The Grey Wolf Devours The King

7/10/2016
The Grey Wolf Devours The King: Arthur Millers The Crucible (2016) | Linnet Moss
Linnet Moss ~ On books, food, wine and beautiful men
The Grey Wolf Devours The King: Arthur Millers

The Crucible(2016)
31 Thursday Mar 2016
POSTED BY LINNETMOSS IN REVIEWS: BOOKS, THEATER, FILM
12 COMMENTS
Tags
Alsace, Arthur Miller, Ben Whishaw, Broadway, Ciarn Hinds, Jim Norton, The Crucible
Belgian director Ivo Van Hove is known for avant garde theatre, but although this production (which
we saw toward the end of previews) aims to upset our received notions of the play, I would not call it
experimental. Still, readers of the play know that Arthur Miller attempted a greater degree of control
than most playwrights have, by including extensive stage directions, backstories and appearance of the
characters, set descriptions, and even commentary on the plays meaning. This metaplay material is
extremely valuable in understanding Millers vision, yet a truly great play must work independently; it
must lend itself to re-interpretation, just as Shakespeare and Sophocles do. The Crucible passes this test.
Abigail (Saoirse Ronan) with Betty Parris (Elizabeth Teeter) and Mary Warren (Tavi Gevinson). Photo by
Jan Versweyveld.
12
https://linnetmoss.com/2016/03/31/the-grey-wolf-devours-the-king-arthur-millers-the-crucible-2016/#comments
1/20
7/10/2016
12
Director Van Hove and set designer Jan Versweyveld have set aside much of the metaplay, while
addingsubtle layers of seventeenth-century Calvinist culture in New England. The results are
sometimes startling, but always fascinating. The Long-Suffering Husband and I had the advantage of
having recently attended a more traditional staging of the play in Cleveland (which we greatly admired).
Thus we were able to compare the two versions, and the audience reactions to them. The most obvious
shift from Millers original intention for the play is the modern costumes and set. Usually the costumes
for The Crucible are at least vaguely old time and rural, given that John Proctor and his neighbors are
farmers, and the women wear head coverings and long skirts in drab colors to convey the Puritanism of
late seventeenth-century Salem. This production garbs the teenaged accusers in what look to North
American eyes like drab Catholic schoolgirl uniforms (grey pleated skirt, knee socks, buttoned shirt,
cardigan sweater). The men wear suits or trousers and shirts in rough fabrics of earth tones and black.
Their wives wear skirts or culotte-like trousers, with a sweater or shirt and jacket. There are no head
coverings for the women, and their hair is loose.
Loose hair and modern clothing bring the production unmistakably into the present, yet its seventeenthcentury roots are not erased. Photo by Jan Versweyveld.
The music by Philip Glass is varied. It starts out with the sound of a chorus of girls singing a hymn (a
psalm?), then moves to a mournful cello, a male chorus, a solo female voice. The main motif is the cello
with a drumbeat which grows at times to resemble a heartbeat, or the steady thud of the march to the
scaffold. At the very end, Ben Whishaw sings Psalm LXIX as he moves offstage to be hanged: Into deep
waters I am come The rst time I watched the play, I sometimes found the music distracting, for it
continues as the characters are speaking. The second time, I found that it increased the suspense and
dramatic power, especially toward the end.
The Crucible is often presented in the round, which I nd very effective, so I wondered what it would
look like on a traditional proscenium stage. The large number of characters is a challenge. Van Hove
has cut back the number onstage at any one point, and he blocks it so that the characters either arrange
themselves symmetrically, spread out across the stage, or form tight clusters within the large, expansive
space of the set. Only at points of stress does the blocking feel chaotic or even naturalistic; more often it
is stylized and formal.
2/20
7/10/2016
The Crucible set and costumes (2016). Photo by Antoine Courtray (Instagram).
Versweyvelds set is stripped down, but not quite as much as in A View From the Bridge. It is
recognizable as a schoolroom, or perhaps a large multipurpose room in a schoolnot unlike those in
any large institution built in the 1960s or 70s. Along the back wall is a small porcelain sink, and large air
vents; on the left is a bank of windows, and on the right a single door through which all the characters
make their entrances and exits. In case there is any doubt about the school environment, the curtain rst
rises on a group of girls sitting at desks, facing away from the audience, singing softly. They gaze at a
large chalkboard hung on the back wall, on which is written:
The DutifulChilds Promises
I Will fear GOD, and honour the KING.
