On the surface, John Patrick Shanley’s “Doubt”–adapted from his own Pulitzer Prize-winning play–seems to explore, with a reluctance to definitively reveal, whether or not a Catholic priest molests a boy from his parish.  The critics have already begun to weigh in, some of them panning the film on grounds that Shanley uses doubt as a vehicle of convenience, a handy cop-out that allows him to let slide unnecessary ambiguities.  The basic complaint is that he raises the tough and salacious questions without illuminating them.  The question is: What movie were these people watching?

From the beginning, self-styled progressive priest Father Flynn (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and hyper-traditional nun and principal Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) are set up as arch philosophical rivals within the church in 1964.  Their differences range from the pedestrian, like Sister Aloysius’s balking at the suggestion that a secular song like “Frosty the Snowman” be included in the school’s Christmas program, to the matter at the heart of movie.  When some circumstantial evidence arises that suggests Flynn may be involved inappropriately with the boy, Aloysius concludes he is guilty and sets about trying to force a confession.

The central drama is enough to carry the film.  In a series of lengthy verbal exchanges Hoffman and Streep go at each other with a pitch-perfect reserved viciousness that conveys a believable mixture of vitriol and decorum.  But it’s not superior acting alone that props up these scenes.  Many of the details are deliberately left murky, and both leads are given enough redeeming qualities and blemishes that it is at times hard to decide who to root for.  This balance is carried through to the end of the movie, and the result is an unusual level of start-to-finish suspense, which is especially surprising when considering that the film is basically a string of conversations mostly devoid of action.

The problem, according to certain critics, is that this device of uncertainty is a manipulation.  They make the case that allowing this level of doubt to color the story is a massive equivocation on Shandley’s part.  This argument is simplistic and unfounded.  Without spoiling the plot, it can fairly be stated that the movie’s liberal use of symbols–some more effective than others–repeatedly hammers home the truth about the relationship in question.  In fact, some of the symbols–light, flowers, storms, juxtapositions of characters and spiritual artifacts like statues and stained-glass windows–are so unsubtle and borderline heavy-handed it’s a wonder anybody could miss them.  Apparently some did.  But a careful viewing of the movie reveals that the real and lasting doubt referenced in the title has little to do with the factual details of Father Flynn’s behavior, but everything to do with identity, faith, religious institution, and ultimately God.