Donald V. Calamia (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} critic_don) wrote,@ 2008-04-03 19:43:00 |
|
That's the question I heard over and over again as I left all three performances of DOUBT. And it's a question I asked several audience members as well, trying to slyly gauge how my fellow theatergoers had absorbed what they had just experienced.
Not so surprisingly, EVERYONE had an opinion - and there was plenty of disagreement.
To me, that's a sign of great theater: That although all of us sat in the same audience and watched the same play unfold before us, each of us took away something different from it.
WHY that happened can be easily explained: All of us entered the theater with vastly different life experiences, which will ALWAYS color how we view the world around us.
But to be honest, I expected a lot more “guilties” than I actually encountered. Since the sexual abuse of children is one of the last taboos still in place in our ever-changing culture, I really expected the priest to be found guilty by a majority of people with whom I discussed the play – especially given all the bad press the Catholic Church received over the past several years for priestly improprieties. But that wasn’t the case. Both men AND women seemed more than willing to give the priest the benefit of the doubt.
I went in, I believe, with an open mind. As if sitting on a jury, I wanted to listen to the facts before I made my decision. And in each of the three “cases” – since the “testimony” was identical – I relied primarily on the body language of the priest to help me make up my mind. (Line delivery helped, too.)
So: Did he do it?
In the case of the Theater Critic vs. the BoarsHead Theater’s Father Flynn: The jury (of one) finds him guilty as sin. There was no doubt about it.
There was something about Michael Joseph Mitchell’s portrayal that set off alarms almost from the start. It was as if there was always something that he was hiding – and he was doing his best to make sure it remained secret. (Part of that COULD have been his homosexuality, which the actor telegraphed a handful of times in almost undetectable ways.) And in the final confrontation with Sister Aloysius – when she left him alone in the office – he couldn’t get to the phone fast enough to get the hell out of town. His guilt was written all over his face.
In the case of the Theater Critic vs. the Detroit Repertory Theatre’s Father Flynn: The jury (of one) finds him not guilty – at least not of sexually abusing the boy.
Ray Schultz’s Father Flynn didn’t seem shocked by Sister’s accusation; instead, he was offended. And he took it as a personal insult. So his reaction, to me, was one of damage control, since he knew what would happen if word of her suspicions got out into the public.
Ray’s Flynn was guilty of making bad choices, however. As a gay man himself, I think this Flynn identified with the youngster (who we learn is gay from his mother) and tried to shepherd him safely through the harsh world of eighth grade. But did anything inappropriate happen between them? Not sexually. (But did the priest give the boy the wine that ultimately got him kicked off the altar boy squad? I’m not sure. In THIS production, I doubt that, too.)
In the case of the Theater Critic vs. Performance Network Theatre’s Father Flynn: The jury (of one) finds him not guilty – I think.
Jon Bennett’s Father Flynn reminded me of several young, energetic priests I knew in the immediate post-Vatican II era. They were totally straight, but of the touchie-feelie variety; they’d rather us young folk sit in a circle and sing “Kumbaya” than kneel in a quiet church and ponder our navels. He was the “cool” priest that everyone loved to hang out with: The girls thought he was cute, and the boys thought he was one of the guys. So when Sister A. accused him of molesting young Donald, Bennett’s reaction was one of hurt and pain. How COULD she THINK that, he telegraphed?
And he carried that off quite well.
Except for one brief moment when Sister James revealed that she believed him. Bennett’s reaction was one of obvious glee; his eyes lit up, he got a great big smile, he pulled out his notebook and wrote something in it.
But there was something about that smile I didn’t like. Did it mean: “Cool! I really fooled her!” Or was he simply glad that SOMEONE was in his corner?
I’m not sure. Although evil DOES come in pretty packages, I’m inclined to believe Bennett’s Flynn was innocent. But I STILL have a nagging doubt about it in the darkest corners of my mind. (Plus, it wouldn't surprise me if Bennett's "cool Father Flynn" gave Donald the wine. That's the kind of thing I'd expect of a young priest of that era and mindset.)
To me, Bennett's interpretation was - from both a dramatic and theatrical perspective - the best: It left us thinking; it gave us doubts. It left us unsettled. And it sure gave us plenty to talk and think about - which, a month or so later, we're STILL doing.
Drama can't get much better than that!
So now I have to ask Bridgette Redman: Did he do it? Find out by checking her blog at http://frontrowlansing.blogspot.com/.
Then come back tomorrow at noon for a live, interactive chat with the two of us. If you’d like to participate, send either of us a note and we’ll provide you with the necessary information. A transcript of our chat will be posted on both our blogs later in the afternoon.
