"Doubt" - some questions (spoilers)

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.

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.

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.

Updated On: 5/16/16 at 09:23 AM

...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.

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.

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.

I'm dying for a revival.

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.

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.

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!