Brantley's Lack-of-Faith in Doubt

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/14/06 at 7:08pm

http://theater2.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/theater/reviews/15doub.html

Basic summary: the performances of Atkins and Eldard aren't like Jones and O'Byrne, so therefore they're bad.

Conundrum: The play is now a mystery.

Solution: Change title to:

"Sister Aloysious and the Case of the Problem Priest"
Updated On: 2/14/06 at 07:08 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/14/06 at 7:18pm

I have always been in the minority by suggesting that the long lasting power of the play would be diminished once it was performed with different casts. The production in Los Angeles last year with Linda Hunt actually received poor reviews.

Never underestimate the power of a great director and a fortuitous original cast to create the illusion of "classic" out of what is really just a "pretty good" play.

Nevertheless, I can't wait to see what Atkins, Malone and Eldard do with the material!
Updated On: 2/14/06 at 07:18 PM

[broadwaygiant19122]

Posted: 2/14/06 at 7:22pm

interesting perspective, mb. I was really interested in seeing the replacement cast. It sounds so lackluster in the review. I saw Doubt with the original cast twice, and it was nothing short of a masterpiece. maybe I will re-evaluate seeing Doubt for the third time, and check out Defiance.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/14/06 at 7:23pm

Having seen both casts, I'd say I enjoyed Atkins more than Jones. Atkins was so firm, I thought.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/14/06 at 7:24pm

BTW - contrary to my opinion/and Mr. Brantley's - the talkinbroadway.com review loves the show and thinks it's actually deeper and more textured now.
Updated On: 2/14/06 at 07:24 PM

[FoscasBohemianDream]

Posted: 2/14/06 at 7:40pm

I hate saying this, but Brantley couldn't be more right. I still believe the text of Doubt is a masterpiece, but a play does not come to live till it is performed, and the new leads in the show are not exactly brilliant in their respective characters. There's something missing. One just needs to look at how the show is doing now in terms of box-office compared to how it did with the original cast. I hope they get a better cast for the tour.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/14/06 at 7:54pm

I agree 100% with Michael Bennett. I was also part of that minority who felt that this was a good, not great play that fortuitously benefited from the a brilliant performance from Cherry Jones and a very good one from O'Byrne, that added depth and texture to the play that was nowhere in the actual text. Apparently, the play's west coast premiere with Oscar-winner Linda Hunt and Jonathan Cake was deemed quite underwhelming by many who saw it, and now it's seemingly coming off in diminished fashion despite the great Dame Eileen Atkins in the lead role (and the fine Ron Eldard).

Perhaps Shanley really should have handed that Pulitzer over to Cherry Jones -- as he joked about doing when he received it -- for it's starting to look like this play may only come off as something more than just a pleasant little evening in the theatre when Jones is in it bringing her formidable resources to the table (and I personally wasn't even blown away by the play, despite two visits seeing it, even when Jones was starring).

Updated On: 2/14/06 at 07:54 PM

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 5:59am

I'm truly taken aback that there is so little interest in seeing such a high profile replacement cast. Their box office has declined every week since Jones, O'Byrne and Goldenhersh left and Brantley's review is really not going to help.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 10:09am

No, no, no, no, no, no. Let's not let ONE review lift you all to your "I was right" pedestals. This is the ONLY major review, if not review period, that was a pan.

EVERYONE I have spoken to thinks this cast is just as fantastic as the last cast--very different, but just as valid.

And, Margo--I forget, but DID you see the play other than an early Off-Broadway preview--a time that would hardly be fair to assess the play as it was still being developed? If so, well then fine. But, if not--let's revisit the play before we continue to speak definitively of it, shall we?

[robbiej]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 10:25am

I've now seen the play three times...twice with the original cast, once with the replacement cast.

The replacement cast takes a profoundly different approach to the show. Atkins' Aloysius has more...forgive me...'doubts' from the very beginning. She is a weaker presence than Jones...but I don't mean that prejoratively. She isn't the rock that Jones was...she was someone kept in her place by the church patriarchy.

Though I do agree that it's a valid reading, I personally missed the epic clash between Jones and O'Byrne. Eladard is terrific...but his innate masculine presence doesn't have the same creepy asexualism that O'Byrne had...and which, in my own Catholic school experiences, was very reminiscent of priests I've had, if you will.

Still, a VERY strong script. Malone has an easier emotional faculty than Goldenhersch and Lennox is still great.

