User reviews

...And I also happen to be a very critical person of most films. With that being said, The Crucible completely blows me away with its virtually flawless cinematic achievements!

Daniel Day-Lewis is absolutely superb as John Proctor; there is no other way to put it. He is simply perfect, from his bitter, withdrawn opening few lines to when he is accused of witchcraft by his former adulterous--and scorned--lover (Winona Ryder) and begins passionately fighting for his very life and existence--and, of course, his name.

Winona Ryder turns in a beautiful performance as the disturbed and tragic Abigail Williams: a Puritain orphan raised by her super-strict, brutal, and overall villainous uncle. She becomes infatuated with John Proctor, a married man and a bit of an outcast to their society, and is willing to do anything and everything to 'obtain' him, if you will.

Joan Allen's Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress was not undeserved. Her portrayal of the honest and saintly Elizabeth Proctor (not fake innocence, like Abigail's) was touching and a bit heart-wrenching toward the end (won't give that away here).

It wasn't just the awesome acting that won me over, but the authentic Old English dialog, the somewhat grainy cinematography (which provided an uneasy feeling in viewing the town of Salem), and wonderful sets and costumes that really made this a classic for me, and my all-time favorite movie. Highly recommend it! A perfect 10/10!

An evening's dancing in the woods catches attention, Reverend Parris has to make an intervention, as young girls are all dishevelled, subjects raptured and bedevilled, although confessions may just lead to their redemption. But the ball begins to roll and can't be stopped, within this crucible of faith doors are unlocked, aspersions, defamation, no evidence, or firm foundations, as the innocent are harvested and cropped. A chance to be redeemed is offered up, John Proctor takes the pen, signature put, alas defeat is soon retaken, the next day he'll not awaken, he's the devil incarnate, it's quite clear-cut.

There is nothing I like better than a good play for the stage, even when it is on screen. This is the second time I have been able to see this worthy conversion of Arthur Miller's classic play adapted to the screen. Nicholas Hytner certainly earnt his wages; and all the cast should have received a good pay-rise. Convincing scene-setting in Massachussets at the end of the 17th Century with heavy wood-framed farm buildings and typical North European immigrant peasants' clothing, all beautifully filmed. Arthur Miller himself collaborated on the script, allowing certain poetic licence in modernising some of the speech forms, which, in the original play – written around 1952-1953 – reflected speech patterns of the times.

I blow the dust off my 1973 Penguin copy of the play, and can follow some of the scenes almost verbatim. Thus the effect is dramaturgical rather than cinematographic, a little like Branaghan doing his versions of Shakespeare. A pleasing result indeed. Highly recommended for conoisseurs of fine acting in the classic sense. Neither of the two leading actors – Daniel Day-Lewis and Winona Ryder – will let you down.

The Salem Witches have been the cause of a few forays by writers, historians and so on: really the whole affair seems to typicalize people's appetites for forming psychosis-like manias, often on the grounds of nothing very concrete. I mean to say, the devil exists in the minds of those who invent it; the same cause as the `reds under the beds' phobia of the 1960s and 1970s, today transformed into `Islam Terror' around every corner. The clothing is different, but the mentality producing the phobias is not.

`The Crucible' in this excellent adaptation make this poignantly clear. My vote is slightly higher than the present IMDb average.

Arthur Miller wrote the play on which this movie was based in 1953. 1953 in the United States was the height of the Red Scare, with McCarthy and Nixon among others seeking to hunt down and destroy Communists - often with little or conflicting evidence, and often to the ruin of those accused on such flimsy evidence. Miller couldn't write a play depicting the abuses of the Communist witch-hunt, so he did the next best thing - he wrote a play based on the incident in American history that might be the closest thing to the Communist witch-hunts: the Salem Witch Trials of 1692, in which rumours led to suspicions, and personal jealousies and ambitions led to accusations and people lied about their neighbours and friends in order to deflect attention away from themselves and innocent people were forced to confess to witchcraft because if they denied it (no matter their innocence) they'd hang and the courts became less interested in discovering the truth than in rooting out the evil. It's actually quite a good parallel.

