interesting interview with Woody Allen from the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/movies/15woody.html

Evil Motives vs. Misguided Intentions

In the article “Brewed in the Crucible” in the Criticism and Analogues section of the book, Arthur Miller states he didn’t write The Crucible as a direct response to McCarthyism, but he instead wanted to explore ideas about conscience and personal morality. However, as other reviews excerpted in the book noted, the parallels are very strong. I had never thought of the Salem witchcrafts as being similar to the blacklisting of the 50’s, but Miller makes a strong case for it. The fact that he exposes a lot of the ulterior motives the accusers might have had by showing arguments about land ownership in the first act, as well as in the scene with Abigail and John Proctor in Parris’ house made me think about the fact that many of the people who participated in enforcing the blacklist had much to gain from it. Networks fired writers and actors so they would not lose their sponsorship money. Entire services sprang up asking for payment in return for clearing an accused person’s name. In addition, there was also the political benefit of being able to declare to constituents that the Communist scourge was being held at bay.

Bernstein had written in the introduction to his book that when students learn about the blacklist nowadays, they are shocked that something like this happened in American history. The events described in The Crucible however, are much more frightening to me. The fact that the greed and mischievousness of a handful of people caused innocent people to be sentenced to death is a lot more terrifying than the fact that a group of people lost their jobs in the blacklist. Miller alludes to this in his “Introduction to Collected Plays” when he stresses that there was pure evil at work in the actions of many of the individuals involved. His one regret is that he should not have presented Danforth, a character in the play, as having a glimmer of humanity that allowed him to listen to arguments against the prosecution. He writes, “I was wrong in mitigating the evil of this man and the judges he represents. Instead, I would perfect his evil to its utmost and make an open issue, a thematic consideration of it in the play” (167). The idea that these people were acting solely on evil motives, rather than on misguided intentions (as might be said about McCarthy), is what is most frightening here.

Intellect or Heart?

What I found interesting in reading the beginning of this play and some of the criticism is the conflict that emerged between the subjective individual and the society. When I first read The Crucible in high school I remember being so caught up in the drama of the Salem witch trials that I didn’t think to relate the play to a bigger historical picture. I also remember being more fascinated by the subject matter than the specifics of the characters themselves, which is why it interested me that so much of the criticism mentioned how the play was not as emotionally charged or subjective as Miller’s previous plays. Walter Kerr wrote that “It is intellect which goes out, not the heart,” and many of the other critics echoed this idea. However, I wonder if Miller was aware of where he was putting his focus in this play. His own article references an American dormancy in the theatre and among students, and an absence “of any ferment, either religious, political literary, or whatever” (159) – was Miller more concerned with raising issues than individual characters? Also, Miller mentions that he observed “that conscience was no longer a private matter but one of state administration.” (163) Does this in someway account for what his critics were talking about?
When I read this play, I did not think that the characters stood out as lesser developed, overly intellectual rather than emotional, or existing just to serve the thematic functions of the playwright. True, I am not that familiar with Death of a Salesman or Miller’s other works, so perhaps I don’t have the same perspective as some of the critics. However, I found certain exchanges between characters, for example that between Abigail and John Proctor, to be very emotionally charged. So far I do not see this disconnect that some of the criticisms mentioned, but it is something I want to be aware of as I continue to read.
One other thought I had regarding this point was the public’s opinion or view on the blacklist and current events at the time of publication. Obviously it had a strong effect on Miller and those who were directly involved, but Bernstein’s memoirs and “The Front” hinted that a lot was hushed up. Miller writes that the emotions emerging from this political climate were “so interior and subjective” and therefore emotional for him – is it possible that those not directly involved did not feel as strongly, and that is why some sense a disconnect in the play? Was it Miller’s intention that the thematic material and underlying ideas eclipse the individual characters, or do the two aspects of the play share the emotional weight?

Arthur Miller - censoring himself?

I found that the first fifty pages of The Crucible were most interesting in regards to the notes that (I believe) Arthur Miller incorporates. I was especially interested in the reasoning for these notes as I wonder how much they add or detract from his play as it stands alone. For instance, the additional facts about Mr. Putnam on page three states that he “was a widower with no interest in children, or talent with them” and yet, his concern for Betty slightly contrasts with this statement. Albeit there are ulterior motives for his wanting to cure Betty (fear of scandal/soiled name), I feel that Putnam is not devoid of all feeling. One notices that he refuses to blame Betty for anything that she might have done, but rather lays all blame onto Abigail (despite being related). “I have fought here three long years to bend these stiff-necked people to me, and now, just now when some good respect is rising for me in the parish, you compromise my very character” (Miller, 11). It’s interesting to note that in trying to censor the town against accusations of witchcraft (similar to the Blacklist) Putnam calls more attention to the matter by calling for a doctor who has a ‘degree’ or knowledge in such matters i.e. Dr. Hale.

Going back to my original point, what is the effect of coloring/giving background to these characters have on ‘censoring’ the motivations of each character as they stand alone? Why can’t the actor/director etc. come away with their own interpretation of the issues and relationships as they play out in the play? In a sense Arthur Miller is censoring himself and the possibilities of the message that go along with his play. I guess what I’m questioning is what/how this added information enlightens the reader. For instance, what do we make of the fact that, historically based, Abigail is actually younger than how she appears in the play? Is this not a type of censor in itself? By questioning this one detail, the reader comes to question every detail about the play and wonder about what the author actually intended the purpose of the play to be. How does Arthur Miller color the Salem Witch trials - even though he based this play on historical findings?

