HowlRound: On February 29, a young girl will spread the most seismic gossip on Broadway. Keep your eyes open, and you’ll see repressed, seemingly bewitched children flailing arms and throwing blame at the alleged sources of their hysterias. Keep your ears open, and you may hear the echoing vibrations of Arthur Miller’s cautionary tale from when The Crucible first debuted in 1953.
4 comments:
I love The Crucible, and I am thrilled that it is returning to Broadway, but I had not even thought about why it is returning to Broadway until I read this article. I love how the article goes through the time in which each revival took place. I had only ever considered The Crucible from the perspective of its intended commentary on McCarthyism and the Red Scare. However, the article points out how The Crucible has been relevant and applicable to current situations in each incarnation of the play, from the AIDS crisis, to 9/11's Islamophobia, to today's prejudices. It is very interesting that such a play that, while inspired by McCarthyism, was technically written about something that occurred in 1692, still can be applied to modern situations. The quote that the author includes from Brooks Atkinson states that The Crucible lacks universality. However, that statement has long since been proven incorrect, since the ideas of scapegoats and finger-pointing are things that can be applied in virutally any time period and any place.
This was a great analysis of the idea of the impact of a work of theater being able to stay relevant despite the very different political circumstances. While the article notes that this could be either a positive or a negative thing depending on how you view the cyclical nature of social and political evils, I think that the fact that the message is still true today is just a sign of an underlying fact of human nature: we will always find someone to blame. This scapegoat has changed over the years, as the article mentioned, but the idea of using a specific group to take out your frustration and anger on is an ever-present one throughout history. I think instead of being saddened by this recurring pattern but doing nothing, I think we should recognize it and take steps to prevent it. This play is an excellent example of such: it calls attention to the idea of a recurring human flaw by being continually applicable to our lives. Even though the pattern is still happening, I think the fact that the theme of the show resonates far longer than the specific incidences it is attempting to rectify means that the play is doing its job.
The Crucible was one of the plays that initially made me more interested in theatre, so I'm really happy that it's coming back to Broadway. I first read the play in my eight grade English class. Before we began reading it we researched the Red Scare, and after we wrote an essay comparing the plot of the play to McCarthyism. As this interpretation of the play was so ingrained in me I've never really considered how it is still applicable to America today. Modern Islamophobia and the prejudices we still hold all show trends that are eerily similar to The Crucible's plot. Like Lucy said, people will always find someone to blame for anything that goes wrong in their lives. That's why this play will always hold relevance in society, even though its original inspiration happened over fifty years ago. It's so necessary to learn from the mistakes of this past, but the fact that the Crucible still relates to us shows that we still have a lot of learning to do.
As opposed as i am to seeing something come to Broadway for the damn 5th time, as opposed to newer work, I still find this play to be relevant. But I'm not sure of what they're trying to say will be any different than the one over ten years ago about 9/11. yes those things are still happening, but its my belief that you shouldn't revive something unless you have something new and interesting to say about it or do with it. Otherwise its just monotony and audience fodder.
Also, I've never seen the Crucible performed in any other way than with all the 1600's garb and set. Why not set it in the time period that they want? It might be stranger or harder to convey, but why not change it up and have everything be set in current day, or the 50's or whatever they want. Maybe that's a dumb idea but thats what I've always thought. Also, I agree that this play isn't Miller's best. I think for this play, the idea is better than the play itself and that's what's carried it into 2016, is the powerful messages of making people the scapegoat for a community's problems.
So I suppose it's okay that its going on Broadway yet again, but lets see waht new things they're bringing to the table.
Post a Comment