MOVIES: "Doubt" (contains spoilers)

[djeter]

I agree that this is an excellent movie that really makes you think. It is fair in its treatment of the church, and fair in its portrayal of sexual abuse within the church without glossing over the truly terrible nature of it.

What I liked about the movie, as I recall it now, is that it allows multiple interpretations of what happens in it. Is the priest lying? Or is he defending what has happened (do we ever really know?) or as acceptable (the love between an older man and a boy)? The nun is seen alternatively as judgmental or suffering under the old boy’s network between the priests. The “Doubt” is palpable and if it becomes transformed into gossip, we see the terrible consequences that can ensue.

dj

 

[Kuan_Yin]

I saw the movie twice and drew a different conclusion each time.
After the first time I was sure that The Priest was guilty. After the second time I was sure that The Nun was mistaken. The title is perfect because you are left with doubt regarding who is correct.

Its a great movie and I highly recommend it.

 

[Musicadmirer]

It is a good movie. Viola Davis’s role as the mother of the boy, however short in film time, was so powerful, it merited her an Academy Award nomination. I’ve actually met a few priests that have the personality the priest in the movie has (minus the allegation of impropriety).

 

[Rolltide]

I will say one thing. IF the priest was actually guilty, I don’t think he assaulted the child that we’re led to believe. I think he assaulted the child who skipped school and smoked.

 

[elts1956]

I haven’t seen it nor do I want to see it. Too much Catholic bashing. I’m not keen on what comes out of Hollywood anymore.

I saw the movie and although it made me and any other Catholic uncomfortable to see it, it poses some interesting questions. Dealing, (of course) with the sexual abuse some clergy are guilty of, (what else does Hollywood and the public media have to talk about?) it is well acted (Meryl Streep). Think of the title Doubt, then visualize what the ending might be. It has some good moments.

 

[SMHW]

I heard it mentioned on the forums here and did some further investigating and wanted to know what others thought?

I liked the movie.

Well, maybe I need to qualify that statement. I thought it was a good movie but the plot of the movie was troubling, (regardless of whether or not the priest was guilty).

What I found especially interesting was the thought processes of those who watched the movie and tried to figure out what really happened. Some people thought Fr. Flynn’s actions were incredibly suspicious that and that he had to be guilty. Others thought that Sister Aloysius (the principal) was hopelessly paranoid and was completely misreading the situation.

I happen to be of the opinion that this was a STORY so the writer carefully crafted the evidence to make the situation as vague as possible. The possible victims all had reasons to avoid coming forward. I did think the priest behaved in a way that a guilty priest would behave. But it certainly did not guarantee his guilt. His cavalier attitude and refusal to introduce some accountability into interactions with the students was troubling to me, (But I realize that in 1964 demanding accountability would likely have been seen as an assault on the priesthood rather than on the individual priest.)

 

[Di_bear]

What I found especially interesting was the thought processes of those who watched the movie and tried to figure out what really happened. Some people thought Fr. Flynn’s actions were incredibly suspicious that and that he had to be guilty. Others thought that Sister Aloysius (the principal) was hopelessly paranoid and was completely misreading the situation.

…and this is the problem.

I’ve seen the movie 2 1/2 times (I didn’t see the first half the first time I saw it). I am a big fan of Meryl Streep, and I did not like her in this movie. Don’t misunderstand: she was VERY good, as she always is, but I felt her character was unlikeable, and I think it was supposed to be that way.

I believe that the point of the movie is NOT whether the priest was abusive or the nun’s suspicions were correct. I believe the story was much more cerebral. I am under the impression that it is much more about our values – our beliefs – and how we betray others by not living out those beliefs. We also betray ourselves and God. I think the nun’s biggest sin was pride. At the end, she began to consider that. She doubted her actions. After all, she tricked the priest into leaving without ever truly finding out what he did at the previous parish. He could have had an affair with a woman instead of molesting a child, and his reaction to her supposed knowledge – her lie that she “found out from his previous parish” – just did not seem like someone who was found out of having done something so abhorrent. In the 60s, lesser things were treated as grave.

I also think that she didn’t like the priest because they were two completely different people. She was much more strict and to the letter. He was more liberal and did not seem to have the fire and brimstone outlook. I believe this set her judgment of him in motion.

Placing this in the setting of a Catholic community is genius because Catholics seem to be held to a much higher moral standard than everyone else. I mean this from a superficial aspect in that outsiders are always looking for the opportunity to say “Ah-ha!” when we’ve done something wrong.

No matter the writer’s history, I just feel that dwelling on whether or not the priest molested the child is completely missing the point of the story. It is a movie that you definitely have to watch two or three times, if not more.

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

Ya know, I’m really getting tired of the media talking and making movies about the Catholic Church; in a BAD light! Yeah, there’s problems in our church, but there’s problems in Protestant churches as well. Why don’t we see movies about them? The Church has already admitted its mistakes! What more do the people want from it? The Pope’s apologized for crying out loud. There are far too many good things about the Catholic Church than there are bad. Why doesn’t the media and the population in general focus on that for awhile? Give me a break!!

