John Patrick Shanley's comical film of his four-character Pulitzer-winning play "Doubt" is a flamboyantly theatrical sermon on the virtues of conviction. It should be seen in conjunction with a reading of Malcolm Gladwell's best-selling "Blink" because, no matter what the dialog may tell you, it's more an affirmation of gut instinct than an exploration of the title commodity.
You can see why all the adult principals -- Meryl Streep as Sister Aloysius, Philip Seymour Hoffman as Father Flynn, Amy Adams as Sister James and Viola Davis as Mrs. Miller -- have been nominated for Oscars (but is Hoffman's a supporting performance or the male lead?). This is juicy stuff, played to the hilt as you'd expect -- and as much for laughs as for melodrama (which I hadn't expected, but which came as a happy surprise).
If it remains more of a theatrical experience than a cinematic one (despite being photographed by Roger Deakins), that's probably because Shanley's ambitions are limited to delivering the "movie version" of his own hit play. I can imagine "Doubt" working more convincingly in the abstract setting of the stage (though I haven't seen it performed that way), where it sported the subtitle: "A Parable." But there's no doubt it's a bake-sale bonanza for the movie actors, who give overtly stylized performances in realistic settings, all goosed-up with stage flourishes -- thunderstorms and balcony-pitched arias and surprise entrances and exits timed to build tension and frustrate satisfaction. (It's said Shanley added some of these devices just for the movie -- which, if you think about it, is you might expect somebody with an intrinsically theatrical sensibility to do to "open up" a play for film.)
What I didn't expect was the outlandishly broad comedy of Streep's "The Devil Wears a Bonnet" performance. I think that is probably a compliment, and I don't think she's getting enough credit for how funny she is. "Doubt" may be a work that touches on Serious Issues (sex abuse in the church, the evils of gossip, the weighing of greater and lesser sins, the obligations of that come with intuition and experience -- and the paradoxes of doubt) but it's also by the guy who wrote "Moonstruck" and "Joe vs. the Volcano." Streep attacks it with sketch-comedy gusto, and there were whole scenes, memorably the inspection of Sister James' classroom and the high-voltage showdowns between Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn, when I couldn't stop chortling like a schoolboy. I don't believe my laughter was inappropriate:
Flynn: "Where's your compassion?"
Aloysius: "Nowhere you can get at it."
That's a doozy of a punch line, and Streep knows it. (If I'm wrong about that, then there hasn't been a performance this misconceived since Faye Dunaway in "Mommie Dearest.")
But where does the "doubt" come in?
Now, some spoilers.
It's the autumn of 1964. Sister Aloysius, the principal of St. Nicholas in the Bronx, is an old-school nun, concerned with discipline and hierarchy and holding the hard line against a tide of permissiveness. Yet she's selectively willing to work around the rules for the sake of compassion -- looking out for an elderly nun who's going blind, for example. Father Flynn represents the liberal reforms of Vatican II: more accessible, less rigid. And, in Sister Aloysius's view, less serious about his vows. But he's a priest (a man, her political and anatomical superior in the eyes of the Church) and she's a nun (a woman, inherently inferior in the pecking order).
She witnesses something from her office window that instinctively leads her to suspect Father Flynn has been molesting a student. But, at first, she doesn't voice her apprehensions. Instead, she warns the other nuns to be on their guard... in terms so vague they play like paranoid anti-authoritarian farce. Impressionable Sister James notices a few odd behaviors (we don't see what all she sees) that to her suggest improper behavior between Flynn and the school's first and only black student, Donald Miller. She reports her suspicions to Sister Aloysius, who is quickly convinced that Father Flynn is guilty and sets out to prove it -- to herself, at least, even if there's no way to shake the institutional denial-mechanisms of the Church itself.
Though the deck is stacked against her, the conclusion is essentially foregone, because on the screen he is weak and she is strong. In no small part that's because he is embodied by Philip Seymour Hoffman (who tends to emphasize his characters' weaknesses) and she is embodied by Meryl Streep (from whom it is impossible to look away, no matter what character she's playing). Accusations are made, explanations offered (and withheld), rationalizations proposed, ulterior motives questioned.
