I was not a fan of Doubt when it was on Broadway. I liked it but didn't love it,certainly not Pulitzer worthy. I found it too much of a problem play where people sit around and discuss ideas in ways that were meant to explore the ideas more then they were meant to be real. I found Sister Aloysius monstrous and almost comical. I did think it was nicely compact and did what it did and got off.
It was with some trepidation that I sat down to watch John Patrick Shanley's film of his play. My reaction was less than I had hoped.
The plot has Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) suspecting that all is not right with Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), particularly with his relationship with one of the boys in the school. There is no evidence that anything really happened but the Sister is damn certain something did and she is going to make sure that Father Flynn is removed. As events occur that can be taken any number of ways the heat increases and a battle of wills transpires.
In opening up his play Shanley has brought the story closer to the real world. There are more characters, more events and many characters are deepened. Unfortunately, in my eyes anyway, the resulting opening up has made Sister Aloysius seem almost laughable. To be certain she is a monster of epic proportions and I know that there are and were many nuns (and people) who are very similar to her but what worked on stage as a symbol of the stone like past of the church and the world, refusing to change, comes off on screen, in the real world, as a caricature. I found her silly and I found I was giggling more than anything else, especially with her ever shifting accent. Several critics in their reviews of the film said they found Streep to be in another movie from the rest of the cast, and in some ways I did too. Its the construction of the character, as I said she is the symbol of stagnation in a world of change, and she is more archetype then real person. She is just a rigid construct and not a real person, this would have worked on stage but not in a reality based film. (And mark my words its going to be role that becomes spoofed for years to come to the point of becoming a cliché)
The battle between stage and the screen is all over the film. What was a series of scenes on the stage where people effectively sat around and talked about what they have seen or might have seen now become a series of scenes where we actually see the events.For me the opening up of the play makes the story not one full of doubt, rather one that seems confused. Events that on stage were only revealed as events others saw transpire are now seen by all to happen. The angst some characters feel at what they saw is now lessened because we see the events (the locker) for example. We also have to contend with a a vastly increased number of characters (the original play had four) so additionally the story is shaded by actually seeing all of these people. How can we feel the uncertainty of what the sisters saw or feel when we see the same events. On some level, the very thing the film is about, doubt, is removed because we see things.
I know its not fair to compare the film with the play, since they are different, but at the same time I couldn't stop doing so because there were things the film was doing that didn't work for me (as opposed to the recent Frost Nixon which transcended it stage origins into something truly cinematic). Perhaps Ihad I not been exposed to the play I might have liked this better. As it stands now I found it a good but not great adaptation of a good but not great play.
Around 7 out of 10 (when Meryl Streep doesn't cause me to giggle)
It was with some trepidation that I sat down to watch John Patrick Shanley's film of his play. My reaction was less than I had hoped.
The plot has Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) suspecting that all is not right with Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), particularly with his relationship with one of the boys in the school. There is no evidence that anything really happened but the Sister is damn certain something did and she is going to make sure that Father Flynn is removed. As events occur that can be taken any number of ways the heat increases and a battle of wills transpires.
In opening up his play Shanley has brought the story closer to the real world. There are more characters, more events and many characters are deepened. Unfortunately, in my eyes anyway, the resulting opening up has made Sister Aloysius seem almost laughable. To be certain she is a monster of epic proportions and I know that there are and were many nuns (and people) who are very similar to her but what worked on stage as a symbol of the stone like past of the church and the world, refusing to change, comes off on screen, in the real world, as a caricature. I found her silly and I found I was giggling more than anything else, especially with her ever shifting accent. Several critics in their reviews of the film said they found Streep to be in another movie from the rest of the cast, and in some ways I did too. Its the construction of the character, as I said she is the symbol of stagnation in a world of change, and she is more archetype then real person. She is just a rigid construct and not a real person, this would have worked on stage but not in a reality based film. (And mark my words its going to be role that becomes spoofed for years to come to the point of becoming a cliché)
The battle between stage and the screen is all over the film. What was a series of scenes on the stage where people effectively sat around and talked about what they have seen or might have seen now become a series of scenes where we actually see the events.For me the opening up of the play makes the story not one full of doubt, rather one that seems confused. Events that on stage were only revealed as events others saw transpire are now seen by all to happen. The angst some characters feel at what they saw is now lessened because we see the events (the locker) for example. We also have to contend with a a vastly increased number of characters (the original play had four) so additionally the story is shaded by actually seeing all of these people. How can we feel the uncertainty of what the sisters saw or feel when we see the same events. On some level, the very thing the film is about, doubt, is removed because we see things.
I know its not fair to compare the film with the play, since they are different, but at the same time I couldn't stop doing so because there were things the film was doing that didn't work for me (as opposed to the recent Frost Nixon which transcended it stage origins into something truly cinematic). Perhaps Ihad I not been exposed to the play I might have liked this better. As it stands now I found it a good but not great adaptation of a good but not great play.
Around 7 out of 10 (when Meryl Streep doesn't cause me to giggle)