In honor of Halloween (a time of witches), I will be discussing Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. The post is broken up into two sections – “Reception of The Crucible” and “The Relevance of The Crucible in Today’s Society.”
In his play, Miller reconfigures historical figures and events of the Salem Witch trials to critique the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) hearings and Joseph McCarthy. The Crucible is a great example of a play with a political statement.
Reception of The Crucible
“Throughout his career of demonizing anti-communists, Arthur Miller kept a lot of things close to the vest. Among them was whether The Crucible was, in plain fact, an allegory about McCarthyism. It obviously was, but Miller was always coy about divulging his total intentions on-the-record...The conventional take on the play was that it was “a story of the persecution of persons accused of witchcraft in Salem in 1692” – to quote the New York Times in June 1956. That was how Arthur Miller himself had publicly explained it.”
– Paul Kengor, “Arthur Miller – Communist”
The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, first premiered on January 22, 1953 at New York City’s Martin Beck Theatre (Nightingale). At the time of the premiere, the United States was in the midst of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) hearings, which worked to expose suspected Communists (Abbotson 91). [Fun fact: Arthur Miller was subpoenaed by HUAC in 1956]. Since Miller had read a great deal about the Salem Witch trials during his time at the University of Michigan, when the McCarthy era came along, Miller was reminded of the stories he had read. He realized that McCarthy was saying lines that the witch-hunters of Salem had spoken (Baddeley). Thus, Miller was prompted to write The Crucible due to the increasing cruelty of the interrogations made by HUAC. Miller’s play drew strong parallels to HUAC and McCarthy, a sentiment that was not lost on American audiences (Nightingale).
The original 1953 production was not well received. Critics condemned the play and the production. Its troubled production process hindered the play, as people, including Miller, found fault with the director, Jed Harris (Abbotson 94). Miller originally wanted Elia Kazan, famed Broadway and Hollywood director, to direct the play, but decided against it when he learned that Kazan was going to name names in his HUAC hearing. Thus, despite his notorious reputation, Harris was chosen to direct (Nightingale).
Harris and Miller immediately clashed (Abbotson 94). After ten days of rehearsal, Miller felt that despite a “…powerful company, something leaden and dead lay on the stage” (Nightingale). Harris’ direction resulted in a static play, which forced critics to deem the play as “...cold, unemotional, and lacking in heart” (Abbotson 94). Miller agreed with such reviews. Since Harris demanded such “rigidity of his cast,” Miller felt that the production “…was becoming an absurd exercise not in passion but in discipline,” making it impossible for the audience to be moved emotionally (Nightingale).
Upon opening night, Miller felt hostility amongst the crowd due to the play’s subject matter (Nightingale). People were fearful because at the time there were “repercussions of liking a play that was critical of current politics” (Abbotson 94). Thus, the historical context of when the play was produced played a role in how it was publicly received. The play was later received with praise, most likely due to the removal from the HUAC hearings (Abbotson 94).
Brooks Atkinson, a former journalist for the New York Times, deemed the 1953 production as the most notable new play of the season, saying the play “…made a deep impression on the town” (Atkinson). Atkinson determined that the play was not meant to be a “deadly parallel” between the Salem Witch trials and the HUAC hearings. He came to this conclusion due to the differences between the events; most notably because the Salem trials revolved around witches, an irrational fear, and the HUAC hearings did not (Communists are real). He said that the play dramatized “…a unique episode in American history” before there was a proper government and judicial system (Atkinson). [What Atkinson fails to mention is that people were not given proper hearings during the HUAC era, and many careers were destroyed due to false accusations of Communism].
The issue that Atkinson found with The Crucible was Miller’s strong focus on the theme of the play rather than the characters, finding that the lack of focus on the characters prevented the play from retaining an emotional connection. Atkinson believed that Miller’s focus on group madness resulted in the loss of the individual humanity of his characters (Atkinson). Atkinson said: “Perhaps that explains why The Crucible is a gripping and exciting play without much human warmth” (Atkinson).
John Mason Brown, a writer for The Saturday Review, wrote in his 1953 review of the play that The Crucible was not only a weaker play than Miller’s other works, but it also failed to be “the play that Mr. Miller wanted it to be, that we hoped it would be, and that its subject deserves” (Brown). Unlike Atkinson, Brown found the connection between the Salem Witch trials and the HUAC hearings/McCarthy era to be an important aspect to the play, saying: “the disease which afflicted Salem has not vanished from the world and can still strike with epidemic force” (Brown). Brown found that the play’s subject matter was important because of the McCarthy era, calling the McCarthy trials a “new type of witch-hunting” (Brown). Despite finding the subject matter of the play to be very important, Brown, like Atkinson, concluded that Miller directed too much of his focus towards the theme that he lost his characters in the process (Brown).
The Relevance of The Crucible in Today’s Society
The Crucible is personally one of my favorite plays. I first read it in English class during my sophomore year of high school and I immediately loved it because of the story, the characters, and its critique on political times. Re-reading this play as an adult, I have come to realize how The Crucible remains relevant to our current political times. As Brown stated in his review: "...the disease which afflicted Salem has not vanished from the world” (Brown). When The Crucible premiered, it was in relation to the HUAC hearings. However, the notion of false accusations, supposed witch-hunts, and widespread hysteria are still relevant to today.
