Too Much Certainty To “Doubt”
by Mike Long
“Doubt” is a little too subtle, believe it or not. We don’t tend to think of movies as subtle–so many things blowing up, so many emotions played for the back of the house–but frequently, a significant fact is provided to the audience in only a line or two; in a two-hour movie, that is easy to miss. This happens in “Doubt,” toward the end. I think filmmakers fall into this trap because they grow so familiar with a project that they forget the story will be entirely new to the audience. But after watching dailies every day for months, then sitting in an edit bay for weeks and months more, they become familiar with every tic and nuance, and quite naturally lose their ability to consider how others will approach the picture–that is, without any foreknowledge, which, of course, is how audiences come to a picture.
“Doubt” turns on ambiguous interpretations of events and human reaction, but the judgment reached by the female lead in this picture is pretty clearly the one that about 99.9 percent of people would make, too. It’s almost impossible for a reasonable observer to make any other choice because any reasons for that other choice are so subtly presented that they are lost. In a great irony for this picture, too much subtlety creates too much certainty–we don’t really hear the other side of the case. Thus the “Doubt” of the title loses much of its impact: The lead character ends the picture with doubt about her faith, her God, and the wisdom of her actions–and so the audience may doubt, too–but nobody doubts the conclusion she draws. I think we were supposed to be able to do that.
Then again, maybe somebody else who saw it feels entirely differently about the subtlety and certainty in the picture. I hear that was the point.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
17 Comments
Thanks for the input. Looked like they had a good idea, but with the casting I doubted the execution would be worth it.
Reminds me of the movie Crimson Tide with Gene Hackman and Denny Washington. It could have been suspenseful not knowing who was really right, but since they had to throw in a Black guy, everyone knew he would end up being the hero who was right because Blacks can NEVER be wrong or bad in movies – especially against someone White. So, they sacrificed a good movie to political correctness.
I think the conclusion is a little more ambiguous in the stage version… maybe something about the experience of being live, in the room with the actors. Maybe in the theatre you are allowed to focus on what you wish to focus on instead of what the director forces you to via camera angles. Maybe because in the theatre you can see both actors act and react at the same time during the dialogue.. but the ambiguity of the situation was absolutely there in the theatre compared to the film.
I guess Ill have to see this because I cant for the life of me remember ever seeing any order of nuns dressed as Streep is in this movie. I mean shes supposed to be a nun right?
Music producers are the worst offenders at this. By the time they’ve recorded and mixed a song, they have the lyrics memorized. Musicians who self-produce are even worse. Can’t understand a fecking word (I learned the hard way).
MOVIEBOB, you nailed it. Mr. Long, I think you’re over-analyzing the movie. We’re supposed to have doubts the way the character does, and doubt her accusation as well. I don’t the play/movie was intended to be tidy one way or another. It may have been murky to some, but so is the real world.
I felt no compelling reason to believe he was a pedophile. Nor did I feel any compelling reason to believe in Streep’s breast-baring. That came out of nowhere. And I didn’t really care; I found the film listless, antiseptic and almost determinedly anti-cinematic. I share Mr. Long’s speculation as to what went wrong.
Mike Long:
“But frequently, a significant fact is provided to the audience in only a line or two; in a two-hour movie, that is easy to miss”
Was one there or are you thinking one was there and it was so subtle, you missed it? If it’s the latter, I missed it too! I haven’t seen the play, but I’m guessing it’s more ambiguous than the film. I came out of the film nothing with certainty whose side I took. But, perhaps I missed something too subtle that would have threw my conclusion into DOUBT.
Great article! Great comments! (for the most part)
I overheard a person discussing the film who said that on stage there is a sense of ambiguity, but on film, the guilt seems clear. I think that part of it is that Streep, hammy or not, acts a surprisingly listless Hoffman into the ground.
I have little doubt about his guilt. And as a conservative, I prefer it that way. It means the old cold conservative battle ax that no likes turns out to be the hero over the hippy dippy lefty priest.
One thing I didn’t buy …. Viola Davis’ character and her thinking. No way. That’s a writer’s conceit. It’s there only to throw a dramatic curveball.
Have not seen the movie, but wanted to clarify some misconceptions. Abuse of children is not “widespread” among Priests. Second, if one notices, most “pedophile” acts are homosexual in nature – male priest to male child.
I would like to see statistical comparisons between abuse by school employees and Priests. My impression is that there is more abuse by school teachers and officials but there is not the media outrage and condemnation when the offender is a Priest.
Having said the above, the Catholic Church should be raked over the coals and truthfully, the Bishops and Church officials who foisted those offenders on unsuspecting congregations should have been excommunicated as they not only fostered those criminals but failed in their primary responsibiity – looking after their flock, so to speak. And they gave a black eye to all responsible Priests and Church officials.
.+30
Have not seen the movie, but wanted to clarify some misconceptions. Abuse of children is not “widespread” among Priests. Second, if one notices, most “pedophile” acts are homosexual in nature – male priest to male child.
I would like to see statistical comparisons between abuse by school employees and Priests. My impression is that there is more abuse by school teachers and officials but there is not the media outrage and condemnation when the offender is a Priest.
Having said the above, the Catholic Church should be raked over the coals and truthfully, the Bishops and Church officials who foisted those offenders on unsuspecting congregations should have been excommunicated as they not only fostered those criminals but failed in their primary responsibiity – looking after their flock, so to speak. And they gave a black eye to all responsible Priests and Church officials.
