web
counter
 

doubtrev.jpg

The Evidence of Things Not Seen


Doubt / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | December 30, 2008 | Comments (25)


Doubt is so predictably good — Pulitzer Prize-winning source material, top-level cast, accomplished writer-director, etc. — that it’s easy to overlook the nuances and grace notes in the execution that make it truly great. One of the best measures of a film’s quality is how closely it adheres to the maxim that it’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it, and in that regard the film is a fantastic success, a probing, tightly woven, powerfully acted examination of the cost of faith. There’s a deep honesty to the story, a kind of unflinching and completely believable way the film unfolds and the relationships become wrapped around each other that moves it beyond the area of just some abstract or academic treatise on suspicion and doubt and turns it into a living, breathing, dangerous thing. Written and directed by John Patrick Shanley, who adapted his own play, Doubt is a fantastically rendered version of the stage story, revolving around the same basic beats and scenes but still accomplished as a film. It’s so accomplished, and full of such casually powerful moments, that it would be easy to write it off as “as good as expected,” but to do that would be to rob the film of the respect and thought it genuinely deserves.

Set in 1964, the film opens with an elegiac series of simple images that firmly establish everything from the era’s family politics to religious practices, especially as they revolve around St. Nicholas Church and School. Altar boys prepare to serve Mass, congregants drift into the pews in groups, and Father Brendan Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) addresses his flock with a question: “What do you do when you’re not sure?” His opening sermon — one of three that act as markers that trace the arc of the film — is about the power of doubt, and his goal is to comfort his listeners by telling them that even in their darkest moments, they’re not alone. The fact that Flynn’s homily is just an enormous set-up for the story that’s about to play out is as direct and unsurprising as you can get, but reflective of the film’s more self-aware beginnings as a play and in line with Shanley’s goal to translate the story to film but to maintain its stylistic execution as well as thematic discourse. (The play’s full title is actually Doubt: A Parable, which should tell you a lot.)

For most of the first act, the film plays out at a leisurely pace, setting up the characters and allowing their interactions to develop the story naturally. The principal at St. Nicholas School is Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep), an almost cartoonishly bitter woman who seems to have long ago lost whatever joy she found in the decision to don the habit. She’s a fierce disciplinarian who keeps the students living in mortal terror of seeing the inside of her office, but she’s balanced out by Sister James (Amy Adams), a sweet and thoroughly naïve young woman who wants nothing more out of her students than for them to enjoy history class. Shanley takes his time laying the foundations of the story in the first act, sliding between fragmented scenes and half-formed sequences that still manage to communicate everything that’s happening as well as how the characters feel about it. It’s a skillful method of storytelling that mirrors what will become the narrative thrust of the film: No one ever comes out and directly accuses anyone else of any crime or indecency, but the subject matter and power struggles couldn’t be clearer. Shanley relies upon knowing glances and pregnant pauses to tell the darkest secrets, and he winds up making a movie about pedophilia without ever using the word. But the film reflects the human truth that some things need no words, and are so horrible and destructive that speaking them aloud threatens not just the accused but the world of the accuser.

Because that accusation is what sets the heart of the story in motion. Flynn has taken on the role of mentor for Donald Muller (Joseph Foster), an altar boy with a troubled home life who’s also got the burden of being the only black student in school. Flynn is a progressive man — he references Kennedy in his opening sermon, and he later says that priests and nuns should feel like “family members” to people in the neighborhood — and a caring one, and he wants the boy to do well. But based on suspicion, fueled by uncertainty, and hoping to in some way please Sister Aloysius, Sister James comes to believe that Flynn’s relationship with Donald isn’t what it seems to be. She confesses her worries to Suster Aloysius, who quickly runs with the theory before Sister James can even really be sure what’s happening. “I’m not telling you that; I’m not even certain what you mean,” Sister James says, but the “that” in her sentence is loaded with meaning and fear, and its use betrays that Sister James knows exactly what she’s talking about. Shanley’s story is gripping in the mercurial way it slips from one assumption and conversation to the next, building a head of steam on nothing but hope and guesses in a manner that’s all too human. Soon enough, the film has turned into a battle to determine whether Flynn actually made sexual advances on Donald, yet no one ever says it in so many words.

Although the action continues to move among the school and lesser players in the story, the bulk of the film deals with Sister Aloysius’ single-minded desire to find Flynn guilty of molestation and Flynn’s full-throated denial of wrongdoing. The battles play out over four key scenes, each beautifully played by their actors and tightly directed by Shanley: the initial discussion between Flynn and the two nuns in which he’s accused of impropriety; a moving scene on a park bench in which Flynn pleads his innocence to Sister James; a harrowing conversation between Sister Aloysius and Donald’s mother (Viola Davis); and a final showdown between Flynn and Sister Aloysius. Shanley commutes his play from stage to screen remarkably well, and these central set pieces aren’t just chances for the characters to state their cases but for the story itself to speak to the viewer. Rather than attempt to serve as a remote, omniscient narrator, Shanley embraces both sides of the story, forcing the issue’s complexity and highlighting the outcome’s uncertainty.

It almost goes without saying that the cast is fantastic, the four central actors working wonderfully together. Streep’s transformative power is something to behold, and she’s riveting as a woman who refuses to admit defeat but who also has moments of compassion. Hoffman is nearly always great, and he’s still great here. His role is the toughest one because he has to be likable enough to seem persecuted but sly enough to hint at guilt, and he’s perfect at living in the tension. Davis is barely on screen, but she’s amazing with what little time she has. Adams is a natural choice for the role of Sister James, and she brings an air of youth and reluctant wisdom that she channeled so well in Junebug. Shanley’s made a really good film, a compelling story that’s well told and skillfully acted, but above all that it’s an honest one. It attacks its subject matter —the essence of doubt and the power of belief — with all the care and intelligence and respect for the audience worthy of such a task. It’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it, and Shanley is brilliant at both.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.









Yes Man Review | Slumdog Millionaire













Comments

Great stuff, Dan. I'll no doubt be seeing this shortly. *is a douchebag

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at December 15, 2008 3:14 PM

This play deserved that Pulitzer. I had the pleasure of reading an advance copy for a director who was seeking the rights while it was still on Broadway, and I could not put it down (and, had we gotten the rights, I was gonna work every angle to weasel my way into the Amy Adams role - sadly, it was not to be).

Shanley is great, and it's exciting to see him become so high profile again.

Posted by: Tammy at December 15, 2008 3:15 PM

This was excellent on the stage. I heard mixed reviews about the movie, but it sounds like it will work for friends of mine who can't get to the theatre but enjoy good drama.

Thank you for keeping your review from dipping too much into the later acts. I'm not a spoiler-phobe but the jerk at the local paper gave away what I thought was the big shocker of the play in the middle of his review. Boo.

Posted by: twig at December 15, 2008 3:46 PM

I'm glad to hear such a great review for this one. It is the movie that sounded the most interesting to me this Oscar season. (I'm not much into Nazi dramas) Also, I happened upon Meryl Streep on Letterman the other night and was really wowed by her mere presence. (she is a great actress of course, so it may not mean much) but she just carried herself with impressive humility and poise...though my sister did meet her quite a few times when she was in college with Streep's daugter, and always found her very pleasant and down-to-earth. (sorry, that got a little "stream-of-consciousness") And you have to love an A-lister who manages to keep her personal life private without seeming completely maniacal or soap box-y about it.

Posted by: ami at December 15, 2008 4:00 PM

A nice church movie, and just in time for Christmas.

Actually, I might rent this. It doesn't seem visual enough for the cost of a movie ticket.

Posted by: BWeaves at December 15, 2008 4:18 PM

I saw this on stage (touring company, but still with Cherry Jones in the Sister Aloysius role). I was worried about how it would translate to the screen. It's worth seeing live, if you have the opportunity.

Posted by: Captain Tuttle at December 15, 2008 5:03 PM

I got all tingly in my nethers when I saw the preview for this movie. Great review -- can't wait to see it!

Posted by: jimbob at December 15, 2008 5:16 PM

.. it would be easy to write it off as "as good as expected," ..

Damn it! I read the first few sentences and mumbled, "Oh, so it's as good as I expected," as I kept reading. I'm glad this received a great review. I need something to throw out there, so I'm not left gaping like a fish out of water when asked, "Well, if not The Day the Earth Stood Still, then what?"

Posted by: duckandcover at December 15, 2008 5:58 PM

I'm looking forward to this.

I'd resist the urge to trumpet the greatness of Joe Versus The Volcano yet again, as this marks Shanley's second theatrical directorial effort 18 years after that terrific bit of filmic wonderfulness, but I suppose I just gave in, didn't I?

Posted by: DarthCorleone at December 15, 2008 7:21 PM

Saw the play. (Great production in the Philippines.) Want to see it. Great review as always.

But I don't think Phillip Seymour Hoffman could possibly beat the image of a Filipino man sounding every bit you would expect an NYC Irish-American priest.

Posted by: MoJo at December 15, 2008 8:02 PM

I directed the Israel premiere of this play last June, so it's very close to my heart. I got chills when I saw the preview, and can't wait for the film to come out here. It's a brilliant, haunting story.

SPOILER ALERT*****
I'd be interested to know which of you who have seen the play/movie think Father Flynn molested the child. It was fascinating doing informal polls of people who came to our production and seeing what their responses were, and how their viewing the intricacies and nuances of the play were colored by their own perceptions or experiences with child sexual abuse.

During the rehearsal process, we borrowed a tip from the original Broadway production and, while we were establishing the backstory of Father Flynn, did not let the actors playing the nuns know whether or not he had molested the child, to keep the suspense and mystery real in their acting.

Posted by: deitybox at December 16, 2008 8:38 AM

There's something profoundly jarring about reading such an articulate review, and then see that it's immediately followed by "Whiskey Baby Ninja Star T-Shirts on Sale".

Posted by: sva1994 at December 17, 2008 12:55 AM

no question that the performances are riveting although amy adams seemed oddly out of place among the cadre of nuns forming streep's staff.the crackling dialogue keeps the viewer on edge but the foundation for the suspicion doesn't justify the reaction. finally, i thought the ending was dishonest and leaves the audience shortchanged but that is an opinion that i would like to discuss with someone who disagrees. it is that kind of film so , in spite of the criticisms, i would recommend it. dan is on the money with his description of hoffman's tour de force ...

