Dynamic ending if the Crucible

            
             Film critics everywhere are arguing on whether the ending of The Crucible by Arthur Miller should be left like the original play. I strongly disagree. For the public to feel the true sense of sorrow for the tragic hero John Proctor, they must actually see the "saved" man die unjustly. There are many supportive points backing up the altered ending that Arthur Miller did not display in the play.
             The tragic ending brings to life the point of injustice Miller was trying to convey. When film watchers get to glimpse the hanging of John Proctor as he is reciting the Lord's Prayer, they finally feel the true sorrow for righteous man. The play was based on the events taking place during the Red Scare when thousands of Americans were accused of being Communist spies. Although people were not hanged for criminal actions like in the Puritan society, their punishments were harsh and sever fines were paid. Miller wanted to show that people's lives could be ruined by one person "pointing the finger." .
             Reputation was a main ideological concern for Puritans of early America. People with high status like large landowners had more privileges than did the lower class farmers. Everything that went on in their society was of public concern and nothing was kept secret. In the ending depicted in films it shows the townspeople witnessing the hanging of John Proctor, showing that moral laws were matters of the public. The Puritan religion was strict and austere making crimes committed punished by state law. The crowd of people witnessing the hangings helps viewers to understand the ideas associated with Puritan life. Arthur Miller uses the theme of reputation throughout the play and with the film ending it brings to a close this idea.
             Aristotle's idea of tragedy was based on serious actions that turn out catastrophic for the main character in the end. From the beginning of the play John Proctor's problems begin to appear.