MovieChat Forums > Doubt (2008) Discussion > NO DOUBT: TOTAL SPOILER!

NO DOUBT: TOTAL SPOILER!


The entire movie is peppered with clues and misdirection. Father Flynn is a child molester without doubt. Here are a few points:

1.The screenplay is pretty loaded against Sister Aloysius from the beginning. Her introductory act is to slap the back of a child's head in church. She's presented as the villain. Severe, authoritarian, humorless. We're meant to hate her. Although she takes many redeeming actions throughout the movie, the well is poisoned. In contrast, we like Father Flynn from the get go. He seems charming and open-minded.

2. The idea here is simple. Will we side with a person who we dislike but is right? Or do we side with someone very likeable but who is alleged to be a monster? Since no act of molestation is shown, it's our impulse to believe in Father Flynn because we think he's being demonized. Where's the evidence? How can this 'old bag' be so certain? Innocent until proven guilty and all that. It's much harder to believe in Sister Aloysius. Father Flynn is the easy choice. This is foreshadowed in the first act, 'Ball point pens are the easy way out. Every easy choice today will have its consequences tomorrow.'

3. From the start we're misled into thinking there's a witch-hunt for Father Flynn. When Sister Aloysius hears the sermon about 'Doubt', she bristles. We're meant to think she hates people in the clergy with shaky faith. At the dinner table she asks Sister James if she thinks Father Flynn has doubts. Misdirection towards witch-hunt. In the final scene and not before, we realize why she reacted that way. The sermon resonated with her because of her own doubts. She's not the mindless robot she's made out to be.

4. In the beginning, William London flinches and glares when Father Flynn touches his hand in the courtyard. Father Flynn then insults him in front of his peers making them laugh at his expense. Not very priestly. This is the incident that grabs Sister Aloysius's attention. That's why Sister Aloysius goes into overdrive when Sister James mentions Miller's weird behavior in class after the rectory visit. We're meant to think this is an overreaction based on little evidence, but not if she's already suspicious Flynn made advances on London. This is confirmed in the end when Flynn says goodbye to the congregation, William London smiles to himself. He clearly thinks Flynn's a pervert.

5. Father Flynn also shows that he's an expert manipulator by seeking out Sister James for a chat. He thinks she's the only witness and he wins her over. Like Sister Aloysius says, 'These types are clever.'

6. Father Flynn does show his true character by abusing his power. He threatens that his next sermon will be about 'Intolerance'. And later, from the pulpit he talks very graphically about the effects of 'Gossip'. This is foreshadowed by Sister Aloysius remarking earlier that in Ancient Sparta important matters were decided by who could shout the loudest. And Flynn does shout! He also proves that he doesn't care about his congregation. He flippantly talks about a parishioner and her daughter, calling them both fat. The joke is about their body size and not something the women did. That's mean and petty.

7. Throughout the movie William London and Jimmy Hurley are disrespectful to Father Flynn. This speaks volumes. Also pay attention to the flinch at the basketball court and when they're talking about asking girls to the dance. Shanley is directing our eye by having London be the only kid not wearing a blazer so you notice his mistrusting expression.

8. Our doubt throughout the movie stems from the lack of clear evidence. Because not all is shown to us. Surely, no jury would convict on such flimsy scraps of non-events and hearsay. But if Father Flynn is innocent why does he get a transfer? She can't bully him. The first time they're in her office, he bullies her out of her own chair. He's not scared of her, he's scared because he knows he's been caught. He clearly threatens her with excommunication when he gets nowhere with her by playing the victim card. A sure sign of guilt. He's a sexual predator. They both know it.

9. Sister James says she has sleepless nights because of the doubts. Sister Aloysius says that she should because the predator has gone to an even bigger parish and a bigger school. There is no doubt about Flynn's guilt or his political clout in the church. This shows that Flynn has always been a player.

10. While there are also many other complex themes running through the film, we must remember that there are two battles between Flynn and Aloysius and therefore there are two verdicts. The first one is about selling out tradition for reformation. He is right and she is wrong. Those are her principal doubts. She refers to the changing winds and after talking to Miller's mother she's enveloped by the wind. The second, obviously, is the act of molestation. She is right and he is wrong. Shanley has cleverly written it as one big battle, to cause confusion and doubt within the audience. And both Flynn and Aloysius are on the right side, in one of the battles.

reply

Yes, that's certainly ONE way of looking at it. But he's a molester "without a doubt"?

