Doubt - The Movie- Page 2

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/22/08 at 4:53pm

"I think part of the story has to be why these people chose to sign up with the church."

I don't. anyway, who are "these people"?

Just for the record, I don't think Hoffman is bad looking. And you'll have to fill me in, are most priests young and handsome?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/22/08 at 5:04pm

"And you'll have to fill me in, are most priests young and handsome?"

Obviously someone keeps buying the sexy priest calendar.
Don't You Wish Your Clergy Was Hot Like Me

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 12:05am

I never saw the play and I loved this movie. This is honestly one of the best play-to-film adaptations I've seen in years. It never feels stagy at all. In fact, I thought the constraining nature of the story (Few locations, etc.) really heightened the tension. And there was also a lot of dark humor, which I was really surprised by.

Honestly, I really enjoyed the experience of watching this in a quiet movie theater. I got really sucked in. I almost feel that if there were watching this on Broadway, the audience would probably cheer after every monologue and whatnot and the spell would have been broken. I don't know.

I really loved this movie.

[pushdabutton]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 5:27pm

I did not see the play but did see the movie. I liked it but wanted a little more closure at the of the movie. Viola Davis was outstanding.

[neomystyk29]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 8:31pm

Spoilers Throughout.

I found the movie extremely different from the play in four significant ways that tilted the meaning and suspense of the material. While I enjoyed the movie very much it did not accomplish the same things that the play did.

First of all, Streep's performance was extremely different from Cherry Jones. Jones played the role with a more matronly quality to her. You sensed more human care in her than you did in Streep. If Cherry Jones played a rock close to the Earth, Meryl Streep played a cold steel and brick building fighting off the winds. This made Streep's portrayal less human, and accessible. Not better or worse necessarily, just different. It is important to note that, to compensate for her heavy stern demeanor, Streep's soft moments referencing the past were much much softer. Almost at tears when talking about what she's had to confess and much more defensive when speaking about her prior marriage.

Streep perhaps had to play the 'dragon' because the film presented the children for the audience. To see Donald Miller and even to see William London was too much, imo. This, to me, hurt the film a lot. To be able to read the expressions of the children was a major pitfall in the "did he or didn't he?" discussions.

That's the third thing that fell in sharp contrast. When I left the theater no one had any question as to whether or not he did it. In their minds he had done it. End of conversation. Even in my own, and as the movie progressed I tried to find evidence in any performance, or in any line that he hadn't done it. However, the presence of the children seemed to throw everyone the other way. 'well, that boy smiled at the end.' 'donald miller was so upset at the last mass.' It was unbalanced.

I also don't think PSH played the role to it's fullest capacity. I was not convinced, at any point that he hadn't done anything. He wasn't desperate enough to save his career. I never felt like he was begging to be understood by sister James but rather manipulating her into taking his side. There is enough evidence against him written in the script, PSH should have played a few different actions to throw the suspicions away from him.

Overall, because I so loved the play I am prejudiced to the movie. I didn't feel that it left the conflict that they play did in the audience which is what I thought was the play's strongest point. However, that aside, the performances are stellar and each deserves a nomination. I had trouble breathing during some of Streep's big moments. Especially in the final argument in the office.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/29/08 at 12:44pm

Watching it twice via a screener, a day apart, I had another set of reactions, one I often have from filmed plays. That as powerful as the adaptation is, as opened up as Shanley has made it, it's still at its core a play. And plays and movies just don't work the same way. A lot of the brilliant observations made by Aloyisus, for example seem far more colloquial and conversationally real on stage; in a film, the camera on top of the actor, no matter how underplayed, the theatrical origins peep through. At key moments, she's just too articulate to be entirely believable, and Meryl's sort of Sandy Dennis way with a line (a couple of start-stops to sound more like it's composed on the spot, rather than the Shanley computer screen...) cannot camouflage that. Every play, without exception, is heightened realism.

Also .... DOUBT works so masterfully as a play because the critical crucible for the story, the boys, are in our imagination -- the play is heightened because in being selective about what we can witness, they are never seen. So once they enter the screen, once we see the Muller child tormented, and see the daily reality in the classroom, the visceral interplay of children being cruel, mercurial - horribly real, the machinations of this priest and this nun seem less immediate somehow. Less...important. As long as the black child's crisis is intellectual, only in our heads, we can focus on the story of Flynn's mistakes and demise. But under the camera's scrutiny, Flynn seems less important than the salvation of this poor black kid in the early 60s. When his mother enters the scene, it drags us out of the rarified world of this school, and we yearn to know more about the Mullers, not less. (That's why the mother's scene can take over the play, depending on the casting.)
But we get pulled back to the Meryl Aloyisus crisis of faith.