In 1996, Miller published an article in The New Yorker. In it he said:
“I am not sure what The Crucible is telling people now, but I know that its paranoid center is still pumping out the same darkly attractive warning that it did in the fifties. For some, the play seems to be about the dilemma of relying on the testimony of small children accusing adults of sexual abuse, something I'd not have dreamed of forty years ago. For others, it may simply be a fascination with the outbreak of paranoia that suffuses the play -- the blind panic that, in our age, often seems to sit at the dim edges of consciousness. Certainly its political implications are the central issue for many people.”
– Arthur Miller, “Why I Wrote The Crucible: An Artist's Answer to Politics”
I think it is important to unpack Miller’s statement, beginning with: “…the dilemma of relying on the testimony of small children accusing adults of sexual abuse.” In The Crucible, the seventeen year old Abigail has an affair with John Proctor, an older man. Due to Proctor’s rejection and her rejection by the town because of the rumors about the affair, Abigail enacts her revenge by accusing Proctor’s wife, Elizabeth, of being a witch. Her accusations lead to widespread panic and the hangings of John Proctor and others. If people look at the play from this angle, you can see that the false accusations made by Abigail resulted in the deaths of innocent people. However, her accusations are about witchcraft, not sexual abuse. It is true that these accusations result from her affair with John Proctor, which nowadays would be classified as sexual abuse because Abigail was underage. However, the fact that this affair leads to Abigail’s accusations of witchcraft is an extreme case. It is absurd to even compare someone’s accusation of witchcraft to someone who has filed an accusation against a sexual predator. Since the play deals with the results of Abigail’s accusations of witchcraft, the play is not about “…the dilemma of relying on the testimony of small children accusing adults of sexual abuse” (Miller).
We should believe Abigail if she says she was sexually assaulted (as we should always believe the victim when it comes to sexual assault). We should not, however, believe Abigail’s accusations that certain people are witches, based on the fact that witches do not exist. Therefore, there is no dilemma when it comes to victims of sexual abuse. We should believe them, and I think Miller would agree. Abigail is not a “villain” because she had an affair with John Proctor. She is actually a victim because Proctor was the adult (and married) and Abigail was only seventeen. Abigail is the “villain” in the sense that she accused people of being witches, leading to their deaths. Thus, we should believe her if she was sexually assaulted, but not believe her accusations of witchcraft.
In reaction to the MeToo movement, the question of whether or not a woman’s accusation of sexual abuse is true or not has been debated. Many have called it a “witch-hunt” and feel that men are deemed guilty without any evidence or a fair trial. This is similar to suspected witches in Salem not receiving fair trials or alleged Communists not receiving fair hearings during the time of HUAC. However, one of the aspects that differentiates these incidents is that the Salem Witch trials and the HUAC hearings were based on fear, while the accusations against men are not. Though some people may argue that there were people who accused each other of being witches because they were jealous of them or wanted revenge (i.e. Abigail), this does not hold true for women who accuse men of sexual assault. Since the woman is rarely believed, and her life can often be ruined, she has no reason to lie.
The next statement that needs to be addressed is when Miller says: “For others, it may simply be a fascination with the outbreak of paranoia that suffuses the play” (Miller). In the time of Salem, the paranoia was over witches. In the time of the HUAC hearings, the paranoia was about Communism. In our current times, well, there is paranoia everywhere. The ones that come to mind are – immigrants are terrorists, rapists, drug dealers; all Muslims are members of ISIS; “it’s a very scary time for men”; and many, many more. The fact that paranoia never ceases to be distinguished from our society demonstrates how relevant The Crucible is. We may not be accusing people of being witches, but we are a society that still accuses people who are different from us of being something horrible. Thus, the paranoia that surrounds the characters in The Crucible still reflects our modern society.
In conclusion, if you are questioning the power of theater, look no further than The Crucible. In 1953, the play was used as a critique on the HUAC hearings; today, this play continues to critique American society, proving how the play has transcended time (and how little society has changed).
October 31, 2018
Works Cited
Abbotson, Susan C.W. Masterpieces of 20th-century American Drama. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005. E-book.
Atkinson, Brooks. “The Crucible: Arthur Miller's Dramatization of the Salem Witch Trialin 1692.”New York Times, 1 Feb. 1953. ProQuest.
Baddeley, Anna. “Arthur Miller in his own words: from McCarthyism to Marilyn Monroe.” The Telegraph, 17 Oct. 2015.
Brown, John Mason. “Seeing Things: Witch-Hunting.” The Saturday Review, 14 Feb. 1953: 41-42.UNZ.org.
Kengor, Paul. “Arthur Miller – Communist.” The American Spectator, 16 Oct. 2015, https://spectator.org/64379_arthur-miller-communist/. Accessed 30 Oct. 2018.
Miller, Arthur. “Why I Wrote The Crucible: An Artist's Answer to Politics.” The New Yorker, 21 Oct. 1996.
Nightingale, Benedict. Great Moments in the Theatre. London: Oberon Books, 2012. E-book.
Comments