Skip to content

Review: The Crucible – Abbey Theatre

The Crucible by Arthur Miller is at the Abbey Theatre Dublin from 26th May 2007. is a big play about big themes. It addresses weighty issues such as faith and superstition, collective hysteria and paranoia, the price of integrity, the explosive anarchic power of repressed sexuality, the cost of infidelity, and the way scapegoats serve to maintain social order and bolster shaky notions of piety. Not having seen it before, its reputation as one of the much-studied classics of American theatre preceded it, and so, to be honest, I was expecting an intellectual discourse that would leave me enriched on a mental level, but one where I’d probably have to leave my emotions at home, except possibly for “intrigued”.

The beginning met my sombre expectations, and I braced myself for a long, worthy night – although the superb new shape of the auditorium happily banished many dreary memories of feeling disconnected from the Abbey stage. A candle flickered into life in the dark, and we were faced with a grey abstract monolithic box, walls like slabs, and a huge overhanging girder, giving the space an oddly anachronistic industrial-era resonance. I doubt one could create a grimmer, more alienating set. The darkness receded under a horizontal shaft of cold white light, to reveal a body laid out in front of us like a corpse. Men and women, dressed in monochrome, brought a pale semblance of life to the stage, as they fretted about the inexplicably comatose girl, Betty Parris, and what she and her friends had been doing in the woods together the previous night, to leave her in such a state.

The bleakness had a strong effect on me – I found myself starved for colour, for warmth, for signs of vitality, for some relief. The girl’s father, Peter Hanly’s Reverend Parris, a neurotic ferret of a man overwhelmed by a terror of witchcraft rumours spreading, set the uneasy tone of the times for us: tense, volatile, unhappy. A queasy helplessness dominated, a lack of ability to be rational, grounded, sensible. We heard the story of Ann Putnam, a simple woman failing to make sense of the pain of having had so many of her babies die in her arms, and how she had arrived at her deeply flawed conclusions, that set in train the events that were to destroy so many people’s lives. Intense grief can warp our rationality, and once I had connected with that, through Marion O’Dwyer’s goosebump-raising performance, it began to be clear how could flourish in that community, like a pale and sickly growth mushrooming overnight on rotting wood, and I knew that I was in for a gripping night of theatre.

The frenzied hysteria gathered momentum, and took on a frightening life of its own, and accusations of witchcraft flew around, ensnaring dozens in a cruel double-bind: confess to witchcraft and name others who have walked with the devil, or face a guilty charge, and death. The story became a simple but moving one: how each person struggled to retain their integrity in the face of irrational hate and fear. The Reverend John Hale (Peter Gowen), a witchcraft expert, called in to investigate the girls’ disturbing behaviour, led by the manipulative Abigail Williams (Ruth Negga), began by impressing with his calm rationality but he, too, got swept up in the storm, as the cases snowballed and went to trial. A farmer, John Proctor (Declan Conlon) and his wife Elizabeth (Cathy Belton), whose marriage was already frosty due to his having had an affair with Abigail, found that their private troubles became the business of the courts, as they too found themselves accused, and betrayed. Another farmer, the eccentric and wily Giles Corey (played to comic perfection by Tom Hickey), moved heaven and earth to obtain justice for his accused wife.

The simplicity and fluidity of this production by Patrick Mason (even though I saw it at first preview) was deeply impressive, because at every twist and turn the emotions of the characters were available to us and instantly understandable. The audience tittered with nerves when the young girls’ collective hysteria was at its most disturbing and creepily infectious. When we heard what unhappy fate befell Giles Corey in the last act, so much had he endeared himself to us, the effect was devastating. The strain in the Proctors’ marriage was achingly familiar, and the thaw in their relationship, when it finally came, brought tears to my eyes. John Proctor’s character, so flawed and passionate and heroic, is proof alone of Arthur Miller’s genius as a playwright, but Conlon and Belton’s superb performances brought immediacy and heart to his words.

