Rating: 
Summary: Frickin' Freezin' In Here...
Review: Can anyone say, "this book sucks"? I mean, like, oh my god--like, gag me with a wooden spoon! What kind of crack was Arthur Miller smoking when he wrote this tripe? Like, geeze...my stupid English teacher assigned this text to me (I would've preferred to have just read Harry Potter), and I barely finished it...kinda like my boyfriend Rob. He never finishes anything (hah hah hah...lol Rob :) ).
Rating:
Summary: A Play for All Times and Places
Review: Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible" is a play that defies all boundaries of time relevancy. It applies not only to the literal period in which it is placed, but also for other time periods most notably the Red Scare of the 1950's, set off by Senator Joe McCarthy (R-WI). It deals with the idea of hysteria and the terrible concept of guilt by association, and blindly blaming individuals, or blaming them for one's own financial profit. However, the play in and of itself is a great literary work. Miller does an outstanding job to convey the dark, melancholy atmosphere. He also portrays the hysteria of the town very well, chilling sometimes even his reader. Miller does a good job at showing a variety of characters and an intriguing plot. Miller creates a compelling story that explores the basis of a society powered by fear and greed.
Rating:
Summary: The Crucible Review
Review: "The Crucible" was a play that I could really get into. It was very easy for me to visualize the events through Miller's writing. Miller did a very good job of developing the characters. Such characters as Abigail were successfully portrayed as evil. She was corrupt, adulterous, immoral, a liar, and a murderer. Her lies led to the deaths of a number of innocent men and women. On the other hand I was really uplifted by Proctor's character. He was a "good guy" that didn't exemplify the qualities of what most protagonists have. The hero of a story shouldn't be innocent and perfect with no faults as heroes are portrayed in many Disney movies. Proctor made mistakes (his affair with Abigail), isn't a devout Puritan (often skips Church, plows on the Sabbath, and doesn't know ALL the commandments), and he tells it like it is. When questioned about his faith, he tells Hale that the church is corrupt and that he disagrees with Reverend Parris. He well exemplifies a man with good morals, who is sorry for his sins. He dies with dignity. He was smart and knew that the witchhunt was a farce. He knows that he will get his reward in heaven. I believe that despite he didn't fit the qualifications of a prince charming, John Proctor was the hero of "The Crucible."I think that Miller did a very good job of linking the Salem Witch Trials of the 1690s to the Communist Red Scare of the 1950s. Both situations had formidable outside tribes that caused paranoia and trepidation. More than just the factual similarities, Miller is able to go deeper into how people should have reacted. He condemns those who join the bandwagon and try to destroy the heathens or outsiders. Instead he wants us to act as Proctor did and to identify that the chaos is just a farce. He wants us to keep composed and moderate. This play teaches us to look at our own conscience rather than our social status.
Rating: 
Summary: performing betty in the crucible
Review: My name is Marissa and this freshman year of my high school career i am playing betty from the crucible. because of this experience, i have become very familiar with the play. based on the salem witch trials, abigail williams is accused of having been owned by the devil. written in a fascinating way, arthur miller really makes this play an extraordinary doing. i reccomend this book for basically anybody, it is a great type of writing for anyone to read.
Rating:
Summary: A Pleasure in Reading
Review: As usual I stumbled into this one almost by accident. There was a fair of used books at the language institution where I am a teacher of English, and I wound up purchasing a large number of books, and this one was one of them. As I read, I realized that I knew the story, but could not place where I'd seen it. I later remembered the film with the same name starring Daniel Day-Lewis and Wynona Rider, which I thought pretty good at the time. I was not, however, prepared for the literary criticism of the play, which was used by the author as a way to confront the McCarthy days in the US. The play was written in the early fifties,a time when an anti-communist craze was sweeping the nation. Arthur Miller was one of those who fell victim to the HUAC, and he wrote a great piece of art ironizing the situation of his time. In the reader's version, some characters are described by the author in a contemporary way,in which he compares the attitudes of the semi-fictional characters of the play (most of them were true, such as judge Hathorne, an ancestor of Scarlet Letter author Hawthorne) to those who supported Joseph McCarthy and his followers. Of course those are days that are now long gone, but the play is nevertheless awesome and it is a pleasure to read. By the way, if you want to go further, take a look at the film and compare it to what you have read.
Rating:
Summary: A classic - withstands the test of time.
Review: A considerable number of plays from the 50s come across as melodramatic, cynical and stilted today. In contrast, Miller's classic remains powerful and universal - but not for the usual reasons you'd expect. As a drama it has more in common with 19th century works in the tradition of Ibsen or even the novels of Hugo than with the 50s authors like Williams, Beckett, O'Neill, or even the Miller of Death of a Salesmen. Instead of the drab, pathetic, cowardly, sad, sniveling, or absurdist characters of some of his contemporaries we see people of moral stature. People in the mist of an irrational hysteria with normal human frailties but with moral sense. An interesting dimension is added in the portrayal of the villains. At one point in the play it seems expedient for the 'chief inquisitor' to temper or betray his crusade. He chooses to follow his vision (I am being vague to avoid giving away any plot). Compare this to Hugo's Javert in Les Miserables. By writing the villain in such a manner both authors create a drama that pits two moral codes - two views of reality. This elevates Miller's play to the level of a romantic realist drama. Many of the other reviewers will point out the intended parallels to events of the 50s. However, Miller's play is more universal and can be viewed in relation to any fanatical hysteria. This is still timely today given the Politically Correct hysteria on college campuses.
Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece
Review: On par with his classic "Death of a Salesman", Miller brings to life angst and troubles, inner struggle and triumph. A must-read.
Rating:
Summary: A modern classic
Review: This is a truly great play, and what is even better - it is an easy to read great play. I know that it is held up as an allegory for McCarthyism, and that it is studied for that, but as a play it is powerful and emotive without the symbolism. The fact that it refers to real events gives it more of a punch. It is well written, the characters are wonderful, and all in all it is a very worthwhile read.
Rating: 
Summary: Good message, a little slow
Review: I had to read this book for my English class. The book would be much better if we lived in the time that it was supposed to satirize, the 1950's. Arthur Miller depicts the McCarthy era by using the Salem witch trails which is a very effective way of showing the the insaness of McCarthy's ways. The Salem "Witches" portray McCarthy's "communists." It is a good book, but at times it is a little slow and you must trudge on through the book. Overall pretty decent book.
Rating:
Summary: Dramatic Tension At Its Best
Review: For dramatic tension, for a resounding lesson in the ethical treatment of others, this four-act play excels. Set in the 1692 Salem witch trial debacle--a black eye in our heritage--Miller wrote the play parallel to the McCarthy hearings. America in the 1950's was then in the classic, titan struggle against a new threat: Communism. But in 1692, 19 people were executed for the crimes of witchcraft and associating in the black arts. Miller takes this historical arena, stirs in a failed love tryst, and the dramatic tension never lets up. The play is worth studying for several reasons: First, it has a strident moral tone that is extremely important for students to explore. Justice is not always a given in our society, and in the execution of justice, if we lose our sanity, we can err into several pitfalls of bad logic, or fallacies--the fallacies of Bandwagon, Hasty Generalization, False Cause, Two Wrongs Make a Right, and so on. Second, it teaches us our own history, with scars. Third, through Miller's deft use of language, we watch (read) a classicly structured play develop.
|
