So I was linked to the movie (formerly play Doubt by another link here. In the trivia section, it mentions that only the actors who play Father Flynn (now including Philip Seymour Hoffman) were told by the playwright whether the accusations against his character were true.
Anyone think we’ll ever find out what said playwright intended?
The intent would be undermined when your doubts were removed.
Why would you need to know?
The intent was to create uncertainty in the mind of the viewer and to contrast this with the certainty in the minds of the characters.
Maybe we’ll never find out the true intention, but I thought the movie laid out a pretty convincing case that Father Flynn was gay, not a pedophile.
FWIW, I saw the play with my parents and my aunt and uncle. My upbringing was technically Catholic, but in practice almost entirely secular; I went to public school. My uncle (by marriage) is Jewish. We both thought the playwright meant to leave Father Flynn’s guilt ambiguous.
My parents and my aunt, all of whom attended Catholic school during more or less the time period when the play was set, had a completely different reaction: as far as they were concerned, the audience isn’t supposed to be in any doubt at the end of the play because Father Flynn’s decision to call the Monsignor clearly marks him as guilty.
Terry Gross did an interview with Phillip Seymour Hoffman on NPR’s Fresh Air about the time the film was coming out. The link above takes you to the main page where you can listen to it or read a transcript. Here’s the relevant portion from the transcript.
So clearly Hoffman knows, and clearly he is the only one among the cast who does, and he’s not telling. But the playwright has it correct. There’s no way an actor could play this role without knowing the character’s true background. They couldn’t formulate appropriate reactions without internal certainty. I guess an actor could make up their mind one way or another before the show, but that might not do what the playwright wants if they choose the other way. Body language, inflections, everything about the character could be influenced depending on this piece of knowledge. As a performer, this would be a nightmare. I’m glad the playwright revealed it to the actor.
Enjoy,
Steven
Every actor who later played the part in a stage production wouldn’t be privy to Hoffman’s conversation with the playwright. They’d each have to decide for themselves whether or not “he did it,” and they might not all decide the same way. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. Father Flynn could be guilty but so good a liar - or so deeply in denial - that he’s fooled even himself, or he could innocent but very nervous and helplessly make a poor impression on anyone closely studying him. Either way could work, and still leave the viewer with the uncertainty and, uh, doubt that the playwright intended.
I don’t interpret the transcript of that interview the same way that you do, Mtgman. Sure, Hoffman talked to the writer, but he never says that the writer told him point blank what happened. He just says they have a conversation, and that Hoffman knew what happened as far as his character was concerned.
So, in this case, the actor knows what his character did in the film version, because he set out with a certain understanding in mind (which understanding may or may not have come ex cathedra from the writer) and played the character to be consistent with that understanding. But there’s no claim here that the author let him in on a secret, and no reason that other productions or other actors will approach the role in the same way.
To me, this is what is so brilliant about this play/movie. There is not enough evidence in the action or dialogue to tell you if Father Flynn is guilty or not. There just isn’t. And yet you do draw your own conclusions.
I have a good friend from high school (50 years ago)-both of us raised Good Catholic Girls. She is now married to an ex-(Catholic) priest and she still considers herself a Catholic. She was convinced Flynn was guilty and she was really angry at him.
I’m now Jewish and I thought he was not guilty and that the secrets he kept had nothing to do with pedophilia.
This is the essence of it:
That CERTAINTY- “We KNOW what happened, don’t bother reminding us that we don’t have all the facts!” I hate that attitude, and it has caused so much destruction in the world- not just WRT religion, but in general.
But Hoffman also did not say that the author DIDN’T tell him if Flynn was guilty. He didn’t say one way or the other. You’ve drawn a conclusion based on insufficient information about what Hoffman and the author talked about. Love it! More ambiguity that encourages us to draw conclusions in the absence of fact. It’s what our minds do. We rush to fill in the picture.
I have a friend who deals with this kind of ambiguity by saying, “I just don’t know what to think.” And that’s it! You can’t have a conversation with someone like that! There’s no penalty for going out on that limb- so go already! (I want to shout at her.) She won’t even speculate. Conversations are pretty short.
Well, actually, no. It’s quite clear that iamthewalrus(:3= wasn’t making a statement one way or the other as to whether Hoffman was told about his character’s actions; he was merely stating what limited knowledge we could actually draw from Hoffman’s statements. Namely, that (since he doesn’t claim that the director told him) all we can say is that they had a conversation about the character.
So your praise for rushes to judgment notwithstanding, I don’t think that applies here: conclusions were not drawn beyond the available evidence.
(FWIW: Doubt was the point of the movie. If we draw a conclusion, we are – I think – missing the author’s point.)
The reason I ended the quote where I did was because the last line seems to confirm that he was “privy to some of the playwright-dash-screenwriter’s thoughts on what your character did and didn’t do”. They dance around exactly what those thoughts were, but since he explicitly disclaims the character as a psychotic or a amnesiac, I can’t see how that would be reconciled unless the discussion with the author included a confirmation/denial of the character’s actions.
I do agree that it isn’t an absolute barrier to a production of the show. Each actor could decide for themselves and play it as they decided. The intent of the author may not come through in this case, but that may be acceptable. Many people re-write and update even Shakespeare and that’s ok.
Enjoy,
Steven
I think it was the Lady AND the tiger. The purpose is to play it ambiguously and that’s why I’d guess that the playwrite’s intent was to have it be interpretable both ways.
Yes. Doubt would hardly be the first film to be purposefully ambiguous, letting the viewer draw whatever conclusion - guilty, innocent, or something in-between - he or she wished to. Any such conclusion would have some data to support it, and not be demonstrably right or wrong.
Apart from the observation that a definite answer by the author were counterproductive in this instance, we should also keep in mind that his opinion is not the whole puzzle, just another piece – although one from a corner.
Any creator of art can very well fail in realising his intentions within the work he has done. He might fail so thoroughly that the result even contradicts his intentions.
Any artist adds meaning to his work without any conscious intention; these aspects, unknown to him during the process of creation, can supplement or overshadow the deliberate choices.
Any recipient will invent his own story that forms while being inspired by a piece of art; this story is a reflection of the personality he has built up, his accumulated knowledge and his (emotional) state of mind at that very moment. Consequently, the story – and the meaning he extracts from it - will change with every following reception – and might turn upside down if the person changed enough.
The audience will understand any piece of art differently depending on their culture, time and experience and will interact to reinterprete the work accordingly.
Both, the efforts of the individual as a recreator of art and the audience as a consens-building entity, keep a creation meaningful beyond the intentions of the original artist.
I agree, and I would add:
Yes, a vital addition. How could I not mention the intermediate artists? The medium is the message is nowhere as true as there.