
In May to July, SOTA’s Theatre Faculty presented a series of Western stage classics which explores humanity’s tendency to be anguished over desires, and get tangled up in mayhem in the process. Within the series was an adaptation of The Crucible by Arthur Miller. Serendipitous, The Crucible was read as a play in the Year 4 Literature syllabus. Attending the play for enrichment was therefore a rare opportunity for the students to see come alive, a text presented by their own cohort peers.
To Theatre teacher Mr Sazali Abu Othman, the process was just as important as the curtain call for the decisions and changes made together offers learning experiences in the theatre-making. In a collaborative process, the cast and director discussed scenes to focus on in this adaptation in an effort to draw out most effectively the play’s thematic concerns. Other considerations that Mr Sazali had to pay heed to also included the distribution of parts to best fit the make up and dynamics of the cast. To this end, some gender roles in the original play were reversed and two John Procters were used.
Instead of staging the play in puritanical garb of the 17th Century Massachusetts, the clothes donned by the cast were altered; the “afflicted” were dressed in schoolgirl uniforms decked with matching socks and shoes while the unmovable judges wore powers suits and court shoes. Beyond suggesting strict conformity, the outfits made references to cultures of regimentation and the attendant repression.
As students of both Literature and Theatre, Brian Ko, Gabrielle Ng, Naqib Putra Zalman and Amber Goh share their thoughts on the the roles they played in this convergence of art forms.

Photo Credit: Tan Shao Qi
What aspects of the character were you trying to accentuate as you played your role?
AMBER: I played the role of Betty as well as Goody Nurse. Though these roles were supporting characters, they also had great significance in pushing the plot forward. For instance, Betty’s “illness” triggered the witch hunt when she fainted after being found to have taken part in the forbidden rituals in the forest. For Betty, I mainly had to lie down without moving for the majority of the first scene. When Betty woke up, I tried to portray the kind of fear that all the girls were tangled in as they were threatened by Abigail not to tell the truth. I initially thought that it seemed like an easy task to lie down and close your eyes, but when I actually experienced it, it was very different from actually sleeping. I could only rely on my auditory senses for my cues to “wake up”. Furthermore, there were a lot of struggles that happened between the girls and Betty, and I think there was a lot of trust among the actors, such that we were able to perform the struggle without awkwardness.
GABRIELLE: As an actor, I find that I get too comfortable with playing the more vocal and dramatic characters like Abigail Williams, and so when I was given the role of Elizabeth Proctor who is much more reserved, and quiet in nature, I was slightly taken aback. Our director, Mr Sazali, told me that he had made that role placement to let me broaden my range as an actor, and I am very grateful that he wanted to help me do that. What really helped me channel these aspects of Elizabeth was that he told me to picture her spirit animal. I imagined that hers would be a swan, an animal that displays poise, gentleness and peace. It was these aspects of her character which I thought were very important in portraying Elizabeth, and I tried very hard to incorporate this in my movement and speech.
BRIAN: His power hungriness. I wanted to portray an accurate version of Parris and according to the play, he is one power hungry reverend. At the start of scene one, it can be seen how desperate he is with regards to protecting his status and position in the community. He raises his voice at Abigail, forcing her to tell him about the witchcraft that his daughter was also part of. Parris fears that his opposition might use this scandal to stunt his career. Also in scene 3 at the courtroom, Parris attempts to deny the practice of witchcraft in his family when questioned by Judge Danforth. He breaks eye contact with the judge, he seats at the edge of the seat and stutters in denial. In this way, I tried accentuating Pariss’ power hungriness.
NAQIB: I was trying to portray John Proctor as a cold and analytical kind of person rarely showing his emotion but also vulnerable. It is only when he hears the news that his wife is accused of witchcraft that he shows that he does care. I was trying to portray him in such a way that the the audience will be moved to sympathise with him. I feel that an actor will only succeed in playing his or her character when the audience forms an emotional attachment towards the character, and roots for him or her to succeed. This can be enhanced by showing what the character stands to lose.

Photo Credit: Tan Shao Qi

Photo Credit: Denise Wang
How did you feel about being part of a production that your peers are also studying for simultaneously?
AMBER: It was the first time doing the same text for literature and theatre. Theatre and Literature both analyse the characters in different ways but leading to similar outcomes, so it was nice to see both approaches play out together. Analysis discussed in Literature was also relevant to our characters in Theatre.
GABRIELLE: The fact that we were studying The Crucible in Literature as a cohort made me more excited to perform it. I was happy that I could be part of bringing this play to life so that my peers could maybe further enhance their understanding of the text as they could have the theatrical experience.
BRIAN: In class, when your character’s name is mentioned, classmates will look at you in admiration…*clears throat* I mean, knowing that our peers are studying the play, it felt even more worthwhile to be part of this production. The play is relatable to them and hopefully helpful to them as they study it. At the end of the day, a play is supposed to be performed. Performing this play fulfills that purpose of it.
NAQIB: It feels like extra literature lessons that kills two birds with one stone. When memorising lines, I can remember them as quotes to use in my literature essays. I used bits of my character analysis of John Proctor as my character’s motivation giving me a better understanding of the text.

