Adam Cooper (Chad Lowe) is a teenager growing up in Colonial Massachusetts. His father, Moses Cooper (Tommy Lee Jones), is a stern man who believes that rights come from men and not God and who, despite believing in negotiating instead of fighting, is willing to take arms against the British if necessary. Adam has a pretty girlfriend (Meredith Salenger) and tries to please both his religious mother (Susan Blakely) and his agnostic father. When Paul Revere makes his famous ride, both Adam and Moses are thrust into the Battle of Lexington and, over the course of one long night, Adam is forced to grow up and become the man of the house.
Based on the classic novel by Howard Fast, April Morning was made for television and first aired in 1988. The novel and the movie provide a look at the American Revolution through the eyes of the people who actually fought in the battles. The movie emphasizes the coming-of-age aspect of Fast’s novel and downplays the political subtext. The novel presented a much more complex view of both war and religion while the film definitely simplifies things. Chad Lowe comes across as being too contemporary to be totally believable as someone growing up in the 1700s but Tommy Lee Jones is the perfect choice for Moses Cooper and, even though her role is small, Meredith Salenger once again demonstrates that she was one of the best young actresses of the era. In the film, Rip Torn plays the man who fires the first shot of the battle and it’s hard to think of a better actor for the role.
At its best, the movie recreates the confusion of being in battle. Even though the Battle of Lexington was the start of the American Revolution and April 19th, 1776 was one of the most important dates in American history, Adam Cooper just wants to survive the night so that he can return home. War may sometimes be necessary but it’s never easy.
Released in 2024, Here is the type of movie that I usually would like. It’s ambitious. It’s experimental. It’s about history and how certain patterns will always repeat themselves no matter what. It features Tom Hanks and Paul Bettany, two of my favorite actors. Also, unlike a lot of people, I haven’t turned on Robert Zemeckis. For the most part, I usually enjoy his movies, including the more recent ones. (Of course, when I say more recent, I’m thinking of The Walk, which came out eleven years ago. But still….)
Here has an intriguing concept. Over the course of 104 minutes, Here covers several thousand years of history. The stationary camera focuses on a single plot of land, which goes from being an area dominated by dinosaurs to being the road outside of Colonial Governor William Franklin’s house during the American Revolution to eventually becoming the living room of a house that is occupied by several different families. The story plays out in a nonlinear fashion with the marriage of Richard and Margaret Young (played by Tom Hanks and Robin Wright) ultimately dominating the narrative. We watch as people fall in love, sometimes fall out of love, and eventually die. With the exception of one key moment, the camera never moves. Instead, we watch as life plays out in front of the camera and it’s often left to our imagination as to what’s happening on the other side of the lens. When Margaret, at one point, complains about how she can’t stand to keep looking at the same couch day-after-day, we know exactly how she feels.
As I said, I really wanted to like this movie but, unfortunately, it just fell flat. We meet a lot of characters but no one really feels human. Instead, all of the dialogue and the action has the shallow snappiness of an old sitcom. It’s easy to imagine this film being aired with a laugh track and an audience going, “Awwww!” after every emotional moment. As a result, watching Here feels less like witnessing history unfold and more like flipping around the nostalgia channels and trying to pick which old sitcom you want to watch. Do you want to watch the show about Ben Franklin not liking his son or the show that features Paul Bettany as a veteran dealing with PSTD? Do you want a show about a pilot who dies during the Spanish Flu epidemic or about a masked-up husband during the COVID lockdowns? One of the film’s final scenes features a character who is suffering from Alzheimer’s visiting the house and suddenly announcing that they remember everything about living there. It’s a moment that is meant to be heartfelt but, instead, it feels insulting to anyone who has ever taken care of a loved one with dementia. Alzheimer’s is never cutesy, regardless of what the movies may tell us. In the end, very little of the film’s vision of humanity feels authentic.
The other big problem is that the film occasionally uses digital de-aging to try to convince us that Tom Hanks and Robin Wright are both teenagers and it just doesn’t work. Hanks is playing Paul Bettany’s son but, whenever the two actors appear at the same time, it’s obvious that Hanks is considerably older than his screen father. Unlike The Irishman, which had a strong story and enough good performances to convince the viewer to suspend their disbelief and accept the imperfect de-aging technology, the de-aging in Here just emphasizes how inauthentic the film’s story feels.
