Brantley's Lack-of-Faith in Doubt

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

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

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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

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

---

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.

---

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

---