Movie review: Doubt

posted at 1:55 pm on December 31, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

One measure of a worthwhile film is whether it makes the audience think for longer than it takes to get out to the car. Bad and mediocre films are easily dismissable, but good films — even those with flaws — stick with viewers and demand further consideration. We went to see Doubt over the weekend, and I’m still considering how exactly I feel about it.

Set in the Bronx in 1964, the movie shows a power play between a younger, modern priest and a prickly, conservative nun running a Catholic school that has just admitted its first black student.  Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) distrusts Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his modernizing mentality, especially when it comes to how he interacts with the students.  She tells her staff to keep an eye on Flynn, and her youngest and most naive teacher, Sister James (Amy Adams) soon discovers something suspicious — or so she thinks.

This movie and the play on which it’s based evoke themes from some classic films, such as The Crucible and The Children’s Hour.  It also takes part of its central conflict from the headlines of the past decade involving the Catholic Church.  However, the film has a few surprises, and it will challenge the assumptions of viewers. As a Catholic, I had some doubts as to how the film would treat the church and religion in general, but I was not offended by anything I saw.  It tells no untruths, although some of the truths may be uncomfortable.

The performances are excellent.  I was expecially struck by Hoffman’s as the priest, who clearly starts off as the protagonist in this tale.  Streep and Adams give highly credible performances as nuns of different temperaments and different generations.  Viola Davis does well in a smaller but critical role of Mrs. Miller, the mother of the student at the center of controversy.  The interaction between the nuns and between the priests is a subtle but important aspect of this film, and the supporting cast hit its target in showing the contrasts.

I’d recommend the film, but it’s not light viewing.

Update:  The US Conference of Catholic Bishops gives Doubt a very good review.  Be warned: there are a couple of spoilers in this review.  (via Damian G in the comments)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I have not seen the play or the movie. It looks like one that will be seen probably via DVD or eventually on cable. I have heard the movie is flawed compared to the play, so that might be something to keep in mind.

Mr. Joe on December 31, 2008 at 2:04 PM

Isn’t this by the guy who wrote Alive! and Moonstruck? Because if so, it can’t be all bad. Moonstruck is one of the best “Catholic” movies ever made.

If you’re wondering about the habit/order, it looks to me like the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, founded in Maryland in the 1800s. Anyone?

fivefeetoffury on December 31, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Medved said it wasnt a typical catholic basher.
true?

Drunk Report on December 31, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Streep is not nude at any time in this film? Okay then.

whitetop on December 31, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Oh, I’m right :-)

http://www.scny.org/

fivefeetoffury on December 31, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Medved said it wasnt a typical catholic basher.
true?

Drunk Report on December 31, 2008 at 2:07 PM

I’d say he’s right on the money. It’s not a basher, but it does involve the scandals in the Church over the past several years, even though set in 1964. I don’t want to give anything away, but I’ll say that I thought it treated the subject honestly and fairly.

Ed Morrissey on December 31, 2008 at 2:10 PM

What a coincidence. I signed up earlier today at Amazon to be notified when the DVD becomes available.

Shy Guy on December 31, 2008 at 2:11 PM

OT: Russia is shutting off gas supplies to the Ukraine at 0700 GMT tomorrow. I’m glad I own natural gas companies!

lodge on December 31, 2008 at 2:12 PM

I heard good reviews but I don’t think I could stomach Meryl Streep. Others, are boycotting it in protest that Hoffman got to simulate banging Marsei Tomei. It’s a principle thang.

Blake on December 31, 2008 at 2:13 PM

I’m pleased to hear it’s not a Catholic basher even though I’m no large fan of the Catholic church. I sort of dismissed it as that when I saw the previews, “Oh great another chance for Hollywood to dump on religion and portray priests as pedophiles.”

I’ll be sure to add it to my Netflix queue when its on DVD.

bj1126 on December 31, 2008 at 2:15 PM

From the previews on TV, one would get the idea this is another movie about child-molesting priests.

After reading about it, I have no interests in it.

