Write a developed response that answers the following prompt:
What specific differences did you notice between the play and the film adaptation (what we have watched so far)? Speculate as to why the changes were made. What effects do the changes have on the characterization, significance, tone, theme or message of a particular scene or of the play as a whole?
Make sure to provide concrete examples from both the play and the film to support your ideas.
So far in the movie and the book have some differences between them. The movie Abigail brinks the blood of a chicken this scene is not however in the book. In the movie when John proctor comes into town and is about to leave him and Abigail kiss. However in the book they do not.
ReplyDeleteI noticed how the movie seems more intense to me, the book had more of a waiting 'eerie' feel like in the movie, they are just screaming and talking all at once and using more violence seen in the book. The characters are shown to be much more emotion in the book but the movie even thought they are seen to be screaming and crying, the play reading made you think more anf feel their emotions too.
ReplyDeleteThe movie adaptation of the crucible pulls the key elements seen in the original, yet it changes setting and dialogue in a way that makes it more easy to watch as a movie. The play usually stays in one place, and doesn't change location during the current act. In the book, if act 2 is set in John Proctors house it stays there. But in the movie adaptation, characters roam between settings in a seamless way that allows the story to flow better on screen. In the play, the scene where Abigail and John have their intimate conversation takes place in Betty's room. Whereas in the movie, it take s place outside by a horse coral. From what we have seen so far, the same chain of events is happening, but it is happening in various different settings and locations. I think they did this to make it more interesting. In a book, you cannot see the room they are in, and it could get confusing if the author constantly changes the setting like a movie would. Alternatively, if a movie with four acts took place in only four places (a house, another house, a courthouse, a jail house) it would probable be pretty boring. Instead it depicts characters moving around performing actions with slightly different dialogue and location. I think they did it this way because it looks better on screen to have more locations and different dialogue in order to fit the movie format better, rather than have a movie that is boring and feels awkward with its dialogue.
ReplyDeleteOne subtle difference between the play and what we have seen in the movie of The Crucible is the differentiating character traits. Although the lines said by both characters and actors are practically identical, certain traits expressed in the body language and voices of the actors paint a new feel for the characters they are portraying from the play. Two examples of this can be seen in the characters of Parris and John Proctor. Within the first act, Parris is seen as a tough fearful but defiant person that defends his reputation with an immense ferocity in the play, however the movie shows him as a bit more uncertain and nervous to the occurring events. John Proctors character is also seen in the play as more confident and resistant to Abigail's advances, "Proctor: No, no, Abby. That’s done with. " from this quote alone without seeing his body language interpretation by the actor he can be inferred as being practically resolute in his decision of no longer having an affair with Abigail. These differences from the characters can drastically influence the conflict of "good" versus "evil" since the new views of the character's body language as depicted in the film have enhanced, in my opinion, the feel for each persons individual morality struggles, it really helps see each character in their humanity (except Abigail, She's even more of a devil).
ReplyDelete-Dylan Lawson
Most of it I notice was the same the only thing that I notice is when in the play parris smashed Abigail's face but in the film he smacked her face also in the the film John and Abby kiss.
ReplyDeleteSo far in the movie, I have noticed that they included the Forest scene, which adds much more depth in the story line. We see that all the girls cast charms and are included in the "Witchery". I think this change was made to make it easier for the audience to understand the fuel behind the trials. We are able to see just what went on in the woods, unlike the other characters in the play. It makes Abigail's lies more apparent, and we get to see how the other girls play their role in the play. In a whole, this scene adds much more darkness and depth to the play.
ReplyDeleteThe movie adaptation of the crucible pulls the key elements seen in the original, yet it changes setting and dialogue in a way that makes it more easy to watch as a movie. The play usually stays in one place, and doesn't change location during the current act. In the book, if act 2 is set in John Proctors house, it stays there. But in the movie adaptation, characters roam between settings in a seamless way that allows the story to flow better on screen. In the play, the scene where Abigail and John have their intimate conversation takes place in Betty's room. Whereas in the movie, it takes place outside by a horse coral, because it provides insight into their secrecy. From what we have seen so far, the same chain of events is happening, but it is happening in various different settings and locations. I think they did this to make it more interesting. In a book, you cannot see the room they are in, and it could get confusing if the author constantly changes the setting like a movie would. Alternatively, if a movie with four acts took place in only four places (a house, another house, a courthouse, a jail house) it would probable be pretty boring. Instead it depicts characters moving around performing actions with slightly different dialogue and location. I think they did it this way because it looks better on screen to have more locations and different dialogue in order to fit the movie format better, rather than have a movie that is boring and feels awkward with its dialogue.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest difference of events between the play and the movie is when Abigail kisses John Proctor. In Act 1 of the play Abigail threw herself onto Proctor and he pushes her away. I believe this was added to provide some of the Hollywood drama that people know and love. In the play, it is obvious that Proctor is now faithful to his wife, but in the movie, it makes you think if he is faithful or not.
