Doubt the Movie review

I thought it was clumsy and if it was trying to put doubt in viewers’ minds, did not for me. The ending, which I can’t give away, ruined everything. Parts of the movie were riveting, especially the one scene with the boy’s mother. Her aspect on the situation was thought-provoking, and said much about race and the difference between black and white parents ‘ expectations for their children back in 1964. But the director blew it with an ending I just couldn’t buy.

I think when she said she has doubts she meant … the church system. How he can just go on to another church and be in a new environment with tons of innocent children without being exposed or a slap on the wrists. He got a promotion … I think thats where the director was getting at … that nothing gets done … to save the name of the church. And to this day nothing will get done because everything is so secret or sometimes just looked over and ignored. I have heard of priests who do such things and just get transfered. We had one in my town … yet he got transfered to south america. What is the world coming to.?

i agree that the sister’s doubt had to do with her faith in her religious institution. but also, considering that, whether sending the priest away from her watchful eye contributed to future abuses rather that deterring them which was her intent.

After seeing the movie DOUBT I was left with a feeling that ALL that was so certain in the pre-Vatican 2 catholic world has been and continues to be subject to doubt in today’s world. In those days the idea of a priest doing such a thing was unthinkable. The role of women, especially the submissiveness of the sisters makes Sr. Aloysius suspicions & actions ahead of her time. Racism & sexual preference are understood today in a complete different way than in the 60′s. In all I was struck by the complexities of all of the characters and issues brought forth by Shanley in this movie. Very thought provoking!

Currently, our theatre group is in rehearsal of the stage version (very close to the film version, but far more stark), and I play Sr Aloysius. This is both a challenge and struggle, simply because there are ‘doubts’ in my own mind regarding her view of men and her struggle to come to terms with her ‘place’ among them. While I truly believe that her motives are genuine (compassion for children and the ‘victimized’) I can’t help but feel that she also sees herself as ‘victim’…thus she pursues Father Flynn with a vengeance. I have to think she has fought her own demons for most of her life. Interesting that she was once married. What would her life have been if he had not died in “the war against Adolf Hitler?”

I was definately confused by the ending of this movie. What was she doubting? Her certainty that the priest molested the boy, or the church as a whole? When the Pricipal was asked how she knew the priest had done this, she said, “experience”. That was never brought to light. On a better note, I really enjoyed the acting.The movie would have been great all around if there was a finished ending. I doubt there would be a sequal to this, so the producer really could have made a home run with the end of this film. I was scratching my head a little when the credits when up.

I’ve just watched the film, I agree the ending is a bit unbelievable, I think it would have taken something else for Meryl Streep’s character to have had doubts. I actually thought it was more likely that the Priest was gay and was simply covering up for the boy who was also gay. It would explain why he had to leave his previous parish as I don’t think Catholic Priests are allowed to be gay and he would have had to leave the ministry.

Mike – Whew! To learn to express such complex stuff in so few words. Something for me to aspire to… When Sister James said that she could no longer sleep, I felt (as you seemed to) that her doubt was about much more than Father Flynn’s innocence/guilt. Sister Aloysius **created** – rather than revealed – reality when she told Father Flynn that lie and again when she told Sister James about the lie. This is one of the moments when I am repelled by her certainty, by the evil potential of certainty. I thought about her statement early in the movie that “we take a step away from God” when we seek to correct a wrong in God’s service. I think one of the Sisters of Charity said here that they do not share that belief. I do not either. I do, however, believe that when our pursuit of justice is structured, driven and polluted by pride, bitterness, certainty and a lack of certainty, I think we definitely take a step away from God. And I believe that as soon as Sister Aloysius said “So it has happened”, with finality and certainity (and, I think, some perverse pleasure that her expectations about Fr Flynn seemed to have been fulfilled) immediately after Sister James said “Father Flynn has taken an interest [in Donald], she took a step away from God. And you are right, I think: when she granted herself the liberty of lying in service of her desires, she acted as she believed the Church and Father Flynn were so wrongly acting. Jean

I’m wondering if anyone would be kind enough to comment on what Sister meant at the end of the movie when she said she has doubts. What did she mean exactly? Doubts about her actions or beliefs?

