MovieChat Forums > The Crucible (1996) Discussion > Why on Earth did people like this movie?...

Why on Earth did people like this movie?!

posted 16 years ago by reddcurry
103 replies | jump to latest

I had to watch it in English class last week because it somehow ties in with Macbeth. I hated it. I don't skip English class but I nearly did I was so bored. I fell asleep and when I woke back up 15 minutes later they were STILL talking about the exact same thing.

And I know you might all think I'm a just a dumb superficial teenager who doesn't appreciate depth or something but I'm quite the opposite. I looked to like the movie, but Winona Ryder was just overacting and intolerable whereas the rest were just... there. Accents were weird, the pacing of the movie was slow and all the names got confusing.

So what did everyone like? How did anyone sit through this movie without wanting to throw a shoe at the screen? I'm not demeaning the play; we haven't even touched it. It's just that now I have to write a movie review and I can't find anything positive to write about.

End Scene.

[–] realpolitik 16 years ago

"Accents were weird, the pacing of the movie was slow and all the names got confusing. "

None of these assertions, without further qualification, is cogent.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gloria Sens 16 years ago

I completely agree with ctownsoldier09, Day-Lewis was wonderful as John Proctor, his last scenes were absolutely impressive.

Finances are like guns,but Politics are like pulling the trigger

[–] patman723 16 years ago

This is the only time Daniel Day Lewis completely overacted. In that last scene where he's like, "IT'S MY NAAAAAAAAAAAAAME!". Awful.

[–] Cyraxote 12 years ago

IN the play, that line is described as "a cry from his soul."

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrAleisterCrowley 11 years ago

Amen, realpolitik. One could of course say this about Ghandi for example. So superficial. Hopefully the op has matured somewhat since 2005 (whenever the op posted)

"Did you ever see a cat's eyes in the dark, and wonder what they were?" -- Mr. Rogers

[–] flametresses 16 years ago

So sorry you had to suffer through it, kid. It's a shame there weren't any CGIs or full frontal nude scenes or money shots. Film was a lot different in 17th century America, didn't they tell you?

Anyway, I personally have made it a ritual to watch this movie every July 4th. Can you figure out why? Post a reply if/when you get it!!

[–] mmdrjm 16 years ago

If you can't take one thing from this movie, take this.....

THANK GOD that in the next century there was a separation of church and state.

[–] flametresses 16 years ago

My point exactly!

[–] keithpchia731 16 years ago

Really? That's why people have to swear on the bible in court? That must also be why religion is interfering with the process of education in public schools?

[–] warrengwonka 12 years ago

Actually, people swear on a Bible in court because it is a binding oath for them. Others may swear in other ways that are equally binding for them. An affirmation has the same legal force as an oath.

[–] keithpchia731 16 years ago

Really? That's why people have to swear on the bible in court? That must also be why religion is interfering with the process of education in public schools?

[–] spikedudley56 16 years ago

Actually you don't have to swear on a bible in court. In order to testify you only need to affirm that you will tell the truth. Swearing on the bible is something that is just shown in movies.

[–] guybland-1 13 years ago

Seems to me the problem wasn't the influence of religion on civil society so much as the pettiness and vindictiveness of human beings.

[–] shellshock-6 12 years ago

Seems to me the problem wasn't the influence of religion on civil society so much as the pettiness and vindictiveness of human beings.

I disagree. How was the judge being petty? And who was there for him to act vindictive towards?

To date we've discovered two letters: A and Z. Is anyone even looking for B through Y?

[–] lewiskendell 8 years ago

I thought the judge was being incredibly petty at the end. After Abigail had run off with the money it was painfully obvious that she had been lying the whole time, but the judge insisted on continuing with confessions and executions in order to not deal with the repercussions of his gullible persecution of innocent people based on the worthless testimony of a vindictive thief. Someone willing to condemn innocent people in order to not look the fool is incredibly petty, among other things.

[–] pcaston21 12 years ago

Agreed, but it should be noted that the purpose of the play was that there no longer was separation of church and state, at least in Arthur Miller's time. This play is a direct corrolation to the Red Scare, Sen. McCarthy, and the mass hysteria of the American public in the 1950s. I hope for the young man's sake who started this thread that his English teacher taught him that.

