"Doubt" - some questions (spoilers)
"Doubt" - some questions (spoilers)
#1"Doubt" - some questions (spoilers)
Posted: 5/15/16 at 6:45pm
Hi everyone! I recently re-read the play Doubt and today, re-watched the film. I was wondering who got to see it on Broadway and how do people feel the film and stage versions compare? I personally loved both and the scene with Sister Aloysious and Mrs. Muller is one of my favourite moments from a play.
I also read that regarding the ending, only the actors playing Father Flynn and the writer know whether or not he did what Sister Aloysious believes. I was wondering - is this still the case or has it been discussed in interviews or anything similar? I did a search on google which was unsuccessful - I'd love to hear if it has been discussed and also peoples thoughts.
henrikegerman
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/29/05
#2Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 7:58am
We're not supposed to know.
Hence, the title.
yankeefan7
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/14/12
#3Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 8:34am
I saw it on Broadway with the original cast but did not see the movie. Personally, I don't think there was a definitive answer if Father Flynn was innocent or guilty, it was written to this way to have people make up their own minds. I thought he was guilty but I have read reviews that saw both casts and came to a different conclusion from one cast to another.
henrikegerman
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/29/05
#4Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 9:20am
"it was written to this way to have people make up their own minds."
I disagree. I think it was written in this way to make people experience, acknowledge and even embrace not knowing; experience doubt.
#5Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 9:23am
Legend has it that Shanley told Brían O'Byrne early on as to whether or not the priest was guilty. Everyone else was left to draw their own conclusion.
There was a thread a few weeks ago about the Broadway production and the film. The original cast was pure magic. I was left breathless, as was the rest of the audience. The film version, in my opinion is a mess. Out of the four person cast, half of them were terribly miscast. Streep was something out of an SNL sketch. She needed a better director. But she seldom works with powerful directors, and as a result she gets to run amok creatively.
#6Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 9:25am
I don't know, the text doesn't give a clear answer, but I agree with Sister Aloysius: "if he had no such history, the lie wouldn't have worked".
#7Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 9:28am
...or he walked away to avoid an unwarranted scandal.
Personally, I had a different opinion each time I saw the original production. First experience, I was convinced he was guilty. Second time, I thought Aloysius was a crazy old bat with an ax to grind.
#8Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 10:02am
Thanks everyone! Interesting to hear that people feel Streep was miscast - anyone care to elaborate?
#9Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 10:10am
I'm sure the film largely exists because Streep expressed interest. But I just didn't buy her. I would have loved to have seen Judi Dench take on the role. The accent was troublesome. And her big showdown with the priest in the home stretch was laughable. Saw it twice in theaters, and each time the audience laughed at her line readings. May have worked on stage, but on film, it was cartoon-ish and hammy. And Hoffman had no business playing that part. For all the talent that man had, there was no way you could look at him and ever wonder whether or not he was up to something. He was dripping with guilt.
The stakes in the theatre seemed so high, while the story felt flat on film. Didn't translate well, and stands as a great example as to why most writers should not direct their pieces.
#10Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 11:41am
I don't think Streep was miscast, she was misdirected--or not directed at all. She would have been ideal if a real director was at the helm and reined in her performance. It's a wildly indulgent and unruly performance, which works for Violet Weston but not for Sister Aloysius. In the press for the film, Streep seemed rather displeased with Shanley's directing style, which she described as overly controlling (telling her where to put her hands, how to move, etc.). It seemed like this had the effect of making Streep do the opposite, and in turn we get a performance that is rather hammy. I find some moments in her performance quite powerful. Still, the film belongs to Viola Davis and Amy Adams.
"Some people can thrive and bloom living life in a living room, that's perfect for some people of one hundred and five. But I at least gotta try, when I think of all the sights that I gotta see, all the places I gotta play, all the things that I gotta be at"
#11Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 11:48am
My daughter is a high school ESL teacher in Manhattan and she introduced her class to the play. Of course the kids had the same questions we all have, so she encouraged them to email Shanley. Not only did he respond, he came to an assembly at the school for a Q and A. No secrets revealed, but a great discussion with a really nice guy.
NYactor85
Swing Joined: 6/9/09
#12Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 11:58am
I saw it on a trip to NYC with my mom in college. It was the last show we saw on the trip and the one that had the strongest effect on us. I didn't think he was guilty in the play but in the movie he felt guilty. Cherry Jones was so incredible in the play and felt so driven in a crazed way that it felt like she just was having a crazy ax to grind.
In truth there are no answers to this question for the boards as the only 2 people that know are Brian F/ O'Byrne and Shanley (i wonder if PSH knew or not)
KnewItWhenIWasInFron
Leading Actor Joined: 6/23/14
#14Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 1:38pm
It's hard to imagine that Cherry Jones performance -- with that glorious moment -- being bettered (Now that I think of it, her final moment in "The Heiress" is also spectacular). I've seen three productions of the play and I can still see the choices she made. Within those three, I've seen a production in which I was convinced he didn't do it and two where I thought he did.
#15Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 1:50pm
Whatever his intentions were, Shanley's directorial choices in the film go against any sense of doubt. He practically made Philip Seymour Hoffman (terribly miscast) wear a neon sign saying "I did it." There's such little subtlety in the film, it's surprising he wrote the play.
"Some people can thrive and bloom living life in a living room, that's perfect for some people of one hundred and five. But I at least gotta try, when I think of all the sights that I gotta see, all the places I gotta play, all the things that I gotta be at"
#16Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 1:58pm
I came to a very different conclusion after watching the film then I did seeing the play. I then saw a regional production last year and came to a whole other conclusion. I think it's very much up to the performers and (especially) the director as to how the audience feels at the end of the play. The regional production played Aloysius as if she were a crazy old woman who had lost some of her mental faculties. The film left little "doubt" in my mind that he did it, while when I saw the play, I thought he didn't do it.
#17Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 2:09pm
I think it's a disservice to the audience if a particular director/actor directs/acts the show in such a way that it makes you feel you can guess guilt or innocence. I feel they should direct you towards doubt, not conclusion. As Henrik says, that is the whole point of the play, not whether he did it, but how you deal with suspicion when set against doubt.
Art has a double face, of expression and illusion.
henrikegerman
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/29/05
#18Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 2:20pm
"I don't know, the text doesn't give a clear answer, but I agree with Sister Aloysius: "if he had no such history, the lie wouldn't have worked".
Lies can work against someone vulnerable who has something to hide other than what he is being accused of.
And though Sister Aloysius smugly says "if he had no such history, the lie wouldn't have worked," she is left at the final curtain with "doubt."
"I think it's a disservice to the audience if a particular director/actor directs/acts the show in such a way that it makes you feel you can guess guilt or innocence. I feel they should direct you towards doubt, not conclusion. As Henrik says, that is the whole point of the play, not whether he did it, but how you deal with suspicion when set against doubt."
It's tricky. The actor playing the father still has to make a choice about his history, but the play's power perhaps still requires mystery as to what the specific backstory is. Even if Shanley gave O'Byrne direction, that choice needn't be the one another actor makes (even if he had access to what Shanley said).
#19Doubt - an answer (spoiler)
Posted: 5/16/16 at 2:22pm
I only saw the film, but I think the director did a flawless job of leaving the possible guilt up in the air. In no way did I detect any hints to lead me to one side or the other. Bravo!
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
