Review: Doubt

Set in a Catholic School in the 60s, with a battle of wills between humourless, iron-fisted disciplinarian principal Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep, nearly stepping into Bette Davis/ Dame Judith Anderson territory), and the younger, popular Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who offers a kinder, friendlier, and more progressive teaching. This earns him the ire of Sister Aloysius, even questioning his ‘pagan’ choice of Frosty the Snowman to be performed at the school’s Christmas pageant. The relationship reaches boiling point when well-meaning, naive young Sister James (Amy Adams) approaches Sister Aloysius with the faintest suspicions of an inappropriate relationship between Father Flynn and a young, African-American altar boy (the school’s first and only African-American student). Whilst Sister James starts to regret making such an unsubstantiated accusation, Sister Aloysius nevertheless doggedly and single-mindedly pursues what she has already made up in her mind as the truth, even approaching the boy’s mother (Viola Davis).

Stage-to-screen adaptations are rarely my thing- “12 Angry Men” being the best I’ve seen, though that was a television play turned into a film. I’m also not a Meryl Streep fan by any stretch of the imagination, though she seems nice in real life. I also have little interest in films set in religious institutions- For purposes of full disclosure I’m an atheist, in case you didn’t already know. Add to this the fact that the plot involves possible paedophilia (an important subject, but an unpleasant subject for a film, surely), and I was not really expecting to have much of a good time with this 2008 John Patrick Shanley (his first directorial effort since 1990’s “Joe Versus the Volcano”) drama, written by the director and based on his Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award winning play. Surprise of all surprises, I found it to be the best film of 2008. It may not be flashy or exciting or visually stimulating, but it is a master class in acting, and full of fascinating characters and twists of the plot.

Oscar-nominated Streep plays a caricature of a woman, but being a caricature doesn’t make it untrue, and it’s a wholly entertaining performance, aside from the hammy use of the film’s title at one pivotal point where it, and Streep, seem a little ‘off’. Oscar-nominated Adams’ sweet face, well-meaning demeanour, and a voice like Prairie Dawn from “Sesame Street” make her the absolutely correct actress for her role. She’s the one actor in the film who gives off definite 1950s/1960s Catholic school vibes, in fact, she reminded me a bit of Teresa Wright, one of my five all-time favourite actresses. No wonder I liked her in this, then! Davis, whom most critics feel should’ve won Best Supporting Actress (but didn’t), is fine in her brief turn as a mother with a very unusual view on matters pertaining to her son’s education. I think all the buzz about her performance had more to do with the fact that she was playing a character whose actions are not terribly easy to understand. In the film’s most impressive performance (there are no sub-par performances here), Oscar-nominated Hoffman is the perfect choice as a man who does not suggest through words or actions any cause for alarm (and indeed, is an outwardly nice, caring man), but his silence and the fact that he’s played (admittedly in quite genial fashion) by a man known to play all manner of perverts (the porn-loving nurse in “Magnolia”, the phone sex addict in “Happiness”, not to mention “Boogie Nights”) and wackos (“Mission Impossible III”, “Punch-Drunk Love”), keeps you guessing. This is especially the case when acting opposite the embittered, aggressive and self-righteous Streep. The late Hoffman was an expert at making the unsympathetic seem almost relatable. And the film itself for that matter keeps you guessing, this is definitely not a film for people who want a nice, neat, tell-all ending. It’s not about that. Look at the title for chrissakes. And for once, I was not frustrated by the vague ending, because it fits the rest of the film (once again, look at the title), and I was already wholeheartedly entertained by that point anyway. In fact, the film even had a bit of a sense of humour, especially in the Streep character, who despite being a humourless harridan, made me chuckle on several occasions, notably the relish that seemed so evident in her duel with Hoffman, which is the film’s bravura moment. These two characters do not like one another at all, and then you have Adams, the cute wide-eyed bunny caught in the middle. Streep in particular eats Adams alive (she also gets the film’s most disheartening line late in the movie; ‘Maybe we’re not supposed to sleep so well’), whilst Hoffman underplays, All three approaches are perfect for their characters. It’s, as I said earlier, a master class in acting that everyone should see at least once. Best of all, the film never feels stagey for a second, you’ll be too caught up in these characters, the story, and the acting.

Rating: B+