I’m sick of movies that deal with race.

The Civil War is over. Get. Over. It.

madmonkphotog on December 31, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Thanks Ed, as a Catholic I assumed this was just another hit piece on my religion but I think I’d like to see it now.

DCJeff on December 31, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Can’t stand Meryl Streep.

nazo311 on December 31, 2008 at 2:20 PM

As far as hollywood actors go, Philip Seymour Hoffman’s come a long way over the past decade. Meryl Streep never seems to have a poor performance. Most of hollywood failures transpire when they think their individual libtard political voice carrys weight.

I’ll wait for the DVD.

Rovin on December 31, 2008 at 2:23 PM

A ‘prickly conservative nun’,and Meryl Streep plays
the character,what possible could go wrong!

I can see an Academy Award for Merly Streep just for
taking on that role alone!

Looks like there will be a lot of gutsy movies coming
out from Hollywood now that Hopey will be Prez!

canopfor on December 31, 2008 at 2:24 PM

Are those really the hats nuns wore in 1964?
They make me not want to see the movie.

MayBee on December 31, 2008 at 2:26 PM

I utterly loved it. I decided it was worth seeing once I read the Catholic Church’s own review of the film.

And to those appalled by Streep: Get over it. This is one of her best roles in years.

Damian G. on December 31, 2008 at 2:26 PM

I love being Catholic. There is nothing like staking a claim and saying “I’m a Catholic, for better and for worse.” I take the historical good with the historical bad. The bad has been very bad, but the good has been astonishingly good.

When non-Catholic Christians do something goofy, like televangelism, all my protestant friends take themselves off the hook: “oh, that’s those other protestants, not us, so you see, we’re not like that, there are thousands of denominations, you see.”

This is a natural human reflex. Even political parties, like democrats, distance themselves from their bad eggs, which we see going on with the Blago mess. “That’s not us, that’s a lone wolf, a renegade, you can’t paint the democrat party with that brush.”

But I’m a Catholic, and I know that the history of my church is my history, I am linked to that history, and I don’t take myself off the hook. I’m embarrassed and shamed by the bad aspects, and the suffering is part of being a Catholic; many of the saints during the renewal periods in the middle ages, people like Bonaventure and Francis of Assisi, were humiliated by the errors of Church leaders, and considered that suffering a necessary burden.

And yet even against this background, I am overwhelmed with the unmistakable ray of light the Catholic Church has carried historically from generation to generation through the Eucharist. You’d have to be Catholic to understand, but I absolutely love this church. There’s a flame in her heart that the world, and even her own leaders at times, have been unable to extinguish.

jeff_from_mpls on December 31, 2008 at 2:26 PM

Not a religion basher? Are we sure this movie came from Hollywood?

rbj on December 31, 2008 at 2:35 PM

wonder what AllahP would think?

kirkill on December 31, 2008 at 2:36 PM

Cap’n Ed?
The play’s the thing. Shanley shredded the tense friction that practically leapt from the stage when he converted it to the screen… where a whole lot of scene chewing showdowns allowed both Hoffman and “Mrs. Mamma Mia” to go way over the top.

TC@LeatherPenguin on December 31, 2008 at 2:38 PM

Being a devout Catholic-Buddist-Methodist-Big Banger what I expect from the actor is different from what I expect from the director/producer/writer. The former I want to stay in role. The latter can do what they want. If it’s what I like I’ll rent the movie and send them some bucks. If not the actor starves and I could care less how well they stayed in character.

That big bunch of mumbo jumbo means I’ll rent it and take away whatever the hell I take away from it.

Limerick on December 31, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Is this the one where Streep sings, “Mamma Mia”? Whoops!
Never mind.
I love to see good drama done by great actors, so I might watch this one someday.
I hope that Amy Adams is as good here as she was in “Talledega Nights”.

Doug on December 31, 2008 at 3:08 PM

I read the synopsis for both the play and the film on Wikipedia.

Sounds like it has a fairly ambiguous ending where no one is sure if they did the right/correct thing.

