Review of Doubt (2008) by Filipeneto — 09 Aug 2021

I confess that I had no idea what I was going to see when I picked up this movie. I have to start by saying that I am a Catholic, a practitioner, and my work puts me in direct contact with the priests and the church, so this is an environment I know reasonably well. And what I saw in this movie is truly good, and to me, it's a story that almost sounds believable... and I'm going to explain why that doesn't happen.

The story begins in a Catholic college, where a superior nun imposes a rigorous, and sometimes retrograde, discipline and organization. In fact, the passage of time and the demands of modernity impose themselves, but she doesn't want to hear them. Despite her severity, she truly believes she does what's right for her students, and she cares about them. And that care will lead her to investigate the community priest, who is her hierarchical superior, when she senses that his affection for one of the students is going beyond the limits of normality.

The script is really good, and the whole story is engaging and works well. However, there are things that really didn't convince me, especially as I am a person who knows the ins and outs of the Church well. Starting, from the outset, with the inquisitive and intimidating attitude of that nun towards a priest. She has no proof, she doesn't know what really happened, she's just guessing, and he's on the defensive when he could perfectly well demand hard evidence or threaten her with a serious conversation with the local bishop. In real life, I don't see this happening at all. What's more: the film never makes it clear to us whether there really was an improper relationship between the priest and the young student... this is on purpose, I understand the intent, but it's an annoying dramatic feature.

The strong point of the film, and I think this is something that everyone will agree on, is the cast and the way it behaves and works. The film is a nest of stars, full of well-known and extremely competent actors, giving their best and providing us with performances that are, in a word, extraordinary. The highlight goes, of course, to Meryl Streep, an actress who already has such a cinematic record that this film becomes a minor work, without this meaning that it is a less remarkable work. She's almost always fine, and when she's not (I would negatively highlight the final scenes of the film, totally at odds with everything we've seen before) I'd say it's the fault of the script and the material received. Philip Seymour Hoffman also shone in the role of priest, and Amy Adams looked credible as an emotional young nun. Far less interesting, the role of Viola Davis seems to me to have been overvalued. She's good, but she hardly appears in the movie apart from a single dialogue.

Technically, it's a low-key movie. A restrained but competent cinematography, discreet but effective directing and editing. The film has good sets and costumes, and the period environment is recreated convincingly and realistically enough. The soundtrack doesn't stand out either. The space is entirely up to the actors to shine.