Review - The Crucible

I had pretty much decided that I wouldn't be seeing the current revival of The Crucible - after hearing some bits about it from friends and after seeing what the director did to A View From the Bridge, I figured my life would continue as usual if I didn't see it.  But a friend offered to take me as a belated birthday present, so I thought 'what the heck'. Free theater is always a good thing.  Well, almost always...

In my ongoing attempt to explain my prejudices up front, I should've figured there was no way I was going to appreciate this production - I'm not really a fan of the director, The Crucible is one of my very favorite plays and I've been in the play and know it very well. I'm very particular about shows after I've been in them, which is my problem, I guess, and not this director's, but still.  I guess I'm rather a purist when it comes to text, but I don't think I'm violently opposed to reinterpretation, as a rule.  But I just don't get this particular director's penchant for stripping classic plays of their time, place and context to make them 'timeless.'  Sorry, classic plays are ALREADY timeless, that's why they're classic!  And stripping plays of everything except what you consider the theme does NOT make them timeless.  It makes them empty, because you've taken out what makes that play that play, if that even makes sense.  In my opinion, of course.

You all know me, I don't actually enjoy being mean about productions - I know all the work that goes into them and there's enough negativity in the world that I really shouldn't add to it. But last night's performance made me kind of angry, so I want to vent.  I fully acknowledge that this production has received rave reviews pretty much across the board, so my opinions are outliers, but oh well.  I guess I should be used to that.  OH, I guess I should point out here that spoilers will abound, so if you like to experience a play without knowing much beforehand, you may want to stop reading now.

The curtain rises on a large, antiseptic-looking classroom. Young girls in school uniforms are sitting with their backs to us, in rows of chairs.  They're singing something, maybe what's printed on the blackboard?  (the blackboard dominates the far upstage wall, but my eyesight is so bad, I couldn't read what was on it.)  Then the curtain falls again.  OK, I thought.  I can get on board with something like this, these schoolgirls are repressed and they're in a routine and they yearn to break free.  The things that happen can be studied in a classroom and can happen again.  OK. That works.  Then the curtain goes back up and we're in the same large antiseptic-looking classroom, which is the playing area for the entire play.  All of the scenes (Betty's bedroom, the Proctor's house, the courtroom) are played in the same large empty room.  Chairs are sometimes pulled in for people to sit on, sometimes a table is brought forward.  But otherwise, this is the playing space.

photo credit: Jan Versweyveld

Because the space was so large and so empty, the blocking was odd throughout.  There would be clusters of people in strange, not prominent places on stage, and many important pieces of the play were performed way upstage or off to the side.  Also, it made the pauses in the dialogue (which I can only assume were directed to be there since pauses played a big part in View from the Bridge) seem even more empty because there was so much dead air space.  And I can't even describe how much I hated the staging in the last scene...

photo credit: Sara Krulwich

Instead of going blow by blow through plot, I'm just going to put out there what frustrated me the most.  I'm sure most everyone who bothers to read this blog knows what The Crucible is technically 'about' - set during the time of the 17th century Salem witch trials, the play is also a commentary on the McCarthy hearings in America during the 1950s, where people informed on their neighbors and mass hysteria prevailed, where only confessing to a lie would 'save' people but they were destroyed anyway.  In this particular version of The Crucible, that doesn't seem to be the prevailing theme. Because people who weren't witches were being accused of witchcraft, the claims were false, right?  We KNOW they weren't witches. That's the point.  Abigail wants to get her former lover's wife out of the way and other landowners wanted to buy up their neighbors' land, right?  That's why they accused people. They were consumed with power in the name of religion. Yet, here we see one of the girls actually levitate, and we see the chalkboard have strange writings come and go, and we see a wolf wander around the stage, and we see a massive supernatural windstorm blow through the classroom when the girls are (what I thought was) pretending to see spirits. So, if we SEE these things, doesn't that mean they DO exist?  So, therefore, doesn't that mean the entire meaning of the play has been compromised?  I truly didn't get it.  I read somewhere online that the director wanted the audience to see these things, so we wouldn't feel superior to the ignorant people of Salem.  So we would see what they saw. Well, now, no.  First, who could tell we were in Salem?  Not me.  Stripped of time, place and context, remember.  Plus, they DIDN'T see them because it was all a lie!  Frankly, all I saw were pretentious director tricks, presented by someone who didn't trust me to understand the play on my own.  Of course, in theory it was hard to understand anything because of the junk imposed on the play.  

photo credit: Jan Versweyveld

Tangent:  I want to mention two small things that really irked me - one: on the upstage wall, beside the chalkboard, there was a sink.  At various points throughout, people go up there to wash their hands.  OK, I can live with that.  But, at one point, a character goes up there to drink out of the faucet.  She sticks her head under the faucet to drink. No. Just no.  And two:  the poppet.  The poppet that condemns Elizabeth. Mary Warren gives it to Elizabeth and she says thanks and then she walks all the way upstage and puts it on the chalk tray under the chalkboard.  The poppet is, conservatively, six inches in size. Small.  Then when they come to take Elizabeth and she says she doesn't keep poppets and the deputy says oh, but I see one, so yes you do.  HOW IN THE HELL COULD HE SEE THAT TINY LITTLE THING FROM ALL THE WAY OVER THERE?!?!?!  I know these are small things, but it was the compilation of small things that bled into the enormous things that drove me insane throughout the entire performance.  Whoops, just thought of a third.  When John Proctor is upset that his wife is gone and he has his speech to Mary Warren about being 'laid naked', I don't think that means he's supposed to strip.  But here he does.  No.

The Crucible, like A View from the Bridge, had an annoying soundtrack playing underneath the entire play.  THE ENTIRE PLAY.  Sometimes, the music was so loud that I couldn't hear the dialogue.  That annoyed me, as did the idea that I needed music to tell me what I was feeling/seeing.  I was also annoyed when text was altered - I honestly know the play really well. Occasionally, I would hear dialogue and I would tilt my head and think, 'wait, what?!' So, being me, I went back to my copy of the script when I got home last night and confirmed changes, even in the final scene, which to me were major changes and major mistakes. I just have a hard time understanding how Miller's estate would allow changes to the text, but I assume it did.

The actors did what they could with what the director did to the play, though they frequently didn't seem to be speaking TO each other but rather AT each other, or AT the audience.  Though I admit I was taken with Jason Butler Harner as Rev Parris and Tina Benko and Thomas Jay Ryan as the Putnams.  Ciaran Hinds, an especial favorite of mine, was a terrifying Deputy Governor Danforth and he somehow found a way through the nonsense to deliver the fear that is supposed to permeate the play.  At least what I think is supposed to permeate the play.  Other actors' character interpretations weren't as successful for me, but I lay the blame at the director's feet.  Obviously.  

I will say that my opinion (and my friend's - after the show was over, she looked at me and said 'sorry that was your birthday present.'  I replied 'I've seen Goody van Director with the Devil.') was a minority opinion.  The rest of the audience jumped to their feet for the curtain call.  There was really inexplicable (to me) thunderous applause.  The gals behind me said it was 'fantastic!'  They also added, 'can you believe there was a working sink?!', so I'm guessing their opinion was a little suspect, but still. Again, I guess I should've known better than to go see another show presented by this particular director, who I wish would just write his own play instead of ruining other people's, but since the NY press adores him, what else can I do?  Stay away from his plays, I guess, especially if I've enjoyed working on them in the past.  I'm sure he won't miss me.