Who’s seen this? I checked it out earlier today. Decent flick (expectations were met). I loved Meryl Streep (as always). Wasn’t feelin’ Philip Seymour Hoffman as the priest initially but by the end I thought he was excellent. Obviously, the ending was very mystified. Arguments can be made for either position. Still going back and forth in my mind…

_________________________

www.ihearthiphop.com

>Who’s seen this? I checked it out earlier today. Decent flick
>(expectations were met). I loved Meryl Streep (as always).
>Wasn’t feelin’ Philip Seymour Hoffman as the priest initially
>but by the end I thought he was excellent. Obviously, the
>ending was very mystified. Arguments can be made for either
>position. Still going back and forth in my mind…
>
>_________________________
>
>www.ihearthiphop.com

Wow. Surprised no one has seen this flick.
_________________________

www.ihearthiphop.com

for me

This post was paid for by the following.

www.twitter.com/13Rose
www.debunkthemyth.org
http://dashaunworld.wordpress.com/
www.mothergreen.com

Remember MJ The Great!
PSN: ThirteenRose

I think this is the 1st Streep movie I've seen of hers in its entirity & she basically stole the show.

>I think this is the 1st Streep movie I've seen of hers in its
>entirity & she basically stole the show.


_________________________

www.ihearthiphop.com

Streep (aka The GOAT) and Phil Seymour brought the heat, as expected

What was unexpected, though, was Viola Davis murdering the movie in 12 minutes... some may say that the writing of that particular scene is fuckup-proof, but I dunno, I think if you put those words in another actor's mouth, the potential for disaster is greater... she nailed the tone and tenor of the scene perfectly...

I'm not sure if certain dramatic devices were kept intact from the stage play, such as the uses of thunder, etc, but I didn't think they were needed here in the film... but I still admired Shanley's decision to keep things as sparse as possible and not "open things up" for the screen... the words are the most powerful thing here, and I thought the simple look of the film only drove that point home...

Now, to the actual story. After the screening I attended, I took an elevator with 7 folks, and we literally rode the elevator up and down several times debating what happened...

And it's to Shanley's credit that he doesn't provide a definitive answer... which I'm sure will piss off many PTPers looking for a "satisfying conclusion," but that's their problem... I was sold on the way this particular story was told... good stuff...
________________________________________________________________________
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

I love that it forces you to think, debate and decide for yourself. If people can't appreciate that then they suck. lol


_________________________

www.ihearthiphop.com

The scene with Streep and Hoffman at the end in the principle's office reminded me of DeNiro and Pacino in Heat in that it was two absolute heavyweights going toe to toe, which when you think about, you don't get to see very often.

The more and more I thought about it, the more and more I appreciated the subtleties throughout the movie that can support either side of the story.

To me its refreshing to see a movie that relies on good old fashioned well-crafted dialog and strong acting instead of gimmicks and shit.

----

That scene with Streep and Hoffman was classic. I also liked the scene with Streep and Viola Davis. Great!
_________________________

www.ihearthiphop.com

Personally, I'm okay with leaving the film open to interpretation and don't really care if he did it or not. I had more problems with the film's overall message beyond that. Streep and Hoffman did their thing regardless.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

________________________________________________________________________
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

The whole film basically endorsed the overall fear and resistance to change as acceptable or even commendable thing. It's okay to judge people for not cutting the nails, using a ball-point pen, taking sugar in their tea, and moreover it's all right to terrorize small children, accuse possibly innocent people or terrible things, and in general treat people like garbage, as long as you've got private doubts that in the end unite you with everyone else.

Similarly, the film basically said that some people may complain that church needs to change and be closer to the its members, but those people are paternalistic and probably child molesters anyway, so it's okay to keep the church in the dark ages. I did find the sexism angle sort of interesting, but it's really nothing that revelatory.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

>The whole film basically endorsed the overall fear and
>resistance to change as acceptable or even commendable thing.
>It's okay to judge people for not cutting the nails, using a
>ball-point pen, taking sugar in their tea, and moreover it's
>all right to terrorize small children, accuse possibly
>innocent people or terrible things, and in general treat
>people like garbage, as long as you've got private doubts that
>in the end unite you with everyone else.
>
>Similarly, the film basically said that some people may
>complain that church needs to change and be closer to the its
>members, but those people are paternalistic and probably child
>molesters anyway, so it's okay to keep the church in the dark
>ages. I did find the sexism angle sort of interesting, but
>it's really nothing that revelatory.

