Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Doubt

The word "doubt" is a word that for most frequently elicits feelings of discomfort and uncertainty. Often seen as something negative, doubt is usually something that haunts us rather than blesses us. And because of that, people don't want to feel it, talk about it, or deal with it.

I recognize Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams to be some of the best, if not the best in the business. The previews for this movie looked dramatic and intense, and the content potentially troubling. This combined with the title created an unconscious aversion for me. I mentioned to several people that I had seen Doubt, and the common reaction was "How was that? I was interested in seeing that but didn't get around to it." This answer makes me believe that I wasn't alone in my intrigued yet hesitant feelings.

Some have said that the movie is slow, which I can see but don't necessarily agree with. This is one of those films that centers mostly around the dialogue of a few characters without a lot of plot twists, bells or whistles. Meryl Streep is Sister Aloysius, a severe nun whose by-the-book approach to the church and school is powerful, yet unappreciated by most. Opposite her is Hoffman who plays Father Flynn. (Opposite being the operative word.) Where she is condemning, he is forgiving. Where she finds fault, he finds potential to learn and grow. Where she is cold and distant, he is warm and approachable. And yet director John Patrick Shanley somehow avoids the tempting "good cop/bad cop" formula and gives them an impressive amount of depth. Why impressive? Because for most of the film, we see each character around other people, interacting in conversations in church and class, projecting how they want to be perceived, not necessarily how they really are. The third member in this triumvirate is Amy Adams as Sister James. She is a gentle and caring woman who teaches for the private school and seems to have a love for what she does. She is nervous, however, and doesn't assert herself as much as Sister Aloysius, who criticizes her for this very reason.

The year in which the story is set is 1964, and the school has it's first black student named Donald Miller. Each of the adults want things to go well with him, but go about making that happen in different ways. Father Flynn decides to befriend him and at one point calls him out of Sister James' class to go to his office. When Donald returns he seems upset, and out of concern Sister James talks to Sister Aloysius. Sister Aloysius assumes the worst and begins a crusade to discover what Father Flynn has done and bring him down.

These three characters completely drive the story. Adams beautifully and sincerely portrayed a less experienced nun with a fresh love for for people who is caught in the middle of a potential scandal. She filled some important shoes, because her thoughts and motivations most closely resemble our own as we watch the whole thing unfold. I've always loved Philip Seymour Hoffman, and this film gives me no reason to doubt this love. While some might say he was out-acted, I think an important piece of puzzle here is that his character is a mild-mannered "man of the cloth." And this type of character next to Meryl Streep's large and ominous presence is going to experience some shrinkage.

Meryl Streep...do I really need to go on? Dr. Worm described her in this film as "in her own orbit," and this description fits aptly. What I love about her is that even though she's played threatening and powerful characters before, they aren't the same person. This is a problem many actors face in that they lean towards having character categories, whereas Streep avoids duplicating personalities. Sister Aloysius is a complete person which I think in the end makes her even more threatening...

Despite its obvious strengths, Doubt was a tough one for me to rate. I recognized the aspects that set the film apart as well-acted, well-scripted, and well-directed. My eyes were glued to the screen throughout, and I was blown away by so many wonderful performances and scenes. And yet...something was missing. "What on earth could be missing??" I wondered. Eventually I figured it out: clarity. Now, I'm not one of those people who needs or wants movies to spell out every little thing for me...I appreciate uncertainty and ambiguity in general. However, ambiguity, as the title might leave you to believe, is the main ingredient here. And when we have very little idea what has actually occurred, it's difficult to invest ourselves in one particular person or idea. And this is was distanced me from Doubt.

Rating: 13

It's tough to give a research paper a low grade when it provides all the correct facts and includes the appropriate information, but fails to create a big picture and a reason to exist. That's the best metaphor I can come up with for my feelings about Doubt. Excellent on pretty much all counts, for me, it still failed to be something more than the sum of its parts. This is because I felt unable to invest in something or someone, and the actual content of the film wasn't what I would generally consider "enjoyable." Doubt is definitely worth a watch, especially with its wonderfully appropriate ending. But I consider my appreciation of it like that of the C&E Catholics for church: nominal at best.

4 comments:

Moshe Reuveni said...

Once upon a time when we still had a life of our own (that is, before we had a baby) we saw Doubt at the theater. I haven't seen the movie version yet, but everything I have heard about it thus far leads me to suspect that because Doubt is so dialog driven it would work better on a stage.
As for your feelings at the end re clarity: isn't that one of the main points of the play (sorry, film)? That is, in real life you often don’t know as much as you would like to and you need to make decisions under uncertain conditions. I found this post play doubt I was left with interesting, because it made question the many things I accept through hearsay alone.

P.S. There are some very good reasons why our programming dislikes doubt.

Wicked Little Critta said...

You just need to bring him along with you to these things. Get him started early.

In regards to your point about uncertainty in real life, absolutely. I completely agree with you, and maybe I can even learn something about myself from my reaction. But still, no matter how wonderfully life-like it may be, it still subtracted from my enjoyment of the film. I mean, movies about genocide may be realistic, but I would still consider them to not be fun to watch...

Dr. Worm said...

I'd have to agree that this is one that'd work better as a play. And I think that goes to our assumptions about theater vs. film. I think, in general, we think of plays as being about 70% about edification and 30% about entertainment. And I think those numbers are flipped for movies.

Doubt seemed to me to have the play version of 70/30, which is why I think it seemed a bit unsatisfying as a movie.

Moshe Reuveni said...

Doctor:
You had me going for the dictionary with "edification".
Overlooking vocabulary issues, I have to say that I agree with you but not all the way. I think the differences between theater and cinema are mostly the result of the formats' limitations, especially theater. Because there are no special effects to rely on (an extreme example), you have to go with accentuated acting and dialog.
Not that I can't be wrong.

Critta:
I agree with you, too. The best example I can think of is an Asimov book, The Gods Themselves. The book is really detailed to such a level that makes it a science fiction gem, but reading it I couldn't escape the feeling it's so detailed the details inhibit the flow. The point is, art can point us to something that is undeniably interesting but also lose us on the way by doing so.

Disclaimer: The above has been written first thing in the morning.