Doute

In 1964 the winds of change are sweeping through Sister Aloysius' (Meryl Streep) St. Nicholas school. Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a charismatic priest, is advocating reform of the school's strict customs, and the first black student has just been accepted. When a fellow nun (Amy Adams) tells Sister Aloysius that Father Flynn may be paying too much personal attention to the student, Sister Aloysius begins a personal crusade against the priest -- despite her lack of evidence. A Catholic grade school could seem like a hermetically sealed world in 1964. That's the case with St. Nicholas in the Bronx, ruled by the pathologically severe principal Sister Aloysius, who keeps the students and nuns under her thumb and is engaged in an undeclared war with the new parish priest. Their issues may seem to center around the reforms of Vatican II, then still under way, with Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) as the progressive, but for the nun I believe it's more of a power struggle. The pope's infallibility seems, in her case, to have descended to the parish level. Some will say the character of Sister Aloysius, played without a hint of humor . Sister Aloysius of "Doubt" hates all inroads of the modern world, including ballpoint pens. This is accurate. We practiced our penmanship with fountain pens, carefully heading every page "JMJ" -- for Jesus, Mary and Joseph, of course. Under Aloysius' command is the sweet young Sister James, whose experience in the world seems limited to what she sees out the convent window. Gradually during the autumn semester, the situation develops. There is one African-American student at St. Nicholas, Donald Miller, and Father Flynn encourages him in sports and appoints him as an altar boy. This is all proper. Then Sister James notes that the priest summons the boy to the rectory alone. She decides this is improper behavior, and informs Aloysius, whose eyes narrow like a beast of prey. Father Flynn's fate is sealed. But "Doubt" is not intended as a docudrama about possible sexual abuse. It is about the title word, doubt, in a world of certainty. For Aloysius, Flynn is certainly guilty. That the priest seems innocent, that Sister James comes to believe she was mistaken in her suspicions, means nothing. Flynn knows a breath of scandal would destroy his career. And that is the three-way standoff we watch unfolding with precision and tension. Something else happens. Donald's mother fears her son will be expelled from the school. He has been accused of drinking the altar wine. Worse, of being given it by Father Flynn. She appeals directly to Sister Aloysius. It lasts about 10 minutes, but it is the emotional heart and soul of "Doubt". Doubt. It is the subject of the sermon Father Flynn opens the film with. Doubt was coming into the church and the United States in 1964. After the assassination of Kennedy and the beginnings of Vietnam, doubt had undermined American certainty in general. What could you be sure of? What were the circumstances? The motives? The conflict between Aloysius and Flynn is the conflict between old and new, between status and change, between infallibility and uncertainty. And Shanley leaves us doubting. "Doubt" has exact and merciless writing, powerful performances and timeless relevance. It causes us to start thinking with the first shot, and we never stop. Think how rare that is in a film. I came to a different conclusion seeing this film. The entitled "doubt" was not about Father Flynn's guilt (which I believe becomes apparent toward the end of the film). The "doubt" is manifested in Sister Aloysius as she comes to doubt the institution of the Catholic Church she has devoted her life to. Instead of getting rid of the priest, the church covers up the crime. I think that would be enough to cause anyone to have "doubts". This was the last straw that caused this nun to have an emotional break down, reducing a once rigid woman certain in her beliefs to a sobbing and lost wreck of a human being. To answer the obvious mystery in the film - whether Father had some sinful (or criminal) relationship with a twelve year boy? The one word answer on the platter is 'Yes'. I don't think the plot of this movie made a lot of sense for its 1964 setting. Would a nun in 1964 really suspect a priest of sexual abuse based on nothing more than a shirt being placed in a locker? In 2018, after two decades of priest abuse stories in the media, sure; however, in 1964, at a time when no one would dare criticize a man of the cloth, I have my doubts. Either way, I did enjoy the film and thought it was well-acted.

And when I say dark, I'm not referring to the clothes in the movie. It's morally ambiguous and it might leave you with more questions than answers, but it's striking nevertheless. The powerhouse performances we get to see in this movie, are worthy Oscar contenders and leave free interpretations as to which character will be to your liking (or which character you despise the most).

