Wimberley Players production of “Doubt: A Parable” takes us on a deep dive

“Doubt: A Parable” by Pulitzer Prize winning playwright John Patrick Shanley, is a contemporary classic. Not for its plot, although the plot is superb, not for its comedy, although there are moments that will make you laugh, and not for its thrilling action, although the actions of its characters will keep you glued to the story. It dares audiences to connect with themselves and others through a parable, a story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson.

The play, directed by Dr. Heather Barfield, will open on the Wimberley Players stage on April 26 and continue through May 19. It was selected for its challenging content to provide balance in the theatre’s 2024 roster.

Through its skillful dialogue, “Doubt: A Parable” asks audiences to meditate on two powerful human emotions — that of doubt and that of faith. By following the story and watching how it pits the two main characters against each other, it invites us to consider a different way of participating in the world.

The play is set in the fictional St. Nicholas church school in 1964. It is a time when society and the church begin to climb out of a rigid view of the world as either “right” or “wrong.”

A progressive priest, Father Flynn, tells his students that “Doubt can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certainty.” He wants to teach faith, the process of relaxing into accepting doubt.

The school’s principal, Sister Aloysius, is a rigid, conservative nun. She navigates her world using the compass of certainty and conviction that has no room for doubt — or other people, for that matter. During a meeting with a younger nun, Sister Aloysius reveals a deep mistrust toward her students, her fellow teachers, and society in general.

Father Flynn invites a bullied student into his office for some individual attention. A young nun notes the meeting with Sister Aloysius and unwittingly conveys that there might be something inappropriate about the time they spent together. Accusations follow, and doubt begins to link each character in the play.

The playwright suggests that when we entertain doubt, we connect beyond the simplified ideas of right and wrong that were presented to us as children. As we become mature enough to think through the ever-widening complexities that life presents, doubt gives us the room to breathe, to practice empathy, to philosophize, and to bond, but getting there is not comfortable.

He reminds us that there is no “proof” to be had in belief systems because they are abstract constructs. There are only feelings of “truth” and they are unique to individual experiences. Conflict arises when the truth of one person is not in alignment with the truth of another.

For Director Barfield, her job as the play’s director “is to hold steadfast the calculated and elegant script that Shanley has written. He has given us a clear map but we must learn how to read the language, what is said and unsaid, what is hidden and what is unveiled.”

“The biggest challenge in the production,” she said, “is to avoid the trappings of a “who done it” mystery thriller. This is unequivocally not the core plot.”

“The easy approach,” she continued, “is to point a finger at one character and declare a tidy resolution in the crucible of hero and anti-hero storytelling. But out of respect to the playwright and to audiences who may be more sensitive to the subject matter, we dive deep past surface texture.”

“The context of the play, she continued, “is fraught with historical, personal, subjective, and statistical data. We must be respectful, tread lightly and aspire to present with precision. Every single character’s motivations and actions are linked through doubt, over and over again.”