As I said earlier, this film had potential but, unfortunately, most of that potential goes unrealized.
First released in the year 2000, The Patriot stars Mel Gibson (back before the arrests and scandals) as Benjamin Martin.
Benjamin Martin is a planter living in colonial-era South Carolina. When he was younger, he fought in the French/Indian War and was infamous for his ferocity as a combatant. However, in the year 1776, he is devoted to working the land and peacefully caring for his children. When, as a member of the South Carolina General Assembly, he is called upon to cast a vote for or against independence, he abstains. He’s no fan of the British but he’s also seen the harsh reality of war and doesn’t want his sons to have any part of it. However, the Assembly still votes for Independence and Martin’s oldest son, Gabriel (Heath Ledger), is among the first to enlist in the army.
Four years later, the British come to the Martin farm and demand that Benjamin had over a wounded Gabriel to them. When Benjamin resists, the arrogant Col. Tavington (Jason Isaacs) kills one of Benjamin’s other sons. After Tavington has Gabriel arrested, Benjamin and two of his remaining sons track down the British convoy transporting him. While his two youngest sons look on in horror, Benjamin savagely shoots and hacks to death all of the British soldiers and rescues Gabriel.
The Patriot may be a film about the American Revolution but it’s also definitely a Mel Gibson film. That means that Benjamin is man driven as much be revenge as by a desire to win his country’s independence. The British killed his son and burned down his house. Benjamin responds by grabbing his musket and packing his axe and soon, it’s more common than not to see Benjamin covered in blood. Benjamin attacks like a feral beast who is determined to dominate anyone and anything that would invade his territory. Two of his sons go from being honored to be asked to come along to being terrified at the sight of their father murdering soldier after soldier. It’s probably the most emotionally honest moment you’ll ever find in a Roland Emmerich film. Of course, whether Emmerich meant for it to be so is open to debate.
And indeed, it should be noted that The Patriot is very much a Roland Emmerich film. The running time is an epic 165 minutes. The battle scenes are long and loud and carefully choreographed. Gibson was still rugged and handsome when he played Benjamin Martin. (Both before his downfall and after, Gibson has always been best cast as people who just want to be left alone and who finally snap once it becomes obvious that’s not going to happen.) Heath Ledger almost appears beatific in his scenes. The film looks great without ever quite looking authentic. It’s like a fever dream that is less about how the American Revolution was actually fought and more about how we imagine it was fought.
And you know what?
The film works for me. This is one of Emmerich’s best films, which admittedly is not a high bar to clear. Yes, it’s a bit simplistic. Yes, it’s not historically accurate. Yes, all of the British are portrayed as being one-dimensional villains. Who cares? Whether he realizes it or not, Roland Emmerich has always been a B-movie maker at heart and The Patriot is effective in much the same way that many crude but shameless B-movies are. The mix of Mel Gibson’s madness, Heath Ledger’s beatific earnestness, and Jason Isaac’s arrogance transforms The Patriot into a triumph of the pulp imagination. Much like America itself, The Patriot is big and loud and it makes absolutely no apologies.
Growing in the small town of Lakeview, Amy Petersen (Meghan Markle, before she became a part of the Royal Family) helped her family run their fireworks store. She also fell in love with Hank (Christopher Jacot). But she left Hank and her family so that she could go to the big city and try to be a big time print journalist. Now, she’s dating Phil (Lochlyn Munro), who always wears a suit and likes to dine at exclusive French restaurants.
When her editor finds out that Amy is an expert in fireworks, he tells her to go back home for the 4th of July and to write a story about it. Amy’s family is struggling to keep the fireworks business going and when the town announces that it won’t be able to put on a fireworks show on the 4th, it looks like the business is going to close unless Amy can come up with a way to save the day. Amy has another reason for returning to Lakeview. Her best friend Sammie (Kristina Pesic) is getting married and Amy is going to the maid of honor! The only problem is that Sammie is marrying Hank and, as soon as she sees him, Amy starts to wonder if she made the right decision leaving home.
This is a Hallmark film so you already know everything that is going to happen. I watched this movie with my sisters and we spent the entire time wondering when they were finally going to get to the fireworks. It takes nearly the entire movie to reach the 4th and then it ends before the fireworks show even really got going. I was disappointed. I really wanted to watch the sky light up.
