My husband and I watched the first half of the movie. He is not into my genealogy, even though he has heard about the Salem Trials a jillion times from me. He is familiar only with a Salem, MA. He didn't know there was a Salem VILLAGE and a Salem TOWN, so he was confused from the get go and didn't understand the social problems of poor town vs. wealthy merchant town, nor the disagreements among Salem Village townsmen over the hiring of the Rev. Parrish, giving him land on which to live, and the squabbling over wood not being delivered to the minister. I imagine most movie watchers didn't understand that. My husband probably represents the typical movie audience. He was also confused with who some of the people were, how they were related, and had to keep asking me questions -- "what in the heck are they talking about now?" and ... "who is that?" "Which one is Rebecca Nurse". I agree with another post, the audio was not good. It seemed to me the voices rose and fell and it was hard to hear the dialogue at times. Even though I know the characters and their relationships, I had a hard time picking up who was who in the beginning. Does anyone else think the story line was disjointed, making it confusing and hard to follow? For example, I had to explain to my husband the relationship and bad blood between Thomas Putnam and Joseph Putnam and why Thomas Putnam opposed Joseph's marriage to Israel Porter's daughter. And then I tried to explain why this might have been included in the first half of the movie. So far neither of us can tell where that segment of the story is going. He is also wondering why so much of the first half of the movie is about Ann Putnam, Sr. -- "wasn't it a lot of young girls who made the accusations?" So I have had to explain to him that Ann Putnam, Jr., was one of the accusing young girls, and that the producer is focusing on her and what was going on in her family at that time which was effecting (affecting?) her which would lead to her becoming an accuser... that is, IF the producers continue to along the line that it was a dysfunctional community of Salem Village, which included the Putnams, which created the atmosphere and some reasons for the accusation of witchcraft (punish, settle old scores, etc.) >From conversations with me long ago, my husband did remember Tituba, the slave from Barbados who worked for the minister. His first remark, "I didn't think she was young and beautiful. Wasn't she married to an Indian?" I had to explain that I also thought she was a much older woman and that she was married to another slave called John Indian, but he was not a Native American. I had to explain to him that the scene with Tituba in the tub with the Rev Parrish leering at her, and the later scene with the Rev. Parrish beating himself on the back for lusting, was pure Hollywood. I have never read in any book a hint that the minister lusted for anybody, let alone Tituba. I will be watching the second half of the movie tonight to see in what direction it takes. I think I spent the whole first half trying to watch and hear, and then answer my husband's questions during commercials. If most of the people who watched the first half were as confused as my husband, the audience may drop in numbers for the second half. If many were disappointed because so far it has not been a thriller or horror show (no spinning heads, no bats, no witches flying in the air), they won't be back either. (Sigh.) I think those of us on this list who have read the books, studied the many theories, and read the existing trial transcripts... we are disappointed in this CBS movie in that we were hoping for an historical documentary... and this is not it. But, it does have some merit in that the first half seemed to try to explain what had happened between families in the past, the turmoil of what was going on in the community, Puritanism and its doctrines and how it probably scared the bee-jabbers out of the young girls, and the community dissention over the hiring of the Rev. Samuel Parrish and what kind of person he was -- which were factors which led to the witchcraft accusations. I wonder if Cotton Mather will be introduced tonight... will he be a sinister, evil-looking man wearing a black hat and cloak, riding a black stallion snorting fire from his nostrils? I wonder how Sheriff Corwin and the judges will be portrayed. -- Helen Greenslit Graves I descend from Ann (Greenslit) Pudeator who was hung on Sept. 22, 1692.

Dear Helen, Bravo !! You said it all... Deborah Ray Piper Spencer Co., IN allpiper@swindiana.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Helen Graves" <hgraves@psln.com> To: <SALEM-WITCH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:31 PM Subject: [SALEM-WITCH-L] Salem Trials - CBS Movie > My husband and I watched the first half of the movie. He is not into my genealogy, even though he has heard about the Salem Trials a jillion times from me. He is familiar only with a Salem, MA. He didn't know there was a Salem VILLAGE and a Salem TOWN, so he was confused from the get go and didn't understand the social problems of poor town vs. wealthy merchant town, nor the disagreements among Salem Village townsmen over the hiring of the Rev. Parrish, giving him land on which to live, and the squabbling over wood not being delivered to the minister. I imagine most movie watchers didn't understand that. > > My husband probably represents the typical movie audience. > > He was also confused with who some of the people were, how they were related, and had to keep asking me questions -- "what in the heck are they talking about now?" and ... "who is that?" "Which one is Rebecca Nurse". > > I agree with another post, the audio was not good. It seemed to me the voices rose and fell and it was hard to hear the dialogue at times. Even though I know the characters and their relationships, I had a hard time picking up who was who in the beginning. > > Does anyone else think the story line was disjointed, making it confusing and hard to follow? > > For example, I had to explain to my husband the relationship and bad blood between Thomas Putnam and Joseph Putnam and why Thomas Putnam opposed Joseph's marriage to Israel Porter's daughter. And then I tried to explain why this might have been included in the first half of the movie. So far neither of us can tell where that segment of the story is going. > > He is also wondering why so much of the first half of the movie is about Ann Putnam, Sr. -- "wasn't it a lot of young girls who made the accusations?" So I have had to explain to him that Ann Putnam, Jr., was one of the accusing young girls, and that the producer is focusing on her and what was going on in her family at that time which was effecting (affecting?) her which would lead to her becoming an accuser... that is, IF the producers continue to along the line that it was a dysfunctional community of Salem Village, which included the Putnams, which created the atmosphere and some reasons for the accusation of witchcraft (punish, settle old scores, etc.) > > >From conversations with me long ago, my husband did remember Tituba, the slave from Barbados who worked for the minister. His first remark, "I didn't think she was young and beautiful. Wasn't she married to an Indian?" I had to explain that I also thought she was a much older woman and that she was married to another slave called John Indian, but he was not a Native American. > > I had to explain to him that the scene with Tituba in the tub with the Rev Parrish leering at her, and the later scene with the Rev. Parrish beating himself on the back for lusting, was pure Hollywood. I have never read in any book a hint that the minister lusted for anybody, let alone Tituba. > > I will be watching the second half of the movie tonight to see in what direction it takes. I think I spent the whole first half trying to watch and hear, and then answer my husband's questions during commercials. > > If most of the people who watched the first half were as confused as my husband, the audience may drop in numbers for the second half. If many were disappointed because so far it has not been a thriller or horror show (no spinning heads, no bats, no witches flying in the air), they won't be back either. > > (Sigh.) I think those of us on this list who have read the books, studied the many theories, and read the existing trial transcripts... we are disappointed in this CBS movie in that we were hoping for an historical documentary... and this is not it. > > But, it does have some merit in that the first half seemed to try to explain what had happened between families in the past, the turmoil of what was going on in the community, Puritanism and its doctrines and how it probably scared the bee-jabbers out of the young girls, and the community dissention over the hiring of the Rev. Samuel Parrish and what kind of person he was -- which were factors which led to the witchcraft accusations. > > I wonder if Cotton Mather will be introduced tonight... will he be a sinister, evil-looking man wearing a black hat and cloak, riding a black stallion snorting fire from his nostrils? I wonder how Sheriff Corwin and the judges will be portrayed. > > > -- Helen Greenslit Graves > I descend from Ann (Greenslit) Pudeator who was hung on Sept. 22, 1692. > > > > >