Doubt - The Movie

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 8:27pm

This thread may contain spoilers.

I went to see Doubt this weekend. Unforuntately, the movie doesn't fix the problems with the stage play nor does it improve it.

One of the problems is that the author, John Patrick Shanley, also directs the movie. Many times when a person is that close to the material, they aren't able to make choices that are good for the piece. This can be noticed in some of the weird camera angles that Shanley films. There are moments when he uses tilted camera angles that are very annoying. Also, he just doesn't know how to direct Meryl Streep and her performance wanders.

Part of the problem with the material is that we never have a reason to like Sister Aloysius. She is always mean spirited. If there were a private moment where we see her praying and giving reasons why she's so rigid we might could understand, but there's no reason to want to be on her side. She just comes across as vindictive.

Meryl Streep wanders all over the place in the movie. She doesn't even seem to be playing a human being. And some of her moments are straight out of Acting 101 (using the crucifix like a switchblade to threaten Father Flynn).

Philip Seymour Hoffman was too meek in the movie. It was a rather weak performance. Unfortunately I think he was the wrong choice. He looks like every pedophile you see on tv. Had the Father Flynn been a bit sexier, it would have put a more interesting spin on the "doubt" aspect. One look at PSH and you just want to say "pervert".

What seems to be missing from the film is an interesting bit in the stage version where Sister Aloysius talks about women in the church and how they have no standing or respect. While it was alluded to in the movie, it was a moment that was not solidified in the movie.

I think Amy Adams and Viola Davis were great in their roles.

With the opening up of the movie, they showed some of the students only talked about in the play. But the movie seemed to open things that they never resolved. For example, several minutes were devoted to William London, but it seemed to be a dead end avenue with his character.

Unfortunately, this is only a mediocre version of an interesting play.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 8:46pm

We must have seen different films. I just saw it this afternoon.

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT

"Part of the problem with the material is that we never have a reason to like Sister Aloysius."

I don't agree. However strict she was, it was clear she had the intent on the welfare of her students. In the last scene, when she breaks down and admits her "doubts", whether they be confined to Father Flynn or doubts about her entire career, we see how human she is.

"Meryl Streep wanders all over the place in the movie. She doesn't even seem to be playing a human being. And some of her moments are straight out of Acting 101 (using the crucifix like a switchblade to threaten Father Flynn)."

You must be kidding. Give her the oscar now and don't waste any more time. Watching her in this film had me in awe over her limitless talent.

"Philip Seymour Hoffman was too meek in the movie. It was a rather weak performance."

The strength of his acting during his argument scenes with Streep was chilling.

"I think Amy Adams and Viola Davis were great in their roles"

I agree with you on this, but I have to say the entire cast was flawless.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 9:06pm

I have decided to wait for the DVD. I saw the original cast on Broadway. I am not crazy about the promo spots here. They really give you no idea what the film is about. To look at them, it just looks like a war between Streep and Hoffman's characters. There is a brief look at the kid. I am still not crazy about Hoffman being cast in the part. From the clips I have seen and the fact that it is playing in a theater that I do not like to go to...I'll wait. JMO

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 9:38pm

"You must be kidding. Give her the oscar now and don't waste any more time. Watching her in this film had me in awe over her limitless talent."

Streep was very, very good. But Cherry Jones still owns that role. As great as Streep was, it didn't come close to the brilliance of Jones.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 9:48pm

Cherry Jones and the entire cast rocked the very foundation of the Walter Kerr. I remember walking out of the theater and chatting with people about the show (Do you think he did it? etc.) And then walking out into a rainy night, excitedly dashing to my friend's apartment and collapsing on the floor screaming about how good the show was! (He was dying for me to see it. He had seen it twice) And I said that the only person I could see playing the part in the movie was Meryl Streep. I love Meryl Streep and I look forward to seeing her performance. But I just think I can wait for the DVD as I posted. I don't think anything will ever come close to the original cast onstage. I am wandering what opening up the story does. I was fine with using my imagination and not seeing the boy or the other students. We didn't need to. JMO

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 9:51pm

I hear you, Priest. I hadn't seen the play, so I only have Streep to judge the role.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 11:52pm

I blame it on the direction, but I don't think Streep was good. I do have to agree with others that Cherry Jones nailed the role on Broadway.

[Jack King]

Posted: 12/21/08 at 12:18am

Quite well expressed, cooky person. It reinforces my belief that this is not a good movie to see. From the plot synopsis, it sounds very weak, indeed.

---------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm clean and sober and eager to work."

(from "Newark, South Dakota")

[Dein Herr]

Posted: 12/21/08 at 12:21am

I just got back from it, and I think Meryl was very good, but agree that better direction would have helped. In general Shanley uses the movie to showcase the actors, but the movie suffers... cinematically, if that makes sense. I wouldn't begrudge her an Oscar nomination, but I feel confident that there were stronger performances this year, so I'd be VERY surprised if she won.

I don't have anything to complain about with PSH's performance, as I don't think he personally could have been any better, but he isn't helped by the fact that he does have too much of a creepy/molester feel about him simply as a type. In the end I think he pulled it off, but I could see a more traditionally good-looking or even just plain actor having served the part better.

