Comparing the play to the production.
             Stories are told differently and they affect us in different ways, Arthur Millers "The Crucible" is no exception. The Hollywood production strikes people more effectively than the history in written articles. You can read all the articles you want on the holocaust and see drawings but nothing may grasp your attention like a film; the same is true about the Salem witch trials.
             In the play "The crucible" Reverend Parris seemed like a good guy in the play. The reverend was seemingly concerned all around with his "Flock" and the community in a whole. However, in the movie production he is shown as a greedy ex-business man. While this may have been mentioned in the play it is more prevalent in the movie. Another example of the movie being more explicit with details is the fickle attitude of the community. The fact that nobody in the whole village sees the girls are lying until they are accused enforces that fact. This fact is shown better in the movie as well because you can see the shouting crowds and lynch mobs and almost sense the hate. The last example I will give is the statistics. In the articles it states that 19 are hung and 1 crushed under heavy stones." Obviously, the movie is more effective because it displays that rather graphically.
             Books may be able to vividly describe an event, however a picture is worth a thousand words. Twenty people died at Salem, but we can't appreciate how it really happened until we can see how the community acted. A greedy reverend, a fickle community, and hastily done trials all spelled disaster for Salem.
             ...