The point of the entire play was to warn us that this insanity can and still does happen today... most recently with terrorist fright.

[–] schlaflosig 11 years ago

Can you explain how McCarthy reminds you of the story in the movie? Did McCarthy execute someone?

[–] pcaston21 11 years ago

I'm simply stating what Arthur Miller said in interviews and writings. McCarthyism, some of which actually affected Miller, was the driving force of his play.

[–] cinesimonj 11 years ago

Wow.
Now that's brainlessness.

[–] schlaflosig 11 years ago

Wow. Now that's a very intelligent argument.

[–] estcst-3 8 years ago

"THANK GOD that in the next century there was a separation of church and state."

I think you've missed Miller's intent in this play.

[–] Ddey65 8 years ago

I think you've missed Miller's intent in this play.

I don't think there are that many people who truly can, but even then there was a separation of church and state.

My biggest question (although I suspect I should know the answer to this) is about Betty Parris; Why exactly did she suddenly become paralyzed during the forest dance, and try to fly out the window to rejoin her mother in the after world?

[–] estcst-3 8 years ago

"I don't think there are that many people who truly can"

Actually, many do. Miller was using the SWTs as an allegory for McCarthyism. In the case of McCarthyism Miller was essentially saying that the state became "the church*" with all the trappings of a witch hunt.

"even then there was a separation of church and state"

In the 1690s Massachusetts was a colony of England. England, at the time, was most certainly a theocracy even with the trouble between the Anglican church and William III. Even given that William was a very popular monarch among the protestants in his day.

*an institution of faith over an institution of proof.

[–] Ddey65 8 years ago

Actually, many do. Miller was using the SWTs as an allegory for McCarthyism. In the case of McCarthyism Miller was essentially saying that the state became "the church*" with all the trappings of a witch hunt.

That's funny. I thought most people knew that's what it was.

In the 1690s Massachusetts was a colony of England. England, at the time, was most certainly a theocracy even with the trouble between the Anglican church and William III. Even given that William was a very popular monarch among the protestants in his day.

I'm not suggesting that the 1690's were a period where the separation of church and state existed. I'm saying that even during the McCarthy era there was still separation of church and state.

[–] spencersfocus 7 years ago

Just based off the film, I would say that she was just a scared kid, terrified of getting into trouble. The idea of getting in trouble can often be too much for children and as a result they lie. When she was at last all alone with only the other girls from the forest, she woke up, and when threatened with more trouble she acted as if she was afflicted again, in a different way this time, but still in an effort to escape punishment. She just didn't want to take responsibility for her bad behavior.

[–] rich-438 16 years ago

Way to stereotype and generalize there.

This movie was pure and utter crap.

[–] Ddey65 8 years ago

So sorry you had to suffer through it, kid. It's a shame there weren't any CGIs or full frontal nude scenes or money shots.

Really? Because I saw at least two women strip naked during that voodoo ritual dance in the opening scene, and one of them now plays Karen Rooney on "Liv and Maddie."

[–] xmothertheresax 16 years ago

I ahd to watch it in English too, and i read the play. I thought the movie was quite horrible it was dull and yes Winona Ryder did overact. I also thought it made the play look terrible because the actors were dreadful. The only good acting was done by the little girls screaming.

TDG

[–] hesketh27 16 years ago

Yep - your'e right, we do think your'e dumb.

[–] runtheplacered 16 years ago

"Accents were weird, the pacing of the movie was slow and all the names got confusing. "

I am lol'ing.

Amazing. All I really gathered from your post is "I am obsequiouseyes and I have the attention span of a brick."

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shoyt_2001 16 years ago

I'm guessing here that you did not pick up on the core of the story. You ae in high school and yet did not notice how the same things going on in the movie are also reflected in high school relationships.

In every high school in the world there are groups of girls who like to get together and talk about boys they like and want to be with. Boys do the same but in this tale, the girls are the focal point.

Salem was a colony that had strict religious rules for behavior and when the girls just acted like teenage girls, they had to break out of their homes to discuss it. No telephones, chat, myspace, cell calls or text. In order for the girls to discuss girl things they actually had to go out of the house.

When they were found out, talking about boys, in the woods, it was something that meant serious repercussions. IE. the girls were in trouble.

How did the girls get out of trouble? By blaming others, and sticking together with their story.