This 1996 movie is based on Miller's play, and the screenplay for it was written by Miller himself. It's a sometimes chaotic movie - quite in keeping with the subject matter (either the official subject matter of the 1690's or the unofficial subject matter of the 1950's) - but in its chaos one picks up the basic point of how easily otherwise good people with normally good intentions can get caught up in evil ways. The devil may well have been on the prowl in Salem in 1692 - not through the accused but rather through their accusers and the system that encouraged and empowered the accusers.

Generally speaking the performances here were pretty solid. Both Daniel Day-Lewis (as John Proctor) and Winona Ryder (as Abigail Williams) carried themselves well and the supporting cast was strong. The portrayal of life in a 17th century Puritan community is a little bit difficult to relate to, and even the Puritan manner of referring to virtually all married women as "Goody" (short for "Goodwife") grates for a while and sometimes creates confusion for the viewer in trying to keep the characters straight, because it's so unusual to modern ears - although, on the other hand, it does provide an air of authenticity to the movie.

One can only be grateful that the Witch Hunt ended fairly quickly (although a good number of people were executed.) The Communist witch hunt lasted unfortunately longer with a greater number of people being scarred for life by the experience (and, indeed, some losing their lives as a result of it.) One would like to think that we've progressed over the years, although the demonization of Moslems since 9/11 - although is hasn't perhaps reached the depths of 1692 or the 1950's - suggests that the possibilities for such excesses are still present with us. (7/10)

Wonderfully set and cast adaption of the play of the same name. Some films are shocking because of their content, this is more shocking because the nature of the true facts of the story, and how people were murdered in cold blood at the hands of the gullible. So many injustices and hurt due to religion and other crazy beliefs at that time, some still exist of course in various guises across the world.

The film has a good start, but loses its way a little in the middle, but picked it up towards the end. Speaking of which I was half expecting a Hollywood ending, where the main characters either got their comeuppance, but it stayed true to some events and for that made me like the movie even more.

Based on possibly the greatest play ever written, The Crucible is a fabulous movie - it's hard to believe that it was actually distributed by 20th Century Fox, and not an independent company. Why it took so long to be adapted for the big screen is just baffling to me. Thank God that the genius behind the original text, Arthur Miller, was permitted to write the screenplay - and get an Oscar nomination for it! The cast are all to die for, with Winona Ryder proving she doesn't always have to play lovable characters like Charlotte Flax in Mermaids (1990), or Jo March in Little Women (1994) - her performance as the malicious Abigail Williams is just as outstanding. In her Oscar nominated portrayal of Elizabeth Proctor, Joan Allen leaves an indelible impression of marvellous acting. I was in tears in the scene where she and John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis) fall in love all over again. I sincerely hope that The Crucible will be shown in schools/colleges in years to come, to remind us of the horror that occurred in 17th century Salem. A work of cinematic genius.

The world didn't really need yet one more version of the Arthur Miller parable set during the Salem witch trials. But if the world insisted on giving us another, why didn't it give us a better one?

Stage director Nicholas Hytner had tried his hand at movie making before ("The Madness of King George") and not done too badly, but you wouldn't know it from this film. These actors, some very good ones (Daniel Day-Lewis) and some not (Winona Ryder), act like they've never been in front of a camera before, and scream every line like they're doing a stage version in Madison Square Garden. Not a very subtle play to begin with, "The Crucible" is like a hammer hitting an anvil when played the way it is here.

Joan Allen and Paul Scofield fare much better in quieter, much more reserved roles.

Grade: C

Thanks to the director who let Arthur Miller do the screenplay- so the movie is a honest rendition of the great play. Daniel Day Lewis is very good- and the movie is true to the original. Winona Rider also does well- but Joan Allen is excellent. This is a true classic of American Theater and since we can't always get to a live performance the movie is a good substitute... recommend every student of am. lit see it and anyone who wants to delve into the deceit of the human spirit... nothing is new people are still jealous and still vindictive and Miller writes of these two traits so well. The whole cast does a credible job

Not only one of the first significant historical events to take place on American soil, the witchcraft trials of Salem, Massachusetts were also pivotal in the forging of the American conscience (or lack thereof). The story has the relevance that the passing of three centuries couldn't alter, mass hysteria and mob mentality being as prevalent in our social DNA as in 1692. Maybe more than ever.

