Doubt

Went to see Canstage's production of Doubt: A Parable, the play by John Patrick Shanley. The play won the 2005 Tony Award and was relased as a film (starring Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman and nominated for 5 Academy Awards) in 2008. I had seen the film; I thought it might help my enjoyment of the play, but I think it dimmed my appreciation somewhat.

The play is set at a Catholic school in the Bronx in 1964. The principal of the school, a stern and conservative nun named Sister Aloysius, counsels the young and naive num Sister James to be observant and suspicious of the behavior of the students and of the parish priest, Father Flynn. When Sister James is confounded by confusing behavior of the school's only black student, Donald Muller, and his relationship with Father Flynn, Sister Aloysius reacts as if her suspicions of the non-traditional and progressive priest were confirmed, and begins a hunt to reveal his misdeeds.

The characters are rather one-note, and played without much colour. Seanna McKenna's Sister Aloysius is a driven woman, sure in her convictions. David Storch's Father Flynn is an amicable man, uncomfortable in the glare of the Sister's spotlight--which she is shining on his private proclivities (whatever they may be). Daniela Vlaskalic plays Sister James as earnest and easily swayed by both the Sister and the priest.

The fourth character int he play is Donald's mother, played by Raven Dauda, who helplessly tries to explain her seemingly callous position to Sister Aloysius, when the Sister reveals her suspicions to the mother. This intriguing, brief scene--which won Viola Davis a Best Supporting Actress nomination for the film--can be confouding, and really makes you look at the situation and whether morality needs to be flexible. Just as Sister Aloysius is frustrated with the male hierarchy of the church and seeks to act on her own, Donald's mother is frustrated with a society that would see her son bullied and abused (by his father) and chose the (questionable) attentions of the priest as, perhaps, the lesser of two evils.

Of course, the play never resolves the central question (did he, or didn't he?), and I found that the handling of the final line (which I won't reveal) in the film and play left me with different conclusions (not of the central question--but of what Sister Aloysius means in her cry of anguish). For me, the answer to the central question is: I saw nothing wrong with the behavior of Father Flynn. I saw nothing amiss in the behavior of the boy (who we don't see in the play, but do see in the film--which was written and directed by the playwright himself). Father Flynn may have been guilty of something, but I'm not sure that it was criminal, and I know he owed no duty to confess it to Sister Aloysius, who seemed to appoint herself to a god-like judge and jury position. While her intentions may have been good (to protect the boy), there were better ways for her to go about it (like talking to the boy). I'm sure that some people feel just the opposite.

I went to Canstage's Theatre Club discussion group about the play, held at the lovely Nicolas Hoare book store on Front St. An interesting discussion with many of the regulars of the group (who are largely older people, and subscribers to Canstage) led by a woman who is a writer and prof at York University. One thing that struck me out of that conversation is that there has been a reversal in who we might believe in a similar situation then vs. now. Then, we would be inclined to believe the adult authority figure. Priestly abuse was less known and teachers were given respect. Now, a child's word would be believed over an adult, and teachers and priests would immediately fall under suspicion. The play also seems to be about how we can judge people and jump to conclusions based on incomplete information. Sister Aloysius cleary jumps to conclusions about Father Flynn. But isn't that similar how we, in this world of news clips and sound bites, jump to conclusions all the time... about murders and abuductions in the news (the Tori Stafford case comes to mind, Canada's version of Jon Benet Ramsey) to which celebrity is sleeping with whom (look at the Jon & Kate plus 8 marriage train wreck). And just as it was dangerous for Sister Aloysius to go on her witch hunt of Father Flynn, and poison Sister James's view of him, probably we the public shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions in our own life. And perhaps that's the "parable" of the title.