Don't tell me you have never seen that before.

Circumstances at that very real time and place just led to bigger results than we might see today.

But then again, we see kids killing themselves or others over teenage problems and rumors that they just cannot stand. But in this day and age, we don't usually see more than a dozen people put to death as a result of a few girls trying to cover up their discussions of love interests, and maintaining a good reputation in their community.

The movie shows the constraints of the human condition in that time. How such a thing as 19 people being hung for witchcraft could have really come about as a result of girls, who were just being teenagers, before it turned into a political issue, which the entire community became involved in the choas.

In the small religious community of Salem Ma, it really happened. It continues to happen in the 2000's.

Why is this movie shown in high schools. Hopefully a few people will recognize the facts behind this true tale. Then they will make sure to never be a part of the problem rather than an instigator or contributor. Movies about Germany prior to the WW would show the same things. People don't really change over time, but recognition of behaviors and attitudes can change.

[–] Rachel_Fox 16 years ago

wow, good post! i really couldnt have put it better myself...

to the OP: if you really want to understand the film, don't post here saying how you thought it was absolute cr*p. at least pose a good question for the rest of us to answer. all that will happen otherwise is you will get either other like-minded people posting replies, saying nothing useful, or get shouted down by others.

but that's just me.

[–] ZeoRangerFive 16 years ago

I too saw this in English class back in 2001 and fell in love with the movie. Three simple words: Daniel Day Lewis

He is flat out amazing in his movie!

[–] j_senese 16 years ago

Two simpler words: Rob Campbell

Hail Hale, baby!

[–] Princess2005848 16 years ago

I saw the original black and white teleplay in my junior year of High school, in 1997 (yes I'm old, what's your point). We also read the play in my English class, I fell in love with the story. When the movie came out I bought it and still watch it to this day occasionally. Ok so what's my point? I just disagree with all of you saying it was a boring movie and whoever made the comment about The Crucible being a lot like High school I agree. Though I never realized that.

Oh yes and just so you're all aware I do think Winona Ryder overacted but everyone else did a fine job.

Just a quick question and I'll shut up. Did you ever think that the reason you didn't like the movie is because you didn't try to understand it? You have a brain my friend try using it.

Why must close-minded people always open their mouths?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Doomferret 16 years ago

While you have a point with your criticism of the criticism by the previous poster of the original poster's criticism...

Just because someone has "even written a paper" does not actually suggest any particular level of intelligence aside from the ability to communicate via written language. The ability to "write a paper" really ought to be common to any remotely educated person over the age of say, 15, wouldn't you say?

Do you think there's a whole lot of art critics today judging children's finger painting projects to be high quality contemporary art?

[–] lotrttt 16 years ago

daniel day lewis is hot! that's what got me through the movie! ;)

actually though, i thought it was a good movie. and i wasn't bored.

I LOST

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Doomferret 16 years ago

""Do you think there's a whole lot of art critics today judging children's finger painting projects to be high quality contemporary art?"

I know of a case in Australia where a lady jokingly put her son's finger painting into an art competition expecting some humorous comments to be made, but instead ended winning the competition.

Well, that's one. Not to say it doesn't happen, because I know it does. Merely pointing out that it's not a common practice.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cameronansari 11 years ago

Exactly. Bravo!

[–] dgross-3 11 years ago

>>
"I'm guessing here that you did not pick up on the core" etc.
<<

Now _that_ was one fine post.

[–] blubb06 16 years ago

Because it doesn't star Arnold Schwarzenegger? :-)

[–] crooked_spoons 16 years ago

Well, as far as the accents being weird, remember, these people were colonized descendants of mostly English, Irish and Spanish natives. Over time their accents blended together and voila! There you have it, funny accents.

I'm only 18, but i thoroughly enjoyed the movie for two reasons; A, it gave a purely fictional but descriptive account of why these girls suddenly accused people in the town. And B, proved that circumstances have not much changed in some aspects as far as young naive girls are concerned.

It was basically a case of "she said/she said." Haven't most of us experience something like this? False accusations totally ridiculous in nature and that had the propensity to ruin lives and friendships? So and so said she saw this person doing or saying this or that. Soon enough, everyone takes fiction for fact and it's all downhill from there.

I take a little Chigurh in my coffee.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]