DOUBT 2024 Previews — Page 2

Website lists a 95-minute running time, no intermission.

How was Schreiber?

One thing I've been curious about since they've announced this casting: Part of the tension between Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius is because he's this young, idealistic, new-age priest coming in and shaking up a lot of the traditional ways of thinking (written to be mid to late thirties, if not even a little younger). So how does that dynamic change with Schreiber, who's nearly 60, taking on the role?

Zeppie2022 said: ""I don't think it matters much. Father Flynn is written to be very charismatic and popular in the parish. Being older could make sense because priests that are very popular have usually been in the parish a long time. Father Flynn shaking up a lot of ways does not necessarily mean he is young man although that trait is usually associated with a younger person. I personally think it is his ideas not age that created the tension between him and Sister Aloysius."

Agreed that it's the ideas that create the tension, but given that era in the Catholic Church it just seems incredibly likely that this would be a much younger man, not one of the older priests who presumably attended seminary school 30+ years prior. To be clear, I love Schreiber and can't wait to see him in the role. Just curious from anyone who's seen it (and perhaps seen the show previously with a younger Flynn) if the age "change" did in fact make it seem much different.

Congrats to Isabel Keating! What a pro.

Regarding Father Flynn, I agree that it is probably better if he is in his thirties or forties, but it doesn't really matter that much, and at a Hollywood 56, I doubt Schreiber's age is too much of an issue. Tyne Daly is also 77, so the age difference between the two characters is still the same.

I would love to see Brendan Fraser tackle the role of Fr Flynn.

This is an interesting one for me. I love this play, and I loved the original production with Cherry Jones that I saw on tour back in 2006. That being said, this production is passable, but is very “safe” in all aspects for lack of a better word.

The cast is good, but never GREAT. I, of course, realize Isabel Keating just stepped in with next to no rehearsal, and she gives a solid performance. Liev Scrheiber was fine as was Zoey Kazan. Quincy Tyler Bernstine is also fine.

I guess “fine” is how I would describe this revival based on what I saw this afternoon… when I saw the original play (and even the film), I remember being on the edge of my seat and the tension was absolutely palpable. The final confrontation scene between Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn was explosive. In this production, it’s merely a somewhat tense conversation, but there is no spark.

The set is handsome enough. Exactly what you’d expect - nothing more and nothing less. The office unit moves back for the sermons and rotates around for the courtyard scenes.

I will definitely revisit this with Tyne Daly to see if my view changes. While this is a respectable enough production, it just never really took off and reached the dramatic heights this play should.

Updated On: 2/4/24 at 05:05 PM

haterobics said: "bwayphreak234 said: "This is an interesting one for me. I love this play, and I loved the original production with Cherry Jones that I saw on tour back in 2006. That being said, this production is passable, but is very “safe” in all aspects for lack of a better word.."

Saw Jones as well, and even after all these years, doesn't seem like I need a revisit. Still too soon?!"



I feel the same way. The original production packed such a punch. For me, this isn't a play that I need to revisit as a revival. (I think I would have seen the original cast again if I could have)

uncageg said: "haterobics said: "bwayphreak234 said: "This is an interesting one for me. I love this play, and I loved the original production with Cherry Jones that I saw on tour back in 2006. That being said, this production is passable, but is very “safe” in all aspects for lack of a better word.."

Saw Jones as well, and even after all these years, doesn't seem like I need a revisit. Still too soon?!"



I feel the same way. The original production packed such a punch. For me, this isn't a play that I need to revisit as a revival. (I think I would have seen the original cast again if I could have)

"

I hear ya

"Saw Jones as well, and even after all these years, doesn't seem like I need a revisit. Still too soon?!"

I guess you can say revival will give people a chance to see it who missed it during the original run. Hard to imagine any cast being better than the original but will know real soon. It has been 20 years since it opened so would waiting another 10 years actually be better? Will be interesting if this play has aged well and audience reaction.

bwayphreak234 said: "The more I think on this, the more I realize that 99.99% of my problems with this revival stem from the direction. The material is never allowed to shine - the stake are not high enough, there is not enough tension, and everything from the performances to the design just feels a little restrained and watered down. There's just no bite or spark here. I have had this same problem with several of Scott Ellis's productions - a lot of them jut feel so stagnant and stale."

Good Heavens. They performed their first previews with a lead actress they had never rehearsed with (and who had barely been rehearsed!) and you feel qualified to assess the inherent problems of the production? Granted Doug Hughes had a lot to do with the thorough success of the original but I'm sure even that production took a minute to settle in.

bwayphreak234 said: "The Other One said: "bwayphreak234 said: "The more I think on this, the more I realize that 99.99% of my problems with this revival stem from the direction. The material is never allowed to shine - the stake are not high enough, there is not enough tension, and everything from the performances to the design just feels a little restrained and watered down. There's just no bite or spark here. I have had this same problem with several of Scott Ellis's productions - a lot of them jut feel so stagnant and stale."

Good Heavens. They performed their first previews with a lead actress they had never rehearsed with (and who had barely been rehearsed!) and you feel qualified to assess the inherent problems of the production? Granted Doug Hughes had a lot to do with the thorough success of the original but I'm sure even that production took a minute to settle in."

As a paying audience member who is familiar with the play, I absolutely feel like I have a right to assess what I saw. I acknowledged in my prior post that I realized this was Isabel Keating's first time in the role with little rehearsal. I fail to see how my assessing and analyzing a production in early previews is any different than what everyone else does in EVERY preview thread on this board. Not sure why you feel the need to come after me specifically, but have at it if that's what floats your boat."



Hmm. As a poster who regularly posts some of the harshest criticisms on BWW, bwayphreak you sure don't like it when anyone calls you out on it, do you?

Just got an email that Keating is on again tonight.

I hope Tyne is well and it's nothing serious.