A few remarks about DOUBT: the movie

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/25/08 at 9:55pm

I find DOUBT to be a tremendous piece of writing. Every time I see it, I come up with another interpretation. John Patrick Shanley's film version is a faithful, if not very well directed, adaptation of his Pulitzer Prize winning. And true to form, I came up with yet another interpretation. (Truth be told, I'm unsure if interpretation is the correct word.)

While the play was masterfully directed by Doug Hughes, Shanley's film feels like Susan Stroman's screen adaptation of THE PRODUCERS. It's just not very well directed: scenes are stagnantly shot; they are tight, angular and never contain more than two people in the same frame. There is also an extreme, detrimental over-indulgence in frying-pan-upside-the-head symbolism.

That said, Shanley's work with the actors is rather tremendous. Meryl Streep is the chameleon to end all chameleons and she is entirely believable and convincing as Sister Aloysius. It's not necessarily a restrained one, but Philip Seymour Hoffman makes up for that.

He, too, is convincing and believable; I may go as far as to say that he even perhaps makes Father Flynn a figure of compassion, brought down by a tyrannical dictator, much like Ron Eldard's Flynn on Broadway. But there's something so innately smug and slovenly about Hoffman that doubt as to the nature of his relationship with the Donald Miller is even more present. It's also the first time I've ever seen Flynn portrayed as possibly homosexual.

Amy Adams is not an actress with enough skill to find anything in the poorly written role of Sister James. Viola Davis, in her 10 minutes on screen, is luminous.

It's definitely a film worth-seeing, especially if you haven't seen the play. If only it were better made.

[lakezurich]

Posted: 12/25/08 at 10:06pm

I saw the movie and loved every minute. But, sadly, I have not seen the stage version, so I do not have anything to compare it to.

[bundy5000]

Posted: 12/25/08 at 10:09pm

I also thought Amy Adams acting was just ok. By no means was she bad in the movie but i thought many actresses could of easily played that role. I recall hearing Natalie Portman got asked. The symbolism was very well done. Maybe not as obvious to some but as a former Alter Server, I saw glimpses of my past.

[jaystarr]

Posted: 12/25/08 at 10:12pm

I have seen the stage version, but not the movie. I hope to see it this weekend. I do have reservations about the movie~can't imagine anyone doing the role of Sister Aloysius except Cherry Jones. Hopefully I would like the movie version!

J*

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/25/08 at 10:14pm

I thought the direction in the film was superb, as were the performances. I could easily see Streep AND Adams receiving awards.

Streep blew me away the minute she appeared on screen. Amy Adams' clear, open face and wide eyes which always told you what she was thinking was all I could stare at when she was on screen.

Bravo to one of the best films I've seen in a long time.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 12/25/08 at 10:16pm

I actually really liked Amy Adams' performance. I thought that she had a perfect wide-eyed optimism that befits Sister James. My only real problem with the film was the somewhat corny theatrical effect of having the thunderstorm during one of the arguments between Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn, with the perfectly timed thunder claps.

[DrTheatre]

Posted: 12/25/08 at 10:16pm

I saw the stage version and the movie. I found the stage version to be amazing and the performances that Cherry and Adrianne and everyone did in the play, just, amazing. I found the film version to be very, very slow...and took too long to explain everything and just draw out everything way too long...it is only an 1 and 44 minutes long, but felt much longer.....was very sad, cause it was such a good play....I felt the same way about Frost/Nixon, saw that and Doubt back to back in one day...better on stage! But all around for both, the performances were nice!

[enroutetothesky]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 1:19am

I just saw the movie with my brother and we agreed that we could tell that this would be amazing on stage, but as a movie fell flat.

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 1:30am

*****SPOILER*****

If it's any help, tobias, the stage direction for that line is, "Bent with emotion." Maybe she just took it further than other actresses? I agree with you, though. Both interpretations I saw (Eileen Atkins and Cherry Jones) kept it much more contained.