I know what you really want to know, though. How was the performance of the Duchess of Sussex? It’s hard to really Meghan Markle’s performance because Amy isn’t that likable of a character. It’s hard to really cheer for someone who would ruin their best friend’s wedding just because they dated the groom in high school. Everyone in the film is very forgiving of Amy, no matter how self-asborbed she is. Even Phil is strangely unbothered by her being in love with someone else. Almost the entire film is just Amy and Hank being the two most self-centered people in the world and no one holding it against them. As for Meghan Markle’s performance, the best description that I can come up with is boring.
I was disappointed with When Sparks Fly. At least I know that, later tonight, I’ll get to watch a full fireworks show.
1960’s The Angry Red Planet opens with the return of the first manned space flight to Mars. When the rocketship reaches Earth, NASA is stunned to discover that only two members of the crew — Iris “Irish” Ryan (Naura Hayden) and Colonel Thomas O’Bannion (Gerald Mohr) — are still alive and that O’Bannion seems to have been infected by an intergalactic fungus of some some sort. Iris tells the story about what happened during their fateful trip to Mars.
I always enjoy the cheap science fiction films of the 50s and 60s, especially the ones that were made before America even conquered the Moon or really even went into space. Not having anything to really guide their vision of space travel, these films almost always trotted out the old war movie stereotypes and dressed them in a shiny space suit. In The Angry Red Planet, there’s gravity in space and Prof. Theodore Gettell (Les Termayne) smokes a pipe on the ship. Warrant Officer Sam Jacobs (Jack Kruschen, who, the same year this film came out, gave an Oscar-nominated performance in The Apartment) reads comic books and wonders if there will be any life on Mars. Meanwhile, O’Bannion flirts outrageously with Iris and everyone drinks coffee.
The film starts out as a standard low budget sic-fi flick, complete with sexist humor and scientific gobbledeegook, but things pick up once the crew actually reaches Mars. Of course, the Mars that they find has plant life and looks absolutely nothing like the Mars that we all know and love. That’s a part of the film’s charm. Whenever the crew leaves their rocket and explores the Martian landscape, the film suddenly becomes red-tinted. The tinting works far better than it really has any right to. That said, I did look away from the screen a few times. My eyesight is already bad enough without burning it up by watching a tinted movie.
The highlight of the film is…. well, sometimes it’s better just to let the visuals do the talking.
As soon as this fellow showed up, I knew that I was watching some sort of classic.
The Angry Red Planet is a thoroughly silly and implausible movie but, like most guilty pleasures, it’s also a lot of fun. It’s one of the least accurate science fiction films ever made and I love it.
In 2025’s Stand Your Ground, Eric Roberts plays the role of Earl.
When we first meet Earl, he’s an alcoholic who lives in an RV that is parked near the childhood home of former Special Forces operative Jack Johnson (Daniel Stisen). Jack was born in Norway but grew up in the United States. That’s enough to make him and his pregnant wife the target of the local xenophobe, Bastion (Peter Stormare). When Bastion’s sons attack Jack’s house, they kill his wife. Jack kills one of the sons but, because the killing occurred outside of the house, the state’s stand your ground law does not apply to Jack and Jack is sent to prison for six years.
When Jack gets out of prison, he wants revenge. But first, he gets caught up with Earl. Earl, who tried to warn Jack on the night of the attack, is still living in the RV but, otherwise, he’s turned his life around. He’s sober and he’s a member of law enforcement!
The film follows a familiar path. Jack goes out for revenge. There’s a lot of gun battles, one of which is impressively staged. For the most part, though, it’s pretty forgettable and, with a 100 minute run time, almost painfully slow. Daniel Stisen is a Norwegian bodybuilder who can’t act and Peter Stormare is a Swedish character actor who can act but who apparently didn’t feel like doing so for this movie. (Listen, I don’t blame him. He showed up and he lent his Fargo/Armageddon cred to the film. As far as I’m concerned, he earned that paycheck.) The whole movie is pretty dumb.
But, here’s the good thing! Eric Roberts actually gets to do stuff in this movie. He’s in multiple scenes. He talks to the other characters. He actually stands up a few times. (You can always tell when Roberts is actually invested in one of his cameos because he’ll stand up and deliver his lines instead of just sitting behind a desk.) Roberts doesn’t have a big role in this film but he still does a little bit more than usual.
Stand Your Ground may not be good but still …. all hail Earl! And all hail Eric Roberts for continuing to hold the record for the most screen credits for an American actor. 700 roles and counting!