ReplyDeleteBetween the play and the film adaptation, there are a few differences. Firstly, i feel as if Abigail is portrayed as older and more mature than what the play has led me to believe. Additionally, now looking at the movie: Why didn't Parris go back to where the cauldron was? Hale could've gathered evidence from that area for his investigation. The town also appears to be very desperate in the beginning of the film, unlike in the play where the town only seemed interested. Another big change was where the film was focusing. We did not see the quarrel between Proctor and Parris about the stockpile of wood. I think they used this as a background thing to show that things were still happening whilst other events went on. Since every character doesn't just sit and wait for the next scene. The town itself also seems more lively and brighter in the film, rather than my own interpretation in the play itself. The town seems to be more open. All of these small details seem to pile up into adding a lot more freedom, and animation. Rather than our own interpretation of the play
ReplyDeleteone of the differences that i noticed was the beginning scene of the movie were all the girls were dancing in the woods was added to the movie but it wasn't in the play, because they wanted to show how it looked and give the viewer more context instead of just opening up into a room with a bunch of people in it. it gives us some insight to Abigail and how crazy she is. Its a very significant scene, the tone is playful and fun until Abigail drinks blood, and they get caught. There wasn't a message that i know of. They also added some lines in that were not in the play, probably to add more volume to the movie and also make it longer. I don't think that adding a couple line is too significant.
ReplyDeleteIn the Movie Abby killed the chicken and drank and rubbed it's blood on her face, but be in the play it didn't specify that in the play it only said that Abby drank blood and it was chickens blood it also didn't specify in the play that the girl's met out in the forest in the middle of the night. Later on in the movie it showed Betty sleeping and Abby telling her that she already told reverend Parrise everything, it also said this in the play what it didn't say was that Betty's whaling stopped the morning paryer and the whole town saw Betty trying to jump out the window. all the things show to me in the movie gave me a real idea of what the characters emotions and physical features where. So the movie to me is much better then the play
ReplyDeleteAbout what we have watched so far i think that int he movie is developed the facts which leaded to the Betty illness.
ReplyDeleteIn the play the dances and the Abigail's love for Proctor aren't explained well, but the movie begins with the girl's practice in the woods and how Parris discovers them.
This helps the audience to understand exactly whats is happening and it gives a foreshortening of Abigail's feelings, it helps us to understand the Abigail's despair; in fact we know that the girl asked more than once to Tituba to help her to make Proctor love her.
Another important variation from the play to the movie is that at the beginning Proctor doesn't help Hale to take his things out of the cart.
In the scene where Proctor helps Hale in the movie everybody in the crowd recognize him and this highlights one of the main ideas of the play that is the reputation and the importance of your name od of what other person think about it.
I think that all of these variation are made to increase the tension and emphasize the important hinges of the play. Giorgia Sasso
I saw lots of differences between the play and the film. The play did not have any scene changes the whole act took place in one scene. In the film there were lots of scenes added, there was a scene in act one at John Proctor house that did not take place in the play. In the film a scene was added in the church, where the girls snuck off to go wake up Betty.Rebecca Nurse came off as more delicate in the film than I exspected from the play. When Anne was yelling at Rebecca, Rebecca definatly showed more signs of innocence than in the play. Mary Warren has a bigger role in act 1 in the film than in the play, there are more scenes with her present, she has more lines , and she is more dramatic. In the film they added the scene with the girls dancing through the woods and doing witch craft. I think Arthur Miller left that scene out in the play because it takes away from the motives of the characters. Darian Leonard
ReplyDeleteSome differences between the book and the movie that I noticed mostly revolved around Proctor. One of the scenes shows Proctor in his house with his wife Elizabeth talking about picking flowers, yet that scene is not shown until act two in the play, whereas in the movie it is in between events included in act one. the other difference that i noticed was that when Proctor returns to town, he rejects Abigail in the play, but in the movie he kisses her before leaving her.
