« Hot Button - Doubt: Review Part II - Spoilers | Main | Why The Daily Beast Will Soon Be Sued »
November 10, 2008
Hot Button - Doubt: Review Part I - Spoiler Free
Reviewing Doubt really requires two different bits of discussion. First, there is the movie and its overall structure, skill level, etc. Then there is the question of what the movie is actually telling the audience… which is a matter of no small controversy.
First things first…
Doubt is an adaptation of the stage play, written by John Patrick Shanley, and here, adapted for the screen and directed by Shanley as well. I saw the film twice as a concession to the producer’s concern about launching prematurely in a last minute fill-in as opening night for Los Angeles’ AFI Fest. And while the two viewings will be more relevant to the second half of this review – the arguments about content – they did change my perspective on the filmmaking as well.
The film stars Meryl Streep in a rather brilliant performance, if too subtle for those who love something a more stage-y. The performance grew on me the second time around as the accent played less of a role and her cautiousness about where the boundaries as a nun became more pronounced for me. Phillip Seymour Hoffman gives a performance that could not have been any better.
The film sets up the proposition of the entire film crisply with an opening sermon about doubt. From the get-go, it is offered that doubt, in spite of the discomfort that it attends it for the individual, is not a weakness, but a much-needed strength. It is the lack of doubt that is truly dangerous. Part of the challenge for the audience – especially the first time around – is to remember that point… and if you are not inclined to agree, then to challenge yourself to learn the truth in its wisdom.
Posted by dpoland at November 10, 2008 01:34 PM
Comments
I'm not sure which thread to put this in, but I'm intrigued by your analysis. I have not seen the movie, but I loved the play and I have a hard time imagining a performance to match Cherry Jones'. When I saw the play, the Iraq war was pretty new and I could only see the play as a metaphor for that war. For me, the nun was Bush, the accusation was the search for WMD and her certainty was wrong.
Posted by: chris ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 10, 2008 04:54 PM
Is this two hours of hambone Streep making stupid faces in that goddamn bonnet?
When it comes to Streep and everyone just HAVING to kiss her mannered ass, I know how women feel when they sit around acting all skeeved out and annoyed by aged male stars like Douglas, Nolte and Beatty.
Posted by: LexG at November 10, 2008 09:58 PM
No you don't.
Posted by: jeffmcm at November 10, 2008 10:27 PM
Uh... OK.
(Eh?)
Posted by: LexG at November 10, 2008 10:46 PM
That was easy.
Posted by: jeffmcm at November 11, 2008 01:41 AM
Chris. Did you just spoil the ending? Not everyone has seen the play (SHOCKING!) and don't actually know how it ends.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at November 12, 2008 04:42 AM
Nope, I didn't spoil the ending (in that I don't think what I wrote reveals it). On the other hand, virtually every interview John Patrick Shanley gave about the play -- in which he talked about his unique relationship with the actor who plays the priest -- DID "spoil" the ending, so I think the thinking must be that it wouldn't matter if you did know the ending.
Posted by: chris at November 12, 2008 01:23 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)