A movie with different characters and situations could have been done which would have gotten the message across. ie. can we EVER be certain what another person has done. It could have been a good spy moves.

Leave our Church alone.

 

[Blacksword]

I saw it, I liked it. It makes you think and doesn’t give any clear answers. I don’t think it was particularly anti-Catholic. Some things do need to be acknowledged at least and worked through with this problem. Just yelling “anti-Catholic” and running from the issue doesn’t solve anything, and doesn’t, in my opinion, do justice to Christ’s holy church.

 

[blackfirepro]

“Doubt” was written by John Patrick Shanley, a Roman Catholic! When I went to see it, I thought it was going to be Catholic-bashing, but it wasn’t at all. It is simply a study of one woman’s faith and how she reacts to it.

 

[blackfirepro]

“Doubt” was written by John Patrick Shanley, a Roman Catholic! When I went to see it, I thought it was going to be Catholic-bashing, but it wasn’t at all. It is simply a study of one woman’s faith and how she reacts to it.

Clarification: John Patrick Shanley also wrote “Moonstruck” and “Joe vs. the Volcano”.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

For what it’s worth, I recently saw the stage play. (I had first seen the movie a year or two ago.) In my opinion, the movie is an improvement over the play in many ways. It is more nuanced, balanced and thoughtful. The play was more “politically correct” and also (I think) somewhat anti-Catholic.

Also, I was uncomfortable with the angle the play took on the Donald Miller (the boy who may have been molested by the priest). In the scene where Sister Aloysius confronts Mrs. Miller, the mother seems to imply that an improper relationship between the boy and the priest is okay with her because the boy has a homosexual “nature.” (The movie also touches on this theme, but not to the extent that the play does.) In this way, the play attempts to muddy the issue of whether the alleged relationship is right or wrong.

Has anyone else seen or read the play version?

 

[debraran]

I can’t believe I just saw this movie with Netflix. I waited for DVD to come out and then I guess I was busy…: )

I thought all performances were good and enjoyed seeing the “bonus” features on the DVD and the real Sisters of Charity and Sister James.

I watched it with my 19 year old daughter and she thought it ended with some doubt, I felt some but not as much. I didn’t see the play, but I thought the tee shirt was damning and the fact it wasn’t told to Sister Aloysius with the nuns other observances troubling. No one asked why the shirt was off to begin with?
I also felt the blonde boys reaction to the hand holding and the looks at times during the movie,especially at the end, the smile when the priest said he was leaving, was tellling (to me)
Whether it was touching or more, didn’t matter, it wasn’t proper.

I didn’t think it was bashing the church, a lot happened back then, the heirarchy was set, and it also showed a time, with the school, that brings back many memories of what seemed like a simpler time, but not in every aspect. Silence was just used more freely and shame but the faith and full churches a blessing.

 

[Tybourne]

I haven’t read the whole thread, so please forgive me if I raise points that have already been discussed. This movie has just been shown in the U.K. via the BBC’s iPlayer. For British readers/ viewers, it can be seen here: bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01bbv34/Doubt/

I’m surprised and shocked that some on CAF see this as an anti-Catholic movie. As a convert Catholic, this film seems to me to be full of love for Catholic culture as well as raising serious questions about our Church. Did anyone else pick up on the theme of open windows and storms? First of all, the classroom window in Sr James’ classroom is open and Sr Aloysius (Meryl Streep) is suspicious. Next, Sr James wakes up in the middle of the night because a storm is lashing through her window. There is also another scene between Fr Flynn (the allegedly abusive priest) and Sr Aloysius involving an open window, Does this image not make anyone think of Blessed John XXIII’s comment about Vatican II opening the windows of the Church to let in some air?

The film is set, I think, during 1964, the year in which the Third Period of the Council was held. This was the session in which the decree on the Church in the world, Lumen Gentium, was promulgated. Don’t worry, this post is not going to turn into an anti-Vatican II diatribe. Rather, the film made me question, what if the Church opened the windows just at the time when a toxic, damaging zeitgeist was in the air? The priest at the center of the allegations, Fr Flynn, is a model of progressive priest. He seeks a more informal relationship with the laity and is shown to enjoy the pleasures of the flesh (alcohol, roast meat, cigarettes and sugar) rather than being overly ascetic, like Sr Aloysius. She represents the pre- / anti-Vatican II church (at one point she encourages Sr James to hang a picture of Pius XII over her blackboard as a ‘rear-view mirror’). Fr Flynn represents one face of the post-Vatican II Church. Sr James represents us, caught in the middle between the two, facing one way and then the other.