"The Crucible" was originally a play written by Arthur Miller as a frontal reaction to McCarthyism. When I saw the film shortly after its release, I didn't get the reference to the HUAC (although I was familiar with that chapter). But watching it again in 2022, another parallel struck me, the Weinstein affair's aftermath or any scandal affecting the career of a celebrity. I know the comparison is hazardous as none of the nineteen people hanged in Salem were witches; as for communists, whether they were or not was beside the point; destroying one's career for that reason was a heavy weight for any sound conscience, with all due respect to the cinematic legacy of Elia Kazan.

Salem, Red Scare, Me Too might be different but there is a common denominator in the fact that the accused could be guilty by suspicion and people would rather blend in with the crowd, persecute rather than being persecuted. That's the issue raised by "The Crucible", when society establishes laws and rules that can put you in a situation where the only escape is to accuse your neighbor, self-preservation is likely to triumph over conscience.

And it's a delightful coincidence that Paul Scofield plays Judge Thomas Danforth, echoing his Oscar-winning performance as Thomas More, a man coerced into betraying his own soul to obey the law. Roles are reversed and Scofield is scarily effective as a civil servant of God, juggling between religious abstractions and judicial concepts with quite a verbal dexterity and a faux neutral looking composure. Along with Scofield, the film directed by Nicholas Hyther reassembles many "it" names of the 90s, Daniel Day-Lewis, Joan Allen and of course Wynona Ryder as Abigail Williams, the one that started it all.

It opens when she and a group of young girls engage in some pagan ritual with a slave from Barbados named Tituba (Charlayne Woodard). The scene is graphic, a girl is dancing naked and Abigail smashes a poor chicken's head and drinks his blood to cast a spell against the woman married to the man of her dreams, John Proctor. All this scene plays under the shocked eyes of Bruce Davison who plays Abigail's uncle, a reverend contested by his own parrishers and who doesn't need a scandal to tarnish what's left of his credibility.

Roger Ebert considered the scene a misstep as it validated the suspicion of witchcraft. I both agree and disagree, I agree because the frenzy is a little overdone and counter-productive, we shouldn't doubt the girls sanity because this is what emphasizes their malice. And Abigail mustn't be considered a witch but rather the term that rhymes with. But then again, this is cinema and you know what they say about "show and don't tell".

More problematic is the way it portrays Salem's people as hysterical bigots willing to believe that anything against their interests is the work of the devil or that any confession obtained by the power of the whip is a honest one. Maybe it works for dramatic purposes or it's historically accurate but I wish there was more subtlety in the characterizations. Even Ryder sometimes just overacts with her eyes. Maybe an antagonist who just didn't anticipate the consequences of her actions and lost control could have weighted the tragedy with a sad irony.

Basically there were three kinds of people: those who didn't believe it, those who did and those who pretended to do. John Proctor belonged to the first category, thus making a potential target of himself, even more when he rejected Abigail's advances. Later, he has a conversation with his wife Elizabeth (Nancy Allen). She doesn't like the sound of her husband meeting the very girl he had an affair with when she was her servant. Allen perfectly conveys the icy passive-aggressiveness of the wife who doesn't judge her husband because only God or his conscience would, which is another way getaway to avoid forgiveness. In other words, she's a tough one.

And Proctor's passionate reaction betrays a certain vulnerability, trapped in a honorable marriage, he might have needed one little sparkle from hell to cure the marital frostbites. It's all in the dynamics between Proctor and his wife that lies the film's heart, a man who's not religious but determined to raise his voice and there's a woman so virtuous she doesn't need to signal it. Yet neither positions protected them and in a pivotal and well-executed scene, it's precisely Elizabeth's virtue that seals her husband's fate.