While many movies do give you moral clarity, this one plays with many things, that are never fully uncovered ... or maybe they are and I'm just not willing to accept them? Actually it leaves room for some interpretations of things that went down (no pun intended). It's about guilt, it's about doubt and many other things, that makes us human. How you receive the movie might say a lot more about yourself than the movie itself. Which is a great thing. A movie that actually makes you think, even long after the credits finished ...

I'm not going to give a long or exhaustive review. A bazillion others have and the movie was released over a year ago--so my giving any sort of in-depth analysis is just needless repetition.

The movie's biggest strength is the acting. All three leading actors did a fine job and this was necessary to carry a film that has no special effects, explosions or love scenes. The vagueness of the film is also a strength. After all, the film gets you thinking and yet there is definitely no clear-cut answer as to what really occurred in the film. There is lots of room to foster discussions and debate. And, while I am a strongly opinionated person, I wouldn't have changed much of the film at all--except the very, very end when Meryl Streep's character, for the first and only time, shows some doubt and emotion. This just didn't seem true to her character. Still, this is a minor concern--and who am I to say, since I didn't win the Pulitzer Prize (last time I checked)! Some may hate the vagueness and want a very clear explanation as to what, exactly, the Father did--if anything. Some may hate that the film actually isn't vague enough (I slightly tend towards that). But what I love about all this is that so many different people see so many different things--mostly based on their own prior experiences and expectations. I could easily see someone seeing gay issues, pedophilia (and it's talked ABOUT but never even explicitly said) or a thousand other possibilities--or it could simply be a metaphor for McCarthyism. Who knows? And that makes the film so interesting.

Watch this movie once, with the idea that Fr. Flynn is guilty. Then watch it again, with the idea that he is innocent. Or do it the other way around. Shanley's dialogue is so perfectly, brilliantly ambiguous that this is really two movies in one. Both are powerful, and both possibilities are horrible to contemplate, for very different reasons.

Having seen both the play (during its original run with Cherry Jones and Brian F. O'Byrne) and the film, the play obviously has the edge because it's more intimate, consisting only of four characters. The film expands its milieu (as film versions of plays typically do) but I think having the schoolchildren, other nuns, and school staff present in the film diminishes it just a bit. The play, of course, is about "knowing" things that we don't actually know, and the movie shows us some of what the play leaves to the imagination. Although the ultimate question remains ambiguous, the viewer may be distracted by looking for clues in the other characters, especially the kids.

What gives this piece its power, though, on both stage and screen, is its stubborn refusal to answer that ultimate question, or to provide any solid evidence of either conclusion, leaving it entirely up to the viewer to judge these characters.

Doubt is a movie that pulls no punches and wastes no time. It is about a nun who suspects a priest of having an inappropriate relationship with a student in their school. I had fully anticipated that there would be a slower build to the confrontations in the story, but I'm not sure why I thought that might happen. Considering how brash and brazen Meryl Streep plays the Principal of the school, I should have known that subtlety wasn't going to be her preferred method of handling things. Her first confrontation with the priest was a heart-pounding scene that almost made my palms sweat as if I was part of the uncomfortable situation. It was perfect that they chose to also have Amy Adams there to offer a contrast as someone who wants to avoid the conflict.

I applaud Doubt for some wonderful acting performances across the board. This movie features an all-star level of talent, and they have some serious dramatic scenes that feel tailor-made for Oscar nominations. The film is hard to watch, though. I almost squirmed right out of my chair during the scene with Viola Davis, and there are several scenes with a similar tone. It doesn't have a cathartic release at the end, in fact many of the worst elements of the plot never feel resolved. There's an uncomfortable ugliness to the way things play out in this movie, and it makes me want to watch Spotlight right after so I feel satisfied that something more has been done. Doubt is one of those movies where I respect it more than I like it. There's no denying this is quality film-making, but it is not the kind that I want to subject myself to many times in the future.