If they wanted to do a movie based on child molesting priests, why not just do that instead of cloaking it in angst and ‘doubt’?

I don’t know…I haven’t read anything yet about the film that makes me the least bit interested in seeing it.

Religious_Zealot on December 31, 2008 at 3:20 PM

I love being Catholic. There is nothing like staking a claim and saying “I’m a Catholic, for better and for worse.” I take the historical good with the historical bad. The bad has been very bad, but the good has been astonishingly good.

When non-Catholic Christians do something goofy, like televangelism, all my protestant friends take themselves off the hook: “oh, that’s those other protestants, not us, so you see, we’re not like that, there are thousands of denominations, you see.”

This is a natural human reflex. Even political parties, like democrats, distance themselves from their bad eggs, which we see going on with the Blago mess. “That’s not us, that’s a lone wolf, a renegade, you can’t paint the democrat party with that brush.”

But I’m a Catholic, and I know that the history of my church is my history, I am linked to that history, and I don’t take myself off the hook. I’m embarrassed and shamed by the bad aspects, and the suffering is part of being a Catholic; many of the saints during the renewal periods in the middle ages, people like Bonaventure and Francis of Assisi, were humiliated by the errors of Church leaders, and considered that suffering a necessary burden.

And yet even against this background, I am overwhelmed with the unmistakable ray of light the Catholic Church has carried historically from generation to generation through the Eucharist. You’d have to be Catholic to understand, but I absolutely love this church. There’s a flame in her heart that the world, and even her own leaders at times, have been unable to extinguish.

jeff_from_mpls on December 31, 2008 at 2:26 PM

Dittos.

Sapwolf on December 31, 2008 at 3:24 PM

I caught it on the weekend too. Impressive performances by all indeed. That said, I’m not a fan of any organized religion, let alone the Catholic church. Now I adore Meryl Steep’s body of work, well, except that silly river thing, and I found myself truly despising her character in this. Her character’s attitude was ever-so rigid in its thinking that I truly wanted to curl up in my seat in disgust. I guess that means she played the part exceedingly well.

Philip Seymour Hoffman was outstanding – you couldn’t help but feel some compassion for what he was dealing with.

As the film nears its end your assumptions about what actually happened are called into question – and whether or not cronyism and a coverup is at play becomes an open question. The film could have ended right there and been remarkable, but no… the last scene with Streep weeping was not credible IMO and felt contrived and glued on to the flick. That scene tries to put another spin on the outcome for the viewer – and I find that inappropriate and unnecessary. But what do I know? I’m hardly religious at all…

;-)

notta_dhimmi on December 31, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Saw both the play and the movie. The movie does not disappoint. Streep will be up for Best Actress at the Academies. Amy Adams should also get nominated for best supporting actress. The acting is that good.

As someone that went to Catholic school with nuns this is a must see movie especially if you went to Catholic grammar school in the fifties and sixties. Streep absolutely nails the Mother Superior or at least the one’s I had.

Besides a trip down memory lane it exposes the weak links in the church structure that ultimately led to the more recent scandals. I’m very impressed/surprised that the Church gave this good reviews.

patrick neid on December 31, 2008 at 3:35 PM

You’d have to be Catholic to understand, but I absolutely love this church.

jeff_from_mpls on December 31, 2008 at 2:26 PM

I’ll agree with that. How someone can be part of an organization that is directly responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people over the past 1000 years and sat by and did nothing while jews were murdered by the tens of thousands is something only someone in that organization can appreciate.

grdred944 on December 31, 2008 at 3:40 PM

If you’re wondering about the habit/order, it looks to me like the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, founded in Maryland in the 1800s. Anyone?

fivefeetoffury on December 31, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Yep. Definitely Sisters of Charity. I had them for all 12 years of school in NYC. They were founded by Saint Elizabeth Seton. She was only “Blessed” Mother Seton when I was in school, and we had to pray every day that she would be made a saint. It worked! lol

They were tough as nails, but I got a great education from them, especially when compared to what my own kids got from public school. I would wager that 90% of grammar police are Catholic school graduates.