You might say that "Doubt" is about doubt in the way that irony is about rain on your wedding day. The word is not quite the right one. What is the nature of the un-vanquishable doubt Sister Aloysius suddenly (and inexplicably, non-specifically) avows at the end? She does not doubt that Father Flynn is guilty. She has no remorse about lying to elicit a kind of non-denial confession from him. But does she regret that he got away with it, that he was rewarded with a promotion and will (as she predicted) undoubtedly continue the abuse in his new parish? Does she question her faith in a Church (or a God) that would this to happen, to ensure that it does? (Was she ever that naive?) Does she have misgivings that maybe Donald Harris is not so much better off without Flynn after all?
So, might the film have been more aptly titled... "Misgivings"? "Regret"? "Ambivalence"? "Faith"? "Pragmatism"? What's the difference between what the characters say and what the movie does?
When Donald's mother is summoned to detonate a single-scene bombshell that temporarily rocks Sister Aloysius's complacency, it's not to awaken her feelings of doubt. Whether Father Flynn is molesting her son is of little consequence to Mrs. Miller, who is the voice of "real-world" expediency: 1) Donald doesn't appear to object (he's 12, but she seems to feel the relationship -- whatever it is -- is consensual, and she doesn't want to know any more than that if it can't be proved); 2) it's only until June, when he can get into a good high school; and 3) whatever Father Flynn is doing is nothing compared to what Donald's violently abusive father is doing, or could do, to the boy; 4) everyone has his reasons. Finally, she asks Sister Aloysius what she wants from her... and the Sister can't think of anything.
There's a movie about doubt in there somewhere, but it's about the Millers, not about nuns and priests.
* * * *
I've seen reviews that label Sister Aloysius the "villain" of the piece. Really? John Moore, the theater critic of the Denver Post, compares Sister Aloysius's campaign against Father Flynn to the witchhunt in "The Crucible":
... [There's] disappointingly little doubt in "Doubt." And that makes a troubling play a disappointingly certain film. [...]
I've read the script, seen the play several times and now have seen the film. Doubt exists in the script. Is it possible Father Flynn did it? If so, Sister Aloysius is a hero. If not, she's Mary Warren [of "The Crucible"] in a habit. That doubt is necessary to the work because effective storytelling depends on a certain measure of ambiguity.
But as we learned when the Denver Center Theatre Company staged "Doubt" last year, it's nearly impossible to convey even the slightest possibility that Father Flynn might be guilty on the stage. It's even harder on film: He's a good guy being railroaded by an old-guard biddy steeped in resentment about the second-class standing of women in the church.
Thus, the film becomes a treatise not on doubt versus certainty, but on the nature of evil.
Moore concludes that Sister Aloysius is a fearmonger who comes off as Cruella de Vil or the Wicked Witch of the West, and the film is "a missed opportunity, all the way through to its final scene, which isn't nearly the statement it might have been."
Funny how I can superficially "agree" with his assessment of the last scene, while completely disagreeing with his view of everything that leads up to it. We're both certain that the movie isn't a particularly deft depiction of doubt, yet he thinks it never wavers in its support of Father Flynn and I think it eventually, and unequivocally, endorses Sister Aloysius's suspicions, motives and instincts.
I don't think the last scene works because I think it plays like a schematic "twist" ending. We haven't seen anything to make us believe Sister Aloysius would question the validity of her own judgment about Flynn, her understanding of Church politics (she knows it treats women unfairly), or her trust in God . Her doubts, if she is capable of them, aren't anyplace she -- or the events of this movie -- can get at them. (As I said, this may not be so in a good production of the original play, presented as a parable in a more abstract setting.)
Moore doesn't believe the ending works because he thinks she is a disingenuous character and that the movie is "a gender-based power play" about church politics that lacks the "nuance and complexity" that would be necessary to cause "our own certainty and allegiances [to] shift as the tale progresses."
So, does this indicate that the problematic "Doubt" is, after all, an artful presentation of moral ambiguity? Or that it's just vague? Is it a skillfully balanced drama comedy of conflicting moralities and points of view? Or is it just evasive and scattershot, a guessing game in Catholic drag? After all, doubt should not be confused with a simple lack of clarity.
P.S. Shanley says he was inspired by the non-debate over whether to invade Iraq in 2003:
But the germ of the idea that would become "Doubt" came, not from memories of 1964, but from the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War. Shanley was struck by the lack of debate about the pros and cons of invasion. "There was no true discussion going on," he says. "Whichever side people were on, there was such certainty. I thought, 'Am I missing something?' " At times, he says, he felt very lonely. "You want to have a conversation where someone can have an effect on you. But there was nobody to talk to about our ignorance of what was going on."
In this interpretation, Father Flynn (who's hiding something) is Saddam Hussein, Sister Aloysius (who's sure he's hiding something) is the Bush Administration, Sister James (who changes her mind depending on who she's talking to) is the Democratic Party, and Mrs. Miller (who just doesn't want to make things worse) is... France? I'm kidding! It's a parable. Catholics know better than to read parables that literally.
Screenplay excerpt from the ending of "Doubt" here.
Miramax offers the entire screenplay for as a .pdf here [click link to download].
ADDENDUM: In an interview with Streep in the Telegraph, she says there's a scene (not in the play) that she argued ferociously to have cut from the film because, "To me it destroys part of Sister Aloysius's doubt about what she has done. And that was hard for me." [...]
"I wasn't angry. I was speechless, because I really don't think that doubt in increments should be removed from this at all. Doubt is our friend. And once you tip the scales in one direction or another it's very, very dangerous. The thing is calibrated like a tuning fork: it's either A, or it's not A." [...]
"I get these feelings about people. Do you know how you meet certain people and you talk to them for about 10 minutes and you think, 'Ooh - cancer somewhere. Somebody is really sick, or was sick, or died,' you get this feeling of illness or something bad having happened, even if you're talking about something else. What's the offstage event that preceded what they're bringing me? You read behaviour and you see what's compensatory, what's making up for... Comics are the easiest people to read, because there's so much private pain; that's an obvious thing.
"So with Sister Aloysius I thought that probably - and it's in the script - she has seen this kind of abuse before. And I feel that what she saw before was pretty bad. And I think you make a private decision when something like that happens to make sure it doesn't happen again. So to you that reads as judgemental, vindictive - whatever the adjectives you strung out in that sentence."
I try to interrupt, to say that I did not say either 'judgemental' or 'vindictive', but Streep will not be stopped. "You know," she goes on, "some people see scary guys outside the door, and other people don't. And the people who don't are lucky. But the ones who've encountered the scary guys are marked by it for the rest of their lives, and it's hard to be Pollyanna when that happens. So I think that's who Sister Aloysius is. Maybe there was something personally that had happened to her where her faith was shaken. Who knows?" She shrugs. "John [Shanley] didn't tell me any of these things. I made it up for myself."
Unfortunately, the interview doesn't reveal which scene Streep felt should have been cut to restore balance to Sister Aloysius's doubt.
We DO see what Sister James sees: Father Flynn putting Donald's shirt into his locker.
JE: That's just the teaser. She doesn't know what she's seen until she looks inside. But we don't see her interpretation of Donald's behavior after he returns to class, which is what finally ignites her suspicions. (When we see her talking to him, her body blocks our view of him.) In the play, apparently, there were only the four adult characters -- no kids at all -- so everything would communicated indirectly.
Great analysis and insight..a small correction-I believe you meant "Moonstruck"-when you said 'Moonlighting"...PS-Did you attend Catholic School? Just wondering...
JE: Thanks -- I've been mixing up that title with the Jerzy Skolimowski movie for 20 years. Fixed now. I didn't go to Catholic school -- but so many of my best friends did...
"I don't think the last scene works because I think it plays like a schematic "twist" ending. We haven't seen anything to make us believe Sister Aloysius would question the validity of her own judgment about Flynn, her understanding of Church politics (she knows it treats women unfairly), or her trust in God . Her doubts, if she is capable of them, aren't anyplace she -- or the events of this movie -- can get at them."
I didn't quite buy the scene either, but that's why it worked. Maybe the scene isn't supposed to work. Who's to say it wasn't a manipulative ploy on Sister Aloysius' part to reassure the impressionable and innocent Sister James. Are we really supposed to believe a nun who just finished explaining to us that when in dire straits, lying is acceptable?
Remember these lines from Sister Aloysius directed toward Sister James:
"...innocent teachers are easily duped."
"...if you are looking for reassurance, you can be fooled; if you study others, you will not be fooled".
*Does anyone have a script excerpt from the final scene?
JE: Miramax has the script in dowloadable .pdf format here, from the "Screenplay" link in the left-hand menu:
http://www.miramaxhighlights.com/film/synopsis/7
For the sake of discussion, I'll add an excerpt to the post...
"Doubt" is another movie I haven't managed to get around to. Now that you've interpreted it as a sort of comedy, I think I'm more interested.
The best dramas always seem to be the ones that are funny also. It took me a couple viewings to realize that "Taxi Driver" is sort of hilarious. It's ability to capture something so strange and impossible often puts me in a position where I can do nothing but laugh, even if I'd be scared to death to meet a real Travis Bickle.
A drama lacking in humor (like "Synechode, N.Y.") can sometimes be less realistic than it presumes to be. Life, even in it's darkest tragedies, is always full of comedy. It's all about perspective.
JE: Right on. I tend to appreciate comedic qualities highly. I wrote about "In Bruges," "A Christmas Tale" and "The Fall" as three of my favorite comedies of 2008... and I'm serious. That doesn't mean they're not other things as well, but they're sure not glum. I don't think "Doubt" is successful, but it could have been intolerable if it didn't provide laughs. (And "Taxi Driver" wouldn't be nearly as queasy-making if it weren't so unnervingly funny.)
"You might say that "Doubt" is about doubt in the way that irony is about rain on your wedding day."
Well said.
I saw the movie as showing how various people handle uncertainty. How devastating uncertainty can be on a life. We all know of stories of the mere accussation of child molestation can devastate a person's life (guilty until proven innocent), whereas the church, in this film, takes the opposing view of innocent until proven guilty, but we'll move him around anyhow. I don't know if he was guilty, the film doesn't tell us. It doesn't matter. Its not about if he's guilty, but about how everybody reacts to a situation where they can't be sure if he's guilty.
Oh, I laughed watching this movie - it was very funny, and all involved knew it. When Amy Adams places that tough piece of meat onto her plate, that steely look from Streep that causes Adams to put it right back in her mouth had me laughing out loud. Even the delivery of the crucial line, "So... it's happened." Don't ask me how, but she said it in italics.
The actors look like their enjoying themselves. It might have felt a little stagey, but I think it may have worked for the film. It does make me want to see the play. As for the last scene, it sold me that Streep's nun had doubt. It made me want to watch the movie again, see it again for the first time, as now I know when she's speaking with such conviction, she's also convincing herself. Grade A movie, I thought. A lot of fun.
Jim, you've summarized my conflicted feelings about this film perfectly in your post.
Since I was fortunate enough to attend a press screening I was able to avoid a lot of reviews before seeing it. And I'm glad because I felt that they would have misled me in terms of the movie's actual tone which I also found to be blackly comedic.
I loved the performances, Streep's being my favorite female performance all year, in fact. She managed to convince me the Sister was right to mistrust Father Flynn.
The reason that I couldn't bring myself to give the film a great review (still gave it a good one, though) was that I don't think Shanley set out to propose that Sister Aloysius was right. I think Streep's performance was so powerful and convincing that it was she that convinced us of her certitude. But I think it undermined Shanley's original intention which was that Aloysius serve as a Bush stand-in. In this obvious Iraq allegory having a figure like her in a position of authority, convicting a man with no shred of proof to back her up, seemed to represent Shanley's indictment of the ex-prez, at least textually.
But what Streep did with the character subtextually is what elevates this character, and the film. Shanley claims now that Streep's perfomance convinced him to rethink his own opinion as to the Father's guilt from what he originally intended. I'm not sure I buy that. I think he's backpedaling.
So I ask you: What do you do in a situation like this? Does the movie succeed because it has more going on in the subtext than the text suggests? Or does it fail because the artist at the helm of the film wasn't strong enough to keep the film on course in regards to his original intent?
JE: Those are such good questions! A film performance is a collaboration between the actor, the script, the director and the other actors... and then it's shaped into its final form in the editing room from thousands of possible choices. That's fascinating what you say about Streep's performance convincing Shanley to adjust his movie's POV (where did you read/hear/see him say that?). Some directors insist that the actors do precisely what the director has in mind. Some rely upon the actors to show them possibilities they may not have considered. Here's a well-established play that's been performed all over the world for years, and the authority of Streep's presence and performance may have tipped the balance of the original material -- or, possibly, caused him to reconsider his own writing. Actors often say that part of their job is to be the advocate for their character (villains, for example, don't necessarily see themselves as bad people). Perhaps Streep simply made a really convincing case for Sister Aloysius!
Saw this a few months ago, mostly because the trailer, which apparently put Jim off, actually led me to believe that there were darkly comedic components within. Turns out I was correct. Mind you, there were more than a few unintentional laughs brought on by some of the overt symbolism of the film, which was probably more effective in a theatrical setting. The ending made me laugh also, because it was ridiculously over-the-top, whether it was meant to be taken at face value, or if Sister Aloysius was merely trying to manipulate Sister James.
On another note, I still fail to see how anyone would think Synecdoche, New York was lacking in humour (even if it was a bit more earnest than Kaufman's previous films), though I did very much enjoy In Bruges (my tenth favourite film of 2008), which I would describe as a "melancholy dark comedy". And Guy Maddin's My Winnipeg (my eighth favourite film of 2008) was spectacularly comical, with its cockeyed view of nostalgia.
JE: Wow, there's an interesting angle worth exploring. I hadn't gone there. Knowing how malleable Sister James is, maybe the lonely and isolated Sister Aloysius is trying to "seduce" her (not sexually), to get her on her side. Perhaps she wants to mentor her, so she'll have someone to look out for her interests when she is (one way or another) like the blind nun whose interests Sister Aloysius looks after (and stretches the rules for). Hmmmmmm. I think there may be support in the movie for a possible reading of that stripe...
As for that trailer: Didn't you think it made Sister A look like a Spanish Inquisitor? The movie is quite different, in tone and outlook.
I saw Doubt with a group of friends (all of them very liberal Catholic), some of whom had seen the play, some who hadn’t. Those who had seen the play all thought it was much better. In being more stylized and more abstract, it was more universal. We had all hoped the film would be fodder for a conversation about faith, doubt, certainty, etc. None of us had any thoughts about any of that as we left the theater.
I felt it was far too obviously written from a post-church-sex-abuse-scandal perspective and didn’t ring true to how things might have played out in 1964. Not that certain elements weren’t accurate (the priest’s wanting a more open, accessible church), but that the handling of the abuse aspects (especially the mother’s reaction) seemed too 2000's. Those who had seen the play also said there was far more ambiguity in it about Fr. Flynn’s guilt than there was in the film.
I think a stronger theme than the questions of faith and doubt in the film was the obvious power struggle between Sr. Aloysius and Fr Flynn. The nun clearly new her place in the chain of command of the church, but was not going to let that stop her from doing what she thought was right. Several in my group commented that “Nuns always obey all the rules - except when the rules are inconvenient to their needs.” And Sr. Aloysius was clearly using her powers of sway over Sr. James.
The consensus among us was that her doubts at the end, while the scene itself didn't ring true, were about what she had enabled: his move to a bigger parish, with more access to victims (assuming he was an abuser). Again, a very post-scandal perspective.
The film is very funny - sometimes unintentionally so, sometimes obviously so, though I would hesitate to call it a comedy in the average moviegoer sense of the word. Maybe more a drama with a lot of humor or a lot of funny moments. The performances are all good, though it sometimes seems as if Streep is in a different movie than the rest of the characters. She’s so much more stylized and mannered in her performance.
All I'm sayin' is, the "I have my doubts!" aspect struck me as being so showy that I could only chalk it up to one of two things: either Meryl (supported by the director and/or script, evidently) was overdoing it, or Sister Aloysius was. It just came across as very unnatural, above and beyond it not being elegantly integrated into the overall piece.
Re: the trailer, I could sense Meryl hamming it up (in a sort of good way) instantly...it always struck me as a drama with enough of a sarcastic edge to almost qualify as a full-blown dark comedy. The film fulfilled my expectations enough in that regard that I sort of enjoyed it, even though the genuine stabs at pathos and "meaningful symbolism" made me laugh at times.
So, anyways, are you saying, Jim, that you actually EXPECTED The Spanish Inquisition? NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!! Sorry....couldn't resist. :)
JE: Not at all. I laughed for a multitude of reasons. All's I'm sayin' is that one of the cross beams has gone out of skew on the treadle.
Jim said: "That's fascinating what you say about Streep's performance convincing Shanley to adjust his movie's POV (where did you read/hear/see him say that?)."
Sorry, should have cited that. David Carr wrote in the NY Times 12/4/08:
JE: "Wow, there's an interesting angle worth exploring. I hadn't gone there. Knowing how malleable Sister James is, maybe the lonely and isolated Sister Aloysius is trying to "seduce" her (not sexually), to get her on her side. Perhaps she wants to mentor her, so she'll have someone to look out for her interests when she is (one way or another) like the blind nun whose interests Sister Aloysius looks after (and stretches the rules for). Hmmmmmm. I think there may be support in the movie for a possible reading of that stripe..."
Hey, I said that in the 3rd post! (tried to, at least)
Again,remember these lines Sister Aloysius directed toward Sister James earlier in the film:
"...innocent teachers are easily duped."
"...if you are looking for reassurance, you can be fooled; if you study others, you will not be fooled".
JE: You did indeed, Matt -- and it's only just now sinking in for me! See the interview excerpt with Streep that I appended to the original post, if you haven't yet. She thinks Shanley was tipping things too far in Sister Aloysius's direction, too. Maybe she was offering another dimension Shanley hadn't considered before...
"Hey, I said that in the 3rd post! (tried to, at least)"
Indeed, good sir. I was just following up on comments I vaguely recalled being made in the past few days. Don't mind Jim...sometimes his mind wanders, usually towards things involving cattle guns or dust particles. Or perhaps this is all a pot-induced fantasy...nah, that's just vanity.
Regardless, it appears I've been accused of heresy on three counts - heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action - four counts. I indeed confess...let there be no doubt.
JE: Cardinal Fang, fetch... the comfy chair!
I took the movie to be a fairly overt critique of the kind of certainty that Sister Aloysius embodies (and that Shanley was trying to criticize in people like our former president), in the last scene revealing the certainty such people present as actually a reflection of deep, fundamental doubt. I also think her movements against the pastor are (though she is probably unaware) motivated by her (valid, but in this case misdirected) sense of anger at gender imbalances in the church: at some level she sees this or unconsciously uses this as a chance to strike a blow at a powerful male figure--hence the importance of her saying that she spoke to a nun at his former church rather than following the rules and speaking to the next pastor. If anything, I think Streep's performance overdid this--making it too clear that we're not supposed to take her seriously, almost turning her into a comical villain. Almost--I don't think she quite ruins it, but I do think a less showy performance might have allowed things to seem a bit more even. But as it is, it seemed pretty obvious to me that her character is an embodiment of the kind of certainty (or claimed certainty) the film is exposing.
"Father Flynn represents the liberal reforms of Vatican II: more accessible, less rigid. And, in Sister Aloysius's view, less serious about his vows. But he's a priest (a man, her political and anatomical superior in the eyes of the Church) and she's a nun (a woman, inherently inferior in the pecking order)."
I have to call you out on an inference you appear to be making here--namely, that the Church views men as superior over women. As a practising Roman Catholic I can tell you that that idea is laughable, and I am surprised that there are reasonable, intelligent people who can believe such a things in an era where information on any subject is readily accessible. The Church teaches that men and women are equal. Yes, men become priests and women don't, but this is due to a tradition that stretches back to the time of Christ, its original creator. Because it is a tradition does not mean that it reflects the idea that women are somehow inferior. Muse upon the fact that one of the most important figures in the entire Catholic Church is that of the Virgin Mary.
Interesting reading of "Doubt," by the way--I have seen many reviews praising it for its dramatic qualities and the questions that is raises, but never have seen any review that said Streep's performance was funny. This casts the whole movie in a new light!
JE: Streep herself says that her performance is comical (though she mentions that nuns aren't necessarily "in on the joke"). As for the church's view of women, who ranks higher in the power structure? Are there women priests? Bishops? Cardinals? Popes? That's explicit in what Shanley (and Streep) are portraying in "Doubt" -- that Sister Aloysius is up against a tradition that takes places men in a superior position to women. It's at the heart of the story.
I must confide that the two quotes I pulled are apparently from the stage play, not the film.
"...innocent teachers are easily duped."
"...if you are looking for reassurance, you can be fooled; if you study others, you will not be fooled".
Jim and JC, thanks for honoring my juvenile desire for credibility.
Lea - are you kidding?!? Everything about the church teaches that men are superior to women. Maybe not in their words, but in all their actions. I don't want to turn Jim's blog into a discussion of this (unless he's cool with that - it's clearly in the movie), but I'd love to discuss this with you off the boards if you want.
It's not just Sister Aloysius who is trying to "seduce" Sister James. Though I don't recall the exact language ("Some people will try to convince you that the compassion you feel is a weakness"), it seems as though Fr. Flynn is trying to win her over in the courtyard scene, where Sister James is troubled by a letter from her brother. To me, Sister James is viewed by the principals as an independent arbiter--win her over and you win the dispute--but her role is undermined by her naivete and personal doubt. The intransigent personality of Sr. Aloysius and Fr. Flynn's assumed superiority are too strong for Sr. James to effectively resolve.
In fact I'd say most of the interactions Fr. Flynn and Sr. Aloysius have with secondary characters are attempts to win allies to their unspoken cause, e.g. Fr. Flynn showing the basketball team his long nails. Sr. Aloysius is doing the same with Mrs. Miller, but here the unexpected happens as Mrs. Miller effectively dissipates Sr. Aloysius' strictly-moral argument against Fr. Flynn and reveals the old nun's concern for Donald to be (at least partially) a fig leaf to justify her crusade. She forces Sr. Aloysius to recognize her issue with Fr. Flynn isn't with what he's done, but what he represents.
But rather than weakening her, this realization actually makes her stronger in the showdown; she knows what's driving her vendetta and accepts it as "right" even if the motives have changed (The comparison with the Iraq invasion is apt; when the official reason for the war changed from the specific "elimination of WMDs" to the loftier "spreading democracy", recall how supporters of the war actually became more invested in victory). Fr. Flynn appears weak in that scene because he never really gets at what the dispute is about; he prefers to nibble around the edges while Sr. Aloysius comes in with a clear plan and a willingness to lie because she recognizes a higher purpose.
JE: Yes -- and both scenes where Sister James' sympathies are sought take place in that "neutral" courtyard...
I was wondering if anyone besides myself read an anecdote about the filming of the movie. Apparently, even though the film never comes down on a side, the writer did have it in his mind whether or not Father Flynn was guilty. Philip Seymour Hoffman was asked if he wanted to know, and he said yes, so he was taken aside and told the answer. But neither Meryl Streep nor Amy Adams were offered the information - supposedly to heighten the tension between the actors.
You wrote that Hoffman emphasizes his character's weaknesses. Do you think this could have a been a direct result of him knowing that (maybe) Flynn was guilty? And should Shanley have even offered that information to Hoffman, knowing that his new knowledge could tip the "balance of doubt" in the movie?
Also, I'm just curious - regardless of what you thought of the movie, what did you think of Viola Davis' performance? A lot is being made of the fact that she's so good in just that one scene.
P.S. Found the article - it's from the USA Today. My information is at the end.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-12-07-doubt-premiere_n.htm
JE: Thanks for that, Kate! If you watch the clip above, I think you'll see what I mean: Even when Father Flynn has come in to Sister Aloysius's office and taken HER seat behind the desk (nobody even questions his right to do so as the ranking priest among nuns), he's not quite in charge of the scene. He's soon on the defensive, as when S. Aloysius adjusts the blinds -- HER blinds -- to shine an interrogative light in his face: "Which boy?" Personally, I think Viola Davis plays her scene about as well as it can be played. Like the ending, I don't quite swallow the way it is written, but it's there to provide a dramatic tweak, even though I'm not sure it really affects Sister Aloysius's motives or methods significantly. She knows it's not the boy's fault, and she's not out to punish Donald (even though she makes threats)...
Jim, I have a question. There are shots in the film that linger on two other boys: Jimmy, the other altar boy, and the school bully (his name escapes me). Are they supposed to signify anything? You see their reactions to various events - like the bully's subtle smile as Father Flynn gives his final sermon. Philip Seymour Hoffman portrayal of the character is so unambiguous in the latter part of the film that I took the reaction shots to mean that those two boys, too, were abused by him. Thoughts?