Being in the grips of a philosophical malaise, I wasn’t sure I should go see a movie called “Doubt.” But when I got to the theater, I discovered that I’d forgotten my wallet, and so I had to run home and fetch it. By the time I got back, “The Wrestler” had already started, as had all the other early evening films ... except for “Doubt.” And so “Doubt” it was.

In its opening moments, I really liked “Doubt.” It begins with Father Flynn, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, delivering a thoughtful sermon on doubt, and how doubt is what binds us to our fellow humans and can actually be a comfort in times of uncertainty. As sermons go — and being the daughter of a minister, I’ve heard a few — it was pretty good, and I began to perk up. At last! I thought. A movie with ideas! Of course, when you’re in the midst of a philosophical malaise, ideas can inspire all kinds of crazy and unproductive thoughts, but since the last movie I saw — “Slumdog Millionaire” — contained no ideas and inspired nothing, initially “Doubt” seemed like it might be the antidote. At the very least, it seemed like it might be easier than re-reading “Escape from Freedom” by Erich Fromm, and delving back into my Kierkegaard book.

“Doubt,” which is based on the acclaimed play by the same name, involves a nun, Sister Aloysius, played by Meryl Streep, who becomes convinced that Father Flynn had inappropriate contact with a boy at the Catholic school where she serves as principal. Key scenes take place off camera, and so the audience is never completely sure what has or hasn’t happened, which is obviously the point of a movie called “Doubt.” Father Flynn is presented as a gentle and compassionate man who wants the church to be friendlier and more welcoming; Sister Aloysius, on the other hand, regards almost everyone with a certain amount of suspicion, and believes that nuns and priests really are different from regular people. She doesn’t like Father Flynn’s sermon on doubt, because she has always been certain of everything, and views doubt as a symptom of muddled thinking.

Most of the reviews I’ve read SPOILER ALERT! DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU PLAN TO SEE THIS MOVIE! have depicted Sister Aloysius as a monster, and pontificated at length about the dangers of unreasonable certainty, but as the movie progressed I actually began to sympathize with her. For one thing, I came to believe that Father Flynn had inappropriate contact with the boy, and so even as I objected to Sister Aloysius’s methods and uncompromising attitude, I wasn’t so sure that she was actually incorrect.

“Doubt” operates on multiple levels, I think, and although it serves as a denunciation of certainty — why are people so certain about everything, anyway? — I also think it’s asking the audience to do something far trickier: to acknowledge that Sister Aloysius, wrong as she is about many things, may be right about this one thing, and that Father Flynn, right as he is about many things, may have done this one wrong thing. We humans aren’t very good at this sort of nuanced thinking, which probably explains why most of the reviews have focused on how awful Sister Aloysius is, without really addressing the thornier question of Father Flynn’s actions — I mean, he’s such a nice guy! But in his key scene with Sister Aloysius, he seemed guilty to me, and though much is made of Sister Aloysius’ lack of proof, that doesn’t mean she isn’t right.

“Doubt” made me think, but at a certain point I began to feel that it didn’t go far enough — that it wasn’t intelligent enough, or probing enough, and that at key moments it chose to rely on the sort of cheap symbolism that might be found in a 10th grade English paper. For instance: As the movie progresses, it gets windier and windier outside, and at one point Meryl Streep is surrounded by swirling leaves and actually utters something about “the winds of change.”

There’s a lot of smart dialogue in “Doubt,” but it’s undermined by nonsense like that. I mean, for god’s sake, “The Winds of Change” is the title of a song by the 1980s metal band the Scorpions. And that’s one of the key problems with this movie: It’s got interesting things in it, but never quite rises to the level of art, and at times is so hamfisted it’s almost campy. And, yes, I know it’s a movie about doubt, but it seemed to be lacking a certain clarity. It’s as if John Patrick Shanley, the director and author of the play, couldn’t resist the impulse to cram all of his Big Thoughts into a single work, which is great if you’re a college philosophy student who likes to stay up all night writing papers for your existentialism seminar, but not so great if you’re trying to produce a compelling work for the masses that actually says something about the world we live in.

Though perhaps my expectations for “Doubt” were simply too high. I wanted “Doubt” to solve my philosophical malaise, but in retrospect that seems like a lot to ask of a film, even of great films like “Wings of Desire” or “L’avventura.” Oh well. Next week I plan to see “The Wrestler,” and all I ask is that Mickey Rourke entertain me. Which seems like a much healthier way to approach a night at the movies, anyway.

Oscar nominations will be out later this week, and I'll definitely be posting my thoughts on them. So stay tuned.

Until then, you can add your thoughts below or email me at sfoss@dailygazette.net.