A forward thinking Priest and a disciplined Nun find themselves at odds with one another when it comes to religion, the school they teach at, and the children around them.
So this is one of my favorites of the marathon. Does Meryl Streep ever go wrong? I Doubt it. (No pun intended.) She is amazing, as is Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams. They all create this amazing dynamic that is so fun to watch. Although the plot is predictable, the questions that keep popping up through out and the dubious ending makes the movie so very likable.
Definitely a front runner in the game. Go see it!
**** Oscar Worthy
Rated PG-13 (thematic material)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
dibbmoviethoughts
+ **** Oscar Worthy + *** Must See + ** Rentable + * Not-a-Chance +
Posts
Follow us on Instagram
dibbmoviethoughts
Watch New Movie Trailers!
Blog Archive
Matt's Top Ten
- 10. Back to the Future
- 9. Ratatouille
- 7. How To Train Your Dragon
- 8. Toy Story 3
- 6. Raising Arizona
- 5. Finding Nemo
- 4. King Kong
- 3. Rudy
- 2. Star Wars: A New Hope
- 1. Jurassic Park
Mandy's Top Ten
- 10. Jaws
- 9. Raiders of the Lost Ark
- 8. It Happened One Night
- 7. Die Hard
- 6. The Sting
- 5. Rocky
- 4. It's a Wonderful Life
- 3. Raising Arizona
- 2. The Godfather
- 1. Gone With The Wind
Buy Tickets and See Box Office Scores
Contributors
Powered by Blogger.
6 comments:
"forward thinking priest"? Hardly
"Disciplined nun"? not quite enough, however "at odds with one another when it comes to religion...school...and the children" is a clear miss. This movie is about Doubt in all it's nuances and is beautifully simple in its presentation. The real story being told is predictable, but the ending is far from dubious, it is true to the plot and should resonate with even the most faithful of saints.
Whatever friend.
A: You don't want to give too much away in the synopsis--so I kept it simple and covered the basics.
and
B: It DOES have a dubious ending. Despite your convictions about what happened, nothing is ever revealed beyond her trap. It may lead you to believe one thing--but there is still no evidence. That is what makes it so great and creates more of a void to be filled with "Doubt".
I totally covered it.
Demerit.
I thought I might chime in as I went to this film with you both. First off, I have to say that Tyson’s point about the predictability of the story is true: it is a story we’ve all heard before. Also yes, it should resonate with everyone, no matter how strong your faith. Doubt is a universal feeling. However, that in itself doesn’t negate Mandy’s points that are clearly more about plot than themes. He was definitely a forward thinking priest, he wants parishoners and kids at the school to not live in fear of the clergy and Sisters. As an older nun, Meryl Streep’s character thinks this is ridiculous; she grew up in the church pre-Vatican II. (After Vatican II, Catholic practices transitioned more into teaching the ways of Christ, i.e. mercy over doctrine. Some people had trouble with that.) Although I am drawing from my Catholic background to make these assumptions, I think the film surmises that you go in knowing a little bit of the history of the Church. This is a classic tale of old way of thinking vs. new way of thinking.
Meryl Streep was a dicipinarian, and far more rigid than Phillip Seymour Hoffman. We saw them at odds with one another throughout the film. Even if you see the films themes as something more than this, it did happen, and is integral to the plot of the film. Also, the play this film is based on has a very dubious ending. With the magic of film editing the filmmakers are able to cut to things and try to give you clues thoughout the film. However, I still stand by my original opinion that no concrete conclusions were drawn and the ending is unresolved. Even if you take those clues to heart and draw your own conclusions, where you leave the characters at the end of the film is undoubtedly (pun intended) in a state of uncertainty.
Very long, sorry. This is why I don’t write reviews, I’m too wordy. :)
Marissa,
I hope you are willing to engage my thorough drubbing of your ideas. #1; Predictability related to the story line, not the retelling of child abuse by clergy, which will continue to produce stories as long as they continue to cover up abuse. #2; The movie is not about the progressive vs. conservative dichotomy within the catholic church. Consider a) That the movie name is “Doubt” not “Progression”, b) When S. Aloysius confronts F. Flynn, and F. Flynn asks if he was summoned to discuss the Christmas play or the allegation of abuse to Donald Muller, S. Aloysius does not mince words or cloud the issue, she specifically addresses the accusation, and the Christmas play (or the subject of a progressive church) is not even broached for the rest of the movie. #3 The motives of S. Aloysius are clearly identified. Yes, she is concerned about discipline, but even more so, she is concerned with the safety of the children. She even removes her trinket (I don’t know what you would call the beaded string holding the cross) in a symbolic gesture and also emphatically states, that she would rather leave the church than allow abuse to continue. F. Flynn wants it to be about progression, but this is an easy rouse to see beyond as he continuously backs into excuses to cover his evil deeds. Lastly #4, The only real doubts about the movie are regarding S. Aloysius. Does she doubt that her efforts to stop a child abuser were in vain because F. Flynn was actually promoted as a result (less likely in my observation), or does she doubt her own faith seeing as her conservative belief is a line in the sand her religion has already moved beyond. To the fact that F. Flynn was abusive, there is no doubt.
First off, I have to apologize to those visiting the blog to get a review of this film, as Tyson has given away a lot of the film down to action-by-action scene retelling, which is not the point of a review.
Second, drub away, my friend, but you still not only fail to negate my points, but you actually negate your own prior points. You had said, “The real story being told is predictable” and I was agreeing with you in that point. Whether or not you were referring to the church progression, the child abuse, or the ‘doubt’ is no matter. All exist, and are fairly familiar territory, therefore can be deemed for our purposes predictable.
In accordance, the progression of the Church is a big part of the SUBPLOT of this film. Yes, I do realize that the film is entitled “Doubt.” However, just because it is doesn’t mean that there aren’t any other storylines or back-story going on. Smaller, yes, but progression is still included in the film. You even admit to it when you say, ‘F Flynn wants it to be about progression.’ There it is. Progression: a part of the film. The film doesn’t have to be called “Progression” for that to be true. Instead, it is an underlying current that started the scene that you recount and has a lot to do with where these characters are coming from (not just within the scene but also in their lives.)
I never intended to discredit the main issue that drives the film, but you can’t negate that the parts I mentioned also exist. I said that their roles as Disciplinarian and Forward-thinking Priest were integral TO the plot, not that they WERE the plot. In your first posting, you alluded to the fact that neither of these characterizations applied to the film. Now, in your latest posting, you say that ‘Sister Aloysius is concerned with discipline’ and that ‘Father Flynn wants it to be about progression…’ I agree. Therefore, if these are in any way a part of what drives these characters and their objectives, then I stand by the characterizations as integral TO the plot of the film.
As for the scene you retell in gross detail: your retelling of such is pointless, as we never said that it didn’t happen or that it wasn’t a part of the main plot of the film. In such, your pointing out what happened in that scene doesn’t overrule our points about other aspects of the film.
****Spoiler Alert – do not continue reading if you haven’t seen the film****
You state that we leave Sister Aloysius doubting her actions. Yes, we do. You missed another possible reason for her doubt, and that is that she may doubt whether Father Flynn did anything wrong at all. She admits that she never called the school. Anyway, this doubt, no matter the reason, is what I meant by ‘leaving the characters in a state of uncertainty.’
May I just point out that we all liked this film; so all this banter is getting a little ridiculous. Yes, we can assume that Father Flynn MAY have done something wrong at a prior school. Separately, the few cuts of the blonde boy that we see in this film are not enough concrete evidence to assume that Father Flynn did anything wrong at this school. Even if you did reach that conclusion in your mind, it doesn’t mean that other viewers do.
What you, Tyson, are negating is the uncertainty we found in the ending. What we are negating is the clarity you found as the only viable reasoning of the ending. Although you see it as black and white, I now have to point out what you pointed out to me, and that is that the film is called, ‘Doubt.’ In that, you cannot negate that Amanda and I do not see it as so black and white. I am happy for you that you were able to reach such strong conclusions, but you cannot predict how all moviegoers will interpret the film. My roommate saw this film and did not think that Father Flynn did anything wrong or that any such conclusions were drawn. You did. I thought that it was meant for people to draw their own conclusions. There you go, three viewings, three different interpretations. I believe you call that ambiguity. You can’t argue our interpretations for the same reason I would never negate yours. I’m sure there are others who share your opinion, just like Amanda, my roommate Karin, and myself all saw the ending as uncertain. You can take from the film what you wish to. That’s what we are going back and forth with and feel so strongly about: our interpretations. Are you so obstinate that you cannot see the room for ‘Doubt’ in a film you so emphatically point out (in attempt to discredit my views) is entitled as such? If so, perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
(Just FYI, the “trinket” is a Rosary.)
