I am an atheist, I have a very different take on who God is. Man invented God because he needed him. God is us. — Carl Reiner

the crucible’ — review

i’ve always been a big fan of arthur miller’s “the cru­cible”. some say it’s over played, becom­ing a theatre cliché, but i think the show has a lot to offer to mod­ern audi­ences. when well cast and dir­ec­ted, “the cru­cible” is a grip­ping drama with tra­gic overtones.

the story, set in the early 1600s, is a true tale of witch hunts in salem, mas­sachu­setts, the heart of pur­itan amer­ican soci­ety. when a group of girls are caught dan­cing naked in the forest, the town is gripped in mass hys­teria. the res­ult­ing pan­de­monium ends in half the town being accused of witch­craft and hanged with no pos­sible way of prov­ing their innocence.

the cru­cible” was pro­duced by the queens­land theatre com­pany and dir­ec­ted by fam­ous aus­tralian play­wright michael gow. while i saw a lot that i liked in this pro­duc­tion, over­all it lacked essen­tial energy and com­mittment. the show didn’t have the pol­ish to make it a stand out performance.

the biggest fault was the cast­ing of andrew buchanan as john proc­tor and franscesca sav­ige as abi­gale wil­li­ams. these two cru­cial char­ac­ters are pivotal to the play’s suc­cess and both act­ors, frankly, were flat. buchanan, par­tic­u­larly, gave a per­form­ance that was without vari­ety and lacked the emo­tional range to be con­vin­cing. savige’s approach, too, was below par. as a char­ac­ter who single-handedly des­troys a com­munity, the part of abi­gale, a flir­ta­tious and vin­dict­ive vixen, demands enorm­ous skill and nuance which appeared to be out­side savige’s range.

the most dis­may­ing part of watch­ing these two act was their scene together. abigale’s lust for john should pro­duce chem­istry and enorm­ous sexual ten­sion. how­ever there was noth­ing between the act­ors to show the his­tory of their rela­tion­ship and the phys­ical con­nec­tion that they once had. a lot should be vis­ible between the lines when proc­tor and abi­gale are in close proximity.

the other cast mem­bers did a fant­astic job in their respect­ive parts. most mem­or­able was james stu­art as the cha­ris­matic rev­er­end hale. stuart’s per­form­ance was par­tic­u­larly strong and he held up his scenes well. i also quite liked paul bishop’s inter­pret­a­tion of rev­er­end par­ris. des­pite over­play­ing the char­ac­ter, par­ris came across as sniv­el­ing, nervous and pathetic. it was a good con­trast to hale’s fire and brimstone.

the set design for “the cru­cible” was also excel­lent. the min­im­al­ist set was back­dropped by large tree trunks. a stair­case down through the stage floor brought a nice real­ism to the scenes played in the attic and jail dun­geons. gow, how­ever, seemed to struggle with how to use his large, set; the trees went vir­tu­ally unused while block­ing wast stil­ted and lacked pol­ish. on a num­ber of occa­sions act­ors were left stand­ing with their backs to the audi­ence and the act­ors con­stantly blocked each other from the audience’s view.

things got worse when it came to cos­tum­ing and props. the ward­robe appeared to be a hodge­podge of clothes picked ran­domly (proc­tor wore a sheep­skin jacket and jeans, while the women wore more tra­di­tional ‘pil­grim style’ dresses). the props too annoyed me. hale’s case of books clearly looked brand new and rein­forced the lack of atten­tion to detal and pol­ish vis­ible through­out the performance.

how­ever, the worst pos­sible part of the show was the super­fi­cial gloss over dur­ing one of the play’s most import­ant scenes. proctor’s wife, given the oppor­tun­ity to reveal abigale’s true nature, lies to the court in order to save her husband’s repu­ta­tion. this single, pivotal moment is the true tragedy of “the cru­cible”, but it was lost in a hur­ried scene.

all of the faults in this pro­duc­tion don’t reflect badly on the show itself. in fact, the char­ac­ters played the humour and sus­pense well. the over­all effect was good. “the cru­cible” was enjoy­able and a solid pro­duc­tion. hon­estly, the stand­ard is below queens­land theatre company’s usual high qual­ity, but “the cru­cible” is no easy play to pro­duce and those involved did a com­mend­able job.


No Comments Yet


There are no comments yet. You could be the first!

Leave a Comment