[uncageg]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 11:18am

Here is a positive review:

http://www.broadway.com/Gen/Buzz_Story.aspx?ci=525091

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 11:21am

i did go to doubt last night. i loved it. i thought the script was so well written. being a good catholic boy i particularly enjoyed the sermons, having experienced a few myself that were the direct result of the confessional.

the cast was reallly good. i didn't expect too much of ron eldard since whenever my wife and i need a laugh i walk into a chair and scream, "if i could see you, you b*st*rd, you'd be dead and it'd be blind justice, motherf***er!" but he was surprisingly good, very comfortable in the role and onstage, charming and disarming, even joking with someone in the front few rows (which i'm sure he does every night, but i suspect that last night's victim was gabriel byrne who i saw outside afterwards).

eileen was wonderful, even if i did weep a little wishing i could have seen cherry in what must have been a tour de force for her. she was the voice of catholic doctrine as it was at that time and the embodiment of everything that people fought for and against in the church for so many years, and still do to this day. i never saw any doubt in her, robbie.

jena malone was a weak link to me. she kept dragging me out of the story with her delivery. i know she was supposed to be conflicted and a bit of a mousey innocent, but i found myself cheering for her to just get the lines out. i really felt like most of the time the lines and emotion were there in her head and then had to be translated into bronx-ese. i felt they lost something in the translation. but she's an accomplished actress so i chalk it up to being a character choice and in my opinion, a poor one.

adriane lenox came across so well. she played the arc of that mother role so convincingly that i was almost swayed to the side of, "it's only until june." what a horrible predicament for that character to have to deal with.

i don't want to ruin it for anyone so i won't talk about the story too much but i really enjoyed the fact that there were no easy answers. the only thing that bothered me was that i felt a tendency towards a "let's joke first and the get serious" style that seemed to be played over and over in the script. i don't know how one gets around it really, though and the humor was so good it held its own.

Updated On: 2/15/06 at 11:21 AM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 12:10pm

Jerby, I returned and saw the play a few months ago when my parents came into town and I had precisely the same opinion as the first time around. Perhaps it was an off performance (there were zero laughs in the beginning and the pace seemed a bit off), but nevertheless, the play is the play, and as I've said 100 times, it's a well-crafted, well-made, well-acted show that's a very good and enjoyable evening of theatre, but far from some masterpiece of dramatic literature. Not sure, why my saying that bothers people. I've never once said it was a bad play or really anything negative about it at all. I've only said I didn't think it was a work of genius.

And funny thing was, my parents (whom I recommended it to without telling them any of my misgivings -- would I be telling my parents to see a play I thought wasn't good?) had the same reaction. They've been very regular theatregoers since the early 50s and have seen everything. I asked my mother afterwards what she thought and she, "Oh it was good. It took a while to get going, but the acting was terrific. I really enjoyed it." Then I asked her what she thought of the play itself. "It was fine. It kept my interest. It's a nice little play." And then I asked her if she thought it was the masterpiece so many people claim it is. With a laugh, she said, "Oh please. That little thing? I've seen a hundred plays better than that." And on the way out the door of the theatre, I heard an elderly woman ask her companion "This is the play everybody was raving about? What was the big deal about that?"

I don't know. It's possible I saw two off nights a year apart -- that's the nature of live theatre. But nevertheless, the play is the play and while it's enjoyable, I think it's been wildly overpraised and I think time will bear that out.

Updated On: 2/15/06 at 12:10 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 12:40pm

I saw the original cast, and as I have said a few times here, the play blew me away. From the play itself right down to the performances. The only performance that was a bit off for me was Ms. Lennox's. Must have been an off day for her. I plan to see it again this June as my best friend is going to NYC with me and I told him it is a must see. Here is another review of the current cast:

http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/7657

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 1:22pm

and as i've said 100 times, it's a well-crafted, well-made, well-acted show that's a very good and enjoyable evening of theatre, but far from some masterpiece of dramatic literature.

margo that kind of vicious vitriol has no place on these boards and is why we here are looked upon as the b*st*rd love child of michael riedel and the ghost of walter winchell.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 2:56pm

How many plays are actor (or director)proof? Few if any. Replacement cast disappointment isn't a rare thing on Broadway, and with someone like Jones in a now legendary performance, it was an impossible act to follow. They took a gamble of sorts - going in an entirely different direction with Atkins, age, comic flair, you name it. Linda Hunt is another direction entirely -- I find her a charming curiosity at times in supporting roles, but couldn't imagine her holding the stage in this role.

But even Jones can have her detractors at times: me. I thought she was uninteresting to the point of shallow in the dreary Roundabout IGUANA, only okay and a bit too radiant and actor-y compared to Dewhurst in MOON, and I still prefer Olivia De Havilland (and even Jane Alexander) in THE HEIRESS -- a comment which will make some people here draw blood. But when I saw her in this role, to which she is uniquely suited and brilliant, I could not imagine anyone better.

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 2:58pm

I thought Eldard was better than O'Byrne, and that Atkins was extremely good. However, I did miss a little bit of Cherry's humanity in Atkins' performance, but I think Eldard kind of covered that by making his Flynn more charming and boyish.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/15/06 at 3:08pm

auggie, you've always hated cherry jones and don't think your bile has not been noted and passed on to dhs.