Whatever your opinion of the profundity of John Patrick Shanley’s Pulitzer- and Tony-winning 2005 play Doubt: A Parable—and views on that in my circle are all over the map—we can all surely agree that it has the right title. A tightly written, 90-minute confrontation between a liberal and popular Catholic priest in 1964 and a stern and uptight nun who suspects him of child-molestation, it’s constructed as an inconclusive procedural, the story of a private, emotional, and admittedly biased investigation that leaves both sides tarnished and never clearly establishes guilt or innocence. Shanley very cleverly keeps the cards of evidence close to his chest in this work, leaving all possibilities tantalizingly open right up to the end. The tension, suspense, fun, and deeper meaning of the piece all depend crucially on maintaining doubt. The very first line is, “What do you do when you’re not sure?”—spoken by the priest in a sermon.
I am, alas, not a fan of the 2008 film of the play that Shanley directed, starring two world-class actors, Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman. That film unfortunately relied too much on closeups and lurid emotion, too little on intelligence and wit. It had humor but only sporadically, a lot of it killed by reliance on reaction shots. The evocative New York exteriors and the 18-year age difference between Streep and Hoffman should have combined to provide period poignancy, clarifying and accentuating the Vatican II-driven generational conflict in the piece, but that effect never gelled either. The filmmaker-playwright evidently believed that looking deeply into two great actors’ eyes was enough, and it wasn’t. We needed contextual air to appreciate the characters as breathing denizens of a larger world.
I wish Ellis’s production contained some fascinating answer to that question. To me at least, it doesn’t. This is a staging that, shockingly, has decided who is right: Father Flynn. Schreiber plays a man so sincere, sensible, self-aware and worldly-wise compared to Ryan’s unequivocally priggish, narrow-minded, vindictive Sister Aloysius that we end up certain of his innocence. Flynn’s seeming confession of suppressed homosexual desire about halfway through the action in fact reinforces our trust in him because it makes him seem honest. The “parable” in this production, in other words, is about the dangers of deep-seated homophobia and rushing to judgement. Flynn is a victim punished unjustly by a revanchist schoolmarm unafraid of her putative superior because she’s slicker than he is at manipulating church bureaucracy.
It doesn’t help that Schreiber and Ryan are almost exactly the same age, because one effect of that is to remove the supposed threat Father Flynn’s youth poses to Sister Aloysius’s sense of church values (the script says Flynn is a generation younger). Ryan’s eyes never twinkle with flashes of self-doubt in this show. She never hints at possible understanding with Flynn. For her, it seems, conflict is purely conflict, and that is no welcoming environment for humor, even the dark sort. The main notes of this show are fear, frustration, vexation, and anger. It lacks surprise, suspense, and the relational complexity required for laughter.
This article appeared in Theatre Matters on March 17, and has been reposted with permission.
This post was written by the author in their personal capacity.The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the view of The Theatre Times, their staff or collaborators.
This post was written by Jonathan Kalb.
The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.