Previous Eric Roberts Films That We Have Reviewed:
While on a routine scouting patrol, Starbuck (Dirk Benedict) and Apollo (Richard Hatch) are captured, not by Cylons but instead by the crew of the Battlestar Pegasus. The Pegasus and its legendary commander, Cain (Lloyd Bridges), were assumed to have been lost during the Cylon sneak attack but instead, Cain survived and the Pegasus has been in deep space ever since, waging his own war against the Cylons. At first, both Cain and Adama (Lorne Greene) are both happy to discover that the other is still alive. But it turns out that Adama and Cain both have very different plans and visions for the future. Adama wants to steal fuel from a nearby Cylon base so that he and his fleet can continue their journey to Earth. Cain wants to launch a full-out attack on the Cylons and he expects the Galactica to help him. Though they both share the same enemy, the crews of the Galactica and Pegasus find themselves divided over which commander to follow. Is it better to go down fighting or to survive to find a new home?
Sold overseas as a sequel to the first Battlestar Galactica feature film (which itself was just an edited version of the show’s pilot), Mission Galactica was cobbled together from three episodes of the television series. Because the TV show was expensive to produce and not the ratings hit that NBC was expecting, the show’s producer, Glen Larson, was asked to edit several episodes together so that they could be released as movies in Europe and Asia. Larson took a two-part episode featuring Commander Cain and added some scenes from an unrelated episode that featured an injured Apollo undergoing surgery while a fire raged in the Galactica. All things considered, Larson did a good job of cleanly assembling the movie without making it too obvious that it was stitched together out of three episodes, though some of the best parts of Cain’s storyline did get left on the cutting room floor.
How does Mission Galactica work as a movie? Even though it opens with a voice-over narration explaining the Cylon attack and the Galactica’s mission to find Earth, I imagine that someone watching this with no previous knowledge of the show would be lost. As well, it’s obvious that the special effects were designed with the small screen of television in mind. However, Lloyd Bridges transcends the script’s limitations as the charismatic but obsessive Command Cain. This is actually one of Bridges’s best performances and his scenes with Lorne Greene work surprisingly well. They’re both believable as two proud commanders who are both convinced that they’re doing the right thing. The rest of the cast is adequate. I’ve always liked Dirk Benedict’s performance as Starbuck, even if he was essentially just playing a variation on Han Solo. For all of its flaws as a series, Battlestar Galactica usually did a good job of capturing the vastness of space and the epic scope of Galactica’s journey and that’s the case here. Mission Galactica doesn’t escape its television origins but, for fans of the series, it’s an enjoyable space opera.
In the end, I recommend watching the original episodes that were used for this movie — Parts One and Two of The Living Legend and Fire In Space.The Living Legend was the original Battlestar Galactica at its best.
In a distant galaxy, the humans and the robotic Cylons have been at war for a thousand years. Due to the diplomacy of Count Baltar (John Colicos), it appears that a peace agreement has finally been reached. On their homeworld, President Adar (Lew Ayres) and the leaders of humanity prepare to welcome to the Cylons to a signing ceremony. Amongst the commanders of the fleet of ships that orbit and defend the homeworld, only Commander Adama (Lorne Greene) fears that the Cylons may be plotting a sneak attack.
Adama turns out to be correct. Baldar betrays humanity and the Cylons launch a sudden attack, wiping out the human leadership and almost the entire fleet of Battlestars. Only Adama’s Galactica survives. After picking up the refugees who survived the attack, the Galactica sets out to find a legendary planet that might be home to more humans. With the Cylons pursuing and brave men like Starbuck (Dirk Benedict) and Adama’s son, Apollo (Richard Hatch), fighting to protect the last of the human refugees, the Galactica searches for Earth.
With Star Wars still a cultural phenomenon in 1978, it made sense that a television network like ABC would greenlight a science fiction series. When producer Glen A. Larson pitched the idea for Battlestar Galactica, ABC was eager to move forward with it. However, when the pilot cost $8,000,000 to produce (which was then a record-setting amount for a television show), ABC decided to recoup their costs by releasing an edited version of the pilot in theaters. In Canada and the United States, the “film” hit theaters before it was subsequently aired on television. The film was then later released in Europe, where it was a huge hit.
