Winona is just awful. - The Crucible (1996) Discussion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Linda1973 13 years ago

I thought this was one of Winona's best performances ever. The entire cast was amazing.

reply

I always give Winona an A for effort in a period piece. She tries, and I think that show through, but up against DDL in a 17th century movie? No contest there.

In my eyes shes a modern actress.

reply

[–] rrodriguezcpa 9 years ago

She played DDL's love interest, 3 years earlier, in 1993's period piece, "The Age of Innocence". Winona was nominated for Best Supoorting Actress. Her chemistry with DDL was wonderful

reply

[–] brockmeeks 8 years ago

Not even a touch over-the-top? 

I thought that the supporting nom in Age of Innocence should have went to Miriam Margolyes....

Great chemistry with DDL, but do you think that's hard to do circa 1990-anything?

reply

[–] Drewy 12 years ago

I thought this was one of Winona's best performances ever. The entire cast was amazing.

Absolutely. Winona's performance was very strong - and clearly the performance demanded by her director and, to a certain extent, her screenwriter.

Her accent is good - many of the posters here expecting that 17th century Americans spoke like 21st century Americans are so far from reality.

Did some of the cast over-act as they have been accused on these boards? Possibly, but if ever a role demanded overacting this was it. The girls are feigning possession and many of the characters are caught up in mass hysteria. Several are fighting for their lives. Of course they will show strong emotion.

A couple of the actors in this cast ended their careers with The Crucible. They can be justifiably proud.

reply

[–] slimone (7996) 6 years ago

Very well written Drewy, I agree 100%

reply

[–] LieutenantRyder 11 years ago

i have to disagree actually, i thought Winona was excellent.

reply

[–] simonrosenbaum 11 years ago

Probably her best performance by a country mile.

reply

[–] Lets_talk_about_that 11 years ago

Winona's performance was incredible. She's at her best in the upper room of Reverend Parris' house talking to him ("There be no blush upon my name, sir.") and later when she's up there alone with Betty and the other girls. It's an incredible scene. She smashes Betty across the face and screams "Your mother is DEAD and BURIED!" Then her most amazing moment is when she threatens the other girls with what is probably the most powerful piece of dialogue in the whole film:

"We danced - That is all.
Now mark this, all of you:
If anyone breathe a word -
or the edge of a word -
about the other things,
I will bring with me a pointy reckoning that will shudder you.
And you know I can do it.
I saw Indians smash my parents head on the pillow next to me,
and I have seen some REDDISH work done at night.
I can make you wish you never saw the sun go down."

Amazing, I get chills just thinking about Winona's delivery.

And then when she's with John Proctor, cooing and melting like jello:
"Give me a soft word, John..."

"I see you sweating like a stallion whenever I draw near."

John: "We never touched."
Abigail: "Aye...but we did."

"I am but God's finger, John."

Her performance in this movie is insanely good, I would even say it makes the film.

This isn't a regular movie. We're talking about a play that was based on an archetypal American event in the 1600s. The protagonists are all puritans from hundreds of years ago. The performances are not going to be normal everyday conversations. This material is more like Shakespeare, it's very powerful and very dramatic, and the performances reflect that, especially Winona (and Frances Conroy as Ann Putnam was also incredible as well).

Go scratch!

reply

[–] Domwood_Weems 7 years ago

I totally agree! Very well said.

reply

[–] mikimcsween 10 years ago

What were you smoking when you wrote this?
Winona was outstanding. She played it so well I actually hated her with a passion in the film.

reply

[–] puirt-a-beul 10 years ago

I agree, IcedStar. She shouts a lot, but for me her emotions don't ring true.

She's Acting with a capital A.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

[–] jdchisholm 9 years ago

I agree, Winona was awful with her overacting and melodrama. She was not a good fit for this movie at all.

reply

[–] littlenightmusic-15077 9 years ago

But all those girls were ACTING. That as the point.
I thought Winona was quite wonderful.

I thought it was interesting, her change of character, accusing the minister's wife and being told she is WRONG ... then everyone outside walks around her, goes the other way, and she knows she's in big trouble.

reply

[–] janet-conant 8 years ago

I didn't think anyone could have done a better job with Abigail than Winona Ryder. I'm pretty good and seeing right through bad acting and Winona was brilliant playing her. She had to be coy with Procter and then accusing and spiteful as she led the girls into seeing things that weren't there. Imagine being just a nameless female back then and then having the power to "bewitch" a whole village including the magistrates from Boston. Winona even had the look of a temptress back in that century. Great acting all around especially Joan Allen.

reply

[–] tonik_2000 8 years ago

I totally agree. I share your sentiments every time I see this broad in a movie. She may be almost nearly cute but she belongs nowhere near acting.

reply

[–] jdchisholm 8 years ago

Winona isn't a bad actress. So was wrong for this movie. Even the movie itself wasn't great. Daniel Day Lewis was the only thing that saved this.

reply

[–] JaneThree 8 years ago

I agree she was pretty terrible. Not for a single second did I believe she was that girl living in that period of time. However, the way the character was directed I think would have been on the right track for Abigail if Ryder were better. Most of the time, in many productions, Abigail is super aggressive to the point you'd think Proctor would run for his life and you wonder how they ever hooked up. It's the Puritan era, a 17 year old girl acting like a sex kitten is a WTF. Here, you can see that Abigail is trying to charm him a little bit, smiling and so forth, as she must have done when she worked in the house. And then she's very direct when she makes a move (grabbing his crotch, and later, grabbing his hand and putting it on hers). But that makes sense - they don't have movies to watch or books to read about how to put some finesse in sex, and Abigail only knows what she did, not how people in love do it.

But there is no sexual charge anywhere in the movie. None of the characters have chemistry with each other, which hurts it, and none of the characters seem to have chemistry with their characters. I think nobody plays their parts with any heart.

reply