Sophie

=
Explain your use of stage directions in Act 1 (you are Arthur Miller). You should focus on one specific area such as the building of suspense, the relationship between stage directions and tone, stage directions and characterisation e.t.c. ======

= = Though there were many contributing factors for why the play progressed and ended the way it did, I felt like the person who really stimulated and drove the chain of events (plot) forward, was Abigail Williams (niece of Reverend Parris). In the beginning of the play, we are already introduced to her as a character "//with an endless capacity for disassembling//". From this description, we're already able to start **building up** Abigail's character as one who takes satisfaction in breaking whole/content/satisfied ( none of the descriptors work for me) **things** apart (marriges, friendships, **et**.). We can take the Proctors marriage for example. Though Elizabeth admits that, "//it were a cold house I kept"// in reference to her adopted aloof/surly manner towards John during the period after John **beds with** Abigail, it is assumed that their marriage was generally happy before the event occurred. Even if their marriage hadn't been completely happy, to come in and sabotage it (as Abigail did) would be a heartless act of disassembly to say the least.

So from the beginning of the play, we're able to see Abigail as **almost** a home wrecker. We later find out that her hate for the John's marriage is what sparks the first events of the play. As a way of trying to break up the Proctor's marriage, Abigail tries to use Tituba and a **few easily persuaded girls** to help perform "witch magic" to kill Elizabeth, her ex-lover's wife. Though it is true that this event wasn’t necessarily planned with an aim of getting caught and causing a **ruckus** (and that it was merely a coincidence that Reverend Parris happened to stumble upon the gathering), the gathering //is// discovered. This is our first example of how Abigail’s work (and similarly herself) has started the ball rolling for the set of events to come.

Further on in the play, there is example upon example where the set of events could have taken a turn for the better (where the truth could have come out), but Abigail is always the person to exaggerate the story to even further lengths which subsequently continues to build tensions and the shock value of the story. One example is when Abigail sticks her stomach with a needle and claims to have been wounded through a “voodoo doll” controlled by Elizabeth. Another example is when (from out of nowhere) Abigail starts to wail in the courtroom, owing to the fact that she is apparently seeing some sort of devil in the form of Mary Warren.

In comparison, though other characters look like they could have been responsible for the events which happened in the play (for example when Danforth sentences John Proctor to jail which results in his death), the majority of them were just acting in a manner which was honest and true and based information which was publicly true (though it may not have been in reality). However, Abigail is the only character who acts in a way which isn’t based off of the truth. She knows the truth, though feeds of the misperceptions and misunderstandings of the other characters in order to formulate information that suits her best, rather than the community of Salem. Basically she conjures up lies that the unsuspecting public interprets as valid.

Great ideas. At times your writing lacks a sense of literary formality and you could articulate the perceptive ideas you have with a higher level of diction. I have emboldened some words as examples. I also feel further use of quotation to support your points would help and finally you use brackets far too much which interrupts the cohesion of your writing. Good first draft.

Topic 3 - 10th November
 * You are the director of the play. Choose an extract of between 1 and 2 pages from anywhere in the play and write a short paragraph explaining how you would direct this extract to convey an underlying sense of tension and hysteria. **

(Pages 20-22) Escalating emotion and hysteria This scene is directly after Abigail, Mary and the other girls go to Betty’s room. Abigail is trying to get Betty out of her “trance” and knock some sense into her. Instead, Betty wakes, starts wailing and tries to jump out of the window with aspirations of flying, all the while wailing and subsequently disturbing the church processions, sending all church attendees out of the church and onto the scene (yes, that was an extreme run on sentence). John Proctor rushes to the scene to see what is happening. Whilst leaving, Abigail approaches him behind the house, where his horse is tied up. In this scene, it’s the first instance where we get to see some interaction between Abigail and John Proctor, two of the main characters in the story. Since the whole story is based around their affair, I thought that it would be really important to have a scene where we could clearly see the reason why the rest of the story unfolds and proceeds in the manner it does. It needed to show the Abigail’s stubborn, desperate nature and lust towards John, coupled with his slightly playful attitude towards her, and yet his stern aggressive side as well. This scene is mean to start of with a playful, casual atmosphere, then quickly escalate to a more hysterical, emotion-ridden one. We start off with both characters standing at a comfortable, friendly distance away from each other, with John untying his horse and Abigail approaching him. The conversation is at a medium volume, and both characters are being friendly. Soon, Abigail tentatively inches closer and slightly lowers her voice, all the while turning the conversation into more of a flirty banter. This is in hopes of spurring desire and lust in John. However, John’s manner should stay constant and unaffected, as if he is trying to resist Abigail’s flirty, provocative mannerisms by staying friendly and apparently “unaware”. John’s unaffected manner should change Abigail’s playful coyness into more direct advances. She should try moving in even closer and slightly raising her voice into a more accusative tone, since she is slightly angered at John’s un-interest. Rather than flirty banter, her words turn more hostile, since she is angry that John will not reciprocate her apparent advances. She does not understand why John does not want her back, since she is still obviously lovesick with him. John’s manner also changes at this point, by making his words more hostile and threatening. Because he is obviously in denial of his involvement with a younger woman who was not his wife, he lowers his voice, though keeps a tone of anger. At this point, both characters are quite close to each other, although for different reasons. Abigail lusts for his touch, and so being close is a step in the right direction, whereas John wishes to keep his voice low and make close direct eye contact so that Abigail will perhaps feel the seriousness in his threatening manner. In the end, both characters are hysterical (though quiet) and angered, though for different reasons. John is angered because Abigail will not stop advancing and pestering him, whilst Abigail is angered because her lover will not have her anymore.