In fact, it was such a hit that 20th Century Fox sued Universal Studios, claiming that Battlestar Galactica stole the majority of its ideas from Star Wars. Universal responded by filing a countersuit, claiming that Star Wars stole the majority of its ideas from Flash Gordon. The case was eventually settled in 1983, long after the original Battlestar Galactica television series had been canceled.
And while that is all very interesting, it doesn’t answer the question that is probably on your mind right now. Is the edited theatrical release of the Battlestar Galactica pilot any good?
Yes and no. The first part of the movie, which deals with the Cylon sneak attack and Starbuck and Apollo rescuing the human refugees is an excellent work of science fiction, a space opera that can stand up with the best of them. Even after all this time, the special effects are still effective as is Lorne Greene’s authoritative performance as Adama. Richard Hatch and Dirk Benedict are also strong as the two main fighter pilots, even if both of them are obviously meant to be television versions of Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. (Benedict’s Starbuck was the coolest character on Battlestar Galactica. He was the best pilot, he was the best poker player, and he even smoked a cigar.) The Cylons are chilling victims and the pilot even features some effective human drama along with all of the space battles. After the Cylon attack, the story follows the Galactica as it makes a stop on a planet that’s also a casino that’s being run by untrustworthy space insects. That part betrays the film’s television origins and feels like one of those episodes of Dr. Who that people try to forget. The pilot features everything that made Battlestar Galactica work but, unfortunately, it also features everything that didn’t work.
Watching it today, though, it’s impossible not to feel the welcome pull of nostalgia. In a time of cynicism, the pure idealism of Battlestar Galactica and its quest for Earth provides a nice and needed relief. To quote Commander Adama:
“Fleeing from the Cylon tyranny, the last battlestar, Galactica, leads a ragtag fugitive fleet on a lonely quest… a shining planet known as Earth.”
“If there’s something wrong, those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action.” — Benjamin Gates
National Treasure directed by John Turteltaub is one of those movies that feels like a love letter to adventure, history, and a bit of old-fashioned treasure hunting. It’s the kind of film that doesn’t take itself too seriously but still manages to pull you in with its charm, puzzles, and non-stop action. At its heart, it’s a story about obsession, legacy, and the idea that history isn’t just something you read about in books—it’s something you can touch, chase, and maybe even uncover if you’re clever enough.
The movie kicks off with Benjamin Franklin Gates, played by Nicolas Cage in one of his most Nicolas Cage roles, as a historian and amateur treasure hunter convinced that a massive treasure hidden by the Freemasons and the Founding Fathers is real. The idea is wild: a secret stash of gold, artifacts, and historical riches hidden away to keep them out of the wrong hands. Most people, including his own father, think he’s nuts. But Ben’s got a lead, and when a rival treasure hunter, Ian Howe (played by Sean Bean), starts closing in on the same clues, the race is on. The stakes get higher when Ben realizes that if Howe finds the treasure first, it could mean disaster—not just for Ben’s reputation, but for history itself.
What makes National Treasure so much fun is how it blends history with a modern-day adventure. The film takes real historical figures and events—like the Declaration of Independence, the Liberty Bell, and the National Archives—and weaves them into a fictional but plausible treasure hunt. It’s the kind of movie that makes you want to dust off your old history textbooks or visit a museum the next day. The puzzles and clues are clever, even if they’re a little far-fetched. From invisible ink on the back of the Declaration to a series of riddles leading to the next location, the film keeps you guessing and engaged. And let’s be honest, who hasn’t daydreamed about finding a hidden message in a famous document or stumbling upon a secret that changes everything?
You really cannot talk about National Treasure without talking about Nicolas Cage. By 2004, Cage had already firmly established his reputation as an actor who brings a very specific, slightly unhinged energy to every role, and Benjamin Franklin Gates might be the perfect vessel for that energy. Ben is a nerd, but he is a nerd who somehow knows how to do parkour and execute complex heists. Cage plays him with this weird, endearing earnestness that anchors the movie. He delivers ridiculous lines about the Illuminati and secret tunnels with the gravity of a Shakespearean monologue, and it is hilarious, but it also makes you genuinely root for him. He never winks at the audience; he truly believes in the treasure, and that conviction pulls the whole thing together.
