Arthur Miller is arguably the greatest American playwright of the last century. The Crucible, AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN, I had always looked upon as a modern masterpiece. It is therefore absolutely heartbreaking for me to watch this filmed variation of The Crucible that is such a complete and utter sell-out to the modern hot button Hollywood dreck. What is even more difficult to endure, is the knowledge that it is Arthur Miller himself who is responsible for peeing on his own work. There his vaunted name sits, the sole screen writing credit to a run of the mill if not worse than most, B movie adaptation. Yes, Yes, Mel Brooks has done this in reverse with The Producers and Young Frankenstein, and done it successfully. I know also that it is Mr. Miller's play and he can do with it whatever he chooses to, obviously. I just switched off this film (no I couldn't make it to the end) with a real sense of disappointment and a diminished assessment of Miller that bordered on disillusionment. I don't want to compare Arthur Miller to Mel Brooks but I think now I always will. To take the devils advocate approach, Miller wrote the original play to satirize McCarthyism; a topic in which most Americans today probably hold very little interest. So the lampoon HAD to be adapted to conform to the modern perceived injustices. Right? Well if this is true, then the original play for me and even more importantly for Arthur Miller, has minimal value as enduring art and as such, must be completely overrated if not, dismissed? Which brings me back to my disillusionment.
Review of The Crucible