It's a very good movie and it's still riveting stuff -- theatrical stuff -- but we have a real world, higher stakes tragedy relegated to the periphery -- because that black child's face is what haunts us (as does stunning Viola Davis as his mother). What happens to him means more to us than what happens to this sometimes self-indulgent priest, no matter how much he claims to care for Donald. When we got to Meryl's 'doubt' moment, the second time, I wanted to see the boy. To know he's okay, not these nuns.

Updated On: 12/29/08 at 12:44 PM

[killertofu333]

Posted: 12/29/08 at 11:52pm

I went out and saw this film today...and I must say I absolutely loved it. Obviously the plot and core of the movie is serious, but I swear damn near every word that came from Meryl Streep had me laughing. Sister Aloysius was so fearsome and to me she had one liner after one liner throughout the film.

If you don't see the movie for Streep or Hoffman, at the very least see it for Adams and Davis. WOW!!! Amy Adams is quickly becoming one of my favorite actresses. To think that she started in a rather small part in "Drop Dead Gorgeous" and worked her way up to co-starring with actors like this and Frances McDormand says a lot for her abilities as a performer.

All I can say about Viola is GOOD GOD!!! She's on screen all of 7 minutes, but that 7 minutes is rock solid, poignant and just plain amazing. To say that she held her own with Streep is a huge understatement. She was foot to foot with Streep the entire scene, and dare I say stole it.

Overall IMO it was a very well done film with great performances. I laughed at parts that I probably shouldn't have but I swear Meryl, to me, was just funny in her portrayal of Sister Aloysius, as relentless and hard nosed as the character was.

[misschung]

Posted: 12/30/08 at 7:38pm

Goth, I just snorted at that priest calendar.

I'm seeing it tonight, and have never (unfortunately) seen the play, although I've heard nothing but stellar reviews of Cherry Jones.

I will report when I get back.

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 12/31/08 at 10:45pm

I saw the play twice (once with Eileen Atkins on Broadway and Cherry Jones in the touring company) and read it recently.

All in all, I enjoyed it. I thought Meryl Streep brought more compassion than said. She showed it in her interactions with the other sisters. She was better than I expected, based on reviews. I was a little disappointed in Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance. I liked that he seemed to know that he had the upper hand, and he was the strongest Father Flynn I've seen. However, it felt very by the book. Usually, he makes more daring choices. Amy Adams was fine. Very nice, what else can you say about the role?

The real stand out performance was Viola Davis. She stole the movie. Her performance was the most raw, and she embodied Mrs. Miller. She walked on that screen and told the audience everything we needed to know about her. Fantastic performance.

Direction, as mentioned, was extremely simple. I didn't mind it that much, though. What I missed most was the tightness of the play. I understand that it had to be fleshed out for the screen, but this film dragged in ways the play never did.

Finally, I felt the focus changed. The play was a power struggle. By bringing the children in it, I feel like John Patrick Shanley answered the questions left unanswered in the play. The way some of those boys looked at Father Flynn told me that he had done something. I liked not having a definite answer. It became a movie more about child molestation than a power struggle for justice. The play obvious addressed the former issue, but it was more about one woman's struggle with a system fighting against her.

Still, a very fine adaptation of an intriguing play.

[H.Higgins]

Posted: 1/1/09 at 12:12am

I think the play is extraordinary and can't wait to see the film.

I need to see it this week now that it's finally in wide release and playing near me.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 1/2/09 at 11:43am

Shanley has said that he cast Philip Seymour Hoffman for a very specific reason. I gather that a few conventionally handsome types were up for the role. But when talk came around to Philip Seymour Hoffman, Shanley said he was intrigued because he couldn't picture what Hoffman would do with the role. And if he couldn't imagine what Hoffman would do with it, he thought Meryl Streep would have a similar reaction, which would bring tension and spontaneity to their scenes together.

Updated On: 1/2/09 at 11:43 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/2/09 at 11:53am

Actually, I thought it was Meryl who had first choice of a leading man as part of her negotiations. I've read that several times in articles. She picked Hoffman.

[LotteTBS138]

Posted: 1/2/09 at 12:02pm

I didn't see it on stage but saw the film.

Why are you people comparing apples and oranges with the actors? I thought Streep did a fabulous job at playing a really stubborn yet caring PRINCIPAL. And even if I saw it on stage, I was not going to go in and compare any of them as they are different actors with different personas, methods etc.
If this is such a huge issue, only see shows with the OC coz everyone else who takes the roles after are going to suck!

And I thought Hoffman's softness did a great job because it even increased the level of "doubt". If he was some hot, flamboyant gay man, then um, we all might view this differently.

