Pulitzers

Scott's reaction is pretty much on-the nose, but via Playgoer, the Criticism category almost went to theater.

I never get particularly enthused about Pulitzers. I think the last time I cared about a head-to-head was when Thom Pain (Based on Nothing) lost to Doubt, which pissed me off if only because the last line of Doubt ("I have such doubts!") irritated the shit out of me for a long time, and because Thom Pain (Based on Nothing) may have been the best play ever written.

(I say "best play ever written" in the sense of "The Mets are the best team in history" not in the sense of "It is my studied opinion that William Shakespeare's impact over the centuries earns him the title of 'best playwright in history.'" As in it's just some team-side trash-talk.)

Doubt's Film Adaptation

I mentioned briefly in the last post that John Patrick Shanley's adaptation of his own play to screenplay irritated me at points. The failure, in my mind, was to underestimate the subtlety needed to convey visual metaphors on the screen. It just felt a little amaturish at points-- I still enjoyed most of the film, I just felt that perhaps a better edit was needed to remove certain bits.

Then I noticed on the Doubt wikipedia page that Shanley has an exclusive contract that forbids anyone to change a single word of the screenplays he has written (presumably they can get him to change something if they want, but I don't think it can be cut in post-production).

I'm just observing the connection. I still am happy for Shanley that he has that sort of contract, and I still loved the movie. But I did roll my eyes at some of the gestures.

Doubt And Certainty

I saw Doubt, which is based on John Patrick Shanley's play. I was bitter at the time that Shanley's play won the 2005 Pulitzer Prize over my personal favorite, Thom Pain (Based On Nothing). I'm not as sure anymore. I think that Thom Pain (Based On Nothing) has a much more intricate use of the English. Will Eno's play reaches a level of finely crafted prose that, in my humble opinion, reaches William Shakespeare in terms of the beauty, simplicity, and high emotion.

But. On the other hand, Doubt is a play that is clearly going straight into the canon. It has that perfect balance of well-crafted writing, fascinating characters, and ambiguous interpretation that will allow each person who performs in it and each director who directs it to leave their own stamp and interpretation.

Anyways, my point was not to review the movie. I'm not even going to bang on about how disappointing it was to me to see John Patrick Shanley make additions for the screen that showed he didn't have faith that his play would transmit on the screen--blunt visual metaphors inserted into the scenes in a bit of a ham-fisted way, including that Hollywood cliche where there's a storm during the climax and dramatic lines are punctuated by thunder.

But anyways, the conflict of two stubborn people with a backdrop of religion actually made me reflect on the morality of doubt, as one of Andrew Sullivan's readers wrote in response (I quoted it and reacted in A Cogent Comment On War). The context there was the War in Gaza. I used the morality of doubt to talk about the morality of knowledge.

Watch the movie, and while you're watching it, think about Gaza. That's all I'm saying.