And the film certainly didn't endorse fear and resistance to change, nor anything else you said. It actually didn't endorse anything; a viewpoint, a set of facts, a character (and in fact, actually doubts all of those things in one way or another). An endorsement would assume a surety, which would basically negate the title.

----

>And the film certainly didn't endorse fear and resistance to
>change, nor anything else you said.

Sister Aloysius fears and resists change in the Catholic church. She doesn't like Father Flynn because he uses a ball-point pen and wants to the church choir to sing secular songs during the Christmas performance. Plus, she suspects he may have had an improper relationship with one of altar boys. She collects and fabricates (or implies) evidence against him, confronts him with it and forces him to quit. Which clearly implies he did something wrong while a priest, and is thus a hypocrite, showing how dangerous change can be.

No matter what happened, Sister Aloysius still rules over the school like it's a prison, resisting to bring it into the modern world. But it's all okay because she has private "doubts" like the rest of us. Her actions don't matter, as long as deep down, she's unsure of herself.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

A film doesn't automatically assume the standpoint of one of its characters. If anything, the film kind of subtly rejects those things by making all of her intolerance very unlikable. Personally, I actually felt the film was closer to endorsing the priest's point of view, by generally making him more likable as a character.

To play the devil's advocate though, can you really blame the sister for pursuing the possibility that one of her students is being molested? There is certainly no hard evidence, but as a principle, wouldn't you have a zero tolerance policy even if there is even a possibility (knowing that there is a history of priests and abuse). Why give the benefit of the doubt (no pun intended...or maybe there is?) if the benefit could lead to severe child abuse?

----

...because something bad MIGHT happen. So being the unlikable is okay as long as you might be right. Clinging to the past is okay, because it's always worked before, and the change corrupts the moral fiber of the church. Meanwhile, the likable guy is probably deep down a bad person.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

you're taking one character's point of view and projecting.

---
www.ikirejones.com
FW16: After Migration.

---

@kokupuff

I'm not looking for co-signs here. You are aware there are different ways to interpret things, right?

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

...shows that not only is what she did not okay, but it haunts her. Meanwhile, while Flynn suffered for a bit, his doubts in his ability to stay untarnished by the Sister get him promoted. How does that translate to your interpretation?

I'm glad someone has a different take, since it stirs up discussion. But I'm curious as to how you got such a boldly different, like wildly off the mark I've found, interpretation.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>...shows that not only is what she did not okay, but it
>haunts her.

Well, what exactly Sister Aloysius has "doubts" about is purposely left open ended, which you know. But, again, if he look at through the prism of her getting Father Flynn to leave, and taking into context Flynn's opening speech, the fact that she has doubts redeems her in the eyes of the story. That she has doubts about what she actions, not her actions themselves, that are really important.

>Meanwhile, while Flynn suffered for a bit, his
>doubts in his ability to stay untarnished by the Sister get
>him promoted.

If anything, Flynn's promotion is suggested to be the result of the Church's sexism (alluded by Sister Aloysius throughout the film) and the diocese's desire to protect their own and run the Church as just another old boy's network. Shanley's basically alluding to the pattern of behavior that the Catholic Church followed during the rampant abuse scandals over the years.


>I'm glad someone has a different take, since it stirs up
>discussion. But I'm curious as to how you got such a boldly
>different, like wildly off the mark I've found,
>interpretation.

There's a lot of people in this thread seeing something in this of this film that they want to see. You yourself you saw the film as partially an allegory for the post 9-11 mindset. I'm not saying that interpreatation necessarily wrong, but that's your own interpretation of it.