I will honour my Father & Mother.
I will Obey my Superiours.
I will Submit to my Elders,
I will Love my Friends.
I will hate no Man.
This is a quotation from The New England Primer, the most-read book in Puritan Massachusetts after
the Bible. (The original includes additional lines.) In spite of the modernized dress and environment, we
are not so very far from the Puritans in spirit; the Dutiful Childs Promises are a sort of junior version of
the Ten Commandments, which have such an important role in the text of the play (just as the Psalms are
mentioned in the text, and realized in the music). After this initial, brief look at the set, which is slightly
obscured by a light screen of the type used in windows, the curtain descends again. When it nally rises
for the rst scene, the desks have been stacked at the side of the room. A few chairs are scattered about,
and candles are lit. We see Reverend Parris (a suitably craven Jason Butler Harner) holding his limp
daughter in his arms, before placing her on a table as Tituba enters to speak the rst words of the play:
My Betty be hearty soon?
3/20
7/10/2016
Throughout the play, the same set is used; only a few props are introduced in order to suggest other
venues. This works very well for the judicial proceedings, since it is easy to imagine the schoolroom
being used as a makeshift court. It is less successful as Reverend Parris house (indicated by the candles
and Bettys table/bed) and as the home of John and Elizabeth Proctor (indicated by a large stockpot
cooking over a portable propane burner on a cart.) On the other hand, the spare set is successful in
conveying a Puritan atmosphere barren of luxuries. The chalkboard is the most creative and dynamic
prop: initially an orderly list, it graduallly lls with a chaotic babel of words and drawings as the play
progresses: Proctor writes the Ten Commandments (minus a critical one); Mary Warren writes I cannot,
I cannot, I cannot, and strange grafti ll the empty spaces. Characters lean against the board and come
away, their clothing tainted with chalk. By the plays end, the neat schoolroom has become a shambolic
mess, like the community it was built to serve.
Abigails dark blue sweater reveals the chalk clinging to it, just as Danforths dark overcoat does, later in
the show. Photo by Jan Versweyveld.
The Cleveland production we saw last year added one complicating element, the casting of AfricanAmerican actors as John and Elizabeth Proctor. Although the rest of the cast was racially mixed (at least
one of the accusing girls was black), the judges were all white males. Therefore the sight of John Proctor
thrown into chains and tortured was a provocative one for the American audience. In this Broadway
production, however, the cast is racially mixed, but with a different subtext in the distribution of roles.
The diversity increases the universality of the allegory, with actors of varying physical types, and two
interracial couples (the Proctors and the Nurses). Still, the text itself is anything but racially neutral.
Tituba (Jenny Jules), who is according to Millers text a Negro slave of the Reverend Parris, expresses
deep hostility toward her master, and it is suggested that he regularly beats her. Abigails contemptuous
line They want slaves, not such as I. Let them send to Barbados for that. I will not black my face for any
of them! is also retained in this production.
The most radical piece of casting is Ben Whishaw as John Proctor. According to Miller, Proctor is
powerful of body and he is typically cast as a large, muscular manto great effect. Usually one can
feel him straining to hold himself back when he is tempted to use force against his enemies (as when
they come to arrest his wife). Instead, the slight Whishaw looks almost emaciated. There is no attempt to
4/20
7/10/2016
hide this; instead, at the end of Act Two, after Elizabeth has been arrested, he removes his jacket and
shirt and stands facing the windows: We are only what we always were, but naked now. Aye, naked!
And the wind, Gods icy wind, will blow! This prophecy is fullled quite literally, through a piece of
stagecraft, so that a stormwind full of debris blasts through the windows and hits his slender body.
Proctors physical vulnerability poignantly mirrors his emotional statehes like a young King Lear. Up
to this point, thanks to Whishaws commanding voice and stage presence, he has seemed condent, and
as Miller calls him, one who has a biting way with hypocrites. From now on, he is caught in a deadly
struggle with little to rely on but his wits and his force of willmasculine physical intimidation is not an
option. Interestingly, however, Whishaws slightness allows the director to have him physically confront
several of the other actors without seeming like a brute. He twice manhandles Abigail rather
provocatively (the second time, she climbs on top of him and starts delivering punches), tackles Mary
Warren, and even charges Deputy Governor Danforth during the confession scene, knocking him to the
ground.