Amy Adams doesn't do anything we haven't seen her do before, but that doesn't hurt the movie at all, because it's very in tune with the character herself. I am a bit surprised at award buzz/nominations she's received, because it's not a very showy part and she doesn't display any extraordinary acting abilities.

Viola Davis... WOW. I was expecting her to be very good, just based on what I had heard about the movie prior to seeing it, but I was practically blown out of my seat during her scene with Meryl. The movie would practically be worth seeing for her performance alone.

Looking back at what I wrote, it seems like I'm talking a lot of trash about the movie, but I did really enjoy it and thought it was very good. I just also had a decent number of problems with it.


ETA: Oh, and I've never seen the play, on Broadway or otherwise. Updated On: 12/21/08 at 12:21 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/21/08 at 12:23am

I'd like to hear the opinions of this film from others who never saw the play.

[tommyboy]

Posted: 12/21/08 at 10:17am

Didn,t see the play.

Didn,t see the movie (yet)

Read the script tho,

Jake G as the Father?

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/21/08 at 10:17am

"I'd like to hear the opinions of this film from others who never saw the play."

That would be most of the people who are going to vote for the forthcoming film awards. They didn't see Cherry or the stage play, so they don't have the same frame of reference or prejudice going in to see it.

I just attended an awards screening in L.A. last Monday. Not a big group, maybe 300 or so. Judging from the conversations I either participated in or overheard, VERY few people had actually seen the play. Only one or two besides me even brought it up. And others were quick to chime in with, "Didn't see it." Although Cherry Jones had starred in it at the Ahmanson Theatre here in town.

The question for them isn't, "Is she as good as Cherry Jones?" They don't care.

The question is "Does this work as a film?"

There are mixed reactions in Hollywood, but from what I can tell, most critics are not highly impressed, even though they don't think it sucks. However! Most industry folks, the ones who actually vote for the movies and don't just write about them, think it's pretty impressive. And they ALL think Meryl Streep is incredible in it.

Those are voters talking, not bloggers or critics.

I posted my own thoughts on another thread, but I'll copy/paste them for this one now:



I saw it on Monday at a screening and was surprised. Perhaps from all the mediocre reviews, I had gone in with lowered expectations. So I was surprised that it didn't "suck."

In fact, it was very good. The performances are all solid. And the screenplay is good too. I only found fault in the direction, which (as I mentioned earlier) is heavy-handed.

I think Shanley got caught somewhere between "stark realism" and "heightened, stylistic melodrama." And he really couldn't decide which way to go. So some of it feels bare-bones (which I think works better for a film like this), and at times he's almost trying to make a Douglas Sirk film, complete with "cued thunder SFX," "blustery autumn leaves," and rain that stops pouring at just the precise moment you want it to. That stuff was a little too planned for me. And unnecessary. I felt like he wasn't trusting his own material enough just to let it play out. He felt he had to "help" it along at times, and it was a mistake. But it didn't kill the movie for me, because ultimately, it's not about the production. It's about the characters, the acting, and the story. And all of that still works.

Meryl is terrific. Her Sister Aloysius is not Cherry Jones, but it still works very well on film. Meryl shows us a hint at the nun's past. We see it in her eyes, and we can glimpse former "vulnerabilities" that have since been either masked or completely cut off. And she is intimidating and highly effective. Just in a different way than Jones. Amy Adams was great too. I think everyone's been talking about Viola Davis's performance (which is very brief and very showy since it's the best-written scene in the play and screenplay), but I was truthfully more impressed with Adams' work. She's not just a "bland mouse." She's quite effective, and her character has a definite journey of its own. And Hoffman was excellent, too. I didn't feel like he tipped his hand, or made us think he "did it" anymore than I felt that watching the stage production. The head-to-head scene with Streep goes a little bit into the "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" school of acting. It's REALLY intense. Uber-intense. I suppose some will say it goes too far for the material, for these characters, and for this situation. I would understand that complaint. But when you're fighting for your life, your career, your reputation, and your beliefs, I can't say it's "unrealistic" for the scene to play out this boldly.

Anyway, it's a movie with some flaws. No "doubt." But it's also a very good movie, and well worth seeing.

[StockardFan]

Posted: 12/21/08 at 11:54am

Thanks for all of your reviews. I really want to see this!

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/21/08 at 12:33pm

Besty, I thank you for your post. When it comes to the academy voting for the oscars, I think a film based on a stage production should be judged as an independent work of art and not compared to the play, thus putting it on the same level as films not previously done on a stage.

However, if I had seen the play, my review of the film might have been a little different so perhaps it's good I'm not an academy member, hehe.

Amy Adams-the clarity of emotion in her eyes was all I could look at when she was on screen. There was no "doubt" she was feeling her role. I thought she was perfect here. Same as you, Besty, although Viola Davis' big scene was gripping, I thought Adams was the standout for supporting role.

I didn't get the same vibe about Hoffman that others did-that he looked like a child molestor. I loved how he was understated but firm, and when it was time to let loose on Streep, he really let it all out and was an even match for her strength and anger.