More than a film with a message, "The Crucible" is a fine time capsule of an era seldom portrayed in movies and a character-study of bravery and cowardice. There are good people like Giles Corey (Peter Vaughan) his wife Martha (Mary Paul Gleason) and Rebecca Nurse (Elizabeth Lawrence), some are cowards for the sake of prudence like the other Judge played by George Gaynes and you have the opportunists like Putnam (Jeffrey Jones) who uses the witch-hunt to gain more land and there's Rob Campbell as the young Reverend Hale who comes off as a cocky individual but ends up sympathizing with Proctor's cause and turning into the voice of reason..

Lewis is excellent and the heartbreaking climactic "it's my name" breakdown is a credit to his talent but it's Allen's most restrained performance that will earn her an Oscar nomination. The film would also be nominated for Best Screenplay. Despite a few overdone moments (too much noise and weird camera angles at times), I liked the film... and the Simpsons parody even better.

"The Crucible" is based on a play written by Arthur Miller. His goal was not to present the Salem witch trials verbatim but to use it in order to attack the McCarthy hearing....and as such, he made a few changes here and there to the facts of the case. I mention all this so that you understand his motivations and occasionally the story does stray from the facts as we know them today.

So is the story worth seeing? Well, yes, though if you are looking for something fun, light or intended to pull you out of a depressed mood, you are certainly considering the wrong picture! The acting is quite good, the direction also quite nice. No complaints about anything other than the liberties taken here and there with the actual facts.

Sometimes, movies that are designated as "classic" suffer from a strange sort of reverse- discrimination. That's probably the reason why it took me so long to actually see this version of "The Crucible", as I thought of it as "old" or "not exciting enough". What I quickly discovered, however, is that Arthur Miller's tale here is truly one for the ages. It's a shame I waited this long to see it!

For a basic plot summary, "The Crucible" is a story set during the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Abigail Williams (Winona Ryder) and a number of her teenaged female friends are screwing around in the woods one night (typical teenage rebellion kind of stuff) when they are discovered and charged as witches. What Abigail and the gang quickly discover is that in front of Judge Danforth (Paul Scofield), "acting the part" of witches gives them a great deal of attention and power. Things get ugly fast and pretty soon the entire community is in an uproar over who may or may not be a witch. Enter John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis) and wife Elizabeth (Joan Allen), a common sense-driven couple who seemingly have the best chance to put an end to this madness. Yet, with John having a shady history with Abigail, they all ended up sucked into the lies and deceit, forcing difficult choices to be made regarding character and honesty.

Not being as much of a theater enthusiast as I am of film/TV, this was just the second Arthur Miller work that I had seen ("Death of a Salesman" with Dustin Hoffman being the first). That playwright has an incredibly keen sense of universal human themes and how to manipulate them to create high drama. Though "Crucible" is set hundreds of years ago, I can confidently say that it will endure (in some form or another) for hundreds of years more. The characters, emotions, and plots feel like they could happen today or tomorrow. This film touches on such common, deep-seated issues as:

-The power of religion (both good and bad) -The effect of mass hysteria on an uneducated community -The propensity of one lie to be followed by more -The lengths humans will go (or the shortcuts we may take) to preserve our names and honor -The conflicting romantic notions of both teenagers and adults

So, despite carrying a reputation that can get a little "weighty", "The Crucible" is really quite a simple film, concocting a plausible scenario and then letting human nature take its course. I recently saw the film "The Witch", a movie that shares much in theme with this earlier effort, and feel that the two measure up to each other quite well. If you enjoyed one, I think you will feel the same for the other.

Overall, I was blown away by the simple, yet spectacular, quality of the writing and acting in "The Crucible". It will stimulate a lot of deep thought on the part of the viewer without getting overly complex or confusing. I think that there will be more Arthur Miller stories in my future!

Written by Arthur Miller & based on his play of the same name, 'The Crucible' offers Great Performances by its terrific cast. While as a film, it engages in parts.

'The Crucible' Synopsis: A salem women accuses her ex lover's wife of witchcraft.

'The Crucible' is masterfully shot by Andrew Dunn & honestly Written by Miller. The Writing appeals in parts, although the slow-pace does hamper its overall impact. Nicholas Hytner's Direction is passable.