John Proctor (Ben Whishaw) grabbing Mary Warren (Tavi Gevinson). Photo by Jan Versweyveld.
Sophie Okonedo has the difcult task of actually going against the text (and Millers very explicit
stage directions) to make Elizabeth Proctor unexpectedly warm and welcoming toward John. In turn,
this makes him a less sympathetic character. When he blames her for being cold and withdrawn toward
him (Elizabeth, your justice would freeze beer!), you can tell he is projecting his own anger at himself
onto her.
5/20
7/10/2016
Sophie Okonedo (photo from The Crucible website).

Saoirse Ronan as Abigail, however, is quite traditionalvicious toward her enemies, and very
seductive toward Proctor. In spite of what we have read in some of the interviews about Abigail as a
child who has been hurt and victimized, I didnt see much of a vulnerable side to her. It is important to
remember that Abigail has been brutalized by the murder of her family before her eyes, and Millers
stage directions suggest that she is deluding herself, that she actually believes her own accusations. But
her experiences have made her undeniably cruel, and Ronans Abigail seems hard as nails, especially
when turning those laser-blue eyes on anyone likely to get in her way. Van Hove takes advantage of this
by having her sit in a chair facing Mary Warren during their interrogation by Danforth. Abigail stares
across, her eyes blazing. Mary (an excellent Tavi Gevinson) looks terried, and I dont blame her. One
aspect of the staging which I thought worked well was to have Abigail stand in the background, beside
the chalkboard, during long stretches when the grownups are arguing. You can almost see the scheme
taking shape in her head, as she listens to their petty charges and countercharges.
6/20
7/10/2016
Abigail prays as Danforth looks on. Note the placement of the two chairs. Photo by Sara Krulwich (New
York Times).
This production stays serious and the actors do not often exploit the laughs in the textexcept for
Giles Corey (the wonderful Jim Norton), who is inherently a comic character, but also quite
believable in his litigiousness and stubborn refusal to give in to his tormentors. More weight,
reported by Elizabeth as his last words when being pressed with stones, has got to be the best line an
actor never spoke. I noticed that certain religion jokes which drew hearty laughs in the Cleveland
production (The Devil can never overcome a minister or We are not Quakers here yet, Mr. Proctor)
were barely recognized by the New York audience. Although Brenda Wehle is sympathetic and dignied
as Rebecca Nurse, she doesnt manage enough tartness to convince us that she has twenty-six
grandchildren. When Ann Putnam dramatically announces My Ruth is bewildered; she cannot eat,
Rebeccas wry Perhaps she is not hungered yet ought to be a slam dunk, but it falls at.
7/20
7/10/2016
Jim Norton, who plays Giles Corey. Photo from The Crucible website.
Between Act One and Act Two, the curtain rises unexpectedly on a singular vision, of Betty Parris
oating silently in midair. Although this is not the only indication of supernatural activity in the
staging of the play, it is the most dramatic one (other eerie effects are achieved by projection of lights
onto the chalkboard at strategic moments, and by the supernatural icy wind that sweeps through John
Proctors house). The ying girl leaves virtually no doubt that in this play, witchery is real. What, then,
of Millers famous debunking of mass hysteria? As a matter of fact, I think this is a case where Van Hove
is cleaving quite closely to Millers ideas. When the play rst appeared, the analogy between witch
hunts and Red baiting was criticized because Communists actually existed (and presumably posed a
threat to the status quo) while witches did not. But Miller wrote, I have no doubt that people were
communing with, and even worshiping the Devil in Salem. The fact that in this production the witch
hunters are ferreting out a real threat to their culture forces us to the realization that their dilemma is
indeed our own: how far are we willing to go (for example) in pursuit of terrorists? Are we willing to
accept accusations as proof? In order to protect ourselves from hidden enemies, are we willing to
practice torture and call it righteous? To sacrice the innocent, that we may punish the guilty?