You've got people all over this thread who think that the film is saying what Sister Aloysius did was wrong because they personally believe it's and can't believe that someone would write a play or a screenplay condoning those things. Hell, I think what she did is wrong, and that's why I'm annoyed that Shanley let's her off the hook. By making her "dobuts" the exclamation point to the film/play, it again suggests that she's just like the rest of us, and is worthy of our sympathy and doesn't deserve our scorn, because darn it, she was just trying what she believed was right. She stepped away from God to pursue justice, but her doubts bring her right back to God.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

>>...shows that not only is what she did not okay, but it
>>haunts her.
>
>Well, what exactly Sister Aloysius has "doubts" about is
>purposely left open ended, which you know. But, again, if he
>look at through the prism of her getting Father Flynn to
>leave, and taking into context Flynn's opening speech, the
>fact that she has doubts redeems her in the eyes of the story.
>That she has doubts about what she actions, not her actions
>themselves, that are really important.

People aren't redeemed by having doubts. Don't read that people find the righteous path by following their doubts. It doesn't say that doubt is right, it says that it's human, and feeling lost is a common link. Also, don't ignore Shanley's parable about gossip.

Now, Flynn at the end says he's grateful, because the wind pushed him through there and to the place where God intends him to be. Would Father Flynn say at the end that Sister Aloysius's doubts led everyone "home," a.k.a. to the places where God intended them to be? Absolutely yes.

Father Flynn has a promotion, and has maintained his position in a male-dominated Catholic world-- he's fine with it.

Sister James still can't sleep because she had doubts, but because she told Father Flynn there were only doubts, unfounded and wrong, she can play the role of the consoler and compassionate nun in a new progressive church that cares rather than disciplines-- this is what Father Flynn and the other men are about, so she's likely to do fine.

Sister Aloysius didn't have doubts about Father Flynn when she kicked him out. She wasn't following her doubts. She let her doubts become facts, and she turned a blind eye to the lack of evidence because of her own rage at his conduct, at his gender, and at the predicament. At the end, she opens up and acknowledges her doubts about Father Flynn, whether he did it. The FACT that she acknowledges she has doubts, which for the hour beforehand she did not have because she was so certain, leaves her shattered. She is a well-intentioned but damned woman, damned to be tortured by her actions, damned to be irrelevant in a compassionate male-dominated church, damned to be disliked by everyone. There's a reason why she cries at the end, and it's not because Shanley is condoning her behavior. It's because, regardless of the interpretation, she is unhappy. Doubts have led her to unhappiness.


>>Meanwhile, while Flynn suffered for a bit, his
>>doubts in his ability to stay untarnished by the Sister get
>>him promoted.
>
>If anything, Flynn's promotion is suggested to be the result
>of the Church's sexism (alluded by Sister Aloysius throughout
>the film) and the diocese's desire to protect their own and
>run the Church as just another old boy's network. Shanley's
>basically alluding to the pattern of behavior that the
>Catholic Church followed during the rampant abuse scandals
>over the years.

Yes, but does that mean that the Sister is approved of by Shanley? It shows why she might have had such passionate vendettas against Flynn, but her style of teaching isn't even in line with the younger generation of nuns, much less the men in the Catholic church. She's a relic, she's a has-been, fighting for relevance-- and doing a pretty damn good job of it, considering the little actual power she has.

>>I'm glad someone has a different take, since it stirs up
>>discussion. But I'm curious as to how you got such a boldly
>>different, like wildly off the mark I've found,
>>interpretation.
>
>There's a lot of people in this thread seeing something in
>this of this film that they want to see. You yourself you saw
>the film as partially an allegory for the post 9-11 mindset.
>I'm not saying that interpreatation necessarily wrong, but
>that's your own interpretation of it.
>
>You've got people all over this thread who think that the film
>is saying what Sister Aloysius did was wrong because they
>personally believe it's and can't believe that someone would
>write a play or a screenplay condoning those things. Hell, I
>think what she did is wrong, and that's why I'm annoyed that
>Shanley let's her off the hook.

