The Crucible (1967 TV Movie)
6/10
Different interpretation than 1996
4 December 2022
Most everyone has either seen a version of The Crucible onstage, on the screen, or read the play. For all the screaming and hysterics, I've really had my fill of Arthur Miller's symbolism. I studied the play in school, and have seen both the 1967 and the 1996 movies. The live tv production is quite different than the Daniel Day Lewis Hollywood movie, so be prepared to cut it some slack if you rent it. Keep in mind it's all live, the sets are limited, and the wigs look pretty wig-y. But if you're a George C. Scott fan, you might appreciate it. He's certainly a different John Proctor than Lewis, with much more shouting and far less tears.

Colleen Dewurst plays Goody Proctor, and she's also different than Joan Allen. She has a lot more strength and emotion. However, the biggest contrast of all is Tuesday Weld and Winona Ryder. Where Winona is spiteful and evil, Tuesday plays up to the "innocent child" aspect of her character. In this version, you believe that George took advantage of the young girl working in his house. She believed their affair equated love, and when he ended things, she cooked up a revenge scheme against his wife. You truly believe she came up with the witch hunt because she was afraid after getting caught dancing in the woods. With Winona Ryder, she seems like the seductress against Lewis's innocent, faithful husbandry. She's calculating and enjoys inflicting pain. In the 1967 version, it's easy to interpret that a child's joke just got taken too far by the grown-ups. Melvyn Douglas, as the judge leading the witch hunt, feels like more of a villain than Tuesday. In 1996, the girls seem to know exactly what they're doing.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed