by Sam Juliano
Controversy has raged for decades over whether film directors should maintain the essence of the plays that are being adapted for the screen, or whether they should open up such works for the sake of cinematic purity. There has never been an easy answer to this dilemma, and it seems to matter little, whether the said helmer chooses the first or the second option. In other words you’re damned if you do or damned if you don’t. Eugene O’Neill’s Long Day’s Journey Into Night and Robert Anderson’s I Never Sang For My Father are two works that spring to mind, but the equation can be applied to many others, including Williams’ Streetcar and The Glass Managerie, and some Shakespeare adaptations. If a director is bold, he aften loses grip with the material and compromises its power. If he chooses to keep the work fully intact he is criticized for being unimaginative.
John Patrick Shanley’s critically-praised Broadway play, Doubt has fallen victim to the same kind of second-guessing, and again the conflict has been resurrected. Shanley’s stage play was minimalist; the new film based on it (both written and directed by Shanley) doesn’t really open anything up outside of some seasonal transitional shots which are strictly the territory of film. But the decision is a wise one, as the drama here would lose its edge if the focus shifted to style. “Staginess” isn’t quite the same kind of criticism as it was years ago , as the contemporary thinking supports the notion that to gain one thing is too lose another. The price is too steep. The director takes a pass on expanding the parameters of the original script and chooses not to use fancy camerawork.
Although the play (which won the Tony Award) opened about two years after the sex-abuse scandals among priests rocked the Catholic Church, the events of this story are set in 1964 at a private school in the Bronx, where middle-schoolers are constantly living in trepidation of the school’s authoritative principal, Sister Aloysius Beauvier. The school’s parish at that point had recently welcomed a young man (Father Flynn) to provide the adolescent nurturing that would be missing in an impervious administrative regime, as well as to inject some liberalism into the school’s rigid an dogmatic curiculum.
A young prelate nun named Sister Marie James grows suspicious when Flynn appears to show some interest in a young African-American boy named Donald (who happens to be first ever at the school) and she reports to Sister Beauvier. Beauvier, without a strand of evidence or even the likelihood of impropriety in hand, moves forward with only her own air of moral pompousness, and accuses Flynn of doing thinks unbecoming and inappropriate for a priest. (or any person for that matter) She leads a battle of wills to have him removed, and attempts to force him into making a confession.
The entire film (and play) is one-note, and the material doesn’t often veer from the matter at hand, except to shed some light on the racism that was very much in full flower in that year. i.e. the boy’s mother demurely backs off to the sister after she is “informed” that her son may been the victim of Flynn’s sexual advances. The woman clearly is ashamed and is aware of the issue of inequality.
Whether this singular concern should be rightfully the sole topic of this 104 minute film is still debatable, but the film misses it chance to make some kind of a statement about the sex scandals that scarred the church, had Shanley had not enshrouded his script in secrecy and mystery. But adherents of the film would argue subplots would draw attention away from the conflict that is undeniably engrossing. Doubt is deliberately ambiguous, and as the title blatently confirms, whatever decision is made, or however anything is resolved, there will always be doubt.
As sister Beauvier, Meryl Streep is excellent. Those who saw her early-year musical turn in Mamma Mia! are no doubt amazed at her extreme versatility, but the role here is very much her element, even if her accent is extreme. She non-chalantly flails her arms and open her eyes wide in a role that almost seems like self-parody, yet she is grounded by the fearful urgency of the vital moment at hand, her clipped tones are oddly hypnotizing. She is mesmerizing and pretty much steals all the scenes she appears in, even if Viola Davis is equally riveting in their one big scene together on the school campus.
As a foil to the film’s heavy, Phillip Seymour Hoffmann adds another memorable performance to his storied career as the likable pastor who for a good part of the film has won the affection of the audience and up to a certain point seems irrefutably innocent. Hoffmann’s homespun earthiness and gravely voice help to enhance our image of the working man’s Irish priest whose concern for his parishioners is of paramount importance, as can readily be deduced by his lengthy sermons.
Viola Davis gives an electrifying performance as the mother afraid to rock the boat in the aforementioned big scene that gives the film an unexpected jolt. Davis is pretty much a perfect fit here. Amy Adams shows yet another dimension as the cowering young nun, who passes on opinions, without ever coming to one on her own. From her roles in Disney films, Adams here is more solemn and suspicious, and she shows another acting side we have not yet had the pleasure of seeing.
It all pretty much adds up to a feast of acting by some excellent performers, who push everything and everyone out of the way to enact their own fireworks display. With acting like this, it’s easy not to be suckered into any arguments about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of stage-to-film incarnations. Doubt may barely miss the year end’s top ten list, but it’s a powerful, formidable achievement within the annals of “filmed theatre.”
Final Rating: * * * * of five.
Note: I saw “Doubt” on Friday night, (one day before the arrival of Allan Fish) with Lucille and Broadway Bob at the Chelsea Cinemas. We found a nearby parking space, and opted to pass on dinner out.