I think there’s some tag teaming going on here. Dibb, there’s no need to coach Marissa, you can let her opine for herself, it’s all good clean fun, but I’m a bit honored that it takes two minds to attempt to argue with me. I wanted to keep my comments brief, because long-windedness is boring, but it will take some room to clear up your thoughts.
1) Comments to a movie review are entirely open to full disclosure of the movie. I’m not writing the review, I’m commenting that she missed the point of the movie.
2) That sounds like a concession.
3) I cannot see where the progression of the church is a significant subplot. That it is a veil Flynn hides behind is obvious, but beyond that there is just nothing to discuss. There’s no discussion of doctrine or theology. There’s no emphasis on the old vs. the new church outside of the brief discussion about the pageant, which Aloysius uses as a ploy to lure Flynn into the confrontation over his abuse, to which there is no doubt in Aloysius’ mind. Watch the movie again, she emphatically states this, unequivocally. You want it to be about progression, just as Sister James does, but it’s not, that much is perfectly clear. Aloysius thoroughly refutes this at the end of the first confrontation, communicating the real issue, so as to avoid confusion from the audience.
4) The logic in your fourth paragraph is a bit hard to follow as it circles around. Consider that they authors could have switched the roles of the nun and the priest and still have had the same story. Orthodox priest abuses children while progressive nun risks all to save the kids. You can still have the main element of doubt communicated without a second thought. If there was a point you want to make, let me know where I missed it.
5) This paragraph sounds like another concession
6) There are lots of conclusions you can draw about the film. That’s what makes it so well done. That’s probably one reason it won a Tony for best play. You could also say that Aloysius doubts her own faithfulness because she had to use a lie to trap Flynn. However the one thing that Aloysius does not doubt is Flynn’s guilt. Her actions and her words never communicate anything but a firm conviction which ends up being true. There are no evidences to back your conclusion.
7) Yes I like the film as well, but let’s not discredit the time and effort put in by Mandy and Matt to make these reviews by not discussing them with intelligence. And since you clearly have not considered all of the evidences of Flynns guilt, let me outline them in more detail.
a. One, The blond boy is a previous victim, this much is clear. He flinches at the beginning when touched by flynn, he uses a bloody nose to get out of school, He uses a ball point pen, like Flynn, he gives distant and fearfull looks at the dinner table, and at the end of the movie, he grins as Flynn leaves the parish for good.
b. Two, Donald Muller’s undergarments in Flynn’s possession? The alcohol on his breath after he was specifically summoned by Flynn for a private meeting in the rectory? Muller’s mother admitting that he’s homosexual and admitting that he is beaten at home for being one? The hug in the hallway? The tear in his eye when Flynn leaves the parish? Goodness, how can they make it any easier to deduce than that.
c. Third, and final, is Flynn’s own testimony to Aloysius in the second confrontation when Flynn is so distraught that he violates church policy and engages Aloysius in private. Not only does he fall for the trap that Aloysius sets (how ironic that he demands her to follow protocol when he is right then and there violating it), but he admits to being a repeat offender when he tells Aloysius that there are things that he’s cleared up with his pastor, and there are things he just cannot discuss. This point I didn’t think needed to be made it was so obvious, but perhaps you missed the dialog and need to see it again.
8) In you last paragraph I think we are of the same mind. The whole purpose of the movie is to provoke the thought of doubt, I think you are simply not considering the best evidences of the film, and therefore the best meanings. The reason I felt strongly enough to comment, was because the topic of doubt and religion are represented more eloquently than you seem to realize. I have, admittedly emphasized the differences in our views, not in spite, but just as Aloysius rebukes James for wanting to take the easy way out and not answer the hard questions, I wanted to provoke some discussion of deeper issues.
Thanks for clearing up the Rosary question.
Post a Comment