One line which does draw a laugh is Elizabeths comment to John, You have a faulty understanding
of young girls. Ben Whishaw ably conveys the tragic aw that brings Proctor down: his inability to
deny Abigail her promise, or to call her out as a liar until it is too late. This error arises partly from
Johns continuing desire for Abigail, partly from his wounded pride at having to keep abasing himself
for a wife he (wrongly) perceives as unforgiving, and partly from his misunderstanding of female
psychology. The scene of Elizabeths arrest changes all that. John Proctor is still contemptuous of the
witch hunt, but now he fully grasps the danger. The Proctor of the text, at least as I read him, is most
agonized by the idea that his virtuous wife will suffer for his sin; once again he will be the blameworthy
instrument of harm to her, and his pride can scarcely sustain this knowledge. In this production,
Proctors pain is at least asfocused on fear for his wife, whom he has belatedly realized how much he
loves. They part after a close embrace (not indicated in the text, which instead states that Proctor cannot
bear to look at her as she decides she must go). The trauma restores to them a physical intimacy which
had been almost irrevocably lost.
After the intermission, as Act Three is starting, Van Hove adds a visual element which is absent from
the text. A wolike dog emerges from the back of the set and snufes its way back and forth. It works its
way downstage and stares out into the audiencean eerie effect. Suddenly Giles Coreys shout is heard
offstage and the animal rushes off to the right. The wolf heralds the advent of Deputy Governor
Danforth, the judge who will dominate the second half of the play. My theory is that the wolf is a
8/20
7/10/2016
symbolic evocation of the trial and testing which is about to take place. In the language of alchemy, the
purication of gold (the King) in the crucible is achieved with the help of antimony (the Wolf).
When heated with gold, antimony eats into the metal and brings its impurities to the surface where they
can be skimmed off. When the mixture is heated further, the antimony itself evaporates, leaving pure
gold. This process was referred to as The Grey Wolf Devours the King and was illustrated most
famously in Michael Maiers Atalanta Fugiens, published in 1617. Not coincidentally, the seventeenth
century was the great age of alchemy, an occult art embraced by the Puritans and practiced extensively
at Harvard College, alma mater of the Reverend Parris in the play. Furthermore, William Stoughton, the
most prominent judge in the historical Salem witch trials, and the single most important model for the
composite character of Deputy Governor Danforth, is known to have practiced alchemy.*
The Grey Wolf Devours the King: illustration of the purication of gold by Michael Maier, Atalanta
Fugiens, emblem 24. In the background, the King (Gold) is revived and the Wolf (Antimony) is
sublimated in the re.
Act Three introduces Danforth, the man who will subject John Proctor to the crucible and reveal
whether he is made of true gold or base metal. Danforth (Ciarn Hinds) is described by Miller as a
grave man in his sixties, of some humor and sophistication that do not, however, interfere with an exact
loyalty to his position and his cause. Miller has also been quoted as saying that Danforth (not Abigail)
is the true villain of the piece: His evil is more than personal, it is nearly mythical. He does more evil
than he knows how to do Ciarn Hinds, however, says that he doesnt see Danforth as a villain, but
one who stands onthe law, a manwho has a super belief in God and righteousness, but not a
particularly bad human being.**
9/20
7/10/2016
Ciarn Hinds in Shetland (2016).

Danforth is no hysterical zealot, and certainlyconsiders himself a fair-minded and impartial jurist.
His failure is that he cannot separate himself from the court; a threat to one is a threat to the other.
Hinds plays him as a commanding type, accustomed to deference, respect and obedience, yet instantly
alert to anything that might undermine his (or the courts) position. We understand this from the
moment he asks Francis Nurse Do you know who I am? (a question he repeats in the nal
confrontation with Mary Warren). Old Giles Corey doesnt threaten him, but Proctor and Mary Warren
certainly do. Right from the start, before he even knows the nature of Proctors evidence, he tries to
suppress it. For any actor, the challenge of playing Danforth is to reconcile the way he manipulates the
law to serve his own ends with his clear conviction that he is upright and fair. Can anyone truly be that
blind to his own partiality? Danforth is sometimes played as a slightly dim buffoon, but Hinds portrays
him as an intelligent and decent man with good intentions, who simply cannot see past the weighty
barriers of self-regard which he has erected. Toward the end, when Abigail absconds and Danforths case
has become riddled with holes, a few signs of cognitive dissonance are visible in his eyes, but by that
point there is too much at stake too many have died at his hands for him to permit himself any
doubt.
