dws1982 wrote:No, it's not prejudice. Anyone who had taken a few minutes to read the play (and it can probably be tossed off in under an hour) would understand what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with acting abilities. Hoffman is every bit as wrong for the male role in Doubt as Jackie Earle Haley would be. They both have a certain persona, and bring a certain baggage to their performance that will do this film no favors.
In addition to the baggage that Hoffman brings to the role from his persona, the priest in Doubt must be charismatic, someone to whom kids would gravitate. However highly one might rank Hoffman as an actor, he's not exactly a bubbling cauldron of charisma. Youngsters would see him and run the other way.
Matt Damon would have been a far better choice (as would have been Billy Crudup, Patrick Wilson, John Cusack, Sean Penn, Peter Sarsgaard, Ewan McGregor, Mark Wahlberg (who probably comes closest to the stage version's Brían F. O'Byrne) and so many others).
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Hoffman is a good actor, but he has a certain smarmy look about him. You expect him to be not quite what he seems.
Of course, the idea of a priest being a child molester today is about as dramatically shocking as the genteel murders in an Agatha Christie novel so without having seen or read the play I would have expected him to be guilty.
Had this been made in the 40s or 50s the priest would have been played by Henry Fonda or someone of equal stature and been innocent.
In the 70s or 80s he would have been played by Jack Lemmon and you wouldn't know until the end whether he was a good guy or a bad guy, but nowadays a priest as a good guy is about as likely as a Bill Condon movie starring Roberto Benigni.
No, it's not prejudice. Anyone who had taken a few minutes to read the play (and it can probably be tossed off in under an hour) would understand what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with acting abilities. Hoffman is every bit as wrong for the male role in Doubt as Jackie Earle Haley would be. They both have a certain persona, and bring a certain baggage to their performance that will do this film no favors.
Of course it's a prejudice, Hustler - and a rather tiresome one by now. But luckily, despite this board, Hoffman keeps making movies, giving sometimes great performances, and being one of the best American actors of this period.
Mister Tee wrote:But Hoffman, I think even for those who never saw Happiness, is skeezy from the word go, which'll push the balance even further off.
I agree. Everyone will think he's guilty from the minute he appears onscreen. And I don't think there's any way Hoffman can convincingly portray someone who would choose the priesthood as his vocation.
Mister Tee wrote:But Hoffman, I think even for those who never saw Happiness, is skeezy from the word go, which'll push the balance even further off.
I agree. Everyone will think he's guilty from the minute he appears onscreen. And I don't think there's any way Hoffman can convincingly portray someone who would choose the priesthood as his vocation.
I couldn't stand the shallow and anachronistic play, and the moment I heard that my least favorite contemporary actor was (ludicrously mis-) cast, I knew that it was nothing I'd want to see on screen. All that's missing is Sidney Lumet as director.
Edited By Damien on 1216596896
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Mister Tee wrote:But Hoffman, I think even for those who never saw Happiness, is skeezy from the word go, which'll push the balance even further off.
I agree. Everyone will think he's guilty from the minute he appears onscreen. And I don't think there's any way Hoffman can convincingly portray someone who would choose the priesthood as his vocation.
Okri wrote:Plus, the play is not very good and I think it's flaws will be magnified upon inspection on the big screen.
I meant to add that I came to Doubt rather late -- I liked the play but couldn't remotely begin to understand what all the fuss was about. Like you, I totally felt like the play was not nearly as ambiguous as it had been made out to be, and I also think the big screen won't do this issue any favors.
THIS IS IN SPOILER TERRITORY
.
.
.
.
.
.
I completely agree, BJ. As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY thing that makes Doubt "balanced" -- which so many critics claimed it was -- is the nun saying that last line. I sat there in the theatre and thought, That's IT -- that's what's supposed to make this deep? It struck me as an exceedingly glib, shallow if entertaining play (about on the level of PSH's last vehicle, Charlie Wilson's War). I also agree about the casting -- Adams might bring some believable innocence to a role that was hopelessly shrill onstage; Davis is a whale of an actress (her Tony totally deserved, even for a play I didn't much like); and Streep should be fne. But Hoffman, I think even for those who never saw Happiness, is skeezy from the word go, which'll push the balance even further off.
As for Ed Zwick...Once again I'm in complete agreement with BJ. Zwick's films are the sort everybody THINKS are Oscar bait, but you can't find many if any that actually get nominated for best picture. This of course isn't to say voters make wonderful choices year after year, but often their selections are either surprisingly good (Sideways, Good Night and Good Luck, Letters from Iwo Jima, last year's top two) or, if mediocre, mediocre in different ways, like Juno, Ray, Capote, Little Miss Sunshine, or even Seabiscuit. I can't argue against Zwick's actors and tech folk being over-rewarded, but the fact that he's stayed short of the film/director category so many times (despite being in constant contention) suggests we're over-simplifying what makes a film Oscar bait.
