Revisiting The Crucible

After an initial reaction of strong frustration to the Abbey Theatre's recent production of Arthur Miller's The Crucible I have had multiple conversations with individuals who had and hadn't seen the production. Most of them eventually did and then we could return to the discussion with their fresh insights to the evolving production (as all live theatre grows and changes through the span of its performances).

Admittedly, when I went to see the production I was hoping for something that was unlikely to happen: a production of the play that highlighted ambiguities while avoiding a caricature of hysteria. This seemed more possible when I saw that Ruth Negga was in the show and, based on the production stills, seemingly in the role of Abigail Williams. Admittedly not the best performance by which to judge a production as there are anxieties that can make the performances stiff as well as the fact that the actors are still exploring their roles and how they interact in performance, what I did see on the opening night performance were two things I've seen often enough in Dublin to make my heart ache: an enormous Abbey set and actors working REALLY hard.

For those unfamiliar with the Abbey Theatre in Dublin it has what must be an enormous stage (some joke it was to compensate for the shockingly tiny stage at the original theatre) and the sets are often larger than is useful or effective for the performances. When so much of the audience's view is filled by the scenography, is it not logical that it would pull focus? For The Crucible it was a lot of mottled, glossy black walls which, when revealed fully looked like a giant chimney, perhaps intended as a giant crucible. There was an overhead beam suggestive of Puritan homes but there was also a large wedge cutting across the roof space of the Proctor's home that looked like a giant guillotine blade looming over the scene. The costuming was mostly a "period" Puritan look with the striking exception of John Proctor who wore a leather coat and hat which lent him the look of a highwayman more than a farmer.

As for my comment about those hard-working actors, I can't stress enough the ability and effort evident in the performance. A friend who saw it roughly one month into the run of performances said the relationship between John and Elizabeth Proctor had evolved into something profound and nuanced from their first scene to their last when she found it difficult to resist tears. I have been fortunate enough to have seen many of the actors in other productions and was glad to see them again. On the opening night, however, I was aware of the spaces between the actors and gaps in intelligibility of the text.

The most problematic scene for me was the scene in the foyer or antechamber outside the courtroom. In the Abbey production they used the entire stage which seemed a bit large for a Puritan community in 1692. While it accommodated the large cast present during the scene, there was no feeling of tension as to where the characters were positioned in the space and in relation to each other. Proctor and his cohorts mostly occupied stage right while Abigail and her cohorts mostly occupied stage left; Judge Danforth presided over the middle of the stage while a smattering of others filled the gaps in such a way that it became a large muddled crowd with little distinction between the factions rendering it difficult to locate a point of focus during much of the scene.

From my position as an outsider it is difficult to assess precisely how the production with so much potential, so many resources, ended up leaving me unfulfilled and disheartened. In my mind and based on my training, I hold the director accountable for the large-scale lack of integration between the production elements and the points of emphasis in the production. I know this is somewhat unfair because there is much that is beyond the director's control, yet I find the director's task is to navigate through any plans, discoveries, and obstacles to help form a solid production. Ultimately, I don't think I understood what Patrick Mason and his production team were trying to do in the production despite my efforts to do so.

My conversations with trusted and insightful individuals who also saw the production often included encouragement for me to see the show again in its more integrated and evolved state. I did consider it but never made it a high enough priority. But these conversations all helped me articulate myself better, to explain better how it wasn't a question of what I would've done and how it would've been better, but my frustration with seeing so many under-utilized resources, especially the actors. With that pool of talent there was much potential to invigorate that script and challenge the assumptions about the characters (Abigail is a harlot/the devil, Elizabeth Proctor is frigid/depressed, and John Proctor is the hero with a pure heart). To be fair, I've yet to see a production that does this consistently. But I remain hopeful that I will someday get to see a production that does.