Early in the trial scene, Proctor encourages Mary Warren. Photoby Jan Versweyveld.
10/20
7/10/2016
Deputy Governor Danforth (Ciarn Hinds, right) observes Proctor and a frantic Mary Warren. Reverend
Hale (Bill Camp) stands in the background. Photo by Jan Versweyveld.
One of the most uncomfortably funny moments in the play is when Cheever, Hathorne, Parris and
Proctor debate whether Goody Proctor may have secreted poppets in her house, all unseen. Danforth
paces up and downstage, listening gravely as the men cluster anxiously about him, advancing their
weighty legal arguments about dolls:
Cheever: She said she did keep poppets when she were a girl.
Proctor: She has not been a girl these fteen years, Your Honor.
Hathorne: But a poppet will keep fteen years, will it not?
Proctor: It will keep if it is kept, but Mary Warren swears she never saw no poppets in my house, nor anyone else.
Parris: Why could there not have been poppets hid where no one ever saw them?
Proctor (furious): There might also be a dragon with ve legs in my house, but no one has ever seen it!
Between them, Proctor and Mary Warren succeed in shaking Danforths condence. Precisely in order
to uphold his sense of self, to salvage his belief in the justice of the court, he must question Abigail,
warning her with unconscious irony that to God every life is precious, and his vengeance is terrible on
them that take life without cause. Abigail boldly turns on Danforth, and now we nally sense that her
viciousness results from the horrors and injustices of her own life:
I have been hurt, Mr. Danforth, I have seen my blood runnin out! I have been near to murdered every day because
I done my duty pointing out the Devils people and this is my reward?
11/20
7/10/2016
Abigail falls back on the supernatural, pretending (?) to feel an icy wind, and Proctor is forced to
play his last card. Suddenly he cries Whore! on Abigail and admits his guilty knowledge of her; the
two grapple and roll on the oor. With this seismic revelation, all Hell literally breaks loose so that the
very beams of the schoolroom seem to be falling. A shocked Danforth must reckon anew with evidence
of Abigails duplicity, but he devisesa test which he knows is rigged in his favor: he gives Elizabeth the
choice whether to damn her husband, without knowing whether he has incriminated himself. When
Elizabeth lies to protect John, Danforth seizes on this fragile evidence as solid proof. Abigail and her
minions quickly move to discredit Mary, driving her to a frenzy by mimicking everything she says. Yet it
is not they, but Danforth who breaks her in the end:
You will confess yourself or you will hang! Do you know who I am? I say you will hang if you do not open with
me!
Marys decision to repudiate John Proctor is clearly motivated by self-preservation: Ill not hang with
you! I love God! I love God! But her re-absorption into Abigails orbit is marked by a supernatural light
effect, a hundred tiny photons exploding from her as she is propelled against the chalkboard by an
unseen force. Mary has no more strength to resist, and the Devil rejoices.
At this point I should recognize Bill Camps outstanding performance as Reverend Hale, the
witchcraft expert who (unlike Danforth) comes to acknowledge both the hollowness of the trials and his
own responsibility in sending innocent people to their deaths. The Crucible may be John Proctors story,
but Hale experiences his own tragic arc, ultimately disowning the proceedings and praying with the
convicted, urging them to confess and save their own lives. It is this seductive offer which John Proctor, a
man with a powerful will to live, nds so tempting.
Bill Camp, who plays Reverend Hale. Photo from The Crucible website.
Among several cuts in this streamlined production of the play is the beginning of Act Four, when
Tituba and Sarah Good are shown being moved from their cell by a drunken Herrick. Instead, the act
begins when Danforth learns of Hales activities among the condemned, and of what ought to be the
nal conrmation of Abigails fraud: she and Mercy Lewis have stolen Parris money and run away.
Instead of ending the madness or acknowledging doubt, Danforth grows evenmore implacable:
Postponement now speaks a oundering on my part; reprieve or pardon must cast doubt upon the guilt of them
that died till now. While I speak Gods law, I will not crack its voice with whimpering I should hang ten
thousand that dared to rise against the law, and an ocean of salt tears could not melt the resolution of the statutes.