I didn't notice the flaws in the film as per direction, sound effects, or anything else technical as I was mesmerized by the story. This wasn't a film where my mind wandered, or where I might doze a bit, lol!

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/21/08 at 2:04pm

For those of you who have seen the movie, as you were leaving the theater or screening room, were there conversations among people as to whether they thought he did what he was accused of doing or not? There was instant conversation as I was leaving the show on Broadway and all of my friends that saw the stage show said they engaged in conversation with people (That they didn't know) while leaving the theater. A friend and I talked abou the show for a week. I raved about it when I got home and when my best friend and I went to NYC together for vacation, it was the 1st show I booked for him because I wanted to discuss it with him. We talked about it for a month after we got back. So I guess I am asking, does the movie create the same reaction/conversation that the play did?!

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/21/08 at 8:18pm

uncageg---the group I was with (and overheard) were all discussing the actors' performances and the powerful story. Not "did he or didn't he?"

Or they just said things like, "that movie was much better than I thought it was going to be." (Which is how I felt, too.)


EDIT: Although, I have to admit, most voters don't walk out of these screenings saying much of anything. It's kinda like leaving a political poling place telling everyone how you voted. Some people are into that, sure. Or they don't care. But most keep to themselves.

Updated On: 12/21/08 at 08:18 PM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/22/08 at 1:13am

Besty, thanks so much for the "inside" POV. It's so annoying to live in FL where the movie is not being released till the weekend. I can't wait to see the film since I really love the play. Saw it at a regional theatre with an excellent actress as Sister Aloysious (sp?), Meryl's performance in the clips looks fantastic.
So far all I have read is that Shanley's direction is the center of the film's problems. You can also tell when you hear Meryl talk about the movie that she had certain issues with his way of directing (if you read between the lines). I wish someone like Mike Nichols had directed it, though his stage-to-film adaptations can be a bit stagey, he consistently manages to get brilliant non-stagey performances from his actors in them.

[Q]

Posted: 12/22/08 at 2:37am

I'm actually kind of glad that I thought the play was completely over-rated. All it came across to me as was yet another recovering Catholic who hadn't had enough therapy.

And the previews haven't done anything to lure me toward watching performers I usually admire.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/22/08 at 3:58pm

A friend and I had a long discussion today about Doubt, the play vs. the film.

She didn't like the play for several reasons, among them, that a young handsome actor played the Father, there was no breakdown at the end by Sister Al so you never saw her humanity, she thought the young nun went overboard with her imagination, among other things.

She also told me that Cherry Jones once forgot part of a monologue, started over a couple of times, and ended up going offstage to return on stage with the script.
oy.

My friend is one person who thought the film far superior to the play. I was surprised.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/22/08 at 4:08pm

"among them, that a young handsome actor played the Father"

But that's what makes it interesting. It creates doubt in the audience's mind. It goes against the stereotype that everyone has in their mind of a pedophile priest. It can also open up questions like "Is Sister A hot for the young priest?" "Is she jealous of his youth and the fact that he can more readily relate to young kids?"

Updated On: 12/22/08 at 04:08 PM

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 12/22/08 at 4:13pm

"But that's what makes it interesting. It creates doubt in the audience's mind. It goes against the stereotype that everyone has in their mind of a pedophile priest. It can also open up questions like "Is Sister A hot for the young priest?" "Is she jealous of his youth and the fact that he can more readily relate to young kids?"

That's your fantasy Goth...not everyones.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/22/08 at 4:16pm

I think it's great that there's so much controversy and differences of opinion on this film.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/22/08 at 4:23pm

I agree that a young good-looking priest makes the tension much more interesting from the get-go. It plays with audience's pre-conceived ideas about what a priest capable of doing this should/shouldn't look this way. It also makes a certain part of Mrs.Muller's (re-named Miller for the film) monologue even more heart-breaking and poignant, if you know what part I'm referring to (don't want to spoil anything, I imagine that specific part remains in the film). I insist that Matt Damon or Ethan Hawke were the most natural fits for the role, I like what I've seen of Hoffman so far but he was an odd choice for this part from the get-go.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/22/08 at 4:34pm

"It also makes a certain part of Mrs.Muller's (re-named Miller for the film) monologue even more heart-breaking and poignant, if you know what part I'm referring to (don't want to spoil anything, I imagine that specific part remains in the film). "

Yes it does, and is one of the highlights of the film.

SPOILER!!!!!


I loved Mrs. Miller's view of the situation. Even if it were true that her son was having sex with the Father, she appreciated the Father's help in getting her son through a difficult stage of life in discovering who he was. And the attention and love he was receiving from the Father was sorely needed in his life, as his real father gave him none.

I for one am glad it was Philip Seymour Hoffman and not a younger and hansomer actor. I thought Hoffman was perfect.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/22/08 at 4:40pm

I even think an older actor could have been used if he were a bit more good looking. Someone like Liam Neeson might have worked. The good looking aspect also has the audience asking "Why did he choose to be a priest when he could have been a model, an actor or a gigolo?" I think part of the story has to be why these people chose to sign up with the church.