I’m a little nervous about seeing this movie though. I know the Church has its faults, but I hate having it rubbed in my face by Hollywood know-nothings. Think I’ll wait for it to come to cable.

IrishEi on December 31, 2008 at 3:44 PM

After reading about it, I have no interests in it.

I’m sick of movies that deal with race.

Huh?

keep the change on December 31, 2008 at 3:49 PM

Here’s another question – if the movie wanted to address the recent child molestation scandal…

…then why place the film in 1964?

And again, why make the ending ambiguous?

Religious_Zealot on December 31, 2008 at 3:53 PM

I’m a little nervous about seeing this movie though. I know the Church has its faults, but I hate having it rubbed in my face by Hollywood know-nothings.
IrishEi on December 31, 2008 at 3:44 PM

See the movie. John Patrick Shanley is a great writer and director. Born in the Bronx 1950, Catholic school etc.

My little church in Shrub Oak/Mohegan lake–Saint George’s–became the first St Elizabeth Seton parish

http://www.seton-parish.org/parish/parish_history.htm

Mr Shanley may have used Seton’s background in Streep’s character.

patrick neid on December 31, 2008 at 3:58 PM

I’ll agree with that. How someone can be part of an organization that is directly responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people over the past 1000 years

You don’t help your cause/point by being purposefully overblown with your ‘statistics.’

I mean, really…TENS of MILLIONS??

Religious_Zealot on December 31, 2008 at 3:58 PM

Here’s another question – if the movie wanted to address the recent child molestation scandal…

…then why place the film in 1964?

And again, why make the ending ambiguous?

Go see the movie yourself. Perhaps the ending won’t be ambiguous to you, it certainly wasn’t to me.

patrick neid on December 31, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Go see the movie yourself. Perhaps the ending won’t be ambiguous to you, it certainly wasn’t to me.

As I said earlier, I read the synopsis of both the play and the film on Wikipedia.

If it’s accurate, then it leaves enough room so that if you wanted to believe the priest was molesting the boy then you could…

…but there’s also enough room so that if you wanted to believe that he WASN’T molesting the boy you could do that also.

Plus Streep’s breakdown clouds the issue even further (not even SHE is sure she did the right thing).

Religious_Zealot on December 31, 2008 at 4:12 PM

I really want to see this film. Glad to hear you liked, it, Ed.

I was going to take my sister (17) with me to see it over Christmas, but she said “it’s too soon!” since Catholic School is more recent for her. Re-open the wounds of guilt! Ha!

I’ll probably see it tomorrow since I have the day off. I adore Meryl Streep and Amy Adams, so I have high hopes for it.

lansing quaker on December 31, 2008 at 4:17 PM

I’ll agree with that. How someone can be part of an organization that is directly responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people over the past 1000 years and sat by and did nothing while jews were murdered by the tens of thousands is something only someone in that organization can appreciate.

grdred944 on December 31, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Yes. Because modern Catholics are completely complicit in and responsible for the actions of people centuries dead (even if they loudly and frequently condemn those actions).

It’s not 1232 anymore. Get over it.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 31, 2008 at 4:35 PM

As I said earlier, I read the synopsis of both the play and the film on Wikipedia.

Again that is someone else’s synopsis. It is certainly not mine. You should go see it and make up your own mind about what she has doubts about.

patrick neid on December 31, 2008 at 4:35 PM

… sat by and did nothing while jews were murdered by the tens of thousands is something only someone in that organization can appreciate.

grdred944 on December 31, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Well, the State of Israel disagrees, since they planted an immense orchard honoring Pius that represents the 1000s SAVED by the actions of the Vatican during the war.

Lonevoice on December 31, 2008 at 4:42 PM

I just need to know one thing: does Meryl Streep have a crying scene?

My wife is a big Streep fan, but I can do without Meryl. I tease my wife that every drama that Streep is in, she has to have a crying scene. I haven’t seen a MS movie in years, so I wasn’t sure if the pattern was still holding.

