Doubt
|
List Price: Our Price: $9.98 You Save: $10.01 (50%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.60 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Doubt
Movie Review: Room for Doubt (contains spoilers)
Summary: 5 Stars
I have noticed that in most American films there seems to be a cultural preference for neat happy-endings. Certainly judging from many of the comments on "Doubt", I see that many viewers were left dissatisfied and annoyed by this aspect of the film. A film entitled "Doubt" could really have no other ending.
The film is a metaphor for the value of doubt within religious faith. Since in the absence of empirical certainty to prove the existence of God, there should always remain some elements of doubt within the human mind. While faith serves to bridge the gap between empirical certainty and the belief in God, the element of doubt allows us to critically examine faith so as to avoid the evils of a mind entrenched solely in fanaticism and dogma.
If we look at this film in the context of the revelations of sexual misconduct that have shaken the foundations of the Catholic Church in recent years, then it seems natural to conclude that the plot simply involves a heroic, strong-willed nun who must deal on her own terms with a pedophile priest within a male-dominated hierarchy that insulates and protects such predators. There are allusions within the film to support this popular impression, such as the priests dining on rich red meat, smoking and joking in the club-like rectory whilst the nuns are primly supping on the cheapest fare in monastic silence. Also, Mr Hoffman, who plays the accused priest, does have an aura of sleaziness about him and the emphasis on his keeping his fingernails long lends itself to something a bit creepy and out of the norm. (I do not agree with the superficial and rather invidious conclusions of other commentators that this necessarily means that the priest is gay -let alone assuming that being gay automatically corresponds with pedophilia!) Within the context of all that we now know about the the unpleasant history of institutionalised pedophilia within the church, we are initially led to despise this likely pedophile priest and to side with Sister Aloysius in her battle... but in fact, the film is far deeper that would at first glance appear. There are multitudinous shades of grey and we, as an audience, are being challenged to examine our own perspectives and beliefs.
The stern sister's innate belief in the validity of her suspicions against the priest correspond strongly with her comprehension of her faith and indeed her personal identity. She is utterly dogmatic in all her beliefs, whether regarding the Church, decorum for her nuns, child pedagogy, or even penmanship. She holds even trivial opinions with the same unshakeable vehemence that she holds her Catholic faith.
The conflict between the priest and the nun is precipitated by his sermon about doubt. Almost as soon as the topic of this sermon is enunciated, the nun does not seem to be able to sit and concentrate on the content of the sermon, but arises and distractingly begins correcting the slack posture and other superficial misdemeanours of the students in the congregation. Nevertheless, the topic has obviously struck a chord within her since she later disrupts the habitual silence of the nuns' mealtime by implanting the notion that something is not quite right with the priest and he needs to be watched by the nuns, which later leads the impressionable, eager-to-please young teacher to provide fodder for suspicion against the priest.
Perhaps it was the fact that the priest stood on the pulpit and admitted the possibility of doubt that threatens the very foundations of the sister's faith and subsequently led to her efforts to depose him. Sister Aloyisus's entire world-view is based on a highly dogmatic and sanctimonious approach that admits no room for the doubts and uncertainty of a church in the midst of reform. We see later that Sister Aloysius personally dislikes many aspects of this priest- his manicure, his ball point pens, and perhaps most of all, his agreement with the need to reform the the pre-Vatican II Church. Even her impressionable young novice recognises the possibility that this has more to do with her superior's personal prejudices than the alleged pedophilia. Sister Aloysius likely views this priest as the personification of the perceived threats to her Church and indeed her entire world view.
Sister Aloysius is later convinced that she was right in her accusations against the priest since he resigned in the wake of her direct confrontation and her false allegations of corroborative evidence. Her reasoning however does not go beyond the simple logic she uses in her discipline of her students. As any good lawyer would recognise, the circumstance of his eventual resignation does not in fact prove anything. Perhaps the priest finally realised that he was dealing with an irrationally fixated person who was determined to do significant harm to his reputation even without evidence, so he merely acquiesced to her demands to avoid incurring personal damage. As shown by his beautifully illustrated sermon, it does seem that the priest fully understands the powerful negative effects of gossip.
Another theme that seemed to crop up was the nun's resentment towards the male hierarchy in the Church. Obviously she was a strong, dynamic person but found her authority limited to the role of a stern disciplinarian over children and had to defer even her own desk over to the male hierarchy when in their presence. She alluded to other instances of her opinions and authority being disregarded by the male hierarchy and she seemed to scoff at the friendliness of the priest and the monseigneur having a chat in the street. Perhaps this priest was simply an available target against which she could unleash her extreme resentment of her male-dominated world?
What is striking about Sister Aloyisius' behaviour is her lack of any sympathetic contact with the supposedly victimised youth. She does not seek any direct testimony from him to corroborate the circumstantial "evidence" of the priest's actions, nor does she make any attempt to counsel or provide any support to him as the victim of alleged pedophilia. She says it would be pointless to ask the alleged victim because "they always protect them." This aspect alone seems to indicate that she is not so much a concerned advocate and protector of the child, but rather a person using him to promote a vendetta against the priest.
When Sister Aloysius attempts to involve the child's mother in her campaign against the priest, she is shocked by the mother's unwillingness to support her. The mother instead proposes the radical notion that even if the sister's accusations of pedophilia are true, they do not outweigh the many positive benefits she has ascertained her son to be receiving from his relationship with the priest. Indeed, she suggests that her son might be a willing participant in such a liaison. This conversation is staggering in that it introduces new dimensions to the oftentimes reactionary popular response to childhood sexuality and pedophilia.
There is nothing in the film that overtly implicates the priest in a pedophilic relationship with the child. We are left to draw our own conclusions based upon the circumstantial evidence gathered from the nun's perspective. As we can see from the many commentators who believe that this was sufficient to prove the priest's guilt, the film has succeeded in showing just how easily people can be swayed by circumstantial evidence.
This film affords a profound challenge to examine the rigidity of one's belief systems. It calls upon us to recognise that there is never an absolute perspective on right and wrong, and even a subject as sensitive as pedophilia has many shades of grey. The reason Sister Aloyisius breaks down in the end and admits her doubt is because she finally is faced with the awful futility of her dogmatic black-and-white approach to both her faith and her life.
Movie Review: Intense, morally complex, and powerful
Summary: 5 Stars
***This review contains PLOT SPOILERS, and is intended for those who either don't mind them, or who have already seen the film. I tried to compose a review without PLOT SPOILERS but found that I could not adequately convey that which was haunting and praiseworthy about the film. This fine film is built on a foundation of uncertainty, doubt, suspense and surprise. If you haven't seen it yet, and want to enjoy it as much as I did, don't spoil the experience -- just go ahead and rent/buy it without reading further.***
I found this a magnificent film; it has haunted me fairly intensely since we saw it last night. The performances are magnificent, as you would expect from Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep. The direction and pacing suited the storyline extremely well. The film is intense and somewhat claustrophobic, with dire events playing out in a close community andwithin an enclosed space. This accentuates both the isolation and the lack of privacy of Meryl Streep's character as she must confront an awful situation, largely alone.
As it develops, the film pulls you this way and that, leading you first toward one conclusion, then to another, back and forth until by the end the terrible truth cannot be denied, despite it having been a purely circumstantial case. The film ends with the fulfillment of a great act of heroism, which is then quickly undermined, leaving the abiding faith of the protagonist deeply shaken. Because the protagonist is at first so unlikable, it takes time for the viewer to appreciate her virtues and ultimately her heroism, which renders the film's faith-shaking denouement all the more tragically felt.
I tend to rebel against most film clichés, but one that I am known to eat up -- and did again in this film -- is the counterpoise of an unlikable protagonist and a seductive villain. In this film, the hero is indeed deeply flawed, and while the actions of the villain are unforgivable, he is also possessed of some good intentions, or at least has convinced himself that he is.
The premise of the film is that two nuns suspect a priest in their church/school of being a child molester. They - and the viewer - have nothing concrete to go on, only circumstantial evidence and intuition. One of them is grabs the first opportunity to believe "proof" that her suspicions are ill-founded, whereas the other continues to believe in his guilt, and pursues him relentlessly and fearlessly until that guilt is implicitly admitted.
The film toys with the viewer a great deal, dropping suggestions of guilt, then quickly supplying exculpatory explanations. How the viewer reacts to all this may be influenced by knowledge of the breadth of this problem as it is now known to have existed in the American Catholic church over this time period. With this in mind, the viewer may be predisposed to see guilt in every circumstantial clue. But I was influenced by other things as well - including the film Capturing the Friedmans, in which a family was basically railroaded on trumped-up charges of child molestation. Awareness of these conflicting potential story directions makes the viewer feel guilty, and cynical, for seeing depravity in what might actually be pure acts of kindness. One scene in which Hoffman hugs the student, who has just had his books spilled, could have been a model of Christian comfort were it not for the viewer's eyes probing for every evidence of impropriety. Absent hard proof of anything, it comes down to what we each read into what little we do see, and we feel the uneasy basis on which to make a judgment.
If there's one Hollywood cliché that really bugs me, it's the stereotype of the hypocritical sanctimonious religious blowhard, pointing the finger of accusation at everyone else while engaging in private indiscretions or even crimes. Hollywood has beaten that one to death, and I found this film refreshing in its alternative portrayal. Here the ramrod-straight religious conservative is actually the sincere, idealistic one, whereas the one who seems superficially more reasonable, pluralistic and tolerant who is actually up to no good. Philip Seymour Hoffman's character is the one who thinks it's perfectly fine if Frosty the Snowman appears in the Christmas pageant, or if students have access to ballpoint pens, in contrast with Meryl Streep's uncompromisingly rigid ways. It's his comforting demeanor that causes Amy Adams's character to drop her suspicions, and even to turn on Meryl Streep for her intolerance, which proved later to be exactly the wrong call.
Interestingly, people are at their least convincing in this film when they are making their own cases in oral conversation. I was convinced of Phillip Hoffman's character's innocence until his conversation with Amy Adams in which he sounded like a creepy NAMBLA spokesman, trying to redefine "love" to suit a private twisted purpose. And again, later in the film, even when no one has caught him doing anything, he destroys his credibility by the way that he tries to constrain Meryl Streep's avenues for checking on his past behavior. Nor does Meryl Streep do herself many favors by the way she presents herself early; she leads the viewer to deem her a heartless tyrant before later revealing her inner compassion through action. But each builds a more positive case for themselves with actions in other scenes - or at least, so it seems.
The film is morally complex in that it shows a series of suppositions and intuitions leading to the accusation of a terrible crime, all in the absence of clear evidence. The easiest type of film to make would be one in which it was all a big misunderstanding, and the lesson is not to jump to rash conclusions. But in this case, the suppositions turn out to be right, raising the far more complex case of how to morally conduct oneself when one lacks clear information and the consequences of being wrong are terrible. No jury could have convicted Hoffman's character on such flimsy evidence, but Streep's character lacked the luxury of legal certainty in moving to protect a child.
The final confrontation between Hoffman and Streep is a powerful moment, in which Streep's character, a woman who has devoted her life to unquestioning service of the church, declares her loyalty to a higher moral sense - she in effect declares that she will do what she believes is right, to protect a child, regardless of how the church judges her and indeed regardless of how God judges her. She doesn't put it as directly as this in the film, but more artfully, and the effect is more moving than I am relaying here.
In the final scene, when Streep's character expresses deep doubt while clutching her cross, she doesn't say what she doubts: Hoffman's guilt? Her own actions? The actions of a church that basically just kicked him a level upstairs, free to prey? Her own fundamental religious faith? Whichever she means, she has plenty to doubt at that moment - her certainty of her moral rectitude has given way to a dumbfounding confusion in which her church and faith have failed to uphold the most fundamental principles of a moral society.
It's so easy to imagine a lesser film being made from this material - how easy it would have been to craft a ham-fisted, preachy film, or one in which all religious people are portrayed as hypocrites, or a broadside attack on Catholicism, or any of a number of other lousy ideas. Instead, Doubt is a riveting, emotionally buffeting, engrossing, moving film of great moral complexity and subtlety.
Movie Review: God is in the details . . . . Spoiler Alert!
Summary: 5 Stars
After reading all of the reviews for the film, DOUBT, I am amazed at how many people did not comprehend the complexity of this film. To really understand this film, the viewer must note the small, quiet details of this story. For example, examine the scene in which Sister Aloysius is eating with the other nuns in the school cafeteria. Notice that she is not eating but instead is taking some medicine (probably aspirin) and drinking only water. She does not comment on how she is feeling like most people would do. Instead she is carefully monitoring the entire cafeteria full of rowdy students, while helping the blind nun sitting next to her clean off her sleeves and conversing with Sister James about the welfare of a student.
Most people think that unselfishness and goodness should be wreathed in benevolent smiles and warm hugs. But I invite everyone to look below the surface of the behavior of all of the major characters in this story: Sister Aloysius, Sister James, Father Flynn, and Mrs. Miller. Where in this film does Sister Aloysius place her own welfare above anyone else in the school? It is so easy to characterized her as a "witch" or a "harpy," but I urge you to reconsider the entire situation regarding the young boy Donald Miller. Unlike a public school, a private school does not have to accept just anyone. Since Sister Aloysius is the school's principal, she probably was instrumental in allowing Donald to attend her school. She reveals that she had anticipated trouble in integrating her school by telling Sister James that she thought she would have to talk to several parents about their children. She knows her people: working class Irish and Italian folks who clearly were not going to relish their children attending school with a black student. (If you do not believe me then you should watch the South Chicago and Boston segments of "Eyes on the Prize".) Sister Aloysius's school was not under any court order to integrate like many public schools were in the 1960's and 1970's. When she wonders about the placement of Donald in the Christmas pageant, she is not trying to denigrate him; she is trying to protect the child. She is aware of the racist sentiments of her parents and students. She is a realist-- not a racist. She never once shows any prejudice towards Donald or his mother. When Mrs. Miller tells her that she is interrupting work to visit the school, Sister Aloysius immediately realizes the difficulty that a working class parent has in leaving their job during the day in order to attend a school conference. Most bosses in 1960's-- and even today are not supportive of a parent's need to take off work sometimes. Further, she closely watches the other students' interactions with Father Flynn. The most damning evidence she has is the way in which William London shows such repugnance at Father's Flynn's gesture of clasping his wrist. When the William jerks away, Father Flynn personally ridicules the child in front of his school mates. Yes, Sister Aloysius is abrupt, intimidating, and harsh with her students, but she does not personally insult them in front of their friends like Father Flynn does. Later, Father Flynn is regaling his fellow priests with a story about "a fat girl" or "her fat mother." He is being unkind and curiously hostile in his attitude toward women. Think about how damaging to a young girl's psyche it would be to be called fat by a popular authority like a priest-- especially in the 1960's before anyone began to question the morals and hypocrisy of SOME of the priests in the Catholic Church. Pay attention to what Father Flynn really does and says. He knows that Donald is being severly punished by his father. Why doesn't he visit with Donald's parents? According to Mrs. Miller, he never talks to her personally, which is strange since Father Flynn is taking such a personal interest in this student.
There is little ambiguity to this play if you are used to observing the behavior of people as a part of your job. Nurses, teachers, police officers, EMS workers, forensic investigators, lawyers, counselors, and so on are all students of human behavior. As a person spends their life working in one of these fields, an instinct for what is "normal" and "abnormal" behavior develops. Sister Aloysius says that "she knows people"-- and I believe her. She tells Sister James about another priest that she worked with in the past that had to be removed. She has witnessed evil up close, and it has certainly marked her as it marks anyone who comes into contact with it.
Watch the film again and notice where Donald Miller is sitting in the classroom and where Sister Aloysius finds the ballpoint pen. Is it possible that the pen came from Father Flynn? Maybe? True there is mainly circumstantial evidence against Father Flynn, but if you really want to know the truth of this story re-examine William London's reactions throughout the film and how Father Flynn ingratiates himself with the young boys at the school. Notice how quickly he gives up Donald Miller to save himself. He could have protected the boy by refusing to talk to her. He could have told her that the conversation was confidential between a priest and the confessor. He is Sister Aloysius's boss. In the 1960's no one questioned a priest, so why does he reveal this vulnerability? Like she asks Father Flynn, "Why do you care?" Sister Aloysius is a dragon or a gatekeeper or protector of her kingdom. It is an exhausting and thankless role that only some people have the personal courage and true empathy to undertake. Protectors must be fierce in the face of evil-- especially intelligently manipulative and ingratiating evil like a pedophile. At the end when she confesses that she has "doubts", she is like any weary warrior wondering why she fights so persistently to protect the weak and the innocent in a universe in which God allows evil to flourish and prosper. Finally, as I watched this film I was reminded of one of my favorite poems that so clearly echoes this film's message:
Those Winter Sundays
BY ROBERT E. HAYDEN
Sundays too my father got up early
and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,
then with cracked hands that ached
from labor in the weekday weather made
banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.
I'd wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.
When the rooms were warm, he'd call,
and slowly I would rise and dress,
fearing the chronic angers of that house,
Speaking indifferently to him,
who had driven out the cold
and polished my good shoes as well.
What did I know, what did I know
of love's austere and lonely offices?
Through Sister Aloysius and Sister James, John Patrick Shanley reveals that true love is selfless and dwells in the smallest details of life.
Movie Review: Gossip Is Feathers On The Wind
Summary: 5 Stars
"What do you do when you're not sure?" asks Father Flynn of his congregation at the inception of "Doubt", a film that centers on the doubt of the truth, doubt of faith, doubt of the nature of man and doubt of self while delving into the controversial dilemma of child molestation within the Catholic church and the church's efforts to cover it up. Winner of four Tony awards including Best Play in 2005, author John Patrick Shanley's superb story is one of the more smooth and succinct Broadway-to-Hollywood transitions to come along in a great while.
It is a blustery winter in 1964 at the St. Nicholas Catholic Church. Sister Aloysius (Streep), the principal of St. Nicholas Catholic primary school, presides over her students with fear and intimidation. Though stern and seemingly mirthless on the surface, Aloysius is empowered by the grace of God and believes in the saving of her student's minds and souls through discipline and contrition. Father Flynn (Hoffman), the new parish priest, views things differently, his friendly and newfangled approach bristling the staunchly traditional Sister Aloysius to a curious degree. She views him from the beginning with a critical gaze, his aim to change things rustling her old feathers considerably, but it isn't until he takes a special interest in Donald Miller (the school's one and only black student) that the seeds of doubt are planted in her mind. Sister James (Adams), a novice in her profession as well as in the ways of the world, thinks Flynn charming and believes his interest in Donald is with good intention. But time and experience have Sister Aloysius believing otherwise and she begins digging deeper for the truth, those seeds of doubt now taking root in her heart. All the while Flynn rebukes her interrogations but oddly enough does everything except proclaim his innocence. The peripatetic winds that Sister Aloysius complains of begin to mount in their intensity the further she prods into the situation, and when she and Flynn finally confront one another, a literal and figural storm has brewed, their fury towards one another brilliantly underscored by the blinding flash of lightning and the menacing roll of thunder from the heavens above them.
"Doubt", much like its title, creeps into the subconscious, festering, and it is a masterpiece in all its subtleties, particularly its use of visual metaphor. Whereas other films practically beat you over the head with suspense, "Doubt" whispers it in your ear, its calm, hushed tone provoking a more attentive eye and ear to its proceedings. With John Patrick Shanley serving as writer and director for the adaptation of his successful stage play, "Doubt" remains nearly 100% intact and fully realized according to Shanley's vision. Foregoing visual effects and tricky camera angles, the play's impact and presence on a stage comes through on screen, the simplistic beauty of its cinematography and the focus on its small but superior cast making it an exquisite film that centers solely on its deeply dramatic story.
Each of the four roles is a labyrinthine ship commanded only by the best captain, and each actor navigates and mans their vessel with power and precision. It comes as no surprise that all four actors were nominated for Oscars (though none of them won) as well as a nomination for Shanley for his screenplay (which lost out to "Slumdog Millionaire", a HUGE upset in my humble opinion). Adams nails the wide-eyed innocence of Sister James and offers a quiet intensity while Streep glowers, smirks and steadfastly barrels through as Sister Aloysius. Hoffman imbues Flynn with an intriguing mixture of mischief and tenderness while at the same time suggesting with a glint of his eye a covertness that Sister Aloysius immediately detects. Though Davis is only present for two scenes in the film's 104-minute runtime (one in which she doesn't even have any lines), her small role as Mrs. Miller is sublime, made memorable in her capable hands; she even manages to make one forget that a powerhouse like Streep is standing right there with her.
This single disc DVD edition comes with some interesting extras, the most intriguing being a featurette entitled "Doubt: From Stage to Screen" in which Shanley shares his own thoughts and feelings about the play, its transition from stage to screen, commentary from its actors and an impromptu interview he conducted with Streep. Shanley chose to shoot the film in the neighborhood he himself grew up in, centering his outdoor shots on the very intersection where he attended Catholic school in the Bronx. He also managed to come into contact with Sister Margaret James (the very woman on whom the character Sister James is based) from the school he attended and she served as a technical advisor on the film, helping Streep and Adams with the application of their habits and rosaries. "The Cast of Doubt" is a casual sit down with the four main actors, "Scoring Doubt" reviews composer Howard Shore's inspiration for the film's music and "The Sisters of Charity" offers an enlightening background on the origin of the Sisters of Charity of New York and the humbling, often thankless work of the nuns.
Bottom line: Truly one of the best films of 2008, "Doubt" will leave a lasting impression on viewers who crave a good, absorbing drama that offers them the opportunity to form many different interpretations from its complex story.
Movie Review: 4 ½+ Stars: Powerful Performances will Make You "Doubt"...
Summary: 5 Stars
Based on the award-winning play and adapted for the screen by John Patrick Shanley, who also directs this film, "DOUBT" is a riveting, powerful film full of raw emotional drama that registers as something truly worthy of praise. It has been made outstanding by the exceptional performances that would give you goose bumps and enough meat to talk about after the first viewing. It is just a film almost impossible to ignore with its superb direction, beautiful but simple cinematography--truly an awesome blend of solid storytelling and powerful performances. I was truly awed.
A year after the Kennedy assassination, in a Catholic church with a school in its grounds, Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is a progressive priest with ideas that defy tradition. Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) is a traditional nun who is also the school's principal, who believes in protecting and preserving known rules and old-school beliefs. The two are meant for a battle of wills and on the sidelines is naïve sister James (Amy Adams). When Sister James brings her observations to Sister Aloysius about the things she had seen about a lone African-American student, Donald. The school principal is pushed to believe that Father Flynn may have an undesirable relationship with the young student, without the benefit of solid evidence. Flynn denies the charges that leads the elder nun to pursue an audience with Donald's mother (played by Viola Davis), leaving Sister James confused and the matter eating away at her conscience...
I know what you're thinking--who is right and who is wrong? Did Flynn really molest the boy? With the film's very strong Catholic overtone, the direction presents a very suffocating screenplay. Both Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius appear to have the best interests of the boy in mind, both characters are sympathetic and believable; even Sister James have her heart in the right place. I suppose if there are any bad guys in this film, it would be our own PERCEPTION. It sends us to a wild moody set piece that bring us to the uttermost places of uncertainty.
Catholic authority is also somewhat called into play as this church is obviously one divided by gender (as illustrated with the separate scenes of social intermingling at dinner). One may think that Aloysius has the motivation to grab power from Flynn, the script effectively represents the psychological dissertation between our two main characters. The film goes into the opposing viewpoints--things that need to be changed within the confines of the rectory and things that need preserving. It was a nice to touch to see Aloysius annoyed when Flynn wanted sugar in his tea. Both sides have a point, but it is difficult to take a side and nor does Shanley point an accusing finger. The dialogue is very strong and the material is well structured; the screenplay is very enthralling as it takes the viewer to behavioral actions that provokes our curiosity. Director Shanley also takes a look at the premise and methodically shows the larger picture, at the same time it kept on generating a strong uneasy feeling that can get under your skin.
The lingering suspicion is powerfully played to its fullest and I will be honest, it is driving me crazy. The excellently staged exchanges of dialogue between Streep and Hoffman are truly awe-inspiring. I have always loved both performers and this movie just justifies my reasons as to why. The more they bicker and argue the more the truth becomes cloudy. The two have good reason to protect the details from each other's eyes, and I have to commend the script by Shanley; he obviously chose the words carefully--with the sole purpose of confusing, provoking our senses and engaging the viewer in its sequences.
Aside from Hoffman and Streep's exchanges, there is also a very emotionally charged exchange with Mrs. Miller (Viola Davis), Donald's mother. That scene almost made my jaw drop as I was very moved with their conversation. Donald is a child with a huge problem--is Father Davis helping or is he taking advantage? Sister James doesn't think so after she had a conversation with Father Flynn in the garden. Amy James does feel a little too ditzy, and I guess that is just the way her character needed to be portrayed. The film is just a marvelous roller coaster of emotional exchanges and when you have such performers as Hoffman and Streep, you will have to prepare to be absolutely impressed.
"Doubt" has marvelous writing that fabulously challenges the viewer to question and well, "doubt" the film's resolution. Shanley made a wise move in not dissecting the truth, and express the insidiousness of rumors and gossip. It also makes a bold statement about faith, tradition and trust that sometimes we need to listen and restrain our potential for damaging perceptions; and Shanley amazingly does so without discrediting religion. "Doubt" is a powerful motion picture since I am certain that I will be pondering its final act long after the end credits stop rolling. Those who like their moral dramas with an absolute resolution may be a little disappointed, but for those who doesn't mind pondering what they've seen are in for a treat. I like films that leave me asking questions, it is a welcome departure from the usual Hollywood fare that spoon-feeds the answers.
Highly Recommended!! [4 ½+ Stars]