What religious order was Meryl Streep’s character represent?

In the end of the movie, S.A looks down at her cross and tells the other sister she has doubts. This is doubt about her faith in Christ and not about the Father molesting the boys. The Father admitted his guilt when he said “wait” to her and said there were even things he could not say or explain. This had nothing to do with protecting the boy. I agree the sister probably had experience with sexual abuse. It was funny to see the blond boy smiling as he knew the Father was leaving- hummm, why would this be? Since obviously he was acting out throughout the film and was the first boy who implanted “doubt” into Sister A.’s mind. The black boy was straight up vulnerable and possibly gay, who knows. Perfect territory for a predator. The father was definitely guilty.

this movie is very good to watch. good plot story between Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman. this two cast have movie award before. you will feel doubt about this two characters when you watch.
that make this movie intresting.

I just finished watching the movie, i really liked it, felt frustrated at times b/c you really have to guess at things. but i whole heartedly agree with Carey. i viewed the movie exactly as you did. at tiems i thought maybe he only had a romantically emotional relationship with the boy and not sexual, but when the blond boy smiled at the end convinced me that he did have sexual relations with the boy. why else would that boy have any reason to be happythe priest is gone, especially since he was easy going. my first give away was in the beginning how he snatched his arm away from the father. there were very subtle hints, i’d just say ditto to everything Carey mentioned b/c i don’t want to repeat it again. and yes her doubt i feel is in her faith in god or the way things are and way they are run in the church system.

i had no doubts, myself, at the end of this movie. sr. aloysius doesn’t seem tortured to me, but dedicated. and fr. flynn left for *some* reason. why respond to what sr. aloysius said if he was innocent?

the interesting thing to me is the reactions here. i can almost pick out who is a conservative catholic and who is a more liberal catholic. it shouldn’t be so easy, especially on such an issue, but i’d lay money on it: my instincts have always been good

I have noticed that in most American films there seems to be a cultural preference for neat happy-endings. Certainly judging from many of the comments on “Doubt”, I see that many viewers were left dissatisfied and annoyed by this aspect of the film.

A film entitled “Doubt” could really have no other ending. The film is a metaphor for the value of doubt within religious faith. Since in the absence of empirical certainty to prove the existence of God, there should always remain some elements of doubt within the human mind. While faith serves to bridge the gap between empirical certainty and the belief in God, the element of doubt allows us to critically examine faith so as to avoid the evils of a mind entrenched solely in fanaticism and dogma.

If we look at this film in the context of the revelations of sexual misconduct that have shaken the foundations of the Church in recent years, then it seems natural to conclude that the plot simply involves a heroic, strong-willed nun who must deal on her own terms with a pedophile priest within a male-dominated hierarchy that insulates and protects such predators. There are allusions within the film to support this popular impression, such as the priests dining on rich red meat, smoking and joking in the club-like rectory whilst the nuns are primly supping on vegetarian fare in monastic silence. Also, Mr Hoffman, who plays the offending priest, does have an aura of sleaziness about him and the emphasis on his keeping his fingernails long lends itself to something a bit creepy and out of the norm. (I do not agree with the superficial and rather invidious conclusions of other commentators that this necessarily means that the priest is gay –which by the way does not automatically correspond with pedophilia!) Within the context of all that we now know about the Church and the unpleasant history of institutionalised pedophilia, we are initially led to despise this likely pedophile priest and to side with Sister Aloysius’s in her battle… but in fact, the film is far deeper that would at first glance appear. There are multitudinous shades of grey and we, as an audience, are being challenged to examine our own perspectives and beliefs.

The stern sister’s innate belief in the validity of her suspicions against the priest correspond strongly with her comprehension of her faith and indeed her personal identity. She is utterly dogmatic in all her beliefs, whether regarding the Church, decorum for her nuns, child pedagogy, or even penmanship. She holds even trivial opinions with the same unshakeable vehemence that she holds her Christian faith.