When I left with my mom, she was telling me of the flashbacks when she was a girl going to catholic school. Something we didn't even see which occurred was hitting or slapping the hands!

[Smaxie]

Posted: 1/2/09 at 12:14pm

Shanley talks about the choice of Hoffman in this video with Michael Riedel on NYPost.com.
NYPost.com - Interview with John Patrick Shanley

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/2/09 at 12:27pm

"Why are you people comparing apples and oranges with the actors?"

Because that's what we do here?

I think it's fine to give opinions on different actors' takes on the same roles.

[LotteTBS138]

Posted: 1/2/09 at 5:41pm

It definitely is but the mind set that the original actor does it better only goes so far. Plus, we don't exactly see close-ups on stage (even though I take binoculars).

[americanboy99]

Posted: 1/3/09 at 3:04pm

I really hope Amy Adams is nominated for an Oscar for her performance. She was brilliant. Natalie Portman, although she was initially offered the part, couldn't have done it better. It was a tremendous performance, possibly even better than that of Viola Davis, although both should be getting Oscar love this year.

As should Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep, who give incredible performances.

I'd love to see the film get 4 acting nods and a screenplay nod (with maybe some technical things.) However, I don't feel it should be nominated for Best Picture. It's a tremendously well-acted film that, unfortunately, doesn't speak quite as strongly as inteneded.

[canmark]

Posted: 1/3/09 at 6:55pm

Interesting the different reactions to the film. I never saw the play, but find the idea of the play/film very interesting and intruiging. The film, though, suffered because of: SPOILERS

(a) heavy-handed direction
(b) Meryl Streep's over-the-top performance and the fact that she seemed too mean--hence I didn't like her, didn't trust her judgement, and felt sympathetic to Father Flynn. Her breakdown at the end had zero emotional effect on me; kind-of left a bitter taste.
(c) PSH's performance was underdone, I thought. Unlike others, I thought he came across as completely innocent--there was nothing I saw in his actions that made him seem guilty (his weak defence of himself was the only thing suspicious). I kind of wish he *was* more sinister, or suspicious, or something (a lingering glance, inappropriate touching... something). A more attractive actor might have worked, but I don't think PSH's physical appearance was at fault. He just didn't look or act guilty in my eyes.

On the plus side, Viola Davis's performance and her character were *very* good and very interesting.

[H.Higgins]

Posted: 1/3/09 at 8:42pm

Finally saw the film on New Year's day and I thought it was excellent.

While I have found it interesting to consider what other actors might have worked in the lead roles and what they might have brought to them, I know that there's no one I would have rather seen in the film over these four actors.

Amy Adams was essentially perfect for Sister James. Viola Davis was devastating in her scene. Philip Seymour Hoffman was just excellent and I thought he toed the line remarkably well. I found myself responding to him and feeling sympathetic for him, but at the same time, I was never fully convinced that he was innocent.

That leaves Meryl Streep. I thought she was perfect. It's so strange for me to hear comments about how "over the top" her performance was or thoughts that her Sister Aloysius was "too mean and cold" because I completely disagree. The character is written as strict and harsh, but the subtext of consideration and care was regularly present in Meryl's performance, especially in her behavior and reactions to Sister Veronica and her responses to negative opinions about how she runs St. Nicholas School. I thought she played the Sister's more "dramatic" traits like her Bronx dialect, intense attitude, and biting, sarcastic humor convincingly and made this woman very real. I've known people like her and maybe they were "over the top", but that's the person, not the performance. Her final confrontation with Father Flynn was stunning. Her anger and conviction, along with her emotional staggering in the middle were so striking. The final scene between her and Amy Adams was remarkable.

Honestly, I thought she was brilliant and couldn't be more thrilled to see her awarded with an Oscar for her performance.

Anyway, I loved it. Just my thoughts.

[BNN]

Posted: 1/3/09 at 8:56pm

I didn't see the play, and seeing the movie I wish I had. I absolutely loved the movie, I thought PSH was a perfect fit. I was hesitant to see Amy Adams in a dramatic role after being enraptured by her in Enchanted, but I thought she was a good balance inbetween PSH and Meryl Streep. I had heard a ton about Viola Davis and the minute she came onscreen I was entranced by her the entire time and thought she was absolutely heart-breaking in her brief appearance onscreen.

I really don't understand the criticism of Meryl Streep, I thought she was excellent. I understand how people could see that with the cold attitude and sarcasm but some people are naturally like that, and I thought Meryl struggled to seem warm and compassionate especially during the first confrontation scene, but its just not a part of her personality. Also, the obvious concern for well-being of the sister with poor vision showed she did have a heart, if it was a bit hypocritical hiding her blindness. She's obviously a serious contender for the Oscar but with such a strong season it should be interesting to see how it turns out.