Doubt: The Movie

After reading some of the reviews of the new "Doubt" movie, I was a bit hesitant to take it in. Reports that stars Meryl Streep and Phillip Seymour Hoffman were chewing up scenery left and right gave me pause.

Well, I'm happy to report that I witnessed no such scenery noshing on the screen. In fact, I found this movie version of John Patrick Shanley's Pulitzer-Prize and Tony-Award winning play Doubt quite compelling, and I was thrilled at the nuance of the three central performances, including that of the always lovely and moving Amy Adams.

The movie starts off with some awkward and obvious directorial touches. (Shanley also directs the movie, from his own screenplay.) And there are certainly some moments when the actors appear at least on the verge of teetering off the precipice of subtlety into the chasm of melodrama. But in the grand tradition of movie mysteries, the film kept me guessing until the very end. And beyond.

Chief among the movie's assets are of course its three central performances. Are there any finer actors, on film or stage, than Streep and Hoffman? Streep gives a solid and credible performance here as the school principal on a mission. But Hoffman is the real star of the movie, bringing dimension and pathos to a complex character. Looking into his soulful yet inscrutable eyes, you could just as easily condemn as exonerate this priest, as portrayed by Hoffman. And Adams, as I've said, makes for an effective and affecting foil to Streep's grand inquisitor.

Oh, and a quibble. The official subtitle of the play version of Doubt calls it a parable. I'm at a loss to explain this notation. Doesn't a parable typically have a lesson to teach? Well, how can the play claim to be a parable when it goes out of its way to make you...well...doubt what's actually going on? Is Shanley being ironic? Anyone care to take a stab at a clarification?

Comments

[Steve On Broadway (SOB)]

Chris, Glad you enjoyed the movie. Had you not seen the stage play?

As for the "parable" - perhaps it lies within the final scene of the film with a reflection on Streep's last line, which offers a discernable lesson of the first order, don't you think?

[Scot Colford]

I thought the characters were often "teetering off the precipice" of the camera frame with all those canted angle shots. Eek. But I enjoyed it a lot too.

[winer]

My take on the "parable" classification: As I understand it, one of the definitions of the word has to do with a story that makes its point via comparison or analogy. Like the "parable of the mustard seed" or whatever. The play came out in the mid-2000s in the middle of all the Catholic church molestation scandals, but it was about a priest in the mid-60s. So I always thought the playwright was saying, "This story about the past is meant to be seen as a story about the present." Add to that the heavy use of parable in the main character's sermons (the feather pillow, the man lost at sea), and I think in some way this whole play was John Patrick Shanley's sermon. Thus, in some loosely defined way, the entire play is an analogy or a parable. Anyway, that's my take...

[Kathy]

I can see why this play could be called a parable. I believe that today's 2009 audience is supposed to learn the lesson. The lesson was to be careful when we accuse and gossip about someone. There is always room for "doubt". After all the priest scandals, we are now more likely to think the worst when we see a priest working with children. Hopefully this movie will make people think before they are quick to judge.

[moxie the maven]

The last line is probably one of the most debated in recent theater history, but personally, I take it to mean that she has doubts about not just this man's possible guilt, but much deeper doubts about her faith. I think that's where the parable (religious lesson) lies. The way I see it, her actions are the result of a very concrete, sweeping belief system that comes crashing down at the last moment, and the lesson has to do with the role her faith plays in a stubbornness that may ultimately bring down an innocent man. Or is he innocent? :) Just my take.

[Valerie]

There was a line in the movie when the preist tells her "You have no proof" to which she replies "I have my certainty!" At the end of the movie, she admits "she has doubt." I saw this movie with my cousin and she thinks she doubts that she should have pushed this hard because where did it get everyone? I think she doubts that he did it. That's the point!

[Tricia]

I agree that the last line is one of the most debated in recent theatre history, but also believe it to be much darker than most. At the end of the piece, Sister Aloysius is not doubting herself or Father Flynn's guilt whatsoever...she's doubting her belief in a God that would allow a predator like Father Flynn to prey on children. The great part about the end is that you can see it either way: you can either think Sister Aloysius is doubting Father Flynn's guilt or her own faith in God. This is perfect in that it makes the film accessible to a wider audience. That's just my take...

[Lynne]

I absolutely agree with you about the last line being darker and deeper in meaning than that Sister Aloysius had doubt about Father Flynn's guilt - I never felt she doubted his guilt whatsoever, even in the end. I personally believe her doubt was doubt in her faith; that God would allow this abuse to happen again and again. Also, it can be said she had doubt in the Roman Catholic church - an organization she devoted her life to - because they chose to cover what was happening.

I like that there is no neat and tidy answer to what the doubt is that she is referring to. There's really no right or wrong answer - I think that's what makes this play so great.

[Laurie]

Having done theatre myself for around 20 years, I felt the play did no work as a movie. I did feel that Hoffman was pushing too hard sometimes and it felt like Streep was giving away too much with her looks during close ups. I kept having this feeling that if I were sitting in a theatre seat watching from at least twenty feet away, the story I was watching would have had more impact. It just felt like a play turned into a movie. Even the script had lines in it that were clearly theatrical and would work fine on a stage but felt pretentious to me because I was watching people say them in a close up on a movie screen

[Trey]

Winer's comment that a parable makes its point via comparison or analogy reminded me of an interview with John Patrick Shanley that I recently read on the AV Club's website, where he says that the inspiration for writing the play came from the war in Iraq. The quotation itself is pretty lengthy, but it comes at the end of the interview, which is located here:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/john-patrick-shanley,22252/