Mallard T. Drake on December 31, 2008 at 4:45 PM

Again that is someone else’s synopsis. It is certainly not mine. You should go see it and make up your own mind about what she has doubts about.

patrick neid on December 31, 2008 at 4:35 PM

But that is no reason to see a film.

Why do I want to see a film that is all about doubts with no strong point/resolution?

To make up my own mind?

I’ve ALREADY made my mind up about the Priest scandals.

So what is it about the film that makes it so good and worth seeing?

As I’ve said, I’ve read nothing here that had given me any reason to see it.

It sounds like a typical dramatic hand-wringing Hollywood film where there is never any absolute truth, just shades of gray and shades of doubt.

Religious_Zealot on December 31, 2008 at 4:47 PM

grdred944 on December 31, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Honestly, what was the point of your post? That humans are human and that those in the church aren’t perfect? Well, duh!

The constitution of this country is one of the most perfect guides to self rule one will find in history, yet it is constantly misused, distorted and deliberately misinterpreted in a power grab by elected officials. Does this mean that the constitution is flawed? Or perhaps that humans are?

The Catholic church is perfect. Her children are not. And please do some research regarding the holocaust and the church, it was not as you think.

Jvette on December 31, 2008 at 4:52 PM

Doesnt sound like a movie that would interest me. It doesnt have John Wayne or Gary Cooper or Tom Selleck or any OK Corral-like gunfights. No horses or saddles, or cactus or stuff like that.

abcurtis on December 31, 2008 at 4:54 PM

Meryl Streep was pretty good in She-Devil.

abcurtis on December 31, 2008 at 5:04 PM

When non-Catholic Christians do something goofy, like televangelism, all my protestant friends take themselves off the hook: “oh, that’s those other protestants, not us, so you see, we’re not like that, there are thousands of denominations, you see.”

A false teacher is a false teacher regardless what denomination he or she represents. Father Fleger is a good example. And I dont take myself off the hook – i denounce the health, wealth prosperity preachers as often as I can. If a Baptist preacher is preaching false doctrine I’ll denounce him too.

abcurtis on December 31, 2008 at 5:07 PM

I saw the movie and am still Catholic( Tridentine, in fact)….. nuff said.

MNDavenotPC on December 31, 2008 at 5:08 PM

Religious_Zealot on December 31, 2008 at 4:47 PM

you are easily led.

patrick neid on December 31, 2008 at 5:08 PM

Again that is someone else’s synopsis. It is certainly not mine. You should go see it and make up your own mind about what she has doubts about.

patrick neid on December 31, 2008 at 4:35 PM

I haven’t seen the movie or the play, but after reading the wikipedia descriptions of both, I got the impression she had doubts about something else.

It sounds like a typical dramatic hand-wringing Hollywood film where there is never any absolute truth, just shades of gray and shades of doubt.

Religious_Zealot on December 31, 2008 at 4:47 PM

Religion is about faith. The struggle to come to terms with that faith is doubt. What’s wrong with an artistic or intellectual examination of that struggle? I’m pretty that theme is as old as religion itself.

Perhaps you prefer movies and books that spell out for you an absolute truth. If that’s your preference, then see whatever movies fit the bill. I haven’t seen this movie, so I don’t know if I think it’s any good or not. However, I personally think real people are shades of gray, a combination of good parts and bad parts, and prefer movies with characters that are not one-dimensional (i.e. either simply “good” or simply “bad”).

vermillionsky on December 31, 2008 at 5:15 PM

you are easily led.

patrick neid on December 31, 2008 at 5:08 PM

We’re talking about a film…

…let us not get all self-righteous and start throwing out general insults based solely on a disagreement on whether a movie is worth seeing.

If you think the movie is worth seeing, then TELL me why it’s worth seeing.

Don’t just tell me to see it.

Religious_Zealot on December 31, 2008 at 5:34 PM

*checks list* Streep…I loved you once, but you’re nothing to me now…Hoffman is just creepy.

Won’t see it. I don’t feed liberals, and I would rather have that 2 hours of my life put to better use.

