It should come as no surprise to fans of Arthur Miller that the most produced play of perhaps the greatest American playwright of the 20th century is set in a small Colonial town over 300 years ago. Although Miller is revered for his social criticism in relation to contemporary issues-from World War II profiteering in “All my Sons” to the psychological damages of the modern capitalistic society in “Death of a Salesman”-his obsessive fascinations with morality and honesty, power and profit, are not subject to the peculiarities of 20th Century culture. Indeed, in “The Crucible” these themes emerge often with greater clarity and contemporary force than his other works, and in its production at The Repertory Theatre of St. Louis, Miller’s poetic and haunting script is given an injection of contemporary significance while maintaining the distinct nostalgia of American Colonial history.
Whether purposeful or not, The Rep has chosen a fine time for such a production. Set in the infamous environment of the Salem Witch Trials in 1692, it is well known that Miller wrote “The Crucible” in response to the political inquisition of the McCarthy era and the terrifying hunt of Communists by the House Un-American Activities Committee. In today’s political season, where fellow university students are subpoenaed and prevented from protesting the status quo, Miller’s story about the silencing of the dissonant resonates with a greater creepiness than any witch threat ever could. When Deputy Governor Danforth (Joneal Joplin) cries out to the protests of John Proctor (Christopher Burns) with, “You’re either with this court or against it, there be no road between,” the comparison to our President’s own dichotomizations-“You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror,” he once told the UN-the versatility of Miller’s words seem to defy both time and space.
As “The Crucible” clearly demonstrates, the Salem witch trials were much more exercises in the maintenance of power and the distribution of resources than the bewildering superstitions of an ancient society. What makes the play so powerful is that it focuses as much on its broad themes as it does its compelling individual characters. What were the motivations for the mass murder of around 20 people, the play asks? How can it solely be religion when even the most pious are accused, and the most evangelical disbelieving? As the central figure John Proctor proclaims, it is not superstition but rather “vengeance [that] is walking Salem.” It is Reverend Parris’ (Anderson Matthews) desire for political gain; Thomas Putnam’s (Thomas Carson) desire for profit and property; and Abigail Williams’ (Stephanie Cozart) desire for revenge on the man who knew and then abandoned her.
So much a play driven by its characters and its dialogue, “The Crucible,” like all of Miller’s plays, demands a high quality of acting and direction that many other works can easily sidestep. The undeniable success of the Rep’s production lies in the power of its individual performances. As John Proctor, the imperfect though virtuous farmer who is condemned of deviltry only after defending his wife’s innocence, Burns delivers a truly flawless performance. Physically imposing yet tastefully sensitive, Burns is the perfect fit for the character forced to choose between the comforts of lies and the pains of virtue. Equally stunning is Joplin’s turn as the intransigent though sympathetic chief judge, largely disinterested in profit unlike his companions, yet guilty in his conservative narrow-mindedness. In such an intense drama, Tim Altmeyer’s turn as the torn Reverend John Hale (one of the more complex characters in the play) is the only example of overacting. His super-evangelized, on-his-knees-with-hands-clasped style is not as effective as his more reticent, reserved acting that is showcased more fully in the second-half.
While Arthur Miller, now almost 90, is unlikely to be around much longer,
“The Crucible” is one of those rare dramas that will surely remain meaningful long after its playwright’s death. The Rep’s production is no exception, although it is certainly exceptional.