The conflict between the priest and the nun is precipitated by his sermon about doubt. Almost as soon as the topic of this sermon is enunciated, the nun does not seem to be able to sit and concentrate on the content of the sermon, but arises and distractingly begins correcting the slack posture and other superficial misdemeanours of the students in the congregation. Nevertheless, the topic has obviously struck a chord within her since she later disrupts the habitual silence of the nuns’ mealtime by implanting the notion that something is not quite right with the priest and he needs to be watched by the nuns, which later leads the impressionable, eager-to-please young teacher to provide fodder for suspicion against the priest.

Perhaps it was the very fact that the priest stood on the pulpit and admitted the possibility doubt that threatens the very foundations of the sister’s faith and subsequently led to her efforts to depose him. Sister Aloyisus’s entire world-view is based on a highly dogmatic and sanctimonious approach that admits no room for the doubts and uncertainty of a church in the midst of reform. We see later that Sister Aloysius personally dislikes many aspects of this priest– his manicure, his ball point pens, and perhaps most of all, his agreement with the need to reform the the pre-Vatican II Church. Even her impressionable young novice recognises the possibility that this has more to do with her superior’s personal prejudices than the alleged pedophilia. Sister Aloysius likely views this priest as the personification of the perceived threats to her Church and indeed her entire world view.

Sister Aloysius is later convinced that she was right in her accusations against the priest since he resigned in the wake of her direct confrontation and her false allegations of corroborative evidence. Nevertheless, as any good lawyer would recognise, these circumstances do not in fact prove anything. Perhaps the priest finally realised that he was dealing with an irrationally fixated person who was determined to do significant harm to his personal reputation even without evidence, so he merely acquiesced to her demands to avoid incurring personal damage.

Another theme that seemed to crop up was the nun’s resentment towards the male hierarchy in the Church. Obviously she was a strong, dynamic person but found her authority limited to the role of a stern disciplinarian over children and had to defer even her own desk over to the male hierarchy when in their presence. She alluded to other instances of her opinions and authority being disregarded by the male hierarchy. Perhaps this priest was simply a target against which she could unleash her extreme resentment of her male-dominated world?

What is striking about Sister Aloyisius’ behaviour is her lack of any sympathetic contact with the supposedly victimised youth. She does not seek any direct testimony from him to corroborate the circumstantial “evidence” of the priest’s actions, nor does she make any attempt to counsel or provide any support to him as the victim of alleged pedophilia. This alone seems to indicate that she is not so much a concerned advocate and protector of the child, but rather a person using him to promote a vendetta against this particular priest.

When Sister Aloysius attempts to involve the child’s mother in her campaign against the priest, she is shocked by the mother’s unwillingness to support her. The mother instead proposes the radical notion that even if the sister’s accusations of pedophilia are true, they do not outweigh the many positive benefits she has ascertained her son to be receiving from his relationship with the priest. Indeed, she suggests that her son might have been a willing participant in such a liaison. This conversation is staggering in that it introduces completely new dimensions to the oftentimes reactionary popular response to childhood sexuality and pedophilia.

There is nothing in the film that overtly implicates the priest in a pedophilic relationship with the child. We are left to draw our own conclusions based upon the circumstantial evidence gathered from the nun’s perspective. As we can see from the many commentators who believe that this was sufficient to prove the priest’s guilt, the film has succeeded in showing just how easily people can be swayed by circumstantial evidence.

This film affords a profound challenge to examine the rigidity of one’s belief systems. It calls upon us to recognise that even a subject as sensitive as pedophilia is not as black-and-white as one might initially think. The reason Sister Aloyisius breaks down in the end and admits her doubt is because she finally is faced with the awful futility of her dogmatic black-and-white approach to her faith and her life.

I enjoyed the movie immensely, her doubts at the end had to do with the consequences of her choices. Sr.A choose to lie so as to get rid of the child molester Priest-instead of trusting in God and being faithful to Him. She turned her back on God-stepped away-as if she was in control of everything. God does not need us to be successful
only faithful to Him (Mother Teresa). NOT to worry she Will regain her faith by confessing her sin at Confession. God always forgives. Hopefully, with God’s help(His Grace in confession) she will trust that goodness and love conquer all. Peace,eileen