The Crucible - Comparing Play And Movie Essay

To contrast, In the movie there way over dramatic because when they found out Helen was blind and deaf Kate let out a huge cry of grief and they were a little over dramatic when Helen finally figured out what everything was because Helen figured out what water was and what the ground was after that Annie was screaming yes. A difference between the play and the movie would be the fight with negro kids because in the play they said that helen was touching the kids mouths trying to feel what they said but when the negro boy bit Helens finger she tried the girls mouth and then she tried to cut her hair but the negro girl stopped it but then Helen jumped on the negro girl but then Kate pulled them apart but in the movie they just showed the part where Helen going through the sheets then goes to the part where Helen is wrestling the negro girl on the

The use of filming that is not similar to the play makes it more intersting. For example, the beginning was very different compared to the play and movie. In the play, we didn't experience Tituba and the girls dancing in the forest, but we barely hear about it later, in the movie it is the opening scene. The scene was added for dramatic effects and foreshadowing. Another example, when Abigail goes to see Proctor in jail instead of running away, and in the play Abigail just runs away from Salem.

Some differences in the time period that I noticed were the members of the Capulet and Montague families had arranged marriages. An arranged marriage means the parents tell their children who they want to marry. After their parents tell them who they think their child should marry, the marriage ceremony will be arranged. I think that Shakespeare put arranged marriages into the play because he is trying to show us what happen in the 15th century. In the play, they actually experience it. In the movie, they are showing that they are doing a news article about the marriage. Also, I was expecting to see a little bit more of an older movie scene. The movie has a ton of differences, but they are good differences.

In The Crucible by Arthur Miller, Miller was able to bring the story to life from a play to film. In the play he was not able to use numerous locations, but in the film he was able to change the locations. Since Miller is able to change and add locations in the film the story was told in a more effective way.

The movie’s tempo is much faster and the language had a lot of vulgar points in it. I was surprised with the comments between Roxie and Velma. Velma and Roxie seemed to hate each other much more than in the musical. Most of the characters did a great job of pronouncing and speaking lines clearly in the musical. The movie does not have the same struggle with sound as the plays do. Movies the audience has control of the volume and the editors can edit the actors’ voices. I did not have any trouble understanding the actors in the movie because of

There are some character differences between the two works. In the play, Katharina is physically and verbally abusive to get her way. While in the movie, she is only verbally abusive. This is changed

Also, the play is set on a large island in the middle of a large ocean, or sea; while the movie is set on a little tiny island in the middle of a swamp in Louisiana.

At the time of its writing, The Crucible was a message in a hidden way. The author, Arthur Miller was being investigated for being a communist, which at the time was a very similar accusation to being a witch during the time of the Salem Witch Trials. Now, the book is one of the most read books in high school English classes, change in how the book has been viewed in the past 60 years is enormous. Forty-four years after the book was written a movie was made, the movie was not made for the same purpose. Mr. Miller was instead a director this time instead of a writer, the movie was nominated for two Oscars and won 4 different awards.

The organization in the play and movie are different because of how the time period is set. For example, the play starts in 1945, but the movie starts in 1942. They are different years and different

While reading three articles about the play called "The Crucible" I noticed many interesting facts. Many questions as well came to mind. The main question was “What was the Arthur purpose for writing The Crucible”? Well let’s start of by saying Arthur Miller was a extremely American play writing. Miller born in 1915, but where was his childhood? He grew up in New York with a Jewish family. Arthur Millers’ play went on Broadway at the Martin Beck. This occurred in the year of 1953. The play was called The Crucible. Was The Crucible even one of his best places? Well it was yet one of his best second plays. What were the events of the play of Miller had done? The event of the play had to do with the events that took place in Salem. What

One of the main differences between the play and movie is the timeframe of the story. In the play, we open in 1945, and flashback to the story as they go into hiding, and ends right as they leave, flashing back to 1945. In the movie, we start in 1942 long before going into hiding, and we proceed chronologically to the point in 1945 that the play started in.

One of the differences from the movie is the time period. In the movie the time period is around 1996 (20th century), but in the play it is in the 1400’s (15th century). The director, Baz Luhrmann made the movie in the 20th century, so it's easier for us to understand. The actors in the movie use cars and guns to make it more realistic for us because people use guns and cars in this century. The plot of the movie is in a city, with skyscrapers and tall buildings. We can relate to big cities and tall buildings because most people have been to big cities. In the movie, it opens up with a lady on the television and they didn’t have televisions in the play, which was during the 15th century so we can relate more to the movie.

When it comes to the time period between the movie and the play there are many things that are different. One of the things that are different is that in the movie they use guns instead of swords. This gives the impression that the movie is set in more modern times. Another thing that was different in the movie was the city of verona. In the play it was a 13th century italian city but in the movie it was a more modern american metropolis. The affects the viewer will have to the changes will be terrible as people would be expecting it to be spot on with the play. The director probably made these changes in order to give the play a more modern look but ended up failing miserably.

The first obvious difference between the play and the movie happens in the first act. In the play version, Romeo reads a party invitation for the Capulet servant. He knows of the Capulet party because he reads the letter. In the movie, the Capulet servant does not appear, Romeo just shows up at the party. Even though act one of the play features some minor differences, most details are the same. Both start out with the feuding families fighting in the street. In addition,

There are many ways that these two films are different from one another. One of these differences is the deliveries of their lines. In the 1996 version, you notice that the actors say their lines very swiftly. The lines are also very close to the lines in the actual play, you could barely tell a difference. However, in the 2013 version the lines are delivered more calmly and collected.