5-Production History

Arthur Miller’s The Crucible may not be the playwright’s masterwork, but it remains as one of the most popular production pieces in the United States, and has served companies from the professional level to high schools. The original production opened at the Martin Beck Theater on January 22, 1953. Reviewer Brooks Atkinson, of the New York Times, noted how the cast members were dressed in accurately reproduced costumes from early Massachusetts. These reproductions were designed by Edith Lutyens and were as chaste as they were lovely. Boris Aronson’s scenic design was stripped bare and merciless, creating “gaunt, pitiless sets of rude buildings” that came to characterize the stage described in most editions of the text today. [1] Atkinson noted that Arthur Kennedy as John Proctor and Beatrice Straight as Elizabeth offered clear and full performances, highlighted by the moments the two spent alone together on stage. While Atkinson noted the production’s ability to draw similarities with the present state of McCarthyism, he also felt that Miller’s writing did not meet the standard of his earlier work. The play brought forth too much excitement and needed more emotion, but even Atkinson admits that his articulation of Miller’s failure only comes in comparison to Death of a Salesman. Nevertheless, The Crucible still holds its own weight.

Another criticism of Atkinson was that The Crucible was too conscious of its implications in its era, and this criticism should be taken into account in any contemporary production. The original Broadway production displayed austerity of design which followed the historical drama closely and relied on its originality in setting to tell a gripping story. This reality informs the modern dramaturge that careful attention to production choices must be made with a play such as The Crucible, which carries a different meaning in Salem than Washington D.C. or anywhere else in America today. Atkinson’s review mentions little of sound or lighting design, besides the “baleful roll of the drums at the foot of the gallows” (Atkinson). Tracking this austerity and simplicity in production through more modern interpretations will help a modern production team make informed choices about where the historical nature of Salem should be stretched and where it should remain true to its self. This original review makes it clear that fully divesting the period would be a mistake, for the period dress and design can effectively tell as story in the modern age.

The next review examined was from a Broadway revival directed by Richard Eyre and presented at the Virginia Theater (later renamed the August Wilson Theater), opening on March 7, 2002, nearly fifty years later. Charles Isherwood took fault with the overly moralistic, fire-and-brimstone interpretation of this production in his review for Variety. He describes a “strict delineation of guilt and innocence” which led to a melodramatic play with a political tone. [2] Isherwood praises Liam Neeson’s portrayal of John Proctor, but contrasts the effortless and faultless work of the actor with the tone of the production as a whole. The review speaks of large wooden sets that isolate the characters and seem claustrophobic, cutting out the brief visages of the countryside. The lighting design similarly cuts through the set, forcefully reminding the audience that this town would allow little mercy for its inhabitants. Even the sound design is full of threatening noises which jar the world of the play. Beyond this description, Isherwood notes how Patrice Johnson steals the first scene as Tituba, and he describes the witch-like costuming of Danforth as particularly poor. These aspects offer a sense of the brooding nature of this production.

Perhaps one of the most insightful criticisms which should inform any future production has little to do with this particular venture, but with the nature of the story in general. Isherwood describes how a contemporary audience struggles with Miller’s play and the seeming gullibility of the authorities as they render judgment. Any modern retelling of this story must take into account the very real reality that some of the judgments rendered by the court in The Crucible are merely ludicrous. Whether a modern production seeks to play off of the guffaws from the audience as they even resort to laughter among such ridiculous decisions or whether the production seeks to transcend the modern perception of the play and create a new world that strikes the audience as unexpected and horrifying must be given attention. A conceptual idea which seeks to emulate the terror of Salem, Massachusetts would follow the intention of the play more closely, even if it strayed from the aspects of the play which seem foreign to a modern audience today. The Crucible remains hauntingly relevant today, particularly amidst the current political climate of power and lies, and the 2002 revival reminds dramaturges how a changing American psyche should be considered when staging this play today.

The final production review consulted for this production history comes from Ivo van Hove’s Broadway revival of 2016 staged at the Walter Kerr Theater. Ben Brantley describes how this gritty and dark reboot means that “it is time to be afraid, very afraid,” of a play long tossed off as a staple of high school English and nothing more. [3] Ivo van Hove’s cast was headlined by Ben Whishaw as Proctor, Sophie Okonedo as Elizabeth, and Saoirse Ronan as Abigail. Brantley, who was clearly quite taken by the production, praises the casting of Whishaw as a more vulnerable Proctor in contrast to the tradition of Kennedy, Neeson, and Daniel Day Lewis. Ronan earns a description of diabolical as Abigail, and Brantley describes how the production perfectly fit the overtly strange election year marked by fear and outsiders. The scenic and lighting design are likened to the décor of horror movies, and Philip Glass’s icy and rhythmic music pulses from the stage in a terrifying way. A single setting was used for the various locations detailed through the play, and van Hove made a noticeable departure from the historical period associations in favor of a less tangible aesthetic meant to capture the audience just as the characters are taken captive in their own private horror show.

A great benefit of this later revival comes in the many clips and interviews that can be found online detailing its conception, production, and reception (a trailer for the production is provided below). Taking a look at these materials makes it clear that van Hove took his own direction with the tone of this play, and while the production was widely praised, it does not appear as a perfect re-imagination of Miller’s world. The cultivation of fear comes at the cost of some of the play’s historical nature, and while this decision remains the director’s prerogative, the question of what should be sacrificed in order to gain something else must be carefully understood for a play such as The Crucible, which carries such historical weight. All of these reviews are helpful and enlightening when creating a modern conceptual idea for this dramatic work.

[1] Atkinson, Brooks. “The Crucible.” The New York Times (On the Web), 23 Jan 1953.

[2] Isherwood, Charles. “Legit Reviews: Broadway: “the Crucible”.” Variety, vol. 386, no. 5, Mar, 2002, pp. 32-33.

[3] Brantley, Ben. “Review: In Arthur Miller’s ‘Crucible,’ First they Came for the Witches.” ProQuest Central, Mar 31, 2016.

Images: All images and playbill covers were taken from playbill.com.

Video: “Arthur Miller’s The Crucible.” YouTube, uploaded by The Tony Awards, 1 June 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCrWrXS2Drc.