He doesn't, she's unhappy at the end of the play. She says several times that she is damned for her actions. How is that letting her off the hook?

By making her "dobuts" the
>exclamation point to the film/play, it again suggests that
>she's just like the rest of us, and is worthy of our sympathy
>and doesn't deserve our scorn, because darn it, she was just
>trying what she believed was right. She stepped away from God
>to pursue justice, but her doubts bring her right back to
>God.

Aha! There's your booboo. Father Flynn's parable does NOT say that doubts lead you to God. It says doubts help you get to where God intended for you to be. Big difference. And if you're looking for how Father Flynn's parable relates to the film's story, there's your answer--- God intended for this woman to help up weeping, with the compassionate woman having the heart to warmly console her and forgive her. Do we as the audience forgive her? That's up for interpretation. Do we as the audience scorn her? Again, up for interpretation. But you're ignoring the verbiage of the speech by saying that that speech and the final moments bookend an honorable pursuit towards godliness without any negative repercussions whatsoever.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Cause Hoffman's character was ultimately ousted? Just curious what makes you think that.

_________________________

www.ihearthiphop.com

>Cause Hoffman's character was ultimately ousted? Just curious
>what makes you think that.

Yes, that's exactly it. Because no matter if he did anything with Donald Miller or William London, the film implies he did something very wrong sometime, thus demonstrating how dangerous change can be. The message of the film endorses keeping things status quo, while privately doubting if you're right, rather than taking the risks that go along with change.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

>Yes, that's exactly it. Because no matter if he did anything
>with Donald Miller or William London, the film implies he did
>something very wrong sometime, thus demonstrating how
>dangerous change can be. The message of the film endorses
>keeping things status quo, while privately doubting if you're
>right, rather than taking the risks that go along with change.

He technically wasn't ousted though, he left on his own terms. Again, maybe if he was innocent he left because he decided there was no possible way to salvage a working relationship with a Nun with whom he'd HAVE to work (which there wasn't). And he wouldn't want to have a battle with her about it, because just the suspicion of guilt if made public would ultimately destroy his credibility and reputation. He could have just decided that it'd be better for himself to move on and have one crazy nun wrongly think he was guilty than have a whole community wrongly think he was guilty. Why fight if your alternative is to get a promotion and put a person hell bent on falsely accusing you behind you.

Obviously I don't know if any of that happened, but neither do you. Thats the point. The movie itself took no stance. It didn't just not tell you what happened, it gave multiple clues on both sides of the story that one could use to support his or her argument on either side. That alone is proof of its neutrality.

----

I agree. Yeah I shouldn't have used the term ousted since he did step down voluntarily.

_________________________

www.ihearthiphop.com

>He technically wasn't ousted though, he left on his own terms.

He left only after Streep mentioned her (allbeit fabricated) call to his old parish. And after he gave his "there's are things I can't tell you" speech, which served as a confession of something, though the screenplay never said what.

>Why fight if your alternative is to get a promotion and put a person >hell bent on falsely accusing you behind you.

It's also implied that he got the promotion due to the inherent sexism of the Diocese, and the bishop who were going to look out for their own and turn a blind-eye to even the appearance of wrong-doing.

>Obviously I don't know if any of that happened, but neither do
>you. Thats the point.

I know that's the point. I never said it I did know whether he did something to Miller or the other kid. That's left open-ended and I'm fine with it. I never paid it much mind of the film was over. But the implications is that Flynn did SOMETHING, and that justified Sister Aloysius stepping away from the church to stamp out wrong-doing and fearing change, because SOMETHING happened at sometime. And even she was wrong, it was okay because she had the same doubts that everyone else has, and that's what was really important.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

*NOTE: I HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM, BUT I'VE READ AND SEEN THE PLAY*

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.

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.

At the end of the play, we're still unclear as to whether she made the right decision. But it's the making of that decision, and her victory sans evidence, that shakes us up just as much as the prospect of a child being molested under our noses.

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.

I just think that Shanley would never "condone" the sister's actions in as simple a way as you perceived.