*****END SPOILER****

[JeaniusIsMe]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 2:12am

I've only seen the play, and I'm certainly a bit wary about seeing the film- I have a really hard time imagining anyone other than Cherry in the role (even though I adore Meryl Streep). Judging from the mixed response, I may take a pass on this one.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 4:38am

I somewhat agree with Yankee's thoughts. I saw the movie on Monday after much anticipation and I sorta liked it but just left the theatre feeling it could have been SO much better with a FILM director. I would not go as far as to compare it to Susan Stroman's incredibly misguided, awful, cringe-worthy "adaptation" of THE PRODUCERS but many times I did feel like Shanley was trying so hard to open the play up that it took from the tightness of his great play script.
The performances are ALL fantastic with the women definitely outshining Hoffman. I did not dislike Hoffman but his arrogant take on Flynn make me care very little for the role. Meryl gives what had the potential of being among her best screen performance; unfortunately, due to the terrible direction, she is left on her own. As a result, she gives a wonderful performance but she allows herself to be too Meryl at times. Amy Adams and Viola Davis are just great. I was unsure about Adams when I saw the film, but she showed so much development throughout. The one good thing about the changes made to the script is that we get to see the effect of the Mother Superior on Sister James and Adams does a spectacular job at reflecting those changes. Davis is as great as expected.
I just wish a real film director had taken over. Mike Nichols would have been great.

SPOILER
I found Meryl's final line to be so surprising yet so true to the moment. I didn't think it was forced, it just felt so organic to the scene. Her Sister Aloysious had moments of vulnerability that were subtly shown throughout so it seemed fair that she ended the film finally letting her vulnerability take over her. After all the intensity she goes through in the journey of the film, it rang so true to the moment that she would do that. I loved it, it really touched me.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 9:15am

"Did anyone else really not understand the choice that Meryl made at the end with her "I have such doubts" line?"

I understood it, but I "doubt" it was her choice. I think it was probably in her script.

For me, it showed that this hard-edged nun actually had some humanity in her. I thought this line and final scene were all-important.

[Patash]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 11:15am

Saw the original on Broadway and LOVED it. But yesterday I saw the film and loved it pretty much equally. I never go to a film with the attitude, "no one can match the performance ____ did". I believe different interpretations can be equally effective to an already seen brilliant one.

I thought Amy Adams was wonderful in her innocence and her feelings of not really wanting to tell what she had seen, but being compelled to. She was WONDERFUL. The film was much better able to give us more insight into her character, particularly by allowing us to see her with the children in the classroom.

Some will always hate Streep, but I loved her. Yes the ending was different, and I'm not so sure that was so bad. It was unexpected, which I liked.

I too thought the wind was a bit corny, though.

On Broadway I felt from the start through to the end that Father Flynn was clearly innocent. In the film I didn't feel that at all. I felt it was clear that at least he had homosexual tendancies, and whether he was befriending Donald Miller as a counseler to say "those feelings are OK" (the reason he gives him the ballerina toy), or whether he really did something is unclear -- as I think it should be. As a result I think the film became more about the WAY he was being accused instead of just the idea that he was being falsely accused. I felt the film was stronger for making the likelihood that he COULD have done something wrong more obvious. I don't think the whole focus should be on "did he do it or not", and I think the film did a better job of avoiding that than the stage play did.

The film gets an A from me.

I also found the use of the sermons more effective than what I found to be rather stagnant monologues in the stage version.

[alliez92092]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 11:26am

I have yet to see the movie, but I did have one question. What did you guys think of actually seeing Donald rather than just hearing about him? I remember thinking that it was so powerful onstage that you never actually saw him or heard from him and questioned whether or not having him there would help the piece. I'm pretty sure there was a discussion on here awhile back about this. What did you guys think?

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 12:00pm

I don't think Donald's presence in the film was important at all. His scenes were bland and I forgot about them already. Actually, not having him there would have been better.

