Posted by Mrs. Isis Fabulous at 207.127.233.246 on September 22, 2003 at 13:35:02:
In Reply to: Kev!!! posted by FistofSloth on September 22, 2003 at 12:46:41:
: In that "Watching movies with..." piece, you said that the martyrdom of John Proctor does not impress you, because its all about his name (how the world sees him?).
I don't think Proctor's sacrifice is about his name, but his faith as well. He could have earned himself a less painful death if he had admitted to worshipping the devil. Not only would he have been lying, but he would have died with an official condemnation by the church officials. I don't know that Proctor was much of a Christian in real life (rather than in Arthur Miller's script), but I would assume that it meant something to him to not have his soul officially resigned to hell at the moment of his death.
I've never gotten what the significant difference between the two executions is, except that More had an option to live if he had supported Henry VIII, and Proctor would have been killed either way.
I've always been more impressed with Proctor simply because his stance, like that of Giles Corey and the other upper-class Salem residents who chose not to confess, saved an entire community from mass insanity and death, whereas More's sacrifice basically had to do with the fate of his own soul.
It could just be that I find the *character* of Proctor more relatable than the *character* of More as portrayed in the respective books/movies/etc. about them. Proctor is a sinner who finds redemption. To me, that's just more interesting.