Somehow I would venture to suggest that the autumnal setting of this film (or play) lends itself well to the thematic concerns, or the dark subject matter. What I particularly like is the ‘undercurrent’ that never spills out into maudlin revelations. It builds slowly and succinctly to its inexorcable conclusion. You have written a marvelous review here Sam.
I definitely plan to see this over the holidays. It really looks like a fireworks show of acting, as you imply. Nice to see Meryl strut her stuff, and showing in the same calendar year gifts that go in opposite directions. I expected as much from Hoffmann. Oddly the reviews are decent enough, but nothing spectacular.
………..so you’re saying it doesn’t matter how stagy it is–that the acting is all that really matters, right?……….
Well, Frank, you are pretty much correct there, and I thank you Bill for your kind words, although this hastily put together and rather pedestrian and “surface” piece is highly unworthy. Translation: it’s one of the worst pieces I’ve ever written, but I can’t let Allan hog up all the space! LOL!
Yeah, Joe, I’d love to hear what you think!
Sam,
I have not read (or seen) Doubt but based on the previews I was not especially excited about this film. As you note, Streep’s performance seemed to border on self-parody, though she’s been getting raves. I’m always intrigued by Amy Adams though – she’s got a great face.
Incidentally, as you brought it up on the other board, what did you think of the adaptation of A Man for All Seasons? Though I haven’t read that play either, I understand it featured some almost Brechtian devices which were obviously eschewed for the adaptation.
Those Brechtian ‘devices’ are most intriguing, Movie Man, but they would never work in the adapatation for the mainstream audiences it targeted. The adaptation by Robert Bolt from his own play was by and large superb for so many reasons, but I guess with hold that for further discourse. Thanks again my friend.
I saw the trailer the other night at the Slumdog screening, and it looked very gothic to me, or is that how US cities look in Autumn? I am intrigued by the movie anyway.
It will be very topical here, as we have sadly another abuse scandal brewing with a massive indictment of catholic clergy and others from a boarding school over events that scan a number of years.
Yes, I definitely want to see this asap….but I will wait. With bated breath.
At this moment I am planning to see this and Gran Torino in one trip to the cinema on December 26. Until then, I will hold off on reading Sam’s review (which also allows me to anticipate the experience of reading it).
This is an excellent review, Sam. I haven’t seen the film yet – I’m way behind on movie-going this year and I have a lot to catch up on in the Christmas and New Year’s week, but the cast of this film has been a draw for me as soon as I heard about.
You’ve addressed the controversy of stage to screen beautifully, and it’s something that we could discuss forever. So much depends on the nature of the story itself and the dynamic within it. For example, Hitchcock’s Rope could be considered too stagey, and if I’m not mistaken, Hitchcock filmed it as one long take, only stopping to change reels on a shot of the back of someone’s dark suit after he turns away from the camera (I could be wrong about this). The only scenery changes are when they move from one room to another (and the outside of the building at the beginning and end of the film); and yet this film is compelling, the acting superb, the tension and drama built up in the interaction between the characters and they’re changing moods.
That’s just one example. I could go on. 🙂
Anyway, this was a well-written and insightful write-up. I look forward to seeing this film.
Alison, thank you so much for that comprehensive response! Yes, for me the issue of stage-to-screen was at the center of this film, and whether–ultimately–it succeeded (which in large measure it did). Your example of Hitchcock’s ROPE could not have been bettered, and yes, regardless of the staginess, the film was “compelling” and the “tension and the drama built up in the interaction between the characters and they’re changing moods.” You stated this brilliantly–and I think the Hitchcock film was a much better example that the ones I used, as its ‘staginess’ was inherent in the material, and not as a strict stage-to-screen vehicle. I greatly look forward to your reaction to this film. Thanks again, ever so much–you’ve made me feel better about the review.
Tony: Actually, that ‘gothic’ quality you speak of in DOUBT is the result of the autumnal setting, which is exactly what we have here in the Bronx at the time of the year the film takes place in. Sorry to hear of teh latest sex scandal Down Under–seems nowhere is immune of this social calamity.
Nick: Yes, indeed, I suspect your ‘bated breath’ will be rewarded with this one.
Alexander: I can’t wait to hear (or read) of your response!
Sam, I really like your review. I think Allison’s right: the argument about stagy vs non-stagy depends almost entirely on the material. I saw “You Can’t Take it With You” over the weekend; Capra “opens it up” very little, only some establishing stuff, and a quick scene or two outside Grandpa’s house, yet like “Doubt,” it seems to work.
Thank you very much for that Rick, I really needed that, (from you and from Alison) as I didn’t feel I wrote well or deeply enough into this film. That is an excellent example, methinks of that particular Capra classic, which as you note, works as perfectly as can be regardless of the inherent constrictions. I bet you had a real fun time watching that.
Thanks again.