12/20
7/10/2016
Danforth puts his faith in principles rather than people, with the resultthat he is renderedblind to
suffering. (The character strongly reminds me of Saint Thomas More, another man who never doubted
that he was acting righteously when he tortured and killed heretics.) The rich poetry in his lines wars
with the realism of Hinds performance, yetthis marriage of the mythic and the particular is
characteristic of Millers work.
The problem for the judges, as the craven but practical Reverend Parris points out, is that several
respected citizens will be going to their deaths unconfessed, which casts doubt on the proceedings as
surely as a reprieve or pardon could. Therefore it is essential that at least one of the prisoners confess
and (preferably) implicate the others, and so the nal conict of The Crucible is played out. Danforth has
the pregnant Elizabeth Proctor brought in to soften her husbands resolution, and the two are left
alone for a few precious moments. When we see that the prisoners are lthy and dishevelled, and that
John has been ogged till his back is in bloody shreds, the modern dress and setting suddenly dissolve
into the seventeenth century or do they?
Elizabeth Proctor (Sophie Okonedo) and John Proctor (Ben Whishaw) in the nal scene. Photo by Jan
Versweyveld.
13/20
7/10/2016
Progress of the nal scene to the oor. This was a rehearsal without the prison/torture makeup. Photo
by Jan Versweyveld.
Ben Whishaw and Sophie Okonedo are very moving in this scene, which is played rst standing,
then sitting on chairs, and nally on the oor, with the two actors in close physical contact. Whishaw
is tender and tearful, kissing his wifes face all over, then passionate and agonized. Danforth and the
other men loom eagerly over him as he sits on the oor with hesitating pen in hand; the composition is
like some Old Master painting. Ultimately, his choice to die feels raw and real, and the audience is left
breathless and mourning as Elizabeth afrms, He have his goodness now.
14/20
7/10/2016
Fan photo of the curtain call, showing the chaos of the set and the prison makeup on Whishaw and
Okonedo. At lower right is Jim Norton who plays Giles Corey.
Text copyright 2016 by Linnet Moss
*For the New England Puritans and alchemy, see Woodward, Walter W. Woodward (2010). Prosperos
America: John Winthrop, Jr., Alchemy, and the Creation of NewEngland Culture, 1606-1676. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
**Theatermania interview with Ciarn Hinds and Jim Norton.
thoughts on The Grey Wolf Devours The King: Arthur Millers The
Crucible(2016)
1. Perry
said:
March 31, 2016 at 8:50 pm
15/20
7/10/2016
Thanks you, Linnet! Ive been scouring the net looking for early reviews ( too soon) and I am certain
that none will be as detailed as this is. As you know, you being an honorary Richard Armitage fan,
Richard Armitage rocked his performance as John Proctor at the Old Vic, in what seems like a very
different interpretation of this play. So, it was with special interest that I looked for reviews. I could
not imagine Ben Whishaw as John Proctor, mainly for the physical dissimilarities you pointed out.
Whishaw is just well, wispy.
I knew you would be making the trip to NY to see this play ( for obvious reasons, ugh, Judge
Danforth) and have been waiting for your write-up as well.
I thought the King and the Gray Wolf analogy was most interesting and then, of course, such a
procedure would no doubt take place in a real crucible.
Im a little put off by what you describe as Elizabeths Proctors warmth. What do you make of this?
Is it consistent with your interpretation of the play?
REPLY
said:linnetmoss
April 1, 2016 at 7:12 am
Many thanks, Perry. I think Whishaw is excellent as Proctor. He captures the characters
intelligent skepticism, and his passion. He effortlessly projects this very powerful, forceful
personality, and yet he has vulnerabilities. I thought Sophie Okonedo was less successful, but its
because she (or the director) chose this different path for Elizabeth, which swims against the
current of the text. They actually cut lines from the dinner scene because there is no table for him
to sit and be served at. They cut the part where he doesnt like the seasoning of the stew and adds
salt to it himself (or maybe minimized itI think he at least tastes the stew rst, but I dont
remember him grimacing or anything). So right from the start, that distance between them isnt
there. And she doesnt act cold. Its only when the subject of Abigail comes up that you realize
there is a problem between them. And he blames her quite bitterly. Shes very good at the end,
though. Theres a great bond between them in that scene.