*NOTE: I HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM, BUT I'VE READ AND SEEN THE PLAY*

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

This is the key:

>At the end of the play, we're still unclear as to whether she
>made the right decision. But it's the making of that decision,
>and her victory sans evidence, that shakes us up just as much
>as the prospect of a child being molested under our noses.


And regarding this part:

>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.

The movie is the same way. They actually present a fair amount of ambiguous "facts" throughout the movie that one could use to support either side of the argument. There are certainly no sides taken by the director, he just presents both sides of the coin in a neutral way.

----

Thematically, all of what you said has been translated to the film...
________________________________________________________________________
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

>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.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

----
Obama '08

---

@kokupuff

very strong performances from streep & hoff. viola almost stole the show tho... her few minutes on screen were both vital and moving.

my interpretation was that hoff didn't "touch" the black kid in any inappropriate way and was more of a friend to him. i do think the possibility of something inappropriate did go down with hoff and the blonde haired yt kid that gave himself the nose bleed and smiled/smirked when hoff told the church he was stepping down.

great flick tho.

peace.
~~~~~~~~~

my hard head makes me learn shit the hard way - t.i.

my greatest enemy is my inner me - lupe fiasco

Can't think of the last movie that did that. I thought it was mostly great. Pleasantly surprised.

----
I check for: Serengeti, Zeroh, Open Mike Eagle, Jeremiah Jae, Moka Only.

The dialogue was so sharp, and my goodness was the delivery on point. One of the best all-around cast performances I've seen in awhile.

I mean Meryl Streep and Hoffman were absolute heat-rock esp in their interactions in the office, Amy Adams was fucking excellent esp when you see her oscillating between the two styles of the lead characters, and Viola Davis was very very good, a critical scene and one that just has so many complexities to it, but she handled it so well.

I enjoyed damn near every minute of....and I loved the open-ending. It allows for the discussion of so many more important themes, rather than simply everyone talking about Meryl Streep being wrong or right.

The nuances of the acting, esp Streep's facial expressions, were incredible....the performances were so completely brilliant imo.

Lastly, anyone else think the kid looked just like Andrew Bynum? lol

---------------------------------
<--The drought is over

"have fun reveling in your pettiness tho" (C) Dula summing up 98% of OKS

"I didnt finish a damn thing...matter of fact I jerked off after she left."
-Kobe speaking to investigators

L D E A

>Lastly, anyone else think the kid looked just like Andrew
>Bynum? lol

I thought for sure that the credits would read "Alan Bynum" or some shit, and it turned out to be Drew's little brother...
________________________________________________________________________
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Hoffman transferred....I knew there was no relation lol.

---------------------------------
<--The drought is over

"have fun reveling in your pettiness tho" (C) Dula summing up 98% of OKS

"I didnt finish a damn thing...matter of fact I jerked off after she left."
-Kobe speaking to investigators

L D E A

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

I enjoyed it. The performances were great!

However, I took away a different meaning of Sister Aloysius' doubt. I thought she was doubting her faith in God and the church...like how can I serve a church that would give a promotion to a man capable of this? I can't see her crying over Father Flynn for any reason. Not to mention, she had seen this type of stuff before.

I also can't imagine Aloysius telling Mrs. Miller that Donald was being molested if she wasn't certain Father Flynn did it. Getting the parents involved would be the last thing you would do because of the negativity it would bring to the school's reputation. I mean, this was still the 1960s and women and their input wasn't greatly respected, so she was putting herself way out there to be doubtful of her suspicion. This is why I thought her doubt was with the church itself and not her belief in the alleged abuse.

Having said all that, I was rather surprised she still had a job with the church. I thought they would remove her.

It also amazed me that Sister James was the only young nun there. Every other nun had to be over the age of 60. That's got to be hard.

Sister Aloysius being the antagonistic protagonist underscored the theme.

also, for the audience to try to determine whether or not the Father was guilty is a distraction, since the story is about how people act when uncertain. i'm always puzzled by people who want to argue the unknowable, but i guess why i'm an agnostic.