This was ensemble acting at its best – clear as a bell, accessible, taut, generous, not a weak link in the chain, not a false note struck in the entire evening. It seemed utterly right that the accents were Irish, unforced, natural. By the end of the night, I found myself still hating the mechanical oppressiveness of the set, the accusing, interrogative, blinding light of each scene change, a hint to force us, perhaps, to question our own capacity to be swept away by hysteria. But I liked the fact that there was no reference to the 1950s and the McCarthy era; the psychological truth of The Crucible is timeless. However much as I disliked the greyness of the environment, the humanity of each character seemed even more palpable as a result. This production worked for me because it didn’t have an angle, the director had no high-concept axe to grind, his sole interest and achievement was to allow his gifted actors to tell a great story well. Sometimes we need the plainest of settings to enable us to see gems at their sparkling best.

Listen:

Update: I reviewed the show with Dave O’Mahoney of Film Ireland on with Nadine O’Regan on on 9th June, and we both gave this production 5 stars.

{ 6 } Comments

  1. Anonymous | 16 June 2007 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    Surely not thumbs up for this boring and tedious production. As an actor surely you recognised that this was old hat regurgicated for fat cats and eager tourists looking for culture. The audience were treated to voyeuristic theatre that was located in what looked like Lady Macbeths dungeon. There was more life up in Glasnevin cemetry. In fact theatre of this nature should be placed in the casket and buried with all the other culture the abbey throws out as crumbs to us poor taxpayers. Irish theatre inovative ? -RIP.

  2. Dermod | 18 June 2007 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Not sure why as an actor I would see it that way – the actor in me responded very well because I felt that acting talents were allowed to shine. And I don’t see why this one production should be the litmus test for Irish theatrical innovation. This was quality classic theatre, and it has a home in the Abbey, alongside other (hopefully) more innovative work.

  3. peadar | 24 June 2007 at 12:41 am | Permalink

    Hi,
    Seen this performed tonight,and after reading the play 3 times I felt that it was a powerful testament to Millars Genius.
    Only discovered theatre this year at the age of 48 and to me this is what Millar wanted us to see and hear.
    Peadar

  4. Anonymous | 1 July 2007 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    I saw this show yesterday afternoon, thought it a brilliant production with great ensemble acting. I’d like to pay personal tribute to Bosco Hogan, who stepped in at the last minute for Christopher Saul who had to withdraw for personal reasons. He had to use the script, not an easy task as his character is the centre point of the second act. But he, and the rest of the cast, worked round it wonderfully.
    A very emotional piece of theatre, and still very relevant today..

  5. Anonymouis | 16 July 2007 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

    Dermod here are 3 reasons to think about in this dissapointing production-
    1- no risk taken. nothing new. whats the point in doshing out old hat. any amateur director could do this with these actors. not good enough for a national theatre.
    2- Stage offers no audience interaction. tear down this stage and get us involved. If we want to see images on a screen we have the UCI.
    3. The last act was way too long. I wanted to join the executions by the end.
    What exactly do u mean by classical theatre ? This is just the usual Abbey nonsense as it exerts its cultural power with taxpayers money. Is this our national theatre or what the abbey say is our national theatre ? Are u are being hoodwinked into believing this is theatre-its not. Its TV dressed up as theatre. Think about what more theatre could offer if only we would take some risks.

  6. Dermod | 17 July 2007 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    1. Innovation is not the only criterion for staging a play on a national theatre stage. It is an important one, I agree, and in my opinion most productions in the Abbey’s repertoire should take risks and be innovative. But not all – because a national theatre should also be the place where one goes to see the best in acting and direction. I completely disagree about this being something that “any amateur director” could produce – the amount of effort and skill required to highlight the subtleties and emotions of this play is considerable. It takes genius to make it seem simple.
    2. I like the idea of audience interaction, of breaking down the fourth wall. But it’s not relevant to this production.
    3. I didn’t find the last act too long, but that’s just my experience.

    I mean classical theatre as in putting on acknowledged good plays, and doing them well.

    I have to say I agree with your sentiments about what a National Theatre should be about – what theatre should be about. But it has always been difficult to judge what is appropriate to produce on the Abbey stage – if it’s too innovative, people stay away, because risks taken in theatre can backfire spectacularly. If it’s too conservative, it dies. If the Abbey only produced this kind of show in its entire season, then I would have grounds for serious complaint. I’m only really paying attention to what’s on in the Abbey for the past few months, so I will be looking for more innovative shows along the lines you like in the coming year.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *