The problem I had with the film version of DOUBT is that I didn't feel as strongly as I did when reading and seeing the stage play that there WAS any "doubt." As an educator, I chalk this experience up as a perfect study in the differences between the mediums of stage and screen. The profound differences between the two are much more obvious with DOUBT, I feel, than with any other stage to screen adaptation I can think of in recent memory. All of this added up to a bit of a let-down for me.
Make no mistake about it, you will not see better acting performancs in any other movie this year than you will see here. It's a wonderful reminder of the fact that special effects are not needed to captivate audiences when you have the likes of Streep, Hoffman, Adams and Davis, all four of whom deserve Oscar nominations.
Rather, the problems with DOUBT the movie are all with regards to the medium of film. In particular, close-up shots provide us with such an intimate look at people's faces that the ambiguity of intentions created by the physical distance between actors on stage and us in the audience is completely erased. Therefore, I didn't get the chance to consider Hoffman's priest as potentially innocent when I saw up close Hoffman's shifty eyes.
John Patrick Shanley deserves praise for expanding his own play to film proportion by adding in some nice moments of humor and not destroying what already existed. The script, as well, is Oscar-worthy.
He errs, however, in direction. And this is DOUBT's greatest flaw. Its direction is Film School 101. It's as if Shanley read a textbook -- not knowing how to direct fot the screen -- and implemented everything he read. Dutch angle shots are anything but subtle, overplayed and held for far too long....oooh! something bad is about to happen! Thunder claps, heavy rain, bursting lightbulbs and a cawing crow are all heavy-handed moments of symbolism. You can't miss them. There is no subtlety here. Angle shots for superiority/inferiority, and so on. The just wasn't any nuance, and I was quite disappointed with that.
DOUBT is TOTALLY worth your time. You should remember that my disappointment is based largely in my extensive familiarity with this piece. I have read it, seen it on stage, directed scenes from it, and now seen the film. So I can tell you that the movie strips the show of some of its power and magic.
And what I missed most here was the lack of moral ambiguity. Streep and Hoffman are such strong actors that, up close, I didn't have as much doubt myself. And without spoiling the film's closing scene, I can only justify Streep's acting choice by assuming that her character's doubts at the end are doubts in the Catholic church. There would be no other viable explanation. With the play, we doubted that Sister Alouicious made the right choice. Here, she conviced in her utter certainty, while Cherry Jones did more to sugest vulnerability. And the sacrifice was the feeling that I had walking out of the play, the feeling after which the story is named.
Fantastically acted, poorly directed. Maybe THAT's the new conflict created in me after seeing this DOUBT.
3.0 out of 4
Make no mistake about it, you will not see better acting performancs in any other movie this year than you will see here. It's a wonderful reminder of the fact that special effects are not needed to captivate audiences when you have the likes of Streep, Hoffman, Adams and Davis, all four of whom deserve Oscar nominations.
Rather, the problems with DOUBT the movie are all with regards to the medium of film. In particular, close-up shots provide us with such an intimate look at people's faces that the ambiguity of intentions created by the physical distance between actors on stage and us in the audience is completely erased. Therefore, I didn't get the chance to consider Hoffman's priest as potentially innocent when I saw up close Hoffman's shifty eyes.
John Patrick Shanley deserves praise for expanding his own play to film proportion by adding in some nice moments of humor and not destroying what already existed. The script, as well, is Oscar-worthy.
He errs, however, in direction. And this is DOUBT's greatest flaw. Its direction is Film School 101. It's as if Shanley read a textbook -- not knowing how to direct fot the screen -- and implemented everything he read. Dutch angle shots are anything but subtle, overplayed and held for far too long....oooh! something bad is about to happen! Thunder claps, heavy rain, bursting lightbulbs and a cawing crow are all heavy-handed moments of symbolism. You can't miss them. There is no subtlety here. Angle shots for superiority/inferiority, and so on. The just wasn't any nuance, and I was quite disappointed with that.
DOUBT is TOTALLY worth your time. You should remember that my disappointment is based largely in my extensive familiarity with this piece. I have read it, seen it on stage, directed scenes from it, and now seen the film. So I can tell you that the movie strips the show of some of its power and magic.
And what I missed most here was the lack of moral ambiguity. Streep and Hoffman are such strong actors that, up close, I didn't have as much doubt myself. And without spoiling the film's closing scene, I can only justify Streep's acting choice by assuming that her character's doubts at the end are doubts in the Catholic church. There would be no other viable explanation. With the play, we doubted that Sister Alouicious made the right choice. Here, she conviced in her utter certainty, while Cherry Jones did more to sugest vulnerability. And the sacrifice was the feeling that I had walking out of the play, the feeling after which the story is named.
Fantastically acted, poorly directed. Maybe THAT's the new conflict created in me after seeing this DOUBT.
3.0 out of 4
No comments:
Post a Comment