Couldn't London's satisfaction at the end be due to the idea that HE is the one responsible for the whole crusade against that *beep* priest with long nails? We don't know what he said to Sr Aloysius after the flinching incident in the courtyard. The entirety of the movie could be based on one subtle accusation made by a lying, manipulating fidgety boy who bullies the chubby black kid.

I do agree that the deck is stacked against Sr. Aloysius, as she recruits the nuns to look for ambiguous suspicious behavior from Flynn (everyone has suspicious behavior). She has no evidence. She has no support. She doesn't even have an accusation that we're aware of. But she has her certainty.

ALl you have said is certainly food for thought, but doesn't conclude anything any more than others' perceptions of the incidents in play. It's very well written, but in the end, the battle isn't about what's on screen, but what's in our hearts and minds. We know there's something amiss. What that is has been approached so ambiguously that our consciences are conflicting with our instincts and therein lies the doubt.

Especially in today's world where certainty is frowned upon in the face of 'grey areas". Nothing is black and white.

To me, it doesn't matter whether Flynn is guilty or innocent. It doesn't matter if Aloysius is right or wrong. What only matters is what I am willing to accept as truth and what I am willing to doubt.

Do I have enough faith to believe in something without any evidence, based solely on the conjecture of others? On what do I base that faith- that belief?

Isn't that at the very heart of religion itself?






My "3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

The wonderful thing about this movie and its themes is that multiple points of view are encouraged and at no point is certainty assured. There's simply not enough evidence one way or another.

Your comments about 'grey areas' and the analogy to religion are well taken.

My contention is this: Shanley as the architect of this story knows if Flynn did it or not? He has to know this. Otherwise, the characters would be hollow. He could probably even tell you what happens to the characters 5 years after this event or 5 years prior. All good writers think through elaborate back stories of their characters and know silly details like what kind of ice-cream flavor their characters prefer, etc.

So, although Shanley chooses to keep it ambiguous, he knows the truth. Now, when he uses foreshadowing with dialogue, directs our eye with the camera, uses misdirection by making the guy who needs the benefit of the doubt likeable and the person who's operating from conjecture hateful (in one scene Aloysius sounds like a Bond villain 'Yes, it takes a cat to catch a mouse!'), with these devices he is telling us something. That's all I'm responding to. What's on screen.

By the way, Aloysius also has her doubts. Once when James breaks down and tells her that Aloysius is only doing this because she hates Flynn, the overhead light bulb goes bust. And when Flynn defends himself with real tender emotion later in her office, the bulb goes out again. To my mind, that's the seed of doubt in her and obviously symbolic of lack of illumination one way or the other. She actually tells James, 'Look at that. You blew out my light!' The moments don't last long though.

Would I convict Flynn based on what I see on screen? Nope. Is Shanley telling us Flynn is guilty? Yes.

reply

I wouldn't doubt that Shanley wrote the script from one perspective and then went back and edited it from the other perspective just to maintain its ambiguity even to himself!




My "3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

I can respond to this with an interesting tidbit.

A few years ago, Shanley spoke for free at Tulsa University. I was among the people there and Doubt, among his other movie works, was one of the topics there.

Shanley stated that he worked with the three primary actors for roughly two months before filming began. During this period, Phillip Seymour Hoffman asked Shanley whether Father Flynn did it or not, in order to understand his character he had to know.

Shanley told him. And Shanley told us that he does have a definite answer.

However, I am firmly of the mind that Father Flynn is a man that has flaws. He may even be a man that is in someways unpriestly, but to take implications that a man is somewhat not the saint he's supposed to be, and to jump the gap to instantly say that he is a child molestor (the movie isn't doing that, you are doing that with the evidence the movie gave you) is something that the movie paints as bad.

Sister Aloysius is shown to be conniving and ruling by fear on both the children and the other nuns. She is operating in a period when women are still on a lower level of social interaction (not to mention colored people), and within an institution that doesn't favor women with many rights over their male superiors.

That Flynn is protecting a black male child in a world that is harbored against him is a priestly action. To add further that the boy may actually be gay, shows that even Flynn is willing to step outside the "boundaries" of his church to keep the child safe from harm.

When he is attacked for these actions by the purely operating on "faith" Aloysius, how is he to defend himself? The speech about "Gossip" is the action of a man who is willing to stab out those he sees as his inferiors. It is also his trump card. That is how gossip works, you cannot go back and gather all the feathers.

