Thank God Meryl Streep can act

It’s 1964, St. Nicholas in the Bronx. A vibrant, charismatic priest, Father Flynn (Academy Award® winner Philip Seymour Hoffman), is trying to upend the schools’ strict customs, which have long been fiercely guarded by Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Academy Award® winner Meryl Streep), the iron-gloved Principal who believes in the power of fear and discipline. The winds of political change are sweeping through the community, and indeed, the school has just accepted its first black student, Donald Miller. But when Sister James (Academy Award® nominee Amy Adams), a hopeful innocent, shares with Sister Aloysius her guilt-inducing suspicion that Father Flynn is paying too much personal attention to Donald, Sister Aloysius sets off on a personal crusade to unearth the truth and to expunge Flynn from the school. Now, without a shard of proof besides her moral certainty, Sister Aloysius locks into a battle of wills with Father Flynn which threatens to tear apart the community with irrevocable consequence.

The general consensus about Doubt: John Patrick Shanley should stick to the stage and Meryl Streep is a huge badass, even as a nun. Don't get me wrong, Shanley didn't ruin anything, the film, overall, is a success. It was the overabundance of exaggerated camera angles and the focus on less than inconspicuous symbols that bothered me. Call me whatever you'd like, but I prefer a film to translate thematic symbolism with a little more subtlety, not for the director to mercilessly bang it over my head like a bad Love Actually remake. The fim survives upon the shoulders of Streep and an excellent performance by Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

Honestly, you don't even need a watchful eye to understand what I'm getting at with Shanley. It may take a few scenes, but I have a feeling that after you see Streep and Amy Adams stand in the same place for eight hours at a time and exchange dialogue, it won't come as a shock that this thing was first a little old play. And there is nothing wrong with that. Obviously, there have been hundreds upon hundreds of plays adapted for the big screen and have had little problem doing so. Unfortunately, Doubt doesn't take advantage of technology and the many other wonders the film industry has to offer. Not only that, but the actors are staged in a way during the film where you could take them off the set and onto the stage and it would be showtime (witty, I know). But perhaps that's part of the film's draw...? I'm not sure. The simple nature of the whole thing is rather effective: no booming orchestrations, a short list of locations, camera work that compliments acting versus drowning it; the performances and the screenplay itself are highlighted in the film, not unncessary embroidery that might have otherwise distracted from the text. Again, I don't know. I could have used a bit more movie and less play, since that's what I payed for, and, of course, since watching a play would mean I'd need to change out of my sweatpants and stop chomping on my popcorn like a wildebeast.

But like I said, Doubt has a lot it should be praised for as the well-made piece of art that it is. Effortlessly, it makes you despise the venomous Sister Aloyisus (Streep) for her stolid, cold nature, but then causes you, not a minute later, to question Father Flynn's (Hoffman) innocence and consequently appreciate that someone was keeping a watchful eye on things. Another nice thing about the film is that it's rather short and sweet (and by sweet, I mean rather serious and pretty deep). There are only a few good moments to get up and use the bathroom or refill your popcorn, and even getting up during those means you run the risk of missing Viola Davs' two second long, oscar-nominated performance. The woman is amazing and shows that it doesn't take loads of screentime to be recognized. With the film being only 100 minutes long, I could even bring my favorite movie-hating friends along and they would probably survive.

All in all, Doubt was more than likely made for the purpose of winning Oscars. Throw a bunch of good performances in there that involve a lot of yelling and stage theatrics and there you have it. But I can't say the movie isn't powerful or effective in the telling of a well-written psychological thriller, because it is. The film leaves you wondering about more than a man's innocence, and that's what makes it far more than your average Saturday afternoon yawn at the cinema.