Doubt Review

Overall Grade: A-

It is no secret to those that know me that Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman are my favorite working actors today. Many of you have heard the rumors, and yes it is true that I have a mini-shrine (not in a blasphemy manner) dedicated to both the actors in my room (thank you Julie for that). So when I heard that they were both going to star in the same movie, I immediately took notice. When I heard that the film was about a possible pedophile priest (Hoffman) and a self-righteous nun (Streep), my expectations dramatically declined. I thought to myself, “Should I really expect an even-handed treated of religion and the church from left-wing Hollywood?” So it was with great reservations that I approached Doubt.

As it turns out, Doubt is one of the more even handed and thoughtful movies I have seen all year. The writer/director John Patrick Shanley (who also wrote the original broadway play of Doubt), eschews broad generalization and consistently surprised me with balanced characterizations. For those unaware, Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Father O’Flynn, a priest, who is eventually suspected of molesting one of his students. Meryl Streep plays Sister Aloysius, principal of St. Nicholas School. The film chronicles Streeps investigation and discussion (more like interrogation) into the possible molestation.

Here it would be easy to demonize either the priest or the nun, making Streep on a self-righteous witch hunt or Hoffman a unrighteous homosexual masquerading as a man of god. Instead, Shanley uses this tendency to generalize as an opportunity for a discussion. Instead of allowing us to just sneer at Streep’s conservatism, her views are turned into the basis for an argument of several issues, one being justice vs. mercy. For although the progressives (Amy Adams and Hoffman) are arguing for more mercy and friendliness in the classroom, the film is willing to allow Streeps discipline a fair hearing.

In one particular moment, Sister James (played well by Amy Adams) bursts out against Streep saying something along the lines of, “You run this place like a prison and treat the students like they are inmates”. In any other movie, the scene would have ended quickly thereafter, our underdog getting a verbal throwdown in and our audience getting a chance to release our frustration with Streep and her self-righteousness. However, Doubt lets the scene play out a little longer, giving Streep a chance to bring some levity to the conversation, asking Adams bluntly, “Do you really think the students are treated as inmates?” To which Adams must reply, “No, they actually seem quite happy, but it wouldn’t hurt to be more friendly.” In this way, Shanley cuts through easy victories over straw men and allows the viewer to truly engage in a discussion of the two views.

The film is full of moments like those, and added all together they compose a wonderful film. Streep and Hoffman (you should play a drinking game with how many times their name appears in this review) give performances full of passion, power, and small characterizations. Their work here is as good as anything they have done before. Even though it may seem like fawning, I recommend that you pay particular attention to the scenes between Hoffman and Streep. The way they use the space in the room and the objects in the room to convey their current emotion and status during the discussion. Their expressions, and the control of their eye movements in particular are really quite astounding. I don’t want to give much more away about the film, because I think that half the enjoyment of the film is not knowing what issues they cover until its brought up (at least it was for me). Viola Davis, in a small but especially powerful turn, adds an unexpected and great head scratcher of an issue just near the end of the film.

Doubt is not a epic drama, but it is a superbly acted story that requires the viewer to engage with its messages. Much has been said about Milk and its ability to politically inspire, but I would throw Doubt’s message out there as the most helpful to politics of our time. For sure there are things we can be certain of, but why not find unity in being open and honest about the doubts we do have, and things we are less than certain about? Although it seems paradoxical, a world in which we acknowledge our doubts and uncertainties might just be a world closer and unified.

Synecdoche, New York Review

Overall Grade: C+

It’s hard to review a movie like Synecdoche because the film is (even after my very best efforts) nearly indecipherable. Just twenty minutes in and the film already begins to tip us off that there will be some time twisting and funny tricks going on, but what eventually happens in the film is not at all what I was expecting. The time twisting isn’t in the flavor of Tarantino, Nolan, or even something Gilliam would do, its time twisting that doesn’t serve any purpose storytelling or narrative wise, its primarily thematic and character driven.

In other words, Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character says its only been days since his wife left him, when other characters say its been over a year. There are several instances where the movie plays with the ages, voices, and names of characters in order to achieve this same goal. One of the character’s houses are on fire during the duration of the film, something that is never made mention of by anyone at anytime. Is this because Hoffman was drugged like in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas or in a coma, or like in A Beautiful Mind to give us insight into how a disease works? Clearly not. So what exactly is it for?

This is probably the most frustrating aspect of the film for me. I don’t necessarily think that films should spell out completely what it is about, but at the same time, I don’t think that the film should feel so indecipherable and insular that it remains distant and hard to engage. Synecdoche definitely leans heavy on the undecipherable side. Clearly, there is a strong sense of nihilism that runs strong through this film. In fact, its this theme of nihilism that gives me my strongest Rosetta stone in trying to understand it. I feel like the movie is telling us that most of the things we experience in life (falling in love, falling out of love, grief, fear of death, selfishness, desire to love our kids, disappointment with others and life) is in reality vane and pointless. Synecdoche is not a film that endorses a nihilistic set of morals (although one could be extracted from it), but is more content to examine the meaningless of life and interpret it artistically. In this way, I think the movie has great merit.

However, your humble Part-Time Critic is more than willing to concede that there is probably much more merit to the film than I give it credit. In fact, there is probably mountains and mountains of meaning and purpose behind everything in the film. I, unfortunately, am not able to discern it.The fact that the movie doesn’t present a typical narrative and typical characters that presented me with a few likable features to them makes me hesitant to re-visit Synecdoche. It’s a disappointment for me because I am such a big Charlie Kaufman (he’s the writer of Synecdoche), with Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind being two of my favorite films.

I’ve read several reviews that call it a masterpiece and a new achievement in art. If that’s true (and it probably is), then it’s one of those odd abstract paintings that people read so much into, yet remain remote and messy to me. If any of what I have said sounds interesting to you, then I recommend a viewing. In fact, a good rule of thumb might be David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive, if you liked that, then you’ll get a kick out of this!

Anyone else seen this film that can help this Part-Time Critic out? Your thoughts are most welcome!