Of course, Cage cannot carry the entire movie on his own, and the supporting cast is surprisingly well-calibrated for this kind of ridiculous adventure. Justin Bartha plays Riley Poole, Ben’s tech-savvy sidekick who provides a running commentary of sarcastic quips. Bartha is essentially the audience surrogate, constantly pointing out how insane everything is, but he never gets annoying, which is a tough balancing act for a comic relief character in an action movie. Then there is Diane Kruger as Abigail Chase, an archivist at the National Archives who gets dragged into the chaos. Kruger does a great job of playing the exasperated straight woman to Cage’s eccentric history buff, and their chemistry is surprisingly charming, even if her character arc basically boils down to realizing that stealing national monuments is actually kind of fun.
On the villain side of things, we have Sean Bean as Ian Howe, and honestly, casting Sean Bean as a treasure-hunting bad guy is just a cheat code for making your movie better. Howe is a classic blockbuster villain—polished, ruthless, and driven entirely by greed—but Bean gives him just enough suave charm that he feels like a genuine threat rather than a cartoonish punching bag. Rounding out the main cast is Jon Voight as Ben’s estranged father, Patrick, and Christopher Plummer as his grandfather, John. Their inclusion adds a nice generational family drama to the story. The Gates family has been mocked for centuries for chasing this mythical treasure, and seeing Ben finally prove his father wrong adds a surprising amount of emotional weight to a movie that is otherwise about stealing the Declaration of Independence with a bunch of plastic ciphers.
John Turteltaub’s direction keeps the movie moving at a brisk pace. There’s never a dull moment, and the film balances its action sequences with quieter moments of discovery and problem-solving. The chase scenes, whether it’s through the streets of Washington D.C. or the tunnels beneath Philadelphia, are exciting without being over-the-top. The film also does a great job of making the historical elements feel tangible. When Ben and his team are examining a clue or piecing together a puzzle, you feel like you’re right there with them, trying to figure it out alongside them. It’s a testament to Turteltaub’s ability to make the implausible feel plausible, at least for the two hours you’re watching the movie.
Of course, National Treasure isn’t without its flaws. The plot does require a fair amount of suspension of disbelief. The idea that a treasure of this magnitude could stay hidden for centuries, or that Ben could outsmart everyone from the FBI to a team of professional thieves, is a stretch. And some of the historical liberties the film takes might make purists cringe. But that’s part of the fun. This isn’t a documentary—it’s a popcorn movie, and it embraces that wholeheartedly. The film also leans heavily on its twists and turns, some of which you might see coming a mile away. But even when you can predict what’s going to happen next, it’s still entertaining to watch it unfold.
What really stands out about National Treasure is its sense of wonder. It’s a movie that reminds you of the joy of discovery, whether it’s uncovering a hidden clue or simply learning something new about the world. The film’s climax, set in a secret underground chamber, is a perfect example of this. Without giving too much away, it’s a moment that feels both epic and intimate, a payoff for all the hard work and dedication Ben has put into his quest. And while the treasure itself might not be what you expect, the journey to find it is what makes the movie so satisfying.
In the end, National Treasure is a film that’s easy to enjoy. It’s got action, humor, history, and heart, all wrapped up in a package that’s as entertaining as it is lighthearted. It’s the kind of movie you can watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon and come away from feeling like you’ve been on an adventure yourself. Sure, it might not be high art, but it doesn’t need to be. Sometimes, a great story, a little bit of mystery, and a lot of fun are all you need. And National Treasure delivers on all three. If you’re a fan of adventure films, history buffs, or just love a good treasure hunt, this one’s for you. Just don’t be surprised if you find yourself Googling Freemason symbols or the history of the Declaration of Independence afterward.
In 1692 and 1693, over 200 people were accused witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts. Thirty people were found guilty. 19 were executed, fourteen women and five men. One man died while being tortured in an effort to get a confession out of him. At least five more people died in their jail cells, awaiting their trial.
There’s a lot of debate about how the witch trials actually began but it’s generally agreed that the initial accusations were made by four girls in the village of Salem. The oldest was 17 while the youngest was just nine. (One of the girls, 12 year-old Abigail Williams, was related to the village’s pastor, Samuel Parris. Traditionally, she has been portrayed as being the ringleader of the accusers.) The girls claimed that the women of the village had caused them physical pain through witchcraft. Soon, other girls in nearby villages were making similar accusations. Some of the accused confessed to being witches to avoid execution. Others claimed to be innocent but also said they knew who the real witches were. And, of course, many refused to confess and were executed as a result.