Aloysius said herself that she would throw Donald Miller out of the school if Father Flynn had stayed. Aloysius would've gone behind Flynn's back to every person she could know, coming up with lies as well, in order to motivate everyone against him. He would have been the victim of a witch hunt, and that's why he left.

Donald Miller stays in the school, uncomfortable and heartbroken, but still there. Flynn receives a promotion.

To think that his past may have been filled with previous witch hunts can explain why a lie phone call to a previous parish would fill him with worry that Aloysius had something that could continue to demean him, something he'd run away from before, and had to run away from again.

There's nothing that suggests he did it. There's plenty we can infer on to suggest that he didn't. Alternative Explanations exist for just about everything in the movie.

reply

Thank you for confirming that Shanley knows. I find all your 'alternative explanations' perfectly valid and well constructed. I'll just have to watch it again soon. Cheers. :)

reply

I cannot remember the source (and it may have just been on this message board- so take this with a grain of salt), but I recall hearing that Shanley varies on the guilt or innocence of Flynn for different productions. So while Hoffman may have been told "guilty", another performer, previously in that role on stage may be told "innocent".




My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply


I'm mostly replying to give this whole thread a "bump."
You started a very thought-provoking thread and a different way of looking at all of these points was equally well represented.

Just a few questions I want to throw out, although I have also been commenting over the last couple days on various threads (I just saw this for the first and second times over the last two nights)here.

Even if Shanley knows the answers to our questions, does that trump all of our own opinions? In other words, let's say I had the opportunity to discuss it with him, and he said, "Of course, Flynn molested the boy" or "Of course, Sr. Aloysius was on a witch hunt and saw the error of her own ways" -- does that invalidate our own way of looking at these issues? Does the film belong to us every bit as much as it does to the man who wrote it? I've asked this question (of myself and others) with other books and films as well.

The strength of this film is that there are several different ways of approaching it, and all seem plausible. It's almost like the (if you will) elasticity and versatility of statistics: the information could be used to vindicate a certain belief...or another.

One theme I haven't seen discussed here (though I haven't read all of the threads) concerns guilt versus shame. Could Flynn have carried a sense of shame with him from one position to the next - and even before going into the priesthood? Maybe, he hadn't done anything wrong, and there was no guilt, but he lived with shame because of where his thoughts took him. (Then again, perhaps he wasn't ashamed or guilty of anything...just forced out on a misguided witch hunt again. Or, on the other hand...or do we need a foot... he may have been totally corrupt and manipulative. Or...

There are moments in this film where I 'doubt' its quality and wonder if it's worthy of all of the emotion and thought we bring to it. For instance, was the writing...especially in regard to Streep's quips...just a little forced (such as the cat/mouse line and the wind bringing change?) How many movies need to have thunderstorms to heighten the drama? Another movie I really like...Glengarry Glen Ross...does it, and it seems to cheapen what is already/inherently dramatic. At times, there are other touches in Doubt that seem just a hair over the top for a film that - by and large - respects our intelligence.

In the end, I "forgive" the film these flaws, and do think it is of a very high caliber. Others may see the story as much more obvious and uninteresting and still others may see the story as being kind of slight. Is its ambiguity a sign of its complexity or its simplicity?

reply

I hate you for bringing up the Guilt versus Shame thing. That's a brilliant take. I must admit that it did not occur to me at all. Scheisse! It's time to watch the movie again.

reply

Well, thank you, but please don't hate . For a person of conscience, this may lead to feelings of guilt, er,shame.

(This is quite a compelling film, but do you kind of agree that at times, a small percentage of the dialogue and director's choices (the thunderstorm, wind, etc.) were a bit superfluous?

reply

I think the wind and storms were inserted in order give the film a sense of body- to take it off the "stage", so to speak. otherwise it feels like a filmed stage production rather than a movie. So by inserting effects, the director is adding body and exterior forces to augment the film. Superfluous? Yes. But no more than other effects in films. They worked within the framework of the film, and gave the director the freedom to play around with symbolism.



My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

Good points, and those minor contrivances (as I saw them) are defensible. It just seems that - in many films - thunderstorms are used too often as a (hackneyed) plot device to supposedly heighten the drama. And I love witty dialogue, but at times the situations (cat and mouse...the wind of change) were too tailor-made for the Sister's quips.