.+30
There was not a shred of evidence to indicate that the Father Flynn was guilty – only the nun’s suspicions. I was taught by nun’s like Sister Aloysius and trust me, these gals were on a power trip and were meaner than junkyard dogs. Not all mind you, but enough that my sympathies lay with Father Flynn.
If there was ANY evidence of wrong doing other than impressions colored by the odious Sister Aloysius then please, let me know.
No doubt for me, whatsoever. Flynn was innocent until and unless some sort of indication to the contrary was offered that I missed. The suspicious of this woman alone, no matter how profoundly felt, are insufficient to indict this man.
Why did he quit? Heck, I’d have left to to get this harridan off my back. She was going to destroy him, no doubt about that. He had not option but to leave.
IF the writer intended him to be guilty he provided us with insufficient information to draw this conclusion for ourselves.
“Cherry Jones stated in an interview when she was in the play that the playwright never divulged whether Flynn was guilty or innocent to her. Which would lead one to believe that Shanley is leaving it up to the audience to decide.”
Exactly, James Bond. That was what I got from seeing the play; it is like a Lady or Tiger situation, you have to decide for yourself. Ambiguity was key to making the play work. Unfortunately, one of the devices in the film that removed this ambiguity and sided against Father Flynn was having the camera focus on the blonde boy who was a student at the school; featuring him throughout the film, particularly his aggressiveness and then his smile of relief when the priest is giving his last sermon and leaving, did more to imply that Father Flynn had harassed him at some point and was therefore guilty than anything else. Of course, it goes without saying that there are no children in the actual play, so the director totally added this in.
Also, no subtlety with the use of wind. We got it after the first time, but thanks for repeating it in an anvilicious way so there was no mistaking the symbolism. I did like the lightbulb though.
Streep’s performance at the very end expressing her doubts was masterful. I always interpreted that scene in this way: to protect her students against a possible wrong, Sister Aloysius had to fight against the priest at full strength, no room for doubt or wavering in her convictions of him as a dangerous man or she would never win against him. But once he was gone, the threat removed, that wall of conviction could finally come down, thus her amazing breakdown. Conversely, Sister James played by Amy Adams can never pick one side or the other; she flits back and forth unsure of who to believe. In the play you finally get annoyed at her — just pick a side already, lady — but in the movie they softened this and made her indecisiveness less irksome, more sympathetic; whether from Adams’ acting or the director’s decision, who knows. She becomes hardened from the experience, while Sister Aloysius is softened.
I still think it is a pretty amazing play, but feel that by removing some of the shades of grey the movie took away some of the bite as well.
What is striking is the
If this movie was placed in 2009, I could understand her immediate conclusion. As it was, they used the general doubt of Catholicism in 2009 in a 1964 setting. I grew up Catholic and at no time did we think any such thing when an altar boy spent time with a priest. For me, that was the movies biggest flaw.
I was hoping to see the scene where Meryl Streep goes down on the girl from “Enchanted”… What a scene that would be instead of heavily cliched attacks on Catholicism.
“If there was ANY evidence of wrong doing other than impressions colored by the odious Sister Aloysius then please, let me know.”
The evidence is the fact that Hoffman backs down and agrees to leave after Streep threatens to leave the nunhood and investigate on her own. Everything up to that point is wild speculation. There was also the mother’s testimony, of course, but that’s just her interpretation of her son’s mental state, and parents don’t always know their kids as well as they think.
The point is, there isn’t any reasonable alternative explanation for Hoffman leabacking down after Streep threatens to leave the nunhood, other than that he had something to hide. A person I saw the movie with suggested maybe he had an affair with a nun, but that doesn’t hold water. Why would he be so afraid of Streep uncovering that? Having sex with a nun is not illegal. Obviously, his superiors knew what was going on, and why he left his previous post, whatever it was. Hoffman might have been concerned with the congregation learning of his misbehavior. But in that case, he could have cast Streep as an irrational ex-employee with a grudge.
No, the only real explanation for his backing down, in my opinion, was that he was afraid of criminal prosecution. And that was definitely the message that the audience was supposed to take away from the scene. He rambles on about some extenuating circumstances, and things that Streep could never understand. But the evidence is clear, he’s afraid of her leaving the nunhood and digging into the past for a reason.
“Flynn is completely innocent of molesting the boy, but he’s ‘guilty’ of being a closeted homosexual – THAT’S the dark secret that he believes Sister Aloyscius has learned. One of the twists in the story is that the boy in question is himself gay, and is having a hell of a time coming to terms with it. This would explain the close and secretive friendship with Flynn – he hasn’t been molesting the boy, he’s been COUNSELING him on how to handle the facts of his circumstance. Of course, this being the early 60s, he can’t just EXPLAIN this since people are going to react to a gay priest giving ‘living as a gay man’ life advice to a schoolboy in exactly the same way as if he HAD molested him.”
This doesn’t hold water, for me. Whatever he was guilty of, the scandal already broke once. That’s why he left his previous post. He has to be afraid of something more than losing his job, i.e. criminal prosecution. I can’t see a rogue Streep spreading rumors that he’s gay, anyway. If she found out he’s gay, but had no evidence of wrongdoing, would she really persist in discrediting him, knowing as she must that the higher-ups already know? And if she did go after him, who would the parish believe, their priest or an fallen sister? I believe that for his backing down to make sense, he had to be afraid of something more than rumors.
[...] Mike Long: Ambiguity should be more defined. [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.