bored last night after hitting up the bars, i decided to watch “doubt” which features academy award nominated performances by meryl streep and philip seymour hoffman. usually i know what a movie is about before watching it, but i went into this with absolutely no idea of what was to come, the only thing i knew was that it was a film somehow about nuns. i found the editing and cinematography to be superb, allowing the emotions and psyches of the characters to be easily detectable through the screen. the on-screen battle between streep and hoffman, based purely on suspicion and steeped in doubt, was in interesting psychological examination into the balance between traditional catholic practice and contemporary (more specifically, 1960’s) ethics. on on hand streep’s character was a traditionalist, trying to to keep the church in “the dark ages,” while on the other, she wasted no time violating the vows and traditional chain of command bound to her profession. all of this to prove true the supposed wrongdoings of hoffman’s enigmatic character.
4 out of 5
to only those that have seen the film: i don’t know how i feel about the ending. the priest did act in a suspicious way and was quick to resign from his post, but in my opinion that does not necessarily indict him. his reaction to the principle’s supposed call to a sister at his last church did indicate guilt, that does not fulfill the burden of proof.
1 Comment
May 28, 2009 at 6:29 am
This story confirmed what I already knew: times change, people grow. And it made me certain that hope, wisdom and empathy can thrive if human beings allow it. My apologies Mr. Shanley but, I need to be certain of something in life and that thing would be change. The world, the Catholic Church and all of us individually who remember 1964 know, retrospectively, that one morning we woke up in a strange place. We didn’t even have the language to discuss our differences then like we do now. The night before we all had the same values, obeying the same set of rules for the same reasons – anything that strayed was incomprehensible. We woke up, like young Jimmy at the start of the film, adolescents with a newly found ability to wonder, question, disobey, push the limits, and figure things out for ourselves. With new eyes we began to see that status quo was only an option and one that didn’t improve quality of life. To some at times this epiphany was a heavenly opportunity, an adventure, a vocation to others at times, it was a hellish nightmare.
I’d like to believe that Father Flynn is guilty of trying to straddle the divide, trying to stay vital and relevant during an upheaval of opinion and faith while holding on to reason and justice by the tail. He is the personification of change. I don’t feel the need to judge him but I think he was well intentioned and forward looking. Perhaps a visionary can’t stay in one place very long – he needed to flourish, to make his point, leave his mark, plant his seed, if you will, and then let nature – human nature – take it’s course. If he defended his own reputation it would have unnecessarily and wastefully used up energy and time sending all the wrong messages. I think Sister Aloysius knew in the end, to her credit, that her last ditch effort to preserve the past and thwart progress had failed. Mrs. Miller, like a slap in the face, in effect said ‘Snap out of it! In truth survival and compassion out weigh judgment and protocol (certainty?).’ I wish I had heard that sermon on gossip years ago the imagery would have kept me quiet.