'The Crucible' is rich when it comes to performances. Joan Allen is fantastic, while Daniel Day-Lewis is persuasive. Winona Ryder is remarkably credible. Paul Scofield is effortless & classy. Bruce Davison is in brilliant form. Jeffrey Jones & Rob Campbell are fabulous. Peter Vaughan is highly competent.

On the whole, 'The Crucible' has its share of pluses & minuses.

Textbook case of suggestion, coercion, and group psychosis. The girl group, terrified to tell on Queen Bee, slave girl amazed at the reaction of her performance, the " court" giving us the absolute power of religious dogma, and finally the hero, John Proctor standing for truth with a capital T. Very much mirrors what is happening in 2021. Who will be sent to the gallows due to the new religion's mandates?

After watching "The Crucible", my feelings are mixed. This movie was an intense motion picture to watch and even more intense for me to interpret. The story itself is not hard to interpret, but trying to convey my feelings on it is difficult.

The story of "The Crucible" is very basic: a community, mad with hysteria, brings itself to its downfall. The story centers on Abigail Williams, played by Winona Ryder. She was the maid of John Proctor and his wife, Elizabeth, played by Daniel Day-Lewis and Joan Allen. Elizabeth suspects John of adultery with Abigail, so she and John agree to fire her. Abigail resorts to witchcraft to try and win John's heart, but when her uncle (the Reverend of their village's church) witnesses her dancing with other young girls of the community, she and her cousin are set into a panic. Their dancing was believed to be sinful and full of witchery. The next morning, Abigail's cousin Ruth is paralyzed in bed and this confuses the town. They think that the devil is the one to blame. This sets into motion the hysteria and suspicion of witchcraft and communication with the devil. No one in the village was safe from being condemned by Abigail and her dancing friends. The witch hysteria calls for immediate attention. Enter Judge Thomas Danforth, played by Paul Scofield. There are many trials and many innocent people getting accused of witchery, and no one is exempt, not even John or Elizabeth. The inevitable comes to pass.

I thought that this movie was poorly acted. There were some standouts in lead roles, but the supporting roles seemed to have been overlooked. There are four leads in this movie: John Procter, Abigail Williams, Elizabeth Proctor, and Judge Thomas Danforth. John Procter is played with lackluster enthusiasm by the great, two-time Academy Award Winning Daniel Day-Lewis. He seems to lack passion or care until the last scene, but by that time, I had lost hope and resigned myself to his weak performance. It is slightly unfair, though, that I say this, seeing as it was a pretty good performance, but I am naturally going to be biased as I have seen him in so many considerably better performances, some of the best of film ("My Left Foot", "There Will Be Blood", etc.). He should have thought before he set the bar so high for his work. The other bad lead role was Abigail, played horrifically by Winona Ryder. I'll admit, her performance was bad, very bad, but it didn't help that throughout the movie, I despised her character. Even so, I am one to appreciate devious and villainous characters if they are played with villainy and passion. She gave an uninspired performance, to say the least. One of the lead roles that was superbly acted was the role of Elizabeth, played by Joan Allen. She plays her with such subtlety that I couldn't help liking her performance. She was the only member in the cast to receive an Academy Award nomination. The other wonderfully played lead role was the role of Judge Danforth, played magnificently by Paul Scofield. He played Thomas Moore in "A Man For All Seasons", which won him an Academy Award. He is such an implausibly underrated actor; I wish to see him in more roles. He is type-casted in this role, playing another law official, but it's for the better.

The writing is nothing to complain about. It follows fairly accurate with the play, although there are some differences, as you would find with any movie based on a previously written material. This movie, though, has an advantage. It was written by Arthur Miller, the same man who wrote the original play. There weren't too many noticeable differences. One scene played out outside, rather than in the courthouse where it was originally set. The dance of the girls was shown in the film, but in the play it was only talked about, but there weren't too many differences. Naturally, the dialogue was drawn out longer, but the duration of the movie is longer then the duration of the play. I liked the satiric aspect of the movie. If one of the girls had a grudge to bear with any member in town, they would recall an instance in the past that would make officials believe that the person was a witch. I thought that it was funny in a way, but the directing made it less comedic and more pitiful and dramatic. The scenery was dreary and tired and worn down. The filming was bland and forgettable. "The Crucible" lends itself better as a play than a movie. This play was based on an event happening at the time that Miller wrote it.

