>By the way, I'm going to discuss plot points of the film,
>which I'm not sure are in the original play or not.
>
>>Just because it happens doesn't mean Shanley is saying it's
>>okay. It's actually the opposite-- the fact that she "gets
>>away with it" because she has doubts and is human at the end
>>of the day doesn't make it excusable, it makes it all the
>more
>>horrifying, because that's how real life is. Real people
>with
>>real doubts holding positions of real power can do what they
>>feel and maintain their status quo. That's a frightening,
>>post-9/11 mindset.
>
>That doesn't seem to be what Shanley is suggesting. Take the
>opening monologue by Father Flynn. Sailor's boat sinks, he
>escape on a life raft, without a compass, navigates by the
>stars as long as he can, then clouds come, and he goes in the
>direction he believes is right. All along the way, he has
>doubts he's going to the right way. But in the end, he makes
>it. He's right. Throughout the film, there's lots of stuff
>about storms coming, and winds howling and gusting. Not so
>subtle. Then the story progresses as you know it does. That
>seems to suggest, at least, to me, that Shanley believes even
>though Sister Aloysius isn't doing the popular thing, and
>though she may have private doubts, in the end, she's taking
>the right course of action.

Or the monologue could mean that Father Flynn believes that he can do what's right despite his doubts and make it, yet he doesn't. It's not about one person acting and doing what they believe is right-- we ALL do it.

>>The point of making her "human" and giving her legitimate
>>doubts is to keep her from being a one-dimensional villain,
>>since those types of people don't exist in real life. Most
>of
>>the time, the villains believe they are doing something for
>>the greater good.
>
>By the time Sister Aloysius is crying about doubt, they've
>already humanized her by showing early conversations of how
>she does care about the Miller's kid physical well-being
>(she's worried he'll get beaten up by the other kids), her
>care for the other nun that's going blind, and the allusions
>to her past (her dead WWII vet husband) and her past sins
>(vaguely mentioned during the climactic scene with Father
>Flynn). By showing her breaking down at the end, and then
>relating it back to Flynn's opening speech, Shanley comes full
>circle in letting her off the hook. Meanwhile, the nun who's
>now convinced of Flynn's innocence (after suggesting the
>infraction in the first place) is shown as being completely
>naive and unable to deal with the reality of the cruel world.

Aha! NOW you're getting it! The last sentence I think is absolutely right-- there is a cruel reality at play. But Sister Aloysius isn't let off the hook by being a caring full-blooded human-- she is simply doing what we all do, acting based on what we think is right. But because she has power, she can afford to ignore the evidence and act on what she thinks is the greater good. That's why she's problematic. It's not an issue of "letting off the hook"... I don't think any playwright worth his weight wants to absolve any of their characters fully, because then it leaves no room for discussion. All of the main three characters have their flaws... the difference is that two characters learn their lessons the hard way, whereas one is in the position where she doesn't need to pay attention due to her position of power. That's not absolution, that's reality.

>>I'd re-examine the flick. It's easy to get thrown for a loop
>>if you immediately think that the priest is innocent... but
>>it's not evident in the play that he is, and I'd be
>surprised
>>if Shanley changed that for the movie. Clearly, the actor
>>playing the priest is acting in a more sympathetic manner...
>>but the sister has doubts for a reason.
>
>Again, whether the Father Flynn did or didn't do it was really
>the least interesting part of the movie for me. I figured out
>before I ever sat down and watched it that it was going to be
>completely ambiguous and there wasn't going to be an answer.
>If anything, I'm more inclined to think that Shanley knows
>that priest did do it (Shanley has said only he and the actor
>that play Father Flynn ever really know if he did it or not)
>because honestly, I've seen enough TV/movies/plays where the
>story is constructed so that the person is the sympathetic is
>really is guilty.
>
>Personally, as I've said above posts, I think the whole "Did
>be/didn't he do it" was a red herring for a play/film that was
>really about fear of change.

Well, you're right that it's not about whether he did it. I just wanted to make sure your interpretation wasn't based on the assumption of innocence.

>>I just think that Shanley would never "condone" the sister's
>>actions in as simple a way as you perceived.
>
>I'm saying that as I interpreted the script/film/story,
>Shanley doesn't admire Sister Aloyisius' actions, he does
>believe that it's okay to cheat and deceive, as long as your
>intentions are good, and as long as you harbor your own doubts
>and share them, God is willing to forgive you for your
>trespasses, because doubts are human.

No, no, no. He DOES believe that doubts are human, and he DOES believe that people think in the manner you're describing Shanley as thinking, but that doesn't mean he also thinks that way. He is simply observing. People do cheat and deceive with good intentions, and people do act on their doubts, and people do believe that God will forgive you your trespasses. But he is observing-- not condoning.

I used the word "villain" earlier to describe Sister Aloysius, and I think that was a misleading term. She's not a villain at all-- she's real. She's a caring (if stringent) woman of God, and she absolutely believes that she's doing the right thing. In a different play, she'd be the hero. But Shanley avoids those labels in the play. Every character has their flaw, and every character has a lesson to learn, but much like in real life, sometimes people sidestep around that lesson because they are in a position where they don't believe they need to change. Going up against the status quo, once the status quo believes you are guilty, is tantamount to a fool's errand in the world we live in. That's not what Shanley thinks is okay, that's what he thinks is real.

I think you're in the right ballpark... you're just not quite hitting it on the nose yet. And of course, the play IS open for discussion, and your interpretation is what you will make it, and I have no right to tell you mine is right and yours is wrong. I just think, in my personal opinion, you're missing it.