sorry to be reduntant here, but this what i just wrote in the review to the movie which was from what i had just written on imdb which i gave the header of ‘witch hunt’:
“What interested me was the moral certainty that people had at that time about all kinds of things. And it was so deep, they couldn’t see things that were right in front of them.
“That is a sporadically — but huge — recurring social phenomenon, that people in a society become invested with a belief in something, and no evidence before their eyes will controvert that belief. They will curse their own children rather than not believe the illusion they are all sharing.”
A quote from the author/director John Patrick Shanley about his play “Doubt” from which the film was built. (From the Denver Post, April 2008, see http://www.denverpost.com/theater/ci_8801783.)
Upon my third viewing I find there is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing by Father Flynn at St. Nicholas. Is he gay? Possibly, but this is not defined or even implied in the film, unless one sees longer fingernails as a sure sign of homosexuality (which I’m sure many do, many here on IMDB obviously). And would it even be relevant if he was? What happened at his previous parish? That too is unknown, though it appears by the virulent tete-a-tete between Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn at the climax of the film that something had happened there, improper behavior of some sort. Pedophiliac abuse? A homosexual affair? A heterosexual affair? Something more benign? All are possible. All are irrelevant to the realities of the immediate occurrences (or lack thereof) at St. Nicholas because all of it is nothing but conjecture, and conjecture about the past not even the immediate events in the story.
What I come away with from this film is the absolute ideological certainty of the character of Sister Aloysius. Regardless of fact, regardless of consequence, her brutal certainty, her inhumanity will leave nothing but pain and suffering in her wake when anything defies or even slightly challenges her will, her beliefs, her insecurities. All be damned for whatever she wants to believe must be so. And the ability of the character to manipulate otherwise good people (Sister James) into paranoia and condemnation is sad, startling and should be terrifying.
(As for the boy, Donald, his mother reveals that his life was threatened by his previous schoolmates and is in peril by his own father because of his perceived sexuality [he’s 12! for god’s sake], and this sexuality I need add, is pre-existing to his meeting Father Flynn.)
This is a parable about witch hunts, the red scare/McCarthy trials, the all-too-quickly forgotten child abuse daycare scandals of the 1980’s (see Inictment: The McMartin Trial http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113421/ for a good film on the pivotal case of this awful segment of modern American history), and on and on. This is a warning about belief before experience, before knowledge, something we should all try to be vigilant against when our fears are stoked, whether that’s communism, terrorism, pedophilia, child pornography, racial, sexual and religious stereotyping, et.al.
Reactions based on preconceived notions are the recipe for social manipulation and the abuse and destruction of innocent lives, as many of the responses to this movie here on IMDB are perfect examples of. A wonderful Rorschach test of our ugliest or most prudent sides.
Edit Addition:
As for your question about Sister Aloysius’ doubts, I think it was definitely referring to the situation with Father Flynn, though she made it clear earlier in the film (in the climax battle with Father Flynn – I’d have to rewatch to get the exact quote) that she would easily abandon her faith/the church for her ‘beliefs’. Everything comes secondary to what she wants to believe is true.
Her “Doubts” refer to the fact that the entire situation has undermined her resolve and her belief in herself, ie. she “can’t handle it.”
The church is a male institution. Women are an optiona;l extra. Sister knows this — and fights against it. The key scene is when Father Flynn sits in her chair. She doesn’t want him there but there’s nothing she can do about it. After all the only way she managed to get him in the office was by means of a ruse. Sister “has issues” So does Father Flunn. The young sister played so beautifully by Amy Adams has none. She is plain and simple goodness. Teaching is her calling and she loves the children with a straightforward simplicty. Sister Aloyicious doesn’t even LIKE children.
Now to get down to buiness.
The Catholic Church is the world’s largest, wealthiest and most thotoughly lawyered pedophile cult. In days of yore gay men of prominent families were sipohoned off into it. “He’s for the curch” was the phrase that was used. But because to the success of gay liberation that’s no longer thecase. Gay men of means don’t need th Church, because they don’t need to hide. So the church must make do with the dregs.
Being the minifestly hypocricial construct that it is the church does all it can to hide the sex offenders it employs. When a “problem” arises the offending priest is moved to another parish. This is what happens to Father Flynn in “Doubt” and it’s the only fully accurate aspect of the film vis-a-vis actual church practice.
As presented by the film Father Flynn is gay and so is Donald. That’s why the boy is his “favirtie.” Did they “do the deed”? Maybe. Maybe not. Most interesting is that fact tha tha boy’s mother (magnificently played by Viola Davis) doesn’t care. She knows her son is gay. More important she knows her husband wants to kill him. Fatjher Flynn is his protector and friend. Therefore if he has sex with him she’s willing to “look the other way.”
This isn’t a common situation with the Catholic church which is considerably more cut-throat than Shanley is willing to admit.
He quite obviously knows FAR more than he’s willing to say.
Yes — I’m a “lapsed Cahtolic.”
VERY “lapsed.”
I took it the same way as the time period of when “Doubt” took place and what we know how things have been problematic with the Catholic Church.
