken by the devil. In the play he had no doubts but I see the denial of Hale’s wife being with the devil as doubt. John and Elizabeth seem to have a less awkward relationship than before, even though you can tell that they have some problems in their lives. John seemed more willing to do anything for her, he seemed to give things up more easily than in the play.
The beginning of the movie went very fast, leaving a lot of the detail that was in the first act out, it started with the girls running in the woods, not with Betty in bed and then slowly finding out the truth. Throwing us into the woods with the girls was probably the best choice though because otherwise many people would become uninterested in the first few minutes. The trials were the main focus in the movie but what was happening behind the scenes seemed to be more of the play. There was time spent in the courtroom but it just appears like there was more time in the court in the movie. Also when Mary “sends out her spirit” the girls do not run into the water in the play, they leave the courthouse but no one knows where they go. People do not doubt the craziness that goes on in that scene not one single person. After that John gets put into jail, but Abby tries to free him. She was going to pay off the guard and take him away to Barbados, another thing that did not happen in the play. John confessed to witchcraft after a heart to heart with his wife, but then dramatically tears up the paper while crying. In the play it did not mention any crying. Right before Martha Corey, Rebecca Nurse, and John are hung they say the Lord’s prayer which did not happen in the play, but did add to the movie. These things helped with the portraying of the characters and really showing what was going on in Salem.
Overall the director’s choices were very good in showing how everything happened over those months in Salem.
Good thoughts.
DeleteThere are two major differences between the movie and the original play that stuck out to me the most. The first is when Abby comes to John in the cell and asks him to run away with her, and the second is the hanging scene at the end of the movie. Both of these scenes are very important to the movie and the plot, and I feel as if the director really utilized the scenes to his highest advantage. When it comes to Abby coming and asking John to run away with him, we really see that Abby is a liar and lied simply because she wanted John in her life. The second, being the hanging. It is well known that in movies, death is one of the most powerful moments. Movies such as Million Dollar Baby and Saving Private Ryan, they utilize death scenes. The same is to say about this movie. Watching John Proctor dies while saying the “Our Father” is one of the most powerful parts. It makes it seem unbelievably real and like you were really there. It tugs on your emotions and makes you feel like you really knew John and you were offended and disgusted by his death too. The director truthfully utilized these two scenes to the best of his advantage and put together a truly amazing movie.
ReplyDelete