REPLY
said:linnetmoss
April 1, 2016 at 7:13 am
And thanks for the reblog! Much appreciated
REPLY
2. Perry
said:
March 31, 2016 at 8:54 pm
Reblogged this on Armitage Agonistes and commented:
Linnet Moss has seen the current version of The Crucible on Broadway, with Ben Whishaw as John
Proctor, and her crush, Ciarn Hinds as Judge Danforth. Have fun comparing this take on the play
with what weknow of Yael Farbers.
REPLY
16/20
7/10/2016
3. Guylty
said:
April 1, 2016 at 3:29 am
Thank you for this in-depth review of the Broadway Crucible production. I had been looking forward
to your take on it. And I am really glad that my prejudices have not been conrmed I am delighted
to hear that Whishaw has done such a splendid job with Proctor. At the same time, I am also glad
that the production seems to be so radically different from Yael Farbers for the Old Vic, that
comparisons are not really unfavourable for either side. (As a huge fan of the OV production, I
wouldve hated that.) I would love for cast and director to compare their notes of their
characters/direction and hear them hash out why they made specic decisions on characterisations
etc., particularly Whishaw and Armitage.
Id love to hear more what you make of Saoirse Ronan? Im not really familiar with her work, but I
had the impression that her role as Abigail certainly a character who veers more to the negative
than the positive is quite different from what she has previously done, and I was wondering how
she came across as the vicious, manipulative and desperate Abigail.
Glad to hear that Mr Hinds has once again delivered!
REPLY
said:linnetmoss
April 1, 2016 at 7:22 am
Many thanks, Guylty! Both times I saw the play, I was struck by the fact that Abigails part is not
that big in terms of lines, though of course her impact is huge. Thats why it takes an actress with
great magnetism to play this role. And Saoirse Ronan was perfect. Saoirse is very beautiful, but
she doesnt look like a sexpot. She looks young and wholesome, yet has those seductive eyes. She
is the any-girl next door, the au pair girl who sleeps with the husband. And what an acting talent.
Its such a radically different character from the one she played in Brooklyn. If there was any
aw in her performance, it was that she didnt project vulnerability, as Van Hove seemed to want.
His vision of the character was that she was orphaned, female, a servant girlall things that put
her at a disadvantage. I think thats inherent in Millers vision of Abigail too. But the audience has
to extend that sympathy. She doesnt do much to earn it, LOL. I guess one could play Abigail as a
mentally unstable girl who believes she sees these visionsthats certainly in Millers text. With
Ronans performance, I felt Abigail was lying and manipulating them all quite consciously. And
yet, the special effects suggest that there was something real going on, too. So its a very thoughtprovoking production.
REPLY
said:Guylty
April 1, 2016 at 9:55 am
Thanks for that, Linnet. Its hard to sympathise with Abigail, in any case, thanks to her
deceiving and manipulation. She is, essentially, also a young, stupid, somewhat inexperienced
girl, who is trying to save her own skin. But she does so by implicating others which loses
her all the sympathy one might have.
In terms of her looks, I really agree Ronan is not what I wouldve imagined Abigail to look
like. But that works in her favour, I think, projecting some of that contradiction
17/20
7/10/2016
said:linnetmoss
April 1, 2016 at 2:47 pm
I was surprised at how powerful she is onstage. Sometimes the impact of lm stars does not
translate to theatre, but shes a natural.
4. Hariclea
said:
April 20, 2016 at 7:32 am
I was sure i had responded to you wonderful review but i think i had to stop all the time i read it
before coming to an end due to interruptions and thoughts. Well, better late than never
I am glad Whishaw pulled it off and then in a way i thought he would. Had i not seen him in London
Spy i might have had trouble visualising some of the acting you describe but he had a lot on strength
in there based on convictions and passion. So i can see how he could be very strong from within
without physicality. And hes still quite tall I guess his inner quietness if i may call it that helps with
projecting a level of authority that comes from inner belief rather than physical strength. I regret that
this has not been lmed
Also because of something you said about Ronan, i think until you see some actors on stage you
dont quite realise the intensity they can project, screen is not the same in that respect and it can be
quite surprising.
I always thought Elizabeth had warmth, it was just that she never knew or learned how to express it
or talk about it. Its only when all conventions of society and propriety break that she can be free to
do so. Its too ingrained in her to be dutiful, etc. Whereas as a man he is somewhat freer to express his
passions or less used to have to control them, maybe because hes not experienced temptation like
Abigail before. Hes always been so sure of doing the right thing, being a good man and suddenly is
tripped up from within, sure it is profoundly unsettling.