If anything, the ending made me wonder of the many people who have known of these problems within various institutions where young people who believed in the church and the priests they trusted and then were betrayed by it. Especially seeing how the Catholic church handled it…definitely would cast doubt in a lot of people.
The ending was quite unsettling but I liked how it gave the viewer a chance to come up with their own perspective of the film.
I don’t agree David, though I do agree with much of your assessment of the catholic church (i too was raised catholic and was a student of catholic schooling – many, many years ago). I think the church is simply a construct, a structure used by Mr. Shanley to investigate ideological abuse and the potential inhumanity it bears as his quote, in my above response seems to point out.
All that said I do think you have valid points (though maybe a bit reactionary) to homosexuality and the catholic church. The film however leaves much intentionally open, including Father Flynn’s sexuality. This openness on the part of the author I believe allows the viewer to indict one’s self by drawing conclusions not in the text/film itself.
(EDIT: And by using the catholic church Mr. Shanley enabled the viewer (through knowledge of real events and abuses) to attach preconceptions. Otherwise, it would be a rather futile effort at criticism. Some presumption of guilt would need to exist in order for the film to be effective about peoples’ preconceived beliefs and certainties.)
I would like to hear more peoples analysis of the film, though I would hope, at least in this particular forum to leave some of the criticisms of the church itself not in the film for another conversation.
SECOND EDIT (sorry, I’m thinking too much about this film):
And David, your comment about the abusive, patriarchal nature of the church is definitely there and on target (I even commented about a misogynistic quality to the film while watching it, which I think is intentionally written in for some of the reasons you describe). However, I would argue that is the petri dish for Sister Aloysius’ pathologies. It enables and maybe even encourages her to act as she does.
Well don’t forget Sister Aloysius’ has a whole back story. She came to be a nun late in life, after having been married and left a widow. She’s had a lot of experice that Shanley doesn’t go into. I told Meryl Streep that I though she killed her husband — a notion the great one found quite amusing.
Still and all we judge character in ALL film by what we’re given to see and hear. I’m reminded of Premiger’s great “Anatomy of a Murder.” A more conventional director would have provided flashbacks toe the rape and the kiloing. He refused to do that — outting the audience in the position of the jurors in the trial.
“Doubt” is similar in that we’re never given a scene showing Flynn making a pass at Donald. At best we get the one in the hallway where he embraces the child — who’s being bullied by the other boys. It’s this scene, plus the one with his mother, that makes it palin that Donald is gay. Flynn obviously knows this and becomes the boy’s “protector.” Did he cross the line? I doubt it, because that’s not the way clerical predators oeprate. They move right in on whatever boy catches their fancy, regardless of whether they sense he might be portentially gay or not. And they are utterly ruthless about this.
The church, being equally ruthelss, backs them up.
>>The ending was quite unsettling but I liked how it gave the viewer a chance to come up with their own perspective of the film.<<
Given the title of the film (& play) it is perfectly apt that its ending leave the viewer with some … doubts.
The title of the play was the problem — it was the entire play. DOUBT!! Get it? DOUBT!!! You’ll never know if he fucked the kid or not — DOUBT!!! I found the whole enterprise strained and ultimately boring, and the movie starring the inevitable Meryl Streep and the doubt-destroying Phlip Seymour Hoffman (come on, who’d ever have any doubt that he’s a child molester?) just had nothing of interest for me.
You’ve obviously never me a pedo priest, Roscoe.
I have.
Hoffman doesn’t fit the profile.
wow,i didn’t know one has to meet a real pedophile priest to actually get the role right!!!
i wonder…..must everyone meet with Dante Alighieri in the after-life in order to play his bio-pic?
Moderated
“You don’t have to do anything at all, Troll”
learn your Mythology and then start proclaiming about who’s a Troll and who’s not.
oh,don’t forget,Eastern Orthodox churches have plenty of these Catholic asshole personas you keep nagging about but just like the Catholic churches’ kind,most of these “get away” thanks to the upper class big heads.
but i guess you don’t even know where Eastern Orthodox churches are located.
so before you say who has a tiny mind and who doesn’t,please do your research before you start shouting out whether Catholics are the largest corporal bastards or not,they’re not the only ones Doctor “Fanboy”.
Moderated
Moderated
I bow to your knowledge of pedophile scumbags, David. Just meant that Hoffman is usually so repellent that I’d never put any form of slime-wallowing evil past him or any character he plays.
Moderated
i wonder why i rarely bother to post here any more.
@ Bob Crane: When I saw Doubt in 2008, I believed that it was a movie with a rich subtext & lacking a thorough examination on conscience, immorality, personal ideology or paranoia. Your review of Doubt is certainly an eye-opener for me; one of the most thorough examinations of Doubt I’ve read. But I’d like to contribute my two cents as I am not in complete accordance with your points.
I can’t comment on the politics or historical connections behind Doubt. But what I’m certain of is that without subtlety, Doubt wouldn’t work. John Patrick Stanley knew that issues such as homosexuality were only hinted in the 1960’s & that the U.S.A. was experiencing a change in social politics. It was the era of the Civil Rights Movement, the beginning of the Sexual Revolution as well as a sense of paranoia that American was experiencing with its government. To evoke that period, to evoke the views & the mannerisms of the characters, the conversations were extremely indirect (e.g. the mention of the word homosexual or gay was never used in the dialogue).
I believe you’re right ‘in the absolute ideological certainty of the character of Sister Aloysius’ but you mentioned that Father Flynn neither demonstrated nor implied any signs of wrongdoing. However, if Sister Aloysius is about to leave her room after telling Father Flynn that she won’t stop her convictions until she receives a confession, Father Flynn immediately tells her to come back & says: “There are things I can’t explain… Remember, there are things beyond your knowledge”. These comments stem after Sister Aloysius implicates Flynn with sexual assault. So if he intends to mention ‘things [he] can’t explain’, what else can be implied besides his homoerotic promiscuity?
Furthermore, Father Flynn’s homosexuality is almost in the manner of a MacGuffin as it has no relevance to the Sister’s pursuit of the truth but the Sister’s conjectures are the film’s purpose & the Sister’s aim throughout the film. The Sister’s aim: to maintain her personal ideologies by eliminating any threats to the belief-system of her school & parish. The conjecture itself means nothing but the assumptions that the Sister claims is how she received an implied confession of the Father’s sins. My point: the film’s subtext is complex, the implications are direct & assumptions/experience is Aloysius’ weapons to uncover Flynn’s logical flaws.
Sister Aloysius is a perfect misrepresentation of the female protagonist had she been in a film from the 1960’s. If Doubt were to be made in the 1960’s, her authoritarian demeanour would be tamed because Hollywood’s Hays Code Administration permitted an intentionally subjective view of women. Therefore, I agree that her certainty is based on a system of subtle brutality but is she inhumane? She reflects this quality to Father Flynn but the inhumanity she subjects to Sister James is unintentional. Aloysius’ belief-system firmly regulates fear into her followers but she believes it’s in their best intentions. So maybe her inhumanity was deliberated intentionally & unintentionally?
Lastly, I can’t view Doubt as a parable on its time period. I had the same assumption in my first viewing; where I thought that the relationship between the Father & Sister consisted of a framework of actions that presented the dilemmas of America’s social revolutions. You have the Father, whose attempts to advance the school by its social & technological roots represent Westernization. His past & manipulation of the truth are examples of the cons of Westernization. Then you have Sister Aloysius, the perfect representation of conservatism; the dominating patriarch whose control of the students is based on fear, not acceptance. Those who’ve seen Doubt may view it as a 1960’s U.S.A. parable or an allegory of the old conflicting with the new. But I also see Doubt as an examination on truth, deception, paranoia, ideology conflicts & religious convictions. It reminds me of Yasujiro Ozu’s work in how it is very particular in details & yet it’s so universal in its themes as well as its truths. The appearance may detract movie-goers from non-Caucasian nations but the truth is: the actions & implications in the narrative are universal to all creeds.
Here’s my two cents. & once again, great review. But I haven’t really addressed this thread’s topic have I?
The doubt that the sister has at the end is about her belief in God, not her belief that she was right about the father and what he did. After all, he got promoted, she has nothing to worry about. and a second before the doubt confession she very casually says she lied to get him removed. That lie in itself was not wrong, she says those things are required or something. But that trickery is the small brick removed in the wall she has built up around herself.
She has erected a facade to hold her life together, God is at the center of that facade, at the center of that belief, and that is a much bigger more painful doubt than her role in the father’s promotion.
She had to resort to trickery to get him removed and this has destroyed her facade. The price to pay was not understood when she started out trying to remove him, she only understands afterwards.
Apprently I am being forbidden from defending myself again “Dimitr’s” attacks.
So long folks!
Dimitris got moderated! :O
Have a good trip…
Great- this forum just lost its most knowledgeable contributor thanks to the repetitious rantings of a 20-year-old walking inferiority complex.
great dialogue
Doubt clouds me, but man David E. and John you guys really weighed in
This is why I loved this movie so much. There is so much heated discussion over the ending and once you get right down to it, there is no definite answer. Not unless you’re the writer or the lead actor.
Great film!
But to add to the discussion, I’ve never really had a solid opinion either way. I’m not a die hard believer in either direction. I have my doubts on both, and I think that was the intent.
pandoble
my wife and i just watched DOUBT on dvd and, to tell you the truth, we were both very pleasantly surprised — the choice to avoid it at the theaters had been bilateral: though fans of streep, hoffman and adams, something about the trailer didn’t appeal to us… now i’m wishing we had gone to see it on the big screen. the movie really worked for us, which is to say we were hooked and in suspense (perhaps tense is a better description) up until the very last frame (not including the credits). the story, which is very good, the characters, the music, the pace, the mood, were all handled incredibly well. a long post-film discussion ensued, which was another really good sign. one minor point that we both felt perhaps needed clarification was whether (SPOILER ALERT) sister aloysius was referring to her faith or her actions at the end, when she confided in sister james that she had “doubts.” we felt she must have been referring to the former. but maybe one can forgive that because the whole premise (and its treatment) is supposed to be about not being absolutely sure. how did others feel about that? what are your interpretations?