Posted by: snake at December 18, 2008 11:07 PM

I think Flynn is both guilty and innocent. In my opinion, he didn't abuse the child, but identified with the boy's implied sexual orientation and felt empathy, --the only black child in a white church in the early 60s wasn't nearly as big of a deal, as a young boy's sexuality. Flynn identified because of his own struggles with his identity--and may have crossed boundaries in the past, but rather than being devious, was sincerely trying to overcome/fight his internal conflict. The "doubt" for Sister A, came from her doubting in the way she went about extracting a "confession" and doubting her faith in the church, which clearly had a patriarchy and code of silence which challenged her code of ethics and indignation. My own two cents

Posted by: melissa at December 20, 2008 11:03 PM

I thought Father Flynn was guilty. I do believe that Sister A felt in the end she may have made a mistake and therefore had doubt. I also believe she had doubt in the system of the church.

Posted by: Shelly at January 4, 2009 7:38 PM

I thought Father Flynn was guilty. I do believe that Sister A felt in the end she may have made a mistake and therefore had doubt. I also believe she had doubt in the system of the church.

Posted by: Shelly at January 4, 2009 7:38 PM

it`s so obvious that father was innocent of any wrong doing,i wonder why some of u like shelly write such stupid things as he was guilty.
anyway for me who likes to enjoy every scene of the movie even the colors i must confess it was so great that i continued watching it so relaxed.from the time i got the boy was homo i understood what it wanted to tell.it is really hopeful that fathers help homosexual boys too.

Posted by: sepehr at February 11, 2009 6:56 PM

it`s so obvious that father was innocent of any wrong doing,i wonder why some of u like shelly write such stupid things as he was guilty.
anyway for me who likes to enjoy every scene of the movie even the colors i must confess it was so great that i continued watching it so relaxed.from the time i got the boy was homo i understood what it wanted to tell.it is really hopeful that fathers help homosexual boys too.

Posted by: sepehr at February 11, 2009 6:56 PM

THE THE MOVIE WAS GREAT MRS STREEP REALLY PLAYED HER ROLL WELL, BUT I THINK SHE WAS WRONG FOR ACCUSING THE PRIEST OF WRONG DOING, THAT WAS REALLY A GOOD TITLE FOR THE MOVIE. WE ARE NOT THE JUST JUDGE. THANKS

Posted by: Beverly Watterson at February 27, 2009 3:11 PM

THE THE MOVIE WAS GREAT MRS STREEP REALLY PLAYED HER ROLL WELL, BUT I THINK SHE WAS WRONG FOR ACCUSING THE PRIEST OF WRONG DOING, THAT WAS REALLY A GOOD TITLE FOR THE MOVIE. WE ARE NOT THE JUST JUDGE. THANKS

Posted by: Beverly Watterson at February 27, 2009 3:11 PM

THE THE MOVIE WAS GREAT MRS STREEP REALLY PLAYED HER ROLL WELL, BUT I THINK SHE WAS WRONG FOR ACCUSING THE PRIEST OF WRONG DOING, THAT WAS REALLY A GOOD TITLE FOR THE MOVIE. WE ARE NOT THE JUST JUDGE. THANKS

Posted by: Beverly Watterson at February 27, 2009 3:12 PM

THE THE MOVIE WAS GREAT MRS STREEP REALLY PLAYED HER ROLL WELL, BUT I THINK SHE WAS WRONG FOR ACCUSING THE PRIEST OF WRONG DOING, THAT WAS REALLY A GOOD TITLE FOR THE MOVIE. WE ARE NOT THE JUST JUDGE. THANKS

Posted by: Beverly Watterson at February 27, 2009 3:13 PM

THE THE MOVIE WAS GREAT MRS STREEP REALLY PLAYED HER ROLL WELL, BUT I THINK SHE WAS WRONG FOR ACCUSING THE PRIEST OF WRONG DOING, THAT WAS REALLY A GOOD TITLE FOR THE MOVIE. WE ARE NOT THE JUST JUDGE. THANKS

Posted by: Beverly Watterson at February 27, 2009 3:14 PM

THE THE MOVIE WAS GREAT MRS STREEP REALLY PLAYED HER ROLL WELL, BUT I THINK SHE WAS WRONG FOR ACCUSING THE PRIEST OF WRONG DOING, THAT WAS REALLY A GOOD TITLE FOR THE MOVIE. WE ARE NOT THE JUST JUDGE. THANKS

Posted by: Beverly Watterson at February 27, 2009 3:14 PM

THE THE MOVIE WAS GREAT MRS STREEP REALLY PLAYED HER ROLL WELL, BUT I THINK SHE WAS WRONG FOR ACCUSING THE PRIEST OF WRONG DOING, THAT WAS REALLY A GOOD TITLE FOR THE MOVIE. WE ARE NOT THE JUST JUDGE. THANKS

Posted by: Beverly Watterson at February 27, 2009 3:18 PM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time