& a blog

doubt is an actor’s vehicle, a film of great performances, but without any real drive to its narrative. where philip seymour hoffman, meryl streep, and amy adams put in exceptional performances, they seem to be almost freestyling through a listless and contrived story-line. perhaps this artificiality has something to do with the fact the doubt was originally a play. all too often in fact, we are reminded of this fact by certain theatrical qualities in the film. things like details that are too over the head, or dialog that feels unnaturally narrativic. the worse of these offenses however, comes in the film’s conclusion, when the otherwise solid meryl streep breaks down and confesses “i have doubts…” in this overplayed moment, theatricality is on full display. unfortunately streep seems to forget that the camera is more intimate that the theatre, and we don’t need the overblown sell.

amy adams is the best thing in this movie. playin sister james, an 8th grade history teacher at the parochial school run by her convent, adams manages to mine the space of confusion, hybridity, and complexity between the two extremes played by hoffman and streep. on one side, hoffman’s father flynn speaks constantly of love and the need for compassion. his nemesis is streep’s oppressive-nun character, who runs the school “like a jail” from her position of power as the school’s principal. it is sister james, torn between the guilt of streep and the innocence of flynn that represents the moral focus of the film, the same focus experienced by the viewer and born out visually by adams. her struggle is ours, and she masterfully trips over her desire to exonerate father flynn even as she fears his guiltiness. her big blue eyes must be the most compelling thing in doubt, and like elijah wood’s portrayal of frodo baggins in the lord of the rings, it seems that all of her acting happens there.

doubt is a fair movie. what it lacks in an engaging story-line, it recuperates with its acting. for streep (the most academy-award nominated woman in history), adams, and hoffman, it will surely represent another opportunity to be lauded, nominated, and perhaps awarded for stand-out work. i must confess however, that given the real mediocrity of this movie, it seems slightly unfair that compelling roles in bad movies should or could be privileged over lesser acting in better movies. from where i stand, it seems to be like giving the mvp award to a team that went .500 when there were surely other players from winning and championship programs who really stepped up. then again, perhaps it is the actors who bring their films up that are more valuable than the one’s who simply fit into a complex machine of excellence.