-30-
You know it's drama, but it sound real good.

Spoiler











Toward the end of the Film Streep's character tells sister James,
When pursuing wrongdoing one often walks away from God, (I can't remember the exact statement but it was something like that).
I thought it was clear Sister Aloysius was having a crisis of faith. Her character and world is a microcosm, a reflection of the changes and fears taking place in the larger society during the turbulent sixties.
Great film one of the years best
Grade A

Now i guess i got to finally go see that Will Smith film, shrug

Doubt.

we are told how it holds us all together in terms of crisis of faith.

we let's talk about the 3 characters.

before that, the irony and tragedy of this entire movie is that the most insignificant character in the entire movie is Donald Miller. He is the MacGuffin.

Donald being possibly molested is not important to Sister Aloysius, Father Flynn, or Sister James.

Sister James has a crisis of faith. She is wholesome to fault to the naked eye. Christ is perfect and free from flaws. and thats how she views here faith and herself. the perfect world. thats what she likes. not the real one. And anything that gets in the way of that, she needs to get rid of. Thats why she was so quick to believe Father Flynn in their initial 3-way meeting, and then again Flynn convinced here when hey talked one-on-one. Who cares if Donald is was molested or not. God is great, all is honky dory.

Sister Aloysius has a crisis of faith alright. She is consumed with the power she has at that school because she is powerless within the confines of the church infrastructure where she has to answer to the men above her. It sticks in her craw. Especially when she has to answer to guy who she has his number in Father Flynn. She has an axe to grind. And if Flynn is molesting that kid, then that wets her appetitie and the hunt is on to take him down. Her zeal is not in the name of the Lord or to provide justice for Donald. Its to quench her thirst and empower herself in her mind to take down the very thing that keeps her down within the church.

What he belives and having justification for what he does is the only similarity that Flynn has with Aloysius and James. In contrast to the two women, Father Flynn is sure of himself. there is doubt with him. no ambivalence on whether he is doing the right thing. Father Flynn doesn't have the same crises that James and Aloysius has. In fact, its why Aloysius is threatened by him. He has HER number. He even broke her down crying in their classic scene like she normally breaks down the students in that school. He is simply wrong in his behavior. He is at a point of no return. There is no struggle with him. Donald isn't being molested...its love, compassion. i.e., who cares about Donald.


another bigger issue is that, the 60's have nothing to do with this. Its the fact that this stuff is going on in the Church amongst Nuns and Priests. people of God, who are above this kind of infighting, power-trips, etc.? right? lol

just a great movie, man.

<--- we've got bush!

A bit heavyhanded, but great.

I have some things to add to the convo with mrhood, lol. I have no CLUE how you got that interpretation, due to the fact that








SPOILER















it's Father Flynn's doubts, NOT Sister Aloysius's, that remove him from the church. How then how Aloysius be justified by the author? Also, the final line of the play and film is underlined in the film with a big pullback... Sister Aloysius's doubts reverse on her, and she has doubts about her doubts, which haunt her. Each character who follows their doubts suffers to some degree in the play.

You could even say since Father Flynn got a promotion by leaving, he WINS. But then we get into Catholic politics, another issue entirely.


















END SPOILER

So yeah, it's great. I can't wait to write about it.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

I really dug most of it...but it was a bit boring at times. A bit heavyhanded, but mostly great acting all around. IMO (SPOILER SORTA) the last line was like being hit over the head - ESPECIALLY Streep's delivery of it. It just didn't fit with Sister Aloysius' character...at least I didn't think so. A great deal of it was on the nose, BUT I liked a great deal of it too.

I'm happy to see the actors, but not the film, get Oscar nods. It was pretty good, but not an amazing piece of work.

------------------------------

17x NBA Champions

i have a pet peeve of characters saying the name of the movie ("i have DOUBT...so much DOUBT"), but the way it was handled here was extra heavy-handed.

i wish she would've just broke down crying without saying anything.

the ebb and flow of the fight between Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn is friggin' breathtaking.

the way they pick each other apart...find a weakness...go in for the kill...then retreat back when their own stinging weakness is revealed. the quiet moments leading to screaming and then interrupted by sadness.

god damn. that scene should be shown in acting classes for years to come.

