Doubt is almost a great film, but it falls short on logic. The many 10/10 ratings seem to refer more to what the film *should* have been, than to what it turned out to be.
For me, the main problem is the trick that Meryl Streep's nun plays on Hoffman's priest - lying about calling a nun in his old parish. This seems to reveal with far too much certainty that the man is indeed guilty - of something. If he wasn't expelled from previous positions, why does he not question the (supposed) phone call more strongly? If we are to believe that the priest resigns simply because he feels unable to fight the slander, then we should hear him say so. Instead, we see only that he's running away; apparently, the nun's tactic has worked.
As a result, the nun ends up looking far too 'right,' and the ending sounding far too glib. There's no other explanation offered, no discussion of ramifications or possibilities. Could the priest's obvious good works excuse some wrongdoing? The question is not asked, nor answered. On the other hand, is the nun right to be malicious and inflexible, because in the end she accomplishes the correct result? Apparently she is, since any ill effects - especially on the naive younger nun - are not really delved into. (They're suggested in one scene, then abandoned. If there have been no ill effects, then clearly the older nun was right.)
So far, the film's point of view is clear as mud. (In fact, various reviewers here have come to entirely different conclusions. That's not Doubt; that's just vague.)
On top of all this there's the historical perspective. I was actually IN Catholic schools at about this time, and I happen to know the real guilty party, beyond any Doubt: it was the Church as an institution. The film seems prepared to tackle this issue, but again fails to carry through. We have the older nun, representing the stiff, traditional past. Contrasted with the priest, who reflects the much-needed modernization brought in by Pope John XXIII. Yet it's the priest who ends up in the wrong. What are we to make of this?
And what about Meryl Streep's character - who quite accurately represents generations of venomous, domineering nuns who terrorized small children - a legacy of institutionalized bullying that did easily as much harm overall as any priestly molestations. Do we hate her for the harm she does? Well, it's not really shown. She's right every time she deals with a child, and none show any obvious ill effects of her domination. (Though I would suggest that in fact the film's characterizations are accurate; Catholic schools tended to either crush children's will, or turn them into obnoxious rebels. Both outcomes are represented in the film, but the point of what we're seeing is not raised.)
With all this in mind, Streep's final cry of "Oh, I'm so wracked with doubt!" sounds very hollow indeed. What is she so doubtful about?? She has absolute certainty that the priest was guilty. Is she just agonizing over the methods she used to defeat him? Could it be that the *real* doubt in this movie is merely whether or not the ends justify the means?? If so, how disappointing, when so many other questions have been raised! And how uninteresting, given that no real ill effects of her tactics are shown.
Which brings us to the central dramatic failing of the film. The real pivotal character of this story is clearly that of the younger, naive nun. She is the only character that undergoes a major transformation, and hence begs to be spotlighted. Yet we are left entirely unclear as to how the events of the film have affected her. Has she been poisoned by the elder nun's harsh attitudes? Or has she absorbed the love and humor of the (possibly flawed) priest? Or, ultimately, can she find a middle course, that would show a way forward for the Church: due caution, tempered with a love that puts the children's welfare first? Unfortunately, the film's ending veers away from this, THE key question, and focuses on Streep's deeply uninteresting "Doubt."
It seems like Shanley set out to create one of those knife's-edge dramas, where difficult questions are raised but not given absolute answers. But at some point he slipped off, ending up not with ambivalence and "Doubt," but with logic that's just muddled. Or maybe the gaps were filled by material that ended up on the cutting room floor. I had the strong feeling the film wanted to be about fifteen minutes longer. A bit more exposition might have at least told us what we were supposed to be in Doubt *about.*
On the positive side, I'd say that the film looks terrific, and the (three!) main performances are brilliant - even though constrained by by Shanley's confused script.
For me, the main problem is the trick that Meryl Streep's nun plays on Hoffman's priest - lying about calling a nun in his old parish. This seems to reveal with far too much certainty that the man is indeed guilty - of something. If he wasn't expelled from previous positions, why does he not question the (supposed) phone call more strongly? If we are to believe that the priest resigns simply because he feels unable to fight the slander, then we should hear him say so. Instead, we see only that he's running away; apparently, the nun's tactic has worked.
As a result, the nun ends up looking far too 'right,' and the ending sounding far too glib. There's no other explanation offered, no discussion of ramifications or possibilities. Could the priest's obvious good works excuse some wrongdoing? The question is not asked, nor answered. On the other hand, is the nun right to be malicious and inflexible, because in the end she accomplishes the correct result? Apparently she is, since any ill effects - especially on the naive younger nun - are not really delved into. (They're suggested in one scene, then abandoned. If there have been no ill effects, then clearly the older nun was right.)
So far, the film's point of view is clear as mud. (In fact, various reviewers here have come to entirely different conclusions. That's not Doubt; that's just vague.)
On top of all this there's the historical perspective. I was actually IN Catholic schools at about this time, and I happen to know the real guilty party, beyond any Doubt: it was the Church as an institution. The film seems prepared to tackle this issue, but again fails to carry through. We have the older nun, representing the stiff, traditional past. Contrasted with the priest, who reflects the much-needed modernization brought in by Pope John XXIII. Yet it's the priest who ends up in the wrong. What are we to make of this?
And what about Meryl Streep's character - who quite accurately represents generations of venomous, domineering nuns who terrorized small children - a legacy of institutionalized bullying that did easily as much harm overall as any priestly molestations. Do we hate her for the harm she does? Well, it's not really shown. She's right every time she deals with a child, and none show any obvious ill effects of her domination. (Though I would suggest that in fact the film's characterizations are accurate; Catholic schools tended to either crush children's will, or turn them into obnoxious rebels. Both outcomes are represented in the film, but the point of what we're seeing is not raised.)
With all this in mind, Streep's final cry of "Oh, I'm so wracked with doubt!" sounds very hollow indeed. What is she so doubtful about?? She has absolute certainty that the priest was guilty. Is she just agonizing over the methods she used to defeat him? Could it be that the *real* doubt in this movie is merely whether or not the ends justify the means?? If so, how disappointing, when so many other questions have been raised! And how uninteresting, given that no real ill effects of her tactics are shown.
Which brings us to the central dramatic failing of the film. The real pivotal character of this story is clearly that of the younger, naive nun. She is the only character that undergoes a major transformation, and hence begs to be spotlighted. Yet we are left entirely unclear as to how the events of the film have affected her. Has she been poisoned by the elder nun's harsh attitudes? Or has she absorbed the love and humor of the (possibly flawed) priest? Or, ultimately, can she find a middle course, that would show a way forward for the Church: due caution, tempered with a love that puts the children's welfare first? Unfortunately, the film's ending veers away from this, THE key question, and focuses on Streep's deeply uninteresting "Doubt."
It seems like Shanley set out to create one of those knife's-edge dramas, where difficult questions are raised but not given absolute answers. But at some point he slipped off, ending up not with ambivalence and "Doubt," but with logic that's just muddled. Or maybe the gaps were filled by material that ended up on the cutting room floor. I had the strong feeling the film wanted to be about fifteen minutes longer. A bit more exposition might have at least told us what we were supposed to be in Doubt *about.*
On the positive side, I'd say that the film looks terrific, and the (three!) main performances are brilliant - even though constrained by by Shanley's confused script.