NickTx on December 31, 2008 at 5:58 PM

I’d take Meryl Streep’s nun over Susan Sarandon’s any day.

maverick muse on December 31, 2008 at 6:04 PM

im interested

Drunk Report on December 31, 2008 at 6:37 PM

…I’ve not seen the film, and will probably wait until it comes out in DVD…Hollywood is just not producing the sort of fare that tempts me into the sticky seats of my local cineplex…but….

…a victim of its own historical success — you try keeping up the cover-story that you’re synomyous with Christianity, I dare ya! — the Church of Rome is a fruitful source of grist for the anti-religious, anti-moral, anti-authoritarian mill of the situational ethics crowd…so, one might be excused for thinking that this was yet another “Catholicism is inhuman/Catholics are ignorant bigots/as are all Christians, but Catholics first” sort of “expose”, crafted to tug on ones weary, guilt-fatigued heartstrings….

It’s nice to see, from this review, that it isn’t…for the most part, apparently. I like it when a filmmaker can forego the usual shortcuts around thinking and give the moviegoing public something to ruminate one…especially in a genre rife with stereotypes….

…I should’ve known that Hoffman’d be in a corker…he’s always been the guy we’ve always considered De Niro to be: an actor’s actor. Even his bit and minor work — “Boogie Nights” for instance, and “Cold Mountain” — has been brilliant….

…Streep’s a largely over-rated bag, but it’s nice to see her work for a change….

…Viola Davis has been excellent in Tom Selleck’s “Jesse Stone” TV Movies…and I don’t mean the usual “isn’t that pie excellent” or “that color looks excellent on her” sort of excellent…I mean “could save a Tom Cruise vanity-flick” sort of excellent…I mean “hurry back with the popcorn and don’t miss of a minute of this lady on screen” sort of excellent…so, any further footage of this lady’s a must-see….

…so…it’s “once it’s on DVD” for me with this one…but I’d be interested to see if I’m off-base, and should actually take my tired old ass to an actual theater to submit to the experience…seems so….

Puritan1648 on December 31, 2008 at 6:50 PM

As I’ve said, I’ve read nothing here that had given me any reason to see it.

Religious_Zealot on December 31, 2008 at 4:47 PM

…I can see your point…Satan’s first…lemme repeat that: FIRST…weapon used against mankind was doubt. Don’t believe me?

…but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die…. (emphasis added)
Genesis 3: 3-4 (ESV)

…so, ol’ Slithery is out there, casting doubt onto the intentions of the Creator, steering mankind into doing what it dearly wants to do that is against the Creator’s expressed command…it’s literally as old as time itself…”Did he really say that? Is it ‘honor thy father and mother”, or can you get by with a cheaper nursing home?”

…so, yet another flick showing that churches are the Bride of Christ, but are still filled on this side of the celestial veil with sinners, the best of them working out their salvation with fear and trembling but the mass of them just gettin’ by…and, because this particular church claims quite a bit of authority unto itself — no less than that of God’s Vicar on Earth and his Magesterium — it’s assailed on the fronts of both that assumed authority and also the normal “you believe in something/what a dolt”….

…but, it doesn’t appear to fall into that trap so much, this movie…and, if its thought-provoking, what’s not good about thinking about your faith…that’s one way to strengthen your faity…you should question what you believe and why you believe it…just do so from a spiritual and not a worldly “how can I cut corners” standpoint….

…and, besides…as they used to advise you to say as hype to draw you into certain horror movies in my youth, it’s only a movie…we’re all too apt today to be offended first, and only deliberative after, if at all…the left’s taught us that…emote on cue, be a good Pavlovian, jump on the chance to be the “offended party”, and so not only draw attention to oneself, but cast off responsiblity as one of the “oppressed”….

…which, in the case of believers, nobody’s buying anymore, if they ever did….

…so, if folks think it’s a good movie, as a movie, great…entertainment isn’t really news, isn’t usually very profound, and is hardly, anymore, entertaining…when something is entertaining…jump on it….