Senator Joseph McCarthy was spitting out accusations everywhere that people were Communists. If they denied that they were Communists, then they were thought guilty and were declared Communists, but if they admitted to being one, then they were let off the hook. This modern day witch-hunt known as "McCarthyism" mirrors Miller's play almost exactly.

The movie had many flaws. It made me feel uncomfortable and eerie, which makes me not like it, but thinking over that, I realize that that is possibly the director's intention, and if so, then well done. I can only recommend it to people that are interested in the witch-hunts. It wasn't that boring, it was actually entertaining (in a strange way), but it was very predictable. It was a strange movie, the acting was OK, the story is good, but the direction was weak. There were some very tense moments on screen, which made for thrilling cinema, but its faults are greater then its perks, but I think it would be worth it to check it out.

"The Crucible" is slow, but it doesn't make the film bad. It is a very impressing, beautiful, well-acted and well-done film.

The story of passion, lies, madness, witchcraft and tragedy kept my attention. The adaptation of Arthur Miller's play is superb.

Joan Allen deserved her nomination for the Oscar as best supporting actress and Daniel Day-Lewis should have been nominated.

A must see.

Rating: 9/10

The Crucible is gripping, yet it is also frightening and terrible in the inexorable march of its protagonists towards their doom. The story is based on Arthur Miller's rendition of the infamous 1692 Salem witch trials. In this Puritan town, a group of girls are caught dancing and love-spell casting in the woods. To save themselves from being whipped, they claim it was the Devil's doing and furthermore that some of Salem's residents are compacted with Lucifer. But private vengeance is also at work here. The girls' ringleader, Abigail Williams (Winona Ryder) is obsessed with a local farmer (Daniel Day-Lewis) and will stop at nothing to get him for herself. Then the court investigating the claims of witchery begins to proscribe hanging for those who won't 'confess'. . . . . . . . ..

It is unfortunate then, that a movie such as this is marred by several flaws. While it vividly and unnervingly portrays the transformation of a community into warring factions, and ultimately the disintegration into mob-mentality and mass hysteria, it also seems very stagey. You can almost see the notations in the film script - "crowd murmurs in agreement", and so on. Additionally, Day-Lewis, and particularly Ryder, play the entire film at full volume. Thus, several integral speeches get lost in the blast. However, there are some excellent performances from those in the court scenes - the steely remorselessness of Judge Danforth and the pompous and insidious questioning of Judge Hathorne. Fortunately director Nicholas Hytner has moved as much of the action as possible out of doors, which is just as well, for Puritan dwellings are no great objects of beauty.

However, despite its shortcomings and largely unadventurous cinematography, The Crucible is a film that will remain with the viewer long after its dramatic and memorable conclusion. Even in death there is triumph and redemption.

Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible" is a very important allegory that is as relevant today in the post-9/11 world as it was in the 50's during the height of McCarthyism. Yet despite the relevance of the play, it's hard not to view the movie as a letdown. It has Daniel Day-Lewis (perhaps the greatest active actor) in the lead role and the film's voice of reason John Proctor, but even he can seem to make his character wholly believable. It seems as though nearly every character in the film inhabit roles of symbols, rather than real people. The characters act only to underscore Miller's political commentary rather than to deliver a nuanced study of humanity. Characters so quickly devolve into a state of hysteria that it's nearly impossible to believe. Miller and the film's point with this are to show how mob mentality and the basic human instinct to find a culprit in inexplicable circumstances lead people to behave irrationally. But these scenes are completely inorganic and only serve the film's themes, which badly harms its credibility. Despite the seriousness and intended importance of this film, it's hard to take a film seriously that features a dead-pan Daniel Day- Lewis surrounded by dozens of screaming, hysterical individuals. Unfortunately, this film will likely inspire more unintended giggles than deep conversations about human nature.