Funny you should bring this up.  My little production company is planning Doubt for August.  We have our venue, our rights, our director, and 3/4 of our cast.  Unsurprisingly, we don't have a Mrs. Mueller.  You'd think it'd be easy to find someone for a terrific part that only appears in 1 scene with one other actor and could name their minimal rehearsal schedule, but... our county is <1% black.  Them's the breaks.  Another one in the area had to change productions a couple years ago after looking unsuccessfully for a black woman for a part where race was integral to the role.

So, I know the issue here.  What we realized, looking closely at the text, is nothing specifically tags Mrs. Mueller herself as black.  Donald certainly is, but it could (we fanwank) be part of a mixed marriage.  As such, we're going with the plan to TRY to find a black woman to play the part, and if we cannot, we have a couple Hispanic women we know who could possibly be tapped.  That seems, if a little unusual, completely plausible for New York in the 1960s ... a couple from (or decended from) Puerto Rico or Cuba perhaps.

I think the case for a white Mrs. Mueller is FAR more problematic, and frankly... I kind of agree with you.  It loses plausibility, and the otherness of Mrs. Mueller herself is also key to her interaction with Sr. Aloysius.  As long as you're early enough to not spike the whole production by pulling out, I think it's utterly justified.  This is a pretty significant breaking of the assumptions on the table from when you took the part.

A local CT in my community had to cancel their planned production of The Joy Luck Club this season because of a lack of Asian actresses.  They didn't even consider casting non-Asians.  I think they made the right choice.  While I applaud color blind casting, some roles need to be portrayed by an actor of a certain ethnicity and I don't think a curtain speech makes a difference.  I also think the actress cast in this role has an unfair burden placed on her.  Theatrical audiences have to suspend their disbelief when watching ANY production, but in cases like this they are being asked to take a further leap of imagination.  This isn't setting her up for success in my opinion.  I think you are right to have concerns. 

I agree with edh915.

In your first post you said, "Should I do this amazing part? Or leave a sinking ship?"

My very first reaction was to wonder why you think there are only 2 options (extreme opposites) to this "problem".

Secondly, the director has a vision for the play.  Without the playwright present, that is the director's job... to interpret the play and create a single creative vision for the cast and production team.

Apparently, your vision is different from hers.  I'm not going to say you are right and she is wrong (or vice versa).  But I am going to say that if she is doing her job, then she probably has very good reasons for saying that the play is about the church.  And when the play comes together, that should all become apparent.  If she doesn't think that the play is about racism, and is then pressured to put an element of racism on this specific part, that would create a lack of continuity and could be damaging to the production.

You should feel comfortable approaching her about this as an actor.  Let her know that you have had trouble seeing this play from her point of view.  Ask her to share her vision and her interpretation.  Ask her to help with your analysis and character work.  Maybe then you might see what she sees.

I wouldn't suggest undermining the director.  I was in a CT production where a board member was cast as an actor.  She continuously abused her influence, overstepped boundaries, and undermined the director.  It was damaging to the cast and created a lot of fear in their minds.  Her duties as a board member belonged in the board room, not on the stage.

Respect the boundaries and remember that you are an actor in this production.

Also, there is no telling how audiences will view her production.  Audiences are very forgiving of a lot of things, and they are smarter than we sometimes give them credit for.  Just because you think this director is doing a poor job doesn't mean everyone does.

Finally, theatre cannot succeed if we only think of reasons why we should NOT do the show.  We succeed by saying, "in spite of these obstacles, let's figure out how to make this work."  Ironically, that is what most plays are about... characters trying to figure out how to achieve their objective(s) despite all their obstacles.

Originally posted by edh915 if you think this show is not about the Catholic Church

Actually, I don't think this show is about the Catholic Church, at least in the sense of the message of the show.  I know I'm sidetracking the discussion here, but what's the internet for, if not heavy digression?

If Doubt were "about" the RC clergy abuse scandal, I think it would be a far less rich play, because then you just go "well, he did it.  Or, someone an awful lot like him did" and then the impact of the tension between Aloysius and Flynn is shattered and that wonderful final scene is horribly skewed from a well-meaning woman realizing that her zealous certainty had a potential negative effect to the hero of the story paying a minor price for a partial victory.

I agree with our director (though he verbalized this before I had internally) that the main conflict in the show isn't Flynn/Aloysius, it's certainty/openness.  It's not playing out between the characters, but in Aloysius' mind.  She is certain, based on no concrete evidence, that a violation has occurred, and that's what drives the action.  If it were a question of fact, it would have gone up the chain of command, but her certainty is spite of that lack led her to eschew that option.

Just my two cents.

I don't think so -- because, again, I don't think the institution is really important in this case, any more than a setting that makes the real crux of the show relevant and relatable.

When we decided to do this show (with the part of Flynn falling on me), my girlfriend/co-producer asked me if I thought that Flynn was guilty.  My response was that to play Flynn, I think you HAVE to think that he isn't, otherwise how are you going to credibly erode the rock-solid faith that Aloysius has in the mind of the audience.

My take on it -- not saying this is true, but this is my approach to it -- is that Flynn is innocent of these charges, but that he is gay, and that explains both his special attention to Donald (not as a perversion, just that he's mentoring a probably gay child) and that perhaps that had "come out" in some way or other, or was perhaps just a common rumor at a previous position, and that that is what Flynn is afraid that Aloyisius will spread from her imaginary contact at his prior parish.