Saw “Doubt” last night, and think it was one of the very best movies I’ve seen this year. Great, great acting all around, and a very sharp, observant script. Even some interesting camera angles/compositions there; it didn’t just feel like a filmed play. I urge everyone to go see the movie before it disappears from theaters.
Spoiler discussion following this first post.
Okay. So, for those who have seen it:
What do you think? Was Father Flynn guilty of any crimes? My interpretation: he was tempted to abuse the boy, and skirted the line of propriety by hugging him a bit too much and spending too much time alone with him, but never actually abused the boy. So, he had a guilty conscious (and perhaps actually HAD done some things at his previous parishes) but could still technically say that this time nothing had happened between him and Donald Miller.
I thought the acting was excellent throughout the whole movie, and hope that all the leads (at least) get nominated for a bunch of words. Great movie.
A fantastic play was turned into a fine film. It was interesting to see the setting and the actual child in question… although seeing the reaction of the child to what was going on seemed to take away from the ambiguity (vs. the staged version).
I gather in the stage version you never see the boys? Also, in what way did you interpret Donald’s reactions as taking away the ambiguity? ie, What did you think happened? At the screening I was at, people still were unsure what to think – I heard plenty of people walking out discussing possibilities.
But! I got the feeling that the boy’s reaction maybe isn’t what it appeared.
I got the idea that it is possible that the boy had developed a crush on the priest. According to the mom, the boy is probably gay. His dad beats him for it, so he is kinda messed up about it. That could explain some of the boys reactions, right?
I mean, if he has a crush on the priest, and he is caught drinking and fired from the alter boy job and is getting beat by his dad, I think that could explain his behavior. Doesn’t really remove the ambiguity, right?
Saw it last weekend and, despite its occasional staginess and heavy-handed directorial touches, found it thoroughly interesting all the way through (of course the cast helped).
As for the question of whether Father Flynn did anything illicit, on a entirely legal level, the answer is “no” whether you’re using a criminal “beyond all reasonable doubt” (obviously) or a civil “preponderance of evidence” standard. As for my gut reaction, I don’t think anything happened with regard to the particular boy who was at the center of the controversy.
Anyway, I think it’s fitting this thread has started at the same time that one on Rashomon has. Doubt is very much a direct thematic descendant of the Kurosawa film.
I think it’s just one big tease. The whole point of the thing is what actually happened, and you never find out.
It also strikes me as a little David Mamet like. Not that that’s either a good or bad thing.
Interesting to see discussion here about Father Flynn’s guilt.
Though I never saw it on stage, I had read that that play left it sufficiently ambiguous- such that audience members would argue among themselves as to whether or not he did anything wrong with the boy.
Having heard about this ambiguity I was surprised to see how unambiguously guilty the character comes off in the film (to me).
Now, to see Dopers discussing it- I am surprised. I really thought his guilt was clear- and yet the contributors to this Thread did watch the exact same film I did.
My opinion, and I had this opinion fully formed upon walking out of the theater, was that although the script allowed for ambiguity, I felt like Philip Seymour Hoffman had clearly made a choice as an actor that the character was guilty. A different performance by a different actor, with absolutely no changes to the script, might have had me thinking he was innocent.
.