ReplyDeleteThese changes were probably made to give some insight into Proctors life and how he is involved with both Elizabeth and Abigail before events that correlate to his love life. The effects of these changes change the mood of the play only slightly, it shows the viewer more about what is going on, and makes the movie more seamless than the play because the character notes are directly involved in the movie.
There were a few things that happened. In the movie it portrayed more clearly how crazy Abigail was and desperate to be with proctor. They also showed the craziness in her eyes as she drank the blood or "pretensed" the devil was after her. She also kissed Proctor which was out of context of the play. Speaking of the devil, Proctor was in most of the scenes and it felt like the world revolved around him. In the crucible paris smashed Abigail's' face in the play but on screen he smacked her. The movie also showed how the girl's went along with everything and how they acted when the "Devil" was around. (Lila Haded)
ReplyDeleteThe movie was much more tense and intense than the play, such as the scene where Rlizabeth is asked if Proctor ever committed adultery. Also, the setting feels more complete in the movie. You can tell that Salem is a village, and the characters move about the town much more. Plus, some scenes were adapted for the movie, such as the confrontation with the judges about the girls. They had that in a different building rather in the back room in the play. Also, Abigail and Proctors relationship had more background and more emotion than in the play. (Probably just from real actors doing it.)
ReplyDeleteThe movie of The Crucible is pretty similar to the play and I think it nails the perspective of Arthur Miller about the themes that appear in the book. There are some scenes in the movie that aren't in the book or that are slightly different, but they're often used to substitute texts in the play that cannot be expressed in a different way. I really like how the actors express their characters' feelings because it kind of completes what you've read. Also, a lot of dialogues from the book remain unchanged in the movie and it's great.
ReplyDeleteThere is no big differences between the play and the movie. The movie is just more intense, because of the good performance of the actors.
ReplyDeleteThere is some scene that are in the movie and not in the play, like the scene where Abigail and Proctor talk together and Abigail try to kiss Proctor. This scene add more importance to the role of Abigail, and show that she's gonna do everything to obtain what she want.
Most of the dialogue in the movie stays like in the play.
Gwen Vaudin
There are very few changes between the play and the movie the crucible. One of the few changes between the play and the Movie is the court scene. In the Movie the girls run out of the courthouse and into the ocean, in the play this all happens in the courthouse. Another of the few differences I noticed was towards the end. In the play Abigail just leaves the town after stealing her uncle's money, but in the movie this is nos the case. In the movie she stops by proctor's cell and asks him to come with her so he wont die.
ReplyDeleteIn the movie, the characters are able to move around a lot more, such as when the girls ran from the courthouse to the lake, or when the characters travel from building to building with the camera following. They wouldn't have been able to do this in the play due to a limited amount of stage room. Another difference is when John and Abigail kiss in the movie, which is never shown in the play. This may have been done to intensify their relationship, and to make it clear to the audience that Abigail had something to hope for without telling the audience, like they do in the play.
ReplyDeleteSome changes that i noticed between the movie and the play were, the amount of girls in Abigal's "pack", when John Proctor and Rebecca Nurse said the Lords prayer before they died.In the play it ended with john in court i beleive, then in the movie he says the prayer and is hung. In the play I think Abby only had like 5 girls on her side but in the movie it was more like 20. In the movie it seemed like half the town was part of abbys "pack" meaning the girls who were thought to be posessed.
ReplyDeleteIn the Play /The Crucible/ by Arthur Miller, there are very few transitions between scenes. It is simply one scene for each Act. There IS a Scene 2 for Act 2, but that is not present in most versions, including the one we read. However, the movie adaptation of The Crucible, not only is scene 2 from the original play added,(Out of it's intended order, but there nonetheless.) but several of the acts in the play take place in multiple scenes. Not to mention the inclusion of implied scenes, such as Abigail's drinking chicken's blood and Proctor's hanging. Seeing as how the play was a very short script, the movie is a far more impressive experience to view. One could argue that the movie goes too far from the original play, but the truth is, most of the lines from the original play are still in the movie, neither cut nor changed from their previous words. New lines were added, but that was intended for the progression of implied scenes and for improved overall content. In the sum of these points, It's safe to assume Arthur Miller's plays were greatly recreated as cinema experiences. (Coleby Mariluch)
ReplyDelete