Monday, December 15, 2008


So, in English we just finished "The Crucible" by Arthur Miller and everyone was complaining about how the play was boring, too simple, lacked visuals, etc...
My teacher told us to remember that The Crucible is a play, and plays are, in fact, meant to be SEEN and not just READ.

Which makes sense, of course. On stage, characters & emotions come alive, whereas on paper they are merely words. I agree that the message of a play can be much more powerful when experienced on stage.

However, you do miss something, I think, if you don't read the script. On paper, one can clearly read everything a character says, whereas you miss some things when watching. Sometimes, plays tend to be confusing, and they make a lot more sense if you can sit down and carefully read every word and make sure you get every point the playwright was trying to make. Plus, directors don't always get everything right when adapting a script to the stage.

But I don't know. I stand kind of divided on this issue. What do you think? Read the script, or watch the play? Or both?

Yours Truly,
Miss Misty of Mystery


Gabriel Gethin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gabriel Gethin said...

Okay, first of all, I would like to address you're classmates opinions of the play. Boring? Are you kidding me!? I couldn't put this thing down! The ends of Act II and Act IV were insane! I loved this play and reading it was amazing. As long as you read the stage directions, then you know exactly what's going on in your mind. You can imagine it being done on stage so I don't know why they thought it wasn't visually stimulating.