In the end, the strengths of this film far outweighed any of these flaws.

reply

Wainot, in the main I certainly agree with you, particularly concerning one's right to disagree with the play's author. If I were on trial I for one would certainly hope my lawyer would have them all disqualified for cause.


Only two things are actually knowable:
It is now and you are here. All else is merely a belief.

reply

[deleted]

As @gigadragon12 noted in his/her reply, Shanley said in an interview that he definitely knows. Which means in the writer's mind there is absolutely no doubt. There is an answer!

As a matter of opinion, I believe Flynn's guilty. But if I'm being rational, I have to concede to you on your many excellent points. What a good little movie. :)

reply

U said everything I was thinking while watching and rewatching this movie. I see guilt in Flynn every time I watch. The 1st meeting is the most important sign of his guilt. The man who walked in that office would never roll over that easily. The man he pretends 2 be would never be so rude as 2 take Sister Al's desk. Even she was surprised by that move. Most ppl miss the nuances of PSH performance in this movie. But you're not 1 of them.

reply

"10. While there are also many other complex themes running through the film, we must remember that there are two battles between Flynn and Aloysius and therefore there are two verdicts. The first one is about selling out tradition for reformation. He is right and she is wrong. Those are her principal doubts. She refers to the changing winds and after talking to Miller's mother she's enveloped by the wind. The second, obviously, is the act of molestation. She is right and he is wrong. Shanley has cleverly written it as one big battle, to cause confusion and doubt within the audience. And both Flynn and Aloysius are on the right side, in one of the battles."

I actually saw both issues almost exactly the opposite way to you. Like many people, I really have no idea whether Father Flynn was actually guilty or not and certainly couldn't convict him in a court of law. Others have posted sufficiently on this point that I have nothing further to add.

On the issue of tradition vs reformation, I think you are correct on the surface. Sister Aloysius' attitudes towards modernity are patently absurd to someone from 2013. They are mind bogglingly petty.

Yet here we are half a century later and a great many people (including myself -- I am a teacher, by the way) would say that educational standards, both behavioural and academic, have gone to the dogs. Yet we can't pinpoint exactly where or when it all went wrong simply because there wasn't a single point. There was no fracture, but rather, an erosion.

Sister Aloysius' battles only look absurd to us because those battles are old hat to us and we are mired in the present. Yet our own battles today may look completely absurd to someone in another 50 years. If we step outside ourselves, rather than being singularly obsessed with our notions of the present as being both immensely important and right, we may learn that not only is there wisdom in some aspects of tradition (not all -- I'm no paleoconservative), but that such wisdom often comes buttressed by smaller traditions or practices that may appear quite absurd or petty to outsiders, but that cannot so easily be removed if the greater structure is to remain standing. In that sense, I don't think either Sister or Aloysius or Father Flynn was necessarily right or wrong based upon what we saw. I would want to know more about their positions and how they fitted into broader issues.

reply

I just watched this movie, and went to the IMDb mainly to see how it was received. I found this thread and just want to say that this might be the best thread I've read on this site. Just like the OP I was convinced Flynn was guilty, although I hadn't caught all the subtleties s/he presented in her/his post. After reading the other excellent posts here, I've got more to think about.

reply

I really don't see any good in coming to a conclusion on this film as to Flynn's guilt or innocence. To me it's a waste of this script and these actors' talents to turn it into a "Law & Order:SVU" episode.
For me, this film demanded that I examine my own doubts and "certainties" about everything that has no real evidence and only ambiguous clues that require predispositions in order to conclude anything.

One could easily apply the lessons in this film to examine their own faith in the existence of a god.



"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3

reply

You are right that this movie could prompt us to examine some of the beliefs we have (although my (non-)belief in God has been thoroughly examined already). But less concretely, I think, like all good movies, it more just slightly alters our way of dealing with things going forward.

But I wouldn't call it a waste to recognize and discuss the hints about the characters that the filmmaker did intentionally include in the movie. The core of the movie is how we view the characters and their motivation from scene to scene. It's a dramatic piece, not a theoretical treatise. Everybody in this thread has also recognized that there is no one correct conclusion.

reply

Maybe "waste" was the wrong word. I meant to imply that it "distracts" from the core of the film's messages and if the guilt/innocence is the only thing a person's trying to figure out with this film, then I think it's being wasted- even though that struggle IS an integral part of viewing the film.