Okri wrote:Plus, the play is not very good and I think it's flaws will be magnified upon inspection on the big screen.
I meant to add that I came to Doubt rather late -- I liked the play but couldn't remotely begin to understand what all the fuss was about. Like you, I totally felt like the play was not nearly as ambiguous as it had been made out to be, and I also think the big screen won't do this issue any favors.
Okri wrote:There is no way Charlize Theron is lead for The Road. Hell, there's a strong possibility she won't have enough screentime to be a major contender for supporting. If it turns out they've beefed up her role, I'm gonna be majorly pissed (the book is so brilliant, why screw it up.). I have no idea how the academy will take to the film, though. It makes last year's "dark nominees" look sunny.
I agree there is no way Charlize can be considered lead. They may expand her role as part of giving more details about that family's earlier life and more details about the catastrophe that changed everything. There are a lot of hints in the book as to what happened but it is never really clear. I think that works well in the book that we have to speculate: nuclear war?, environmental disaster, man made or natural?, meteor strike?
Maybe in the film they will tell us what happened and have some cool special effects. It will also give Charlize more screen time as both the loving wife and mother and as the victim of a catastrophe who cannot take the consequences. I hope not and I am not expecting it. But imdb.com does show a long list of credits in the special effects and visual effects departments. The bulk of their work will probably be creating the devastated landscape through CGI but you never know.
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
re: I don't know, Original BJ. Zwick consistently surprises me with how well he does, truth be told. I mean, Blood Diamond out nominated some best picture nominees that year, stole two acting nods from other films (how the hell did Dicaprio get nodded for Zwick's film and not The Departed?). Zwick's television work is often first rate, so I don't get how he's so awful with film, but I sorta expect him to get nominated sooner or later.
That said, I totally agree with you regarding Doubt (SPOILER WARNING). I already think the play tips the balances towards the priest commiting the act, and casting Hoffman pretty much seals that deal. Plus, the play is not very good and I think it's flaws will be magnified upon inspection on the big screen.
I really don't know how AMPAS/the world is gonna respond to W. I'm sorta dreading the film, truthfully. That said, it does seem Brolin's gonna cap off his magnificent 2007 with a nod this year, though I think it'll be for Milk.
There is no way Charlize Theron is lead for The Road. Hell, there's a strong possibility she won't have enough screentime to be a major contender for supporting. If it turns out they've beefed up her role, I'm gonna be majorly pissed (the book is so brilliant, why screw it up.). I have no idea how the academy will take to the film, though. It makes last year's "dark nominees" look sunny.
The question with Ed Zwick -- why HASN'T he been nominated for Picture/Director when his films are so Oscar-baity? -- is also the answer -- his films are SO Oscar-baity that's all they are. Bait. Not actual movies anyone likes, not even the blandest of white elephant-lovers in the Academy. His films always look good on paper, but always fall short of the top categories simply because they're all dressed up with no where to go, and I expect his latest to be no different. (When the Academy finds ways to nominate Seabiscuit and Dead Poets Society so they don't have to recognize your films, you know you're in trouble.)
I may have said this before, but I have my doubts about, well, Doubt. I understand the play has been expanded in scope, but there would have to be some major expansion in order for a play with four characters, two locations, and mostly two-person dialogue scenes to become something cinematic. Also, while Streep, Adams, and Viola Davis seem perfectly cast (the latter has already proven herself an actress who can make a striking impression with only a scene), I have my misgivings about Hoffman. It's not that I dislike him as an actor -- I just don't think he fits this role at all. (Perhaps it's his Happiness/Boogie Nights persona that's coloring my view, but, quite frankly, if I saw Hoffman as the priest under fire, I'd think -- no doubt about it, he molested the kid, case closed.)
I think Heath Ledger is a pretty likely nominee, and, as I said in the Dark Knight review thread, I invoke the bird-in-the-hand rule in thinking this. Often when performers early in the year receive rave reviews in non-award-bait films, people doubt their award chances, citing the popcorn nature of their pictures, as well as the fact that the year will have many more possible contenders we haven't seen in. Fact is, a lot of those contenders don't amount to much, and by year's end, those beloved performances become widely-predicted nominees (Streep in Prada, Depp in Pirates, Diane Lane). We have seen Ledger's work, and it's clearly beloved (I honestly think he'd be getting Oscar buzz had he lived), and though the fanboy hype will die down considerably by next January, I still think he'll ride these rave reviews to a nomination.