i've seen a lot of criticism of the directing, but it never bothered me. the slanted camera angles were unnecessary, but i thought it was beautifully shot for the most part.

Streep was superb.

The openendedness of the film is really great in a non latte sorta way. I thought the film was great altho I hate that this subject matter is more than likely a reenactment of things that REALLY have happened.

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

I agree with everyone on the performances in this film being amazing. Unfortunately i don't think any of them will win. Its great to have really healthy and dynamic debate in the post. And I've seen almost all of the films up for Oscars this year and I think this is the one which could be regarded as "best" unfortunately its not up for best picture. I hope it wins Adapted Screenplay at the very least.

and then I thought pedoKate was better than NunMeryl

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

Acting was pretty great. It could get a little heavy handed at times, and I can't see that 15 degree camera tilt without thinking about the 60s Batman TV show, but no major complaints.

Meryl Streep killed it. From the very beginning of the film, even before the drama with PSH gets rolling, she owns every scene she's in. Not a likable character necessarily, but not the 'villain' I went in expecting her to be. She obviously cares about the church, her sisters, and those kids, and ultimately isn't afraid to be the big scary principal that all the kids hate and fear if it's for (what she perceives to be) their own good. Out of all the characters in the film, she seems the only one willing to sacrifice her self for her beliefs. The problem there is she isn't afraid to sacrifice others too, and her beliefs might not be all that solid to begin with.

But as for the 'doubts' she mentions at the end of the film (btw I agree they could have done without her actually shouting the title of the movie there) I don't think that they had a thing to do with the priest, at least not consciously. I think the doubts she deals with are in her faith and in the church. We're talking about a woman who thinks ball point pens and Frosty the Snowman spell the downfall of civilization - Not exactly the outlook of a person who has thrown their faith into an all powerful all loving God, you know?

Meanwhile you have this likable, charismatic priest who has a warm personable attitude and these progressive views that make him easier to relate to. But, I could also see how a guy like that could be very manipulative if he wanted to be - like showing the pressed flowers to Sister James. Was that sincere or was he just trying to look good? You'd see how he'd behave quite differently depending on what company he was in, which I think we all do to a degree, but that made him a lot harder to pin down than Sister Aloysius. Like Sister James I wanted him to be innocent. I do think there were subtle things in his body language that had me thinking otherwise (saying "no" while nodding "yes" for example, during that heated ass scene that leads to his resignation) At the same time, doing things like openly hugging a male student in a crowded hallway - while unacceptable by today's standards - doesn't seem like the actions of a man who had anything inappropriate to hide.

It's interesting that before any allegations some into play (and I went into the movie having no idea what it was about), I was slightly uncomfortable at the sight of a priest and an altar boy alone together. Nothing inappropriate was taking place on screen, or even in the subtext necessarily, but I guess the real life scandals that have come to light in the past years have painted my own perceptions. Even though this movie takes place in the 60s, I got the impression aht Sister Aloyisus had at some point seen some scandals of her own which tainted her worldview too.

The big strength of the writing was how masterfully ambiguous it was. Every line of dialogue, every facial expression, every action was open to interpretation.

Father Flynn had something in his past that was haunting him, likely to do with his sexuality. It seemed like a strong possibility that he was gay, NOT a pedophile, which could also explain why he would relate to Donald Miller and want to watch out for him. And maybe he only resigned to get away from crazy ass Sister Aloysius. Or hell, maybe he really was messing with those kids. Guess we'll just have to wait for the sequel.

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

--
Me: plays games with mad bust ya shit open sci fi proton streams
You: play shit that don't even involve any pistols

*******************************************************
i will not let finite disappointment undermine infinite hope
- Cory Booker

Football is a simple game; 22 men chase a ball for 90 minutes, and at the end the Germans always win
- Gary Lineker

overall, the plot kept me interested. however, i wasn't impressed by the performances. i kept waiting for that moment to be wowed by them, but it never came. i also thought the theme of the movie was weak.