I dont know if Abigail is vulnerable, she was and has experienced great fear. I think she never wants
to be in that position of fear and vulnerability again, its a sort of survival instinct in her that makes
her do anything and manipulate anyone for what she sees as her survival. So she ends up being a
bully. I nd the way she uses the other girls much more disgusting than the way she manipulates
Proctor or Danforth.They fall for it because they see a child in her, or a very young women, but shes
stopped being that not with Proctor but with the experience of living through her parents being
killed.
Too bad some of the jokes with Rebecca didnt land, i always found the 1st act aside from the
interaction between Abigail and the girls highly entertaining. The local politics, the backstabbing, the
sheer human faults
One thing in the production you describe i would have had difculty with, all the supernatural
elements. For me those would clash against the piece. Because to me the end is the consequence of
human faults and character aws which are excused or hidden under pretended supernatural
inuence. But maybe there were some cuts which made the monetary motivation in many of the
participants less evident, to me its clear the local folk, a lot of them use the trials to their own
advantage to get what they couldnt under normal circumstances.
Just as Danforth who indeed believed in the need and rightfulness of law, order, obedience, religion
in the end of me recognises the threat of rebellion above all else and tries to prevent it. I dont think
18/20
7/10/2016
he is evil, he is authority, he defends it above all else, and he believes he is right. I think Proctor and
Hale are both there to bend show that there is more to right and wrong than just law, religion and
authority But i wouldnt like him portrayed as evil and i think Ciaran was a great choice in that
respect.
It sounds like a great interpretation of the play, id dare to say more through the great choice of actors
and the relationships and chemistry that are thus created than through the production itself, ie the
physical elements of the production that is.
I can hardly imagine a context in which this play does not work, its so good! But it is about the
people and the relationships between them and i am glad that worked so well
Interesting choice of music Glass would seem a bit dispassionate for my taste but maybe they were
trying to keep the audience a bit objective?
Thanks again for the wonderful read!
REPLY
said:linnetmoss
April 20, 2016 at 7:43 am
Thanks for the great comment, Hariclea! I think youre right on the money with Elizabeths
character, and Abigail. And Danforth too, even though Arthur Miller himself said that Danforth
was an evil man. The way hes written, though, he is not doing the evil consciously. However,
when his case falls apart before his eyes and he willfully shuts them to the truth, that to me is evil.
I think he puts his own pride rst, even risking rebellion in order to maintain a faade of justice.
Ciarn gave him humanity and made him seem very much a real person, not just a pompous
talking head. Thats why it was so scary.
The supernatural stuff was daring, but it was great in terms of theatricality. Van Hove really used
those effects to increase the horror element, and it worked! It complicated the message, but I
thought that was a good thing. The grudges and ghts over property were still there, but as you
say, they were not foregrounded.
The Philip Glass music was not typical of his work. So much of it was voices singing in a
traditional way. The only aspect I thought recognizably Glass was how relentless it was!
REPLY
5. Hariclea
said:
April 20, 2016 at 7:37 am
oh and i meant to say i found the analogy very interesting with the wolf and the king! thankfully you
explained it because it would have been sadly completely lost on me
I am not a very religious person and growing up obviously religion wasnt something that was
explored where i lived but i often feel a gaping hole of knowledge where the understanding of the
inuence of religion on human culture should be
REPLY
said:linnetmoss
April 20, 2016 at 7:46 am
19/20
7/10/2016
Thanks! Everyone says that this play is an allegory and its really about the blacklisting of
Communists, but in reading it, I felt that Miller was saying a lot about religion too. Theres a
connection between organized religion and authority that goes to the heart of the play. It is a
warning against theocracy of any variety. Its a very American play because the type of religion he
shows is still alive and well here.
REPLY
Blog at WordPress.com. The Chateau Theme.
20/20

The Grey Wolf Devours The King

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Grey Wolf Devours The King

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/10/2016

Linnet Moss ~ On books, food, wine and beautiful men

The Grey Wolf Devours The King: Arthur Millers

Sophie Okonedo (photo from The Crucible website).

Ciarn Hinds in Shetland (2016).

Blog at WordPress.com. The Chateau Theme.

You might also like