 Topic 4 - Friday, 13th November Having just watched the film version of the film 'The Crucible' please write a paragraph focusing on how far you feel the film adaptation follows Miller's original play. Perhaps choose one area you can hone in on i.e. character, theme, atmosphere, structure e.t.c. I surprisingly thought that the movie managed to stay quite close and true to the book, a phenomenon which doesn’t happen very often whilst transferring a play or book into a movie. Perhaps it was the book’s engaging plot, or its precise and detailed stage directions, but it seemed as though the directors felt like there was no need to add extra embellishments or additions to the storyline. However, there were 2 elements to the movie which weren’t played out as I had imagined they would.

The first part of the play which surprised me was John Proctor, one of the protagonists of the play. In the movie, John is shown as a brawny, hard working, strong spoken man, who has been tanned by toiling out in the hot sun. Conversely, I had imaged whilst reading the book, for John Proctor to be a clean cut, pasty, more tempered individual. In actuality, Proctor’s character in the movie was nearly the opposite (at least appearance wise).

Though I’m sure the intent of the director was to emulate the same character that was described in the book, his interpretation turned out to be quite different than mine. Mr. Proctor may have also been casted in this way (by choosing a quite attractive muscular man) in order to appeal to a wider demographic. //*On a sidenote: I felt as though the movie also managed to give the characters traits which the book didn’t necessarily intend the characters to have, though these developments were mainly based upon the actors who played them. //  The second element of the movie which surprised me was setting. Conceivably it was just my personal interpretation, but I had imagined the physical town of Salem to be very different from the village the movie depicted. Originally whilst reading the book, I had envisioned the town to be smaller, and sleepier than the town in the movie. I had also expected the town to have been shot in darker, mistier weather, somewhere perhaps shrouded or on the edge of a dark forest.

In conclusion, I felt that the movie stayed relatively close to the original, with a few exceptions such as setting and the character John Procter. In general however, I feel that we can deduce that these adaptations are a testament to the fact that everyone interprets things differently.

__ Topic 5 - Monday 16th November __ Find one article or research paper on The Crucible from the Literary Reference Center which you agree or disagree with and write a one paragraph response explaining why or why not. Make sure you are presenting your own ideas rather than simply summarising the article. “Re (dis)covering the witches in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible: A Feminist Reading.” The authors viewpoint in the article, “Re (dis)covering the witches in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible: A Feminist Reading” can be summed up in one of the first sentences in her piece, “The Crucible is evidence that Miller partakes of similar fears about wicked, angry, or wise women”. This statement conveys the feeling that Miller perceives women in an evil, conniving light, however I strongly disagree with this testament. In the play, “//The Crucible//” Miller has given these “evil, conniving” characteristics to only **one** woman in this play, the character of Abigail. Contrary to the beliefs of the author, I believe the purpose for doing this was to illustrate a point about society in general, and the power individuals (be it a male or female) can have. Abigail can twist and contort the truth to her advantage, and in doing so is able to make everyone forget the long standing deputations of everyone in the society. I felt that the fact that Miller chose this character to be a woman in fact shows the opposite to what the author said. Miller’s choice in gender exemplifies shows how he believes that women should not be underestimated, and can take on the same important, power roles which men traditional have in society. The author’s viewpoint is also skewed since she has generalized all mone’s character in the play to be like Abigail’s character, when in reality we must taken into consideration all female characters. When we do, we see the range of female characters which Miller had created, from the honorable female roles in the play, such as Rebecca Good and Elizabeth Proctor, to the easily swayed character of Mary Warren, to the infamous throng of irritatingly naive girls. These characters are also concrete evidence that Miller did not believe that women were only “wicked, angry” individuals.

In conclusion, we can also see how Miller did not believe that women were a “wicked” or “evil” sex through his usage of varied female characters. (The author’s view many have also been slightly skewed because she is a feminist and writing to a feminist audience, thus she wants to satisfy the demands of her audience and Miller out to be an anti-feminist).
 * Furthermore, historically speaking, Miller has written numerous other books and plays where the main roles have been filled and written for strong, virtuous females.

Sophie, some really illuminating and honest responses to the play and I am genuinely impressed by your honesty and enthusiasm (demonstrated in your feedback paragraphs). At times your ideas appear just a little superficial and would gain greatly from better use of quotation to thoroughly support your ideas. Think about the structuring of your paragraphs and try and read them from an external point of view to make sure your points and arguments are developed in depth. Generally pretty good - although the first paragraph response seems to be missing.

__ Knowledge and Understanding - 4 __ __ Appreciation of Literary Features __ - 4 __ Interpretations of the Text - 3 __