Today, it’s easy to see that the Salem Witch Trials were an early “moral panic.” What is often forgotten is that, even at the time the trials were taking place, there were many prominent thinkers who condemned them as being a case of mass hysteria. In the years immediately following the trials, the majority of its victims were posthumously exonerated. The Reverend Samuel Parris wrote an official apology letter for his role in the trials. One of the legacies of the Salem Witch Trials was that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution made clear that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
Arthur Miller’s 1953 play, The Crucible, was set during the Salem Witch Trials and, for many people, it’s the defining work about the trials, despite the fact that Miller acknowledged to taking dramatic liberties with some of the characters and events. Miller, who had recently been questioned by the House Unamerican Activities Committee, meant for the play to be both a commentary on McCarthyism and a rebuke towards people like his former friend, Elia Kazan, who “named names” to protect themselves. Of course, one could argue that the main difference between the Salem Witch Trials and the Red Scare is that communists were real while the Salem witches were not. But, no matter. It’s one of Miller’s better plays. If Elia Kazan could justify his testimony by imagining himself as a punch-drunk boxer standing up to a corrupt union, I suppose Arthur Miller could pretend to be a man accused of witchcraft. The play was initially not as acclaimed as some of Miller’s other works but, over the years, it has come to be widely acknowledged as one of the classic works of American theater.
In the 90s, Miller wrote the screenplay for a film adaptation of the The Crucible. First released in 1996, this adaptation starred Daniel-Day Lewis as the wrongly accused John Proctor, Joan Allen as Proctor’s wife, Elizabeth, and Winona Ryder as Abigail Williams. For the purposes of Miller’s dramatization, Abigail was reimagined as being a teenage girl who had a brief affair with John Proctor and who was still obsessed with him. When the Reverend Parris (Bruce Davison) catches Abigail and some of her friends trying to cast a “love spell” on John, the girls try to avoid punishment by accusing Parris’s slave, Tituba (Charlayne Woodard), of being a witch. Tituba gives a false confession to avoid being hanged. The girls are soon accusing numerous other women, including Elizabeth Proctor, of witchcraft.
As a film, The Crucible is a fine adaptation of Miller’s play and it’s always a little bit surprising to me that the movie itself isn’t better-known. Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder, Joan Allen, and Bruce Davison all give excellent performances, as does Rob Campbell as a reverend who comes to doubt the accusations of witchcraft. The great Paul Scofield also does a good job as Danforth, the stern judge who attempts to be fair but ultimately is not willing to admit that the law itself is in error. The film recreates Salem is such detail that you feel as if you’re walking its streets. The film also recreates the horrible conditions that a colonial prisoner would have to deal with while imprisoned. Watching Daniel Day-Lewis go from being handsome and rugged to being an emaciated man with rotten teeth really drives home the story’s portrayal of casual, state-sanctioned cruelty. By the end of the movie, Day-Lewis is a testament to what authoritarians will do to someone who insists on thinking for himself.
The film is at its strongest when showing how a moral panic begins. The unstable Abigail is looking for revenge against John Proctor. The other girls, immature and trying to be avoid being punished, make their accusations without giving much thought to the consequences. Soon, the adults of Salem — all of whom have no excuse for not knowing better — are making accusations because it’s better to be an accuser than to be one of accused. The film presents a disturbing portrait of how quickly a community can turn on itself.
The film ends on a note of devastating sadness. Though the witch trials were eventually seen for being the farce that they were, it was too late for the twenty-five people who died as a result of the hysteria. (Today, with a clear mind, it’s easy to see that the Salem Witch Trials had more in common with Stalin’s show trials and China’s Cultural Revolution than anything else.) The Crucible is a powerful film adaptation that deserves to be better-known.
Adam Cooper (Chad Lowe) is a teenager growing up in Colonial Massachusetts. His father, Moses Cooper (Tommy Lee Jones), is a stern man who believes that rights come from men and not God and who, despite believing in negotiating instead of fighting, is willing to take arms against the British if necessary. Adam has a pretty girlfriend (Meredith Salenger) and tries to please both his religious mother (Susan Blakely) and his agnostic father. When Paul Revere makes his famous ride, both Adam and Moses are thrust into the Battle of Lexington and, over the course of one long night, Adam is forced to grow up and become the man of the house.
Through the Shattered Lens 