To some extent, the film echoes the John Jay report on abuse in the U.S. Church. The fault was not in modernisers themselves but in the culture of secrecy and cover-up that pervaded the Church. Sr Aloysius cannot denounce the priest openly because she doesn’t have sufficient evidence. In the end, she is partly implicated in putting him in a position where he may be able to abuse more children with impunity. This leads her to have devastating doubts. She says that one has to move away from God in order to pursue wrongdoing. Then, as she clutches her crucifix, we see that the corpus is no longer visible. Her breakdown and tears are like Jesus calling out “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me”. As we hear the children singing Christmas carols in the background, we are left in no doubt as to the cost of following the Babe of Bethlehem. Christmas and Easter are linked palpably in our lives. This is a deeply Catholic film.

 

[Marchmain1987]

This is a deeply Catholic film.

I agree with you.

I can still remeber how I felt after the first time I watched it.

 

[Catholic4Christ]

I’m surprised and shocked that some on CAF see this as an anti-Catholic movie. As a convert Catholic, this film seems to me to be full of love for Catholic culture as well as raising serious questions about our Church.

Agree fully. I love this movie. I understand why people may be dismissive of another movie about possible abusive clergy, but I never felt it was “anti-Catholic.” I saw it more as pro-Catholic, but anti-people-who-abuse-clerical-positions.

 

[JackLewis]

You are missing the big picture. whether the movie make the priest or the nun, no matter what, its going to be a catholic who is the bad guy. The last movie I saw where a catholic (or some sort of christian) was a good guy, was Doom. and they killed that guy off.

I see your point, but I don’t agree that the movie is about making a Catholic look bad either way.
The way I see it, the film is about human error, and I think it’s a brilliant way to end it by not showing the audience exactly what happened, who was right and who was wrong. This causes more discussion, more thought into the subject of doubt, and I think it can help people really address doubt in their own lives. What is the nature of this human temptation to doubt?
But that is the way I see it, and I know that everyone comes at the movie with a different idea and different reactions.
I agree with you that people must realize human error in many situations, that none of us are perfect. I feel that the movie did so for me.

In Christ always.

 

[Mike_tn]

I watched this film yesterday. A very clever film. It did not seem blatantly anti-Catholic, but it does raise “Doubt” about Catholic priests, such that if it does not put priest’s in a bad light then instead it makes traditional religious look like Nazis seeking scapegoats. One or the other image will probably form in the minds of viewers, neither of which is good. This bi-polar message was inflicted by Meryl Streep’s character, the head nun. The most popular actor/actress in the film by far is Meryl Streep. The priest played by Hoffman has been in many films but he does not come close to Streep’s reputation. The film company spent big bucks for her, to project the message Streep played out, the only one of the main three roles who thought the priest was guilty without solid proof. Suffice it to say that Meryl Streep in her private life is pro-abortion, currently in a political group with movie stars to push Obama’s contraceptive mandate and the new “Bill of Reproductive Rights"

 

[Midwest88]

My dear, many of these posts are outright embarrassing when dealing with this movie.

I watched this film yesterday. A very clever film. It did not seem blatantly anti-Catholic, but it does raise “Doubt” about Catholic priests, such that if it does not put priest’s in a bad light then instead it makes traditional religious look like Nazis seeking scapegoats. One or the other image will probably form in the minds of viewers, neither of which is good.

I didn’t see Streep’s character that way.

This bi-polar message was inflicted by Meryl Streep’s character, the head nun. The most popular actor/actress in the film by far is Meryl Streep. The priest played by Hoffman has been in many films but he does not come close to Streep’s reputation. The film company spent big bucks for her, to project the message Streep played out, the only one of the main three roles who thought the priest was guilty without solid proof. Suffice it to say that Meryl Streep in her private life is pro-abortion, currently in a political group with movie stars to push Obama’s contraceptive mandate and the new “Bill of Reproductive Rights"

This thread is about the film, not if an actor’s politics contradicts the values and beliefs of the character they play. I also don’t think the financing companies had it out for Catholics that they went so far to hire a reputable actress to portray Sister Aloysius as a paranoid Nazi wanting to drive out the non-Aryans. Your post is borderline conspiracy theory.

 

[Midwest88]

I don’t think he did it. The things she wouldn’t understand I took to mean Priestly things… things the boy may have told him in confidence that he didn’t want to repeat. I thought she was a nut… that she didn’t like him because he represented the new way / change and she hated that. I also didn’t like the way she lied, claiming she talked to someone at the other school when she hadn’t. I think he left the school without making a big fuss over it because he knew the school needed her… she was willing to do all the hard, daily work … really run the place and for the good of the students he was willing to just bow out.

Interesting viewpoint, but ultimately I disagree.

At the end when she was on the bench crying - saying she lost her faith I think that was because she went outside the will of God… by going after a good man and manipulating things the way she had. She had such distain for Priests in general… I think the sin of pride - and lying had separated her from God and she knew that.

I loved this movie and thought it protrayed the Church in a very fair manner.

No, she never said she has lost her faith.