Also-I thought the thunder was corny but that few seconds of footage isn't enough to consider it less of a flawless film, as far as I see it.

[canmark]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 2:49pm

I haven't seen the play (although hope to see it when it's produced this spring in Toronto by CanStage with Seanna McKenna in the lead), but I found the movie to be rather heavy-handed in the direction, with the lead characters one-note and either overdone (Meryl Streep) or underdone (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). Sister James (Amy Adams) was just too good to be true (I thought she was going to start teaching the children Do Re Me). Only the mother was truly interesting, but she really only has one (long) scene.

The caricatured performances and overt symbolism (thunder and wind at every turn; cackling meat-eating and wine-drinking priests vs. dour, spartan, milk-drinking nuns; the burnt-out lightbulb) continually hitting us over the head, as if the audience is not to be trusted to understand subtext and subtlety, meant I couldn't really care for (or understand) the charcters. I think seeing Donald as a person doesn't help create "doubts" in one's mind about what happened, either. I still find the topic interesting, though, and will wait until I've seen the play version before finally deciding whether I like the piece or not.

[buddharich]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 3:57pm

I just saw the movie. Where to begin?

Shanley's direction was only so-so; I think the movie would have been so much better with a stronger director.

I think Amy Adams gave the film's BEST performance; the film was about her character much more so than the priest and the principal nun.

Philip Seymour Hoffman was miscast; the role needed the physical type of a Brian F. O'Byrne.

The black boy was inept; an incompetent actor, who marred the film.

It was unnecessary in both the play and the film to have the boy be the only black boy at the school. The William London character would have been a MUCH better choice.

Viola Davis gave a really good performance but I think any black actress of a certain age would have done the exact same performance.

While I would have preferred Cherry Jones, Meryl Streep gave a tremendous acting performance. She has such a commanding presence.

I felt the film more than the play took the priest's side in the conflict; the play was more even IMO.

I did like the grubbiness of the rectory and the school very much. Everything needed a paint job!!

I thought adding the kids was interesting but they got lost to the storyline in the last half hour. The least interesting of the kids was the black boy.

I give the film a B, mainly for the superb performances by Meryl Streep and Amy Adams!

[argon321]

Posted: 1/3/09 at 11:38pm

"It's also the first time I've ever seen Flynn portrayed as possibly homosexual" Now that's interesting! I haven't seen the play and my reaction to the movie hinged on Flynn's sexual orientation. Flynn innocent of child molestation but "guilty" - in terms of 1964 - of homosexuality. I might have felt more "doubtful" if I hadn't interpreted the character that way.
Are the flowers and the long nails in the play? I took those as unsubtle hints about Flynn's orientation.

[Elzibubb]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 2:08pm

I went to see Doubt yesterday and found it compelling a beautifully made. Meryl Streep was back in form playing a serious role, and obviously hasn't lost the charisma she brings to each character she plays.

I was also pleasantly surprised at Amy Adams. She portrayed the innocent and naive role of Sister James perfectly.

I believe that Father Flynn was guilty of abusing Donald Miller, but apart from the question the film asks, "Did he do it?" I think the film was more about the Doubt that Sister Aloysious had in her faith.

SPOLIER-----------------------
I thought that the last scene with Meryl Streep summed up what the whole film was about. About how Meryl Streeps character felt that if she pushed Father Flynn out of the school, kept changing the light bulb and kept shutting the window, then she would feel better in herself. Maybe because she never confessed to that 'mortal sin' (I think maybe killing her husband)?. Although she succeeded in pushing him out, she realised that she would always have her doubts, and finally broke down.
SPOILER OVER------------------

A truly amazing film. I would reccommend it to ANYONE.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 2:19pm

I think seeing Donald as a person doesn't help create "doubts" in one's mind about what happened, either.

Agreed. I thought the whole thing was kind of a mess about an angry nun with a vendetta.