"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3

reply

I agree, if that's all they focus on, they're missing a lot.

reply

I agree that there is NO DOUBT about one thing.

And that is that the creator of this thread believes in that particularly nasty line of thought (often spoken of by the Republican Conservative Right) that there is no difference between being a gay male and being a pedophile.

Anyone who watches the movie without such a twisted view of gays will instantly realize that the Father very likely is stepping down solely because he does not want to be outed as a homosexual. And that it has nothing at all to do with the boys.

I'm not sure how they miss that after it is thrown in their face by the boys mother that the boys father beat him because of his "nature" (he was showing signs of being a homosexual).

reply

Dear nobody_nameless,

What a bizarre ad hominem attack. I'm not going to pretend to be offended because you clearly do not read very well. This is an IMDB message board, reddit is on the other side of the internet.

Cheers.

reply

You are so wrong it is hilarious. You miss the whole premise of the movie.

Do you side with the law? Or do you side with grace?

You are the law.

People who are legalistic will side with the sister. People who believe in grace (undeserved kindness) will believe Flynn. And those who see the subtext will know the question and find the balance.

The movie is more of a personality test of sorts. It is not your job in this film to find out whodunit.

This is like ValJean and Javier in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables.

Let me translate a line for you: "I like them a little long, but I keep them clean, so that makes it OK" translates to " I have an effeminate nature, I have been attracted to men, but I never have actually commited sodomy and I repent daily and I have made vows commited to Christ, so I am OK" THIS is why Father has a special interest in the boy. He sees a young effeminate boy(that is what they would call it back then) and he thinks becoming a priest one day will help him cure his urges. That hug in the hallway was a "bring the children to me" Jesus style hug. Nothing more. I approve.

But an adult gay man (and a denying, self condemning, and repentant one) does not a child molester make. Gay men are attracted to men.

Even father Flynn has a little law to him. He believes in celibacy as a way to serve God, which conveniently cures his supposed defect. And he believes in the patriarchal chain of command. This is why he tells the sister there are things that he cannot explain. We can guess what he has confessed before (his natural urges) but we cannot guess what the sister's past confessions have been. I see a transparency problem here.

Watch the movie again, playing devil's advocate. As if Father Flynn is gay, but virginal like a nun, or Jesus. He doesn't believe its OK to act on it. You will see a different film entirely. I promise.

I'm not saying he is innocent. I am saying watch it again with a new bias. Same lines different story.

reply

No one in their right mind would conflate homosexuality with pedophilia. Why are the latecomers to this thread attributing this to my post? I know that Flynn's gay and the Boy is gay. So what? That has no bearing on whether Flynn's a pedophile. Hope that's clear.

Both gabby_bm and gigadragon12 have posted excellent counters to my post. They're an interesting read if you have time. My prime contention was that Shanley was trying to tell us Flynn was guilty. I have since been cured of this certainty. Cheers.

reply

"Do you side with the law? Or do you side with grace?

You are the law.

People who are legalistic will side with the sister. People who believe in grace (undeserved kindness) will believe Flynn. And those who see the subtext will know the question and find the balance. "

Now you are the one that is over simplifying it. In fact this could be turned around to say that those that believe Flynn side with the patriarchal power structure.

reply

As a former legalist who, as of 2009, I am totally about Grace trumps legalism. However, I think that the whole point of the movie is recognizing TRUE and REAL kindness that emanates from the heart (Sister A's kindness to the elderly sister) versus Father Flynn's more flamboyant PERCEIVED graciousness (his meanness about his fat parishioners).

Even Sister A's method of running the school - she was quite concerned that the students not feel like they were in a prison and repressed by the staff but she also recognized the need for her own feared persona as the ultimate discipliner.

I have come across many "mean" people in life that if you examine their actions and ignore their stern countenance or voices, their actions are the real embodiment of love. Likewise there are people who wear the mask of kindness but their actions are truly evil.

Whether she's right or wrong, I think Sister A was motivated by love for, and responsibility for, the children in her charge.

reply

Logged in just to say thank you, my thoughts exactly. Flynn is gay and that's why he heartbrokenly asks "What made you think so, what did I do ?" - He's obviously trying to control his urges (and I don't mean paedophilia) and he's suffering for it. He just wants to know what gave it away because he's been so careful about it.

reply

[deleted]