Here's something you might be interested in.
A few of my friends argued about Benjamin Buttons. Some thought it was the greatest movie ever. The ones that had half a brain, like myself, enjoyed it. But also realized it had many flaws.
I saw The Reader (it was in that category like Wedding Crashers...how could I not see it, considering what I do for a living). It was very disappointing. It was supposed to be this powerful Holocaust movie, that just doesn't pull it off.
And unlike Buttons, where you feel that 20 years have passed (that's what a nearly 3 hour running time will do)...this movie jumps 20 years, and it feels forced and unnatural.
Sure, seeing Kate Winslet naked, yet again, was great. And a scene with Lena Olin and Ralph Fiennes at the end, is wonderful. But the movie just doesn't work.
I was all prepared to hate Doubt. In the commercials, I had said to myself, "If Phillip Seymour Hoffman doesn't explain why he was with a boy in the other room, than we have no choice but to say he's guilty of what he is accused of."
I read two critics that I highly respect. Both of them had problems with Meryl Streep in this. That baffles me. She is amazing. As she is in everything.
And the best part is that isn't over the top. Much like Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratchet in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest....you'll have a tendency to think about Streeps character later, as if she was some kind of evil bitch. When in fact, she is stern. She isn't very nice. But it hardly makes her as evil as people think she is.
Amy Adams was great in the role of the young, naive teacher. And I laughed when I heard that actress Natalie Portman turned down the role because she "couldn't understand celibacy." That may be the stupidest reason ever to turn down a part.
Did Nicholson turn down The Shining because he couldn't understand killing people? He also took the part he won an Oscar for in Terms of Endermeant, when Burt Reynolds was offered it. And couldn't understand why they didn't want him wearing a toupee in it.
But I digress. Back to Doubt.
I loved the movie. Watching two amazing actors go back and forth, is so much fun.
But when I talked to my liberal lawyer friend the next day, we had the biggest argument about it. She's in some movie group, and they all felt it was vague on whether Hoffman abused the boy or not. I said, "Well...that's weird. Because the movie doesn't make it vague."
She claims it did, and we've had a two week argument about it.
Now, I'll be the first to complain about a movie that is vague. Or endings that are open ended, and require interpretation.
But I don't think this movie did that.
Here's why. In the commercial for the movies, they showed Hoffman not wanting to explain why he was with one of the boys in another room.
In the movie, we see that within seconds, he then does explain the situation. And it makes sense why he didn't want to say what happened (I can't say, or it would spoil the movie for those that haven't seen it).
When Streep calls in the boys mother (who is amazing, although she has a line that I don't think is very realistic)...Hoffman gets mad. Not because he fears being "caught". But because the boy has admitted his dad beats him.
When Streep wonders why he's gone from church to church the past five years, he says she can call his past parishes, and they'll explain.
When she questions being with the boy, he says you can talk to the boy. And, you also realize...Hoffman would've been smart enough not to call the boy out of class, where there would be lots of witnesses to this (including the teacher, that is the one that raises the first suspicions).
At the end, you think Hoffman has been drummed out by big, bad Streep. Then Adams returns from a visit with her sick brother, to find Hoffman gone (whom she had come to realize is probably innocent of these allegations). Streep is still her cold self, as she says she did what she had to do.
She then has some interesting news (spoiler alert): He has a new job, as the head of a boys school. It's actually a big promotion. So, in that minute, we realize he wasn't fired. He left for a bigger, better job.
Streep than shocks us by balling her eyes out, saying she has doubts.
Now, one argument I've had with a few people (like a guy at a party last night)...was him thinking she meant that Streep has "doubts about her faith." I totally disagree. She hasn't brought up her faith. And she's talking ONLY about Hoffman.
But, I think her saying she has "doubts" means that she was completely wrong. Her character was so strong, that if she merely had doubts as to whether Hoffman abused a boy, she wouldn't cry. She'd say "Oh well. I'd do the same thing over again if I suspect someone of abusing a child. Maybe he'll learn a lesson from all this."
Instead, she cries. She realizes that spreading a rumor and lying to get him fired, isn't the right thing to do. Especially when she jumped the gun on the whole thing.
My lawyer friend disagrees. And we've been arguing about it since.
But what gets me so frustrated with the argument, is she'll say things like "In the play, you are supposed to be left wondering if he did abuse the kid." She's also brought up, "The guy that wrote the screenplay had a priest that befriended him. That priest was later arrested for abusing boys."
I really don't give a crap! We are watching a movie. We aren't wondering how the book did it, or the play, or real life. It's only the characters we've seen on the screen.
And I'll be the first to say, I think you are "guilty, until proven innocent." That's the logic I go by with people that are accused of things.
And in this case, I think he proved his innocence. I don't see how anyone can see it differently.