Guilt and Fear

The beginning of The Crucible sets the scene quite succinctly for the hysteria that is undoubtedly to follow. What I found interesting is how quickly individuals, most notably Abigail, utilize the small amount of fear in order to either further their own agenda or in her case to protect themselves. Since this is my first time reading the play I am very curious on how this fear is going to be developed. As of now it is a simply the best option that Abigail and Betty have in order to cover up their less than proper activities in the woods. Judging from the few historical facts that I do know of the trials, the fear within the town was real and was seemingly endorsed by the theocracy that ruled it.

So far fear is the predominant emotion within the play, which is why it is easy to cast it as a direct allegory to the times in which Miller wrote it. Judging from the criticism it appears that this is a common evaluation of the work. While Miller does admit that terror “underlies every word in The Crucible” (162) he evaluates this idea a bit further. While terror was at the surface of McCarthyism there was guilt that individuals had “resulting from their awareness that they were not as Rightist as people were supposed to be” (163). While this sense of guilt is applicable to the era of the blacklist, in terms of Miller’s play the guilt does not arise from a political platform but instead from religion. Perhaps the people in Salem were not as pious as they thought? I suppose that the cause of this guilt and fear is the forms of authority that create the, as Miller describes them, “sins” (163).

So then in terms of The Crucible perhaps the fear was not just merely endorsed by those in power. It is possible that a benchmark of piety was created that no one could meet. This continuous failure hanging over Salem provided a unique environment for the witch hunt. All it took was an unexplained illness and the fearful accusations of children for the townspeople to try and assert themselves in their religious devotion. The people in Salem found that it was much safer to declare one’s desire to be pure, rather than to refute the need for such a proclamation.

Is it about the Politics or the Punishment?

I've read The Crucible several times and each time I become more and more distrustful of its position as a blacklist allegory. Yes, there are "witch hunts" and Abigail and the other girls seem to be afraid of being found out as occultists themselves, but in focusing on the Proctor family, Miller gives us an extremely morally complicated story in which John Proctor's final refusal to confess isn't exactly as heroic as it initially seems.

Abigail always seems to be discussed as this sex-crazed evil harpy who's out to destroy noble, sad Elisabeth Proctor so she can get at ultimately good man John Proctor. But Abigail is seventeen. It's implied that her affair with John happend some time ago, which means she was even younger when he slept with her. Sure, she could have been the agressor, but John's behavior is pretty unbecoming of a hero. He admits that in his final scene with Elisabeth, and she goes on about how it must have been partly her fault because she was so cold. John knows this is not true, and his self loathing is so deep that his decision to initially confess seems to come from a place of wanting to be punished. His final decision to tear up the confession is driven on a textual level by his concern about dishonoring those who have held out like Rebecca Nurse and Giles Corey, but there seems to be more to this play than anti-McCarthyism.

Miller's work is generally described as being based in subtext, in the psychological pain of Greek tragedy. His previous major works All My Sons and Death of a Salesman were partially about global ideas like the war effort, consumerism, and the abuse of the middle class, but they were also about characters that were tragic as a result of their own failings and guilt. The Crucible is no exception to this rule. John Proctor is not a very good poster boy for a well-meaning Communist harangued by the blacklist because he is very much to blame for his persecution. His failure to resist Abbey and to communicate with Elisabeth contribute to his fall, and his decision to not sign a confession could just as likely be a desire to be punished for his sins as a political action. Yes, Abbey probably began lying to save her own skin but she often comes off as such a powerful operator that instead of being a stand-in for turning state's evidence, she almost ends up as Joe McCarthy himself based on her vitriol.

It's also a little telling that Miller followed Crucible up with A View From The Bridge, a story in which a man is destroyed by his desire for his teenage niece (who just happens to be the same age as Abbey, just a lot less evil and sex-crazed.) Point is, when you're dealing with real witches and demonizing teenage girls, the message about blacklisting gets a little muffled, and it's impossible to look at the play or Proctor as simply a cautionary tale about witch hunts. It's also a cautionary tale about statutory rape, adultery, and shame.

17th and 20th century witch hunts

I have always been interested in early American history, especially the Salem witch trials, so when I first read The Crucible a few years ago I thought of it in terms of the historical period and its context. Upon rereading the play and thinking of the theme of our course I have found completely new meaning in The Crucible. I found an astonishing comparison between the Salem witch trials and the blacklist that I had never seen before. In Salem the term “witch hunt” was taken literally, yet the blacklist of the 1950s was another form of a “witch hunt” which I had never seen the similarities between until reading Miller’s commentary and criticism of The Crucible. I had always seen the accuser Abigail Williams as a servant looking to possess the power she could not have in the social contexts of the time, but her place in society and the power her accusations brought her were similar to the powers given to the accusers during the blacklist. Even the overwhelming power of being an accuser and not an accused individual is another parallel between the Salem witch trials and the blacklist. The fear and hysteria could be felt in The Crucible just as the struggles were felt in Inside Out. Many of Miller’s comments about the Salem witch trials speak to us in the shadow of the blacklist. He at one point writes “They were asked to be lonely and they refused” (171). He is speaking of those accused in the Salem trials, yet this same feeling seems to echo in the blacklist where those accused were ostracized like those in Salem, yet they came together to avoid the loneliness, where those in Salem could not be so lucky. When speaking of Salem he writes that “there was a sadism here that was breathtaking (166)” which is something I found when reading and learning about the blacklist. At one point he even writes about Salem “People then avowed principles, sought to love by them and die by them” (168). This to mean can also be a statement of those blacklisted. They had certain beliefs and had to give up their livelihoods to stand by those beliefs.
It is honestly a shame for me to see such comparisons between events about 250 years apart, yet the hysteria, accusations, and destruction of lives are comparable. To think that the horror of the Salem witch trials could or was ever replayed in our country’s history is shocking. To not look back and see the destruction of a community that the trials caused and then repeat such destruction over the entire nation is remarkable.