Ok, everything you may have possibly heard about Viola Davis' performance is absolutely true. She's only in the film for about fifteen minutes but it's one of the most powerful fifteen minutes you're going to run across in any film. The fact most people have never heard of her or recognize her at all is testament to the problems of race and gender that still run throughout Hollywood. Viola Davis has an incredibly long filmography but it's been mostly as bit players (although it appears that Soderbergh uses her regularly). But, just as there are few really good roles in mainstream films for women there are also few good dramatic roles for African Americans. Bring those two together in the form of an African American woman and you're lucky if you get a challenging part in something other than a film adaptation of a Terry MacMillan novel.
Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep are as good as you might expect and Amy Adams proves herself surprisingly adequate. I like Amy Adams but I had grave doubts that she could ever play something other than the perky, naive waif. Hmmm, now that I think about it, that's exactly what she was in this movie: the perky, naive nun.
I think the most notable aspect of this film is how well it works despite the fact it's adapted from a play. So often, great plays don't translate well into cinema ... especially when the playwright is involved (although Tennessee Williams' plays seem to work well). For example, as much as I love Glengary/Glenross, you don't ever forget that you're watching a film. There's a certain pacing -- both the action and the dialogue -- that's unique to theater and completely foreign to cinema. The fact Mamet's play works as a film is a testament to how powerful the words themselves are. Doubt, on the other hand, works quite well as a film. I'm curious to see what the original play must have been like as I would assume it's dramatically different
0 Comments
|
Archives
January 2016
|