A few of my friends argued about Benjamin Buttons. Some thought it was the greatest movie ever. The ones that had half a brain, like myself, enjoyed it. But also realized it had many flaws.
I saw The Reader (it was in that category like Wedding Crashers...how could I not see it, considering what I do for a living). It was very disappointing. It was supposed to be this powerful Holocaust movie, that just doesn't pull it off.
And unlike Buttons, where you feel that 20 years have passed (that's what a nearly 3 hour running time will do)...this movie jumps 20 years, and it feels forced and unnatural.
Sure, seeing Kate Winslet naked, yet again, was great. And a scene with Lena Olin and Ralph Fiennes at the end, is wonderful. But the movie just doesn't work.
I was all prepared to hate Doubt. In the commercials, I had said to myself, "If Phillip Seymour Hoffman doesn't explain why he was with a boy in the other room, than we have no choice but to say he's guilty of what he is accused of."
I read two critics that I highly respect. Both of them had problems with Meryl Streep in this. That baffles me. She is amazing. As she is in everything.
And the best part is that isn't over the top. Much like Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratchet in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest....you'll have a tendency to think about Streeps character later, as if she was some kind of evil bitch. When in fact, she is stern. She isn't very nice. But it hardly makes her as evil as people think she is.
Amy Adams was great in the role of the young, naive teacher. And I laughed when I heard that actress Natalie Portman turned down the role because she "couldn't understand celibacy." That may be the stupidest reason ever to turn down a part.
Did Nicholson turn down The Shining because he couldn't understand killing people? He also took the part he won an Oscar for in Terms of Endermeant, when Burt Reynolds was offered it. And couldn't understand why they didn't want him wearing a toupee in it.
But I digress. Back to Doubt.
I loved the movie. Watching two amazing actors go back and forth, is so much fun.
But when I talked to my liberal lawyer friend the next day, we had the biggest argument about it. She's in some movie group, and they all felt it was vague on whether Hoffman abused the boy or not. I said, "Well...that's weird. Because the movie doesn't make it vague."
She claims it did, and we've had a two week argument about it.
Now, I'll be the first to complain about a movie that is vague. Or endings that are open ended, and require interpretation.
But I don't think this movie did that.
Here's why. In the commercial for the movies, they showed Hoffman not wanting to explain why he was with one of the boys in another room.
In the movie, we see that within seconds, he then does explain the situation. And it makes sense why he didn't want to say what happened (I can't say, or it would spoil the movie for those that haven't seen it).
When Streep calls in the boys mother (who is amazing, although she has a line that I don't think is very realistic)...Hoffman gets mad. Not because he fears being "caught". But because the boy has admitted his dad beats him.
When Streep wonders why he's gone from church to church the past five years, he says she can call his past parishes, and they'll explain.
When she questions being with the boy, he says you can talk to the boy. And, you also realize...Hoffman would've been smart enough not to call the boy out of class, where there would be lots of witnesses to this (including the teacher, that is the one that raises the first suspicions).
At the end, you think Hoffman has been drummed out by big, bad Streep. Then Adams returns from a visit with her sick brother, to find Hoffman gone (whom she had come to realize is probably innocent of these allegations). Streep is still her cold self, as she says she did what she had to do.
She then has some interesting news (spoiler alert): He has a new job, as the head of a boys school. It's actually a big promotion. So, in that minute, we realize he wasn't fired. He left for a bigger, better job.
Streep than shocks us by balling her eyes out, saying she has doubts.
Now, one argument I've had with a few people (like a guy at a party last night)...was him thinking she meant that Streep has "doubts about her faith." I totally disagree. She hasn't brought up her faith. And she's talking ONLY about Hoffman.
But, I think her saying she has "doubts" means that she was completely wrong. Her character was so strong, that if she merely had doubts as to whether Hoffman abused a boy, she wouldn't cry. She'd say "Oh well. I'd do the same thing over again if I suspect someone of abusing a child. Maybe he'll learn a lesson from all this."
Instead, she cries. She realizes that spreading a rumor and lying to get him fired, isn't the right thing to do. Especially when she jumped the gun on the whole thing.
My lawyer friend disagrees. And we've been arguing about it since.
But what gets me so frustrated with the argument, is she'll say things like "In the play, you are supposed to be left wondering if he did abuse the kid." She's also brought up, "The guy that wrote the screenplay had a priest that befriended him. That priest was later arrested for abusing boys."
I really don't give a crap! We are watching a movie. We aren't wondering how the book did it, or the play, or real life. It's only the characters we've seen on the screen.
And I'll be the first to say, I think you are "guilty, until proven innocent." That's the logic I go by with people that are accused of things.
And in this case, I think he proved his innocence. I don't see how anyone can see it differently.