Puritan1648 on December 31, 2008 at 7:04 PM

I just need to know one thing: does Meryl Streep have a crying scene?

Yes.

Marcus on December 31, 2008 at 7:37 PM

Almost any movie with Meryl Streep is bound to be good. Can’t wait to see this one!

SouthernGent on December 31, 2008 at 8:18 PM

I’ll agree with that. How someone can be part of an organization that is directly responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people over the past 1000 years and sat by and did nothing while jews were murdered by the tens of thousands is something only someone in that organization can appreciate.

grdred944 on December 31, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Bullshit. Don’t blame deaths caused by temporal forces on the Church. And, tens of millions is WAY overstated too. During Hitler’s reign, no other institution did more to help the Jews escape Nazi death than the Catholic Church. It is estimated 700,000 to 900,000 jews were saved due to the direct efforts of the Church in Europe.

You wanna lie like that, go to HuffPo, DU, and DKos. You’d be at home, maggot.

Sapwolf on December 31, 2008 at 9:22 PM

… sat by and did nothing while jews were murdered by the tens of thousands is something only someone in that organization can appreciate.

grdred944 on December 31, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Well, the State of Israel disagrees, since they planted an immense orchard honoring Pius that represents the 1000s SAVED by the actions of the Vatican during the war.

Lonevoice on December 31, 2008 at 4:42 PM

Yep. One of the most lied about, misunderstood parts of the Nazi regime is the bs about the Church doing nothing to save Jews. Hogwash. Nobody even came close to helping Jews in Europe like the Catholic Church did.

Sapwolf on December 31, 2008 at 9:30 PM

Here’s another question – if the movie wanted to address the recent child molestation scandal…

…then why place the film in 1964?

And again, why make the ending ambiguous?

Religious_Zealot on December 31, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Dude, in case you have been in a coma, the cases of sex abuse were mostly during the 60′s, 70′s, and 80′s.

Also, approximately 80% of the cases that had merit were homosexual priests hitting on teenage post-pubescent boys, not pre-pubescent children. That’s why during the scandal, you didn’t here much from the gay community. That’s because the molesters were OVERWHELMINGLY gay. Only 20% of the cases were pedophilia.

Regarding the movie, it seems like an OK DVD queue for Netflix.

Sapwolf on December 31, 2008 at 9:34 PM

And yet even against this background, I am overwhelmed with the unmistakable ray of light the Catholic Church has carried historically from generation to generation through the Eucharist. You’d have to be Catholic to understand, but I absolutely love this church. There’s a flame in her heart that the world, and even her own leaders at times, have been unable to extinguish.

jeff_from_mpls on December 31, 2008 at 2:26 PM

+1 Exactly how I feel. Only you said it better than I could ever have. Thank you.

Thanks to you, too, Ed, for the review. Like others, was assuming it was a basher but it sounds good now.

inviolet on December 31, 2008 at 11:38 PM

There’s a flame in her heart that the world, and even her own leaders at times, have been unable to extinguish.

jeff_from_mpls on December 31, 2008 at 2:26 PM

and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

:)

pannw on January 1, 2009 at 12:37 AM

jeff_from_mpls on December 31, 2008 at 2:26 PM

Bee-u-tiful sentiments,Jeff! And Sapwolf,you got his six!
grdred944—what has brought you to this lowly state?

lizzee on January 1, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Dirty Harry’s review was better: http://dirtyharrysplace.com/?p=6462

JohnJ on January 1, 2009 at 11:12 AM

jeff_from_mpls on December 31, 2008 at 2:26 PM

:)

I concur.

geckomon on January 1, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Can’t stomach Meryl Streep she is pretentious.

Dr Evil on January 1, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Doubt is a great portrayal of Catholic schools and the dedicated sisters that ran them. However, there is no way that a 1960′s coach/priest consoles a boy by publicly hugging him.

Mark30339 on January 1, 2009 at 10:10 PM

good flick

FlickeringFlame on April 20, 2010 at 10:01 PM