Photo Credit: Denise Wang

Photo Credit: Tan Shao Qi
How has your understanding or appreciation of the character you played in the production impacted the way you studied him or her in your Literature classes?
AMBER: For me, we did not delve deep into the characters I played (Betty and Goody Nurse). However, based on my observations in Literature lessons and in Theatre lessons, I noticed that the subjects focus on different aspects. In Literature, we analysed the characters’ speech, actions, and what they were thinking to understand the character. Theatre might have a different interpretation. However, putting ourselves in the character shoes and seeing how we would react to various situations might allow us to further relate and understand their thought processes. In Theatre, we used our bodies, and our interactions with each other to incorporate the thought processes of the characters. That was how we built our characters.
GABRIELLE: Working on The Crucible in Theatre helped me with my understanding of my character in Literature, and vice versa. I believe that these two disciplines work hand in hand, and that one cannot do without the other, especially in one’s understanding of classic plays like this. With Literature lessons, I was able to understand the theory behind my character’s intention and the plot functions of the other characters. In Theatre, I was able to literally go into the shoes of Elizabeth Proctor, further enhancing my understanding of why she did certain things, like her terse answers to her husband. Having both Literature lessons and rehearsals for The Crucible simultaneously, I was able to holistically understand the play inside and out.
BRIAN: This was my very first time playing a character in an fully staged play, so whenever, my character appears in the book or gets mentioned in class, a warm feeling emerges from deep within me. Studying my character just reminds me of the good times I had during the production and the memories of playing that character. I became more passionate than before the production in studying Parris. Playing the character forces you to examine your character closely so that your portrayal of the character is a convincing one. The production created this need for me to really study the character’s personality, motivations and characteristics thoroughly. Whenever my character is mentioned during literature class, I would be more attentive than usual.
NAQIB: During theatre lessons, my understanding of my character slowly increased over the process of creating the production. This was achieved through line reads and doing our own analysis. However, we change the staging of The Crucible in our adaptation, thus making my character and his motives quite different, so my views on the character had to likewise adapt. However, it does not detract from the fact that it has had a great impact for I understand the story and the character John Proctor much better compared to before the production. I understand his relationship with his wife, Abigail and the dynamics in court much better.

Photo Credit: Tan Shao Qi

Photo Credit: Tan Shao Qi
What are your thoughts on the set of the production? What do you think worked to heighten the tension of the play?
AMBER: We set it in a more modern context, in a school. I really liked the use of chalk as our set was all painted with chalkboard paint, including all the blocks, the steps, as well as the swivel door. At John and Elizabeth Proctor’s final moments together in the last scene, actors came on stage to scrawl on the set using chalk. We destroyed all patterns and texts previously written, and made it into a mess and a bunch of indiscernible markings. This was a very intense moment. The resulting mess contrasted starkly from the original clean state of the blocks to mirror the destruction inflicted on Salem by the witch trials.
GABRIELLE: On the contrary, I think some of the features in the set unintentionally broke the tension. Some of the actors had to enter through the swiveling doors during an intense moment in the play, changing the atmosphere with each new beat.
BRIAN: Listening helps heighten the tension of the play. Tension is aroused by good character interaction and listening makes interaction between characters much more powerful. Listening forces you to be in the moment. It takes away any unnecessary thoughts, fears or rehearsed staging in your head. Listening makes you think as the character as you listen to the other characters, which then gives you the clarity to respond much more truthfully. Tension comes from the genuine interaction between characters because characters always have conflicting desires when they talk to each other. Reacting truthfully with the aid of good listening shows the conflicting desire and hence arouse the tension on stage.
NAQIB: The set was minimalist and sparse. I say this in a positive way. Having too many things on set would be too complicated in a short amount of time. The space established by the set helps to sufficiently contextualise the interactions among the characters. The set has two spinning doors at the centre back of the stage with blocks that form stair to it with a bench on the far left and grilles that descend from above to act as jail cells. The set does not actually give us an established setting, time or location, making it timeless and at the same time allowing the actors to interact suitably. Therefore, having a minimalist setting is good as it balances the performance against the backdrop.

Photo Credit: Denise Wang

Photo Credit: Denise Wang
In your opinion, which character was “brought to live” in the production, why?
AMBER: For me it was the interaction between John Proctor and Elizabeth Proctor. Compared to the suspicion Elizabeth had of Proctor in the earlier part of the play, there was a big change at the ending where they reconciled, knowing that there was little time to bear grudges against each other. This change in relationship between the pair was “brought to live” for me.
GABRIELLE: Personally, I think that everyone did brilliance to their characters, and brought their own flavour to the characters. However, I do think that John Proctor, played by both Naqib Zalman and Taylor Belliston, was especially well played because both of them managed to portray different perceptions of his character. The Proctor played by Taylor appealed to Abigail’s desires and her version of reality whereas the Proctor played by Naqib portrays Proctor’s truer self and the truth he tries to live out.
BRIAN: I think John Proctor was “brought to life” by Naqib. Proctor is the main character of the play and I felt that Naqib had enough weight to pull through. He could vary his emotions very well. He had that stage presence, especially in scene two where he interacts with his wife Elizabeth Proctor and his servant Mary Warren. My favourite part of his performance was when he raised his voice at Mary Warren and told her “If you wish to seat up, then seat up!” That was humorous and at the same time reveals that strict and unyielding side of him. The little choices that Naqib made in delivering the line consistently showed how Proctor was a firm and confident individual who would stand up against fraudulence. He also had good foundation on his face.
NAQIB: I believe that the character of John Proctor was brought to life most. This is due in part to the fact that the character is played by two actors. This depicts a duality; my portrayal of Proctor in more control whereas compared to Taylor, Proctor’s emotions just burst out of him – anger, sadness, and joy. It shows the distinctions of John Proctor’s emotional states in the play. In the beginning, he is more composed but at the end, he is more given to his emotions.

Photo Credit: Denise Wang

Photo Credit: Tan Shao Qi
Like this:
Like Loading...