The Crucible at the Abbey

After much anticipation and anxiety, I got to see the new Abbey Theatre production of The Crucible last night on its opening night. Overall, there was clearly a great deal of effort put into the production but the stakes never managed to get to a height that made it compelling.

In preparation for this production and my intent to write about it for my dissertation, I have (re)read Arthur Miller's script multiple times. It is an incredibly difficult text for a few reasons:
1.) It is not historically accurate. While Miller himself acknowledges that he based his characters on actual events, he also insists that this is a work of fiction and that it was, in part, an exercise in language as well as in discussing social dynamics. This ambiguously historical piece then makes it difficult for the production team to discern how much emphasis should be placed on the accuracy with which they present Puritanism and the Puritan lifestyle.
2.) Miller chooses to emphasize lust/lechery over other political issues. Many books have been published about the Salem witch trials that began in 1692 and most of them discuss the deep political, economic, and personal rifts within the Salem Town and Village. Without delving into the actual history of the accusations, trials, and murders it is difficult to discern the points of significance (that is, where Miller explicitly deviates from history and where he adheres to it). I find it interesting that Miller finds adultery and sexual miscommunications/violations more stable ground for this play about a society willing to believe delusions of Satan. Also, a sexual relationship between Abigail Williams and John Proctor seems to have no basis in historical fact. Historically, Abigail was 11 or 12 and living with her uncle Rev. Samuel Parris while Proctor was in his sixties and there is no record of Abigail working for the Proctors.
3.) The argument continues that The Crucible is about McCarthyism. Rather than view this as a piece of art that speaks its own message, many prefer to interpret this play as an explicit parallel to the HUAC interrogations and black listing of the 1950s in the US. But very little of the play actually happens in a trial. Most of the play is about the interpersonal (re)actions to the escalating fear of one another. I find it interesting to consider Miller's choice to emphasize the underlying concern for (marital) vows over other witch-hunt issues especially in light of the betrayal by his close friend Elia Kazan who did name names in the HUAC meetings thereby assuring he would not be black-listed and could continue to direct films in Hollywood.

I don't feel like discussing much more about the production at the moment because I am saddened and confused by the production for different reasons and am still sorting that out for myself. I am not sure if I will write about it for my dissertation. It's all a bit cloudy at the moment. I might go see the show again later in its run to see how it has developed. I may decide I would rather spend my time and money elsewhere. Only time and reflection will tell.