The Crucible: Study Questions
Social Studies Services Inc.
“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
- F.D.R.
Young Scholars, “The Crucible” presents a condition, a social
situation, we humans find ourselves in time and time again. It
sure is easy to look back at our predecessors and marvel at their
gullibility, their ignorance, and their inability to recognize
what they were doing to each other (witch trials, communist
hunts, interning of Japanese-Americans during WWII,
discrimination against minorities, etc…). Thanks to writers like
Hawthorne and Miller, we can view these situations with an
awareness of their timelessness and a knowledge of their
likelihood to return again and again. What would you do in
similar times, how do you view the actions of the characters, and
how do the effects of this play register with your generation?
You’d never allow for witch-hunts, would you?
Choose one of the questions from (1-4) and answer fully in a word
document. For credit, your answer will be expressed in multiple
paragraphs and will reveal the thoughts of all group members.
Also, answer question number five, again in multiple paragraphs.
You’ll present your findings to the class. Please use direct
textual support where you can.
The Questions
1. The stage version ends with Elizabeth's line, "He have his
goodness now. God forbid I take it from him!" The film version
takes the audience one scene further--to the gallows. The
screenplay ends with the last line of the Lord's Prayer, "For
Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever and
ever." Which ending do you prefer? Why? What’s the effect of each
and what is the difference?
2. "In a recent speech, Robert Brustein said, 'I defy you to
name a single work of art that has ever changed anything.' In
response, Mr. Miller said, 'I think works of art change the
consciousness of people and their estimates of who they are and
what they stand for.' He pointed to John Steinbeck's Grapes of
Wrath and to Mark Twain, 'who gave America an image of itself,
the idea of the innocent American, with his simple-minded
appreciation of reality as against the complications of life'"
(Mel Gussow, "A Rock of the Modern Age, Arthur Miller Is Still
Everywhere," New York Times, 11/30/96). Can a work of art, such
as a play or a film, change anything? Explain how. Give an
example. Describe the piece, the intentions of its author, and
the effect of the art.
3. In drama, a "foil" is a character written to contrast with
another. Comparing two foils will often clarify the motives of
both. Contrast the characters of John Proctor and the Reverend
John Hale. What are their motives and how do they differ? What
other pairs of characters in The Crucible might be seen as foils?
Explain.
4. Do you think John Proctor made the right decision in
choosing to die rather than to sign a false confession? Is it
ever permissible to lie to save your life? Isn't a survivor a
hero, too? What if you have a child? Does a parent have an
obligation to stay alive in order to take care of his or her
children? If so, how can you reconcile this belief with John
Proctor’s actions?
Every group must do the question on the back
5. Which of the following opinions about The Crucible do you
most agree with? Least agree with? Why? Explain in several
paragraphs.
1. "The way The Crucible speaks to us today has less to
do with any specific instance of collective indictment than it
does with the relentless group-think mentality of modern America,
where people, crushed under by a bureaucratic/consumerist/media
culture, rely more and more on forces outside themselves to
determine what to like, what to say, what to believe" (Owen
Gleiberman, "Bewitching Hour," Entertainment Weekly, 11/29/96).
2. The Crucible "still speaks to weaknesses of the human
character, but stretch as you will, there is simply nothing in
today's society to match the paranoia that Sen. Joseph McCarthy
and others exploited. So we're left with a story about a
community of people so ignorant and superstitious, you'd probably
look up the village idiot for advice" (Jack Mathews, "It's a
Different Era for Miller's Salem," www.newsday.com 1996).
3. “Though ignorant tyranny is taken to task either way,
the true issue here is repressed sexuality, not political
prejudice" (Michael Atkinson, "A Chilling Tale of Sexual Dread
and Christian Mob-Panic," www.mrshowbiz.com 11/27/96).
4. "One of the most contemporarily relevant aspects of
The Crucible, the ease with which justice can be manipulated and
perverted, is what Hytner and Miller have chosen to highlight in
this adaptation" (James Berardinelli, "The Crucible (1996),"
www.cybernex.net 1996).
6. "...this Crucible is a reminder of the play's wide
reach, which goes well beyond witch trials in any century. As
adapted gamely by the playwright into a screenplay that takes
advantage of scenic backgrounds and photogenic stars, The
Crucible now speaks to subtler forms of dishonesty and
opportunism than it did before. This agile film is so simply,
abstractly rooted in Salem's soil that it becomes free to suggest
anything from the impact of religious fundamentalism on politics
to the hysterical excess of tabloid television. Along the way,
this Crucible heats up its dramatic tale of marital betrayal and
redemption without losing track of its central concern, the
murderous power of lies" (Janet Maslin, "The Bewitching Power of
Lies," New York Times, 11/27/96).
8. "Later, as we prepared to shoot the movie, we were
struck time and again by its alarming topicality: it spoke
directly about the bigotry of religious fundamentalists across
the globe, about communities torn apart by accusations of child
abuse, about the rigid intellectual orthodoxies of college
campuses--there is no shortage of contemporary Salems ready to
cry witchcraft" (Nicholas Hytner, "Filming The Crucible," The
Crucible: Screenplay, Penguin Books, ©1996).
9. "And so the final irony may well be that the movie it
was thought impossible to make during the McCarthy years because
it was about McCarthyism...turns out not to have been about that
particular social deformation at all. Rather, it was about
something more universal--fear of forces one can't understand and
control" (Victor Navasky, "The Demons of Salem, With Us Still,"
New York Times, 9/8/96).