Regarding the movie Doubt, do you think the priest is guilty?

I saw Doubt on Broadway, then I saw the movie. When I saw the play I was convinced Father Flynn was guilty. When I saw the movie, I was convinced he was innocent. I’m not sure if it was Eldard’s performance (on Broadway) or Hoffman’s performance (in the movie) that explains the difference. John Patrick Shanley wrote the play and adapted it for the big screen so it must be the actors. The thing is though, Ron Eldard is my very favorite actor of all time and Phillip Seymour Hoffman is creepy to me. I just don’t get it!

Lolz, that is why it’s called “Doubt”.

I left the movie feeling like Sister Beauvier does in the final scene.

(FYI, some of the scenes in “Doubt” were filmed in a Lutheran Elementary School in Yonkers, N.Y.)

Thinking that he’s (more or less) a closeted gay isn’t a stretch, but I wouldn’t categorize him as a pedophile predator. If he did do something with the kid, then I would at least give him credit for keeping it within something of a “mentoring” role (since the kid was gay himself). It’s hard to imagine them having sex, but it’s not hard to imagine them cuddling, for example. If the priest and the nun are supposed to be the yin to each other’s yang, then I think you have to assume he didn’t take the relationship to it’s “perverted” conclusion, while he may have imagined doing so.

I agree with kevbo, i walked away from that movie thinking that Father Flynn was gay, but not guilty of child molestation. I think that is also the reason he left the church when sister beauvier lied and said she contacted a nun from the old school, he just didnt want it to get out that he was gay.

I think the theory about father Flynn being gay could be right. I also think that it could be the reason for Flynn feeling empathy and having a special bond to the child. But on the same time it is strange that he had his shirt but would explain the hug in the hall.. cause it seems like he did it more of sympathy and understanding than sexuality.

Great acting by Hoffman and Streep.

I’m sure the priest is gay. It’s the Catholic Church, it’s the ‘60’s, he can’t admit to this. Look at the nails! The ballerina toy he gives the boy! Flowers in his book! His impassioned hatred of gossip and defense of love! He said he put the shirt in the locker to save the boy embarrassment – other boys knew the kid was gay, or might have suspected that the priest was. But he was honest in saying he was not a pedophile. Watch it again with this explanation in mind and see if there is still doubt in your mind.

There wasn’t any in mine. He’s a good man, guilty of a terrible sin in the eyes of his beloved church, and the victim of persecution.

No the priest is not gay. How quick you are to judge without proof! The priest was sympathic & caring as eviedenced by his desire to “lighten up” the school & church in regard to the community. The priest oboviously was guilty….of somthing. Maybe he had sex with a num. Maybe he stole from the collection plate. How quick we judge on impressions & even subliminal wishes & desire of our own. I often find people I initally dislike, distrust or just strike me the wrong way become great friends….If I don’t blow it before hand.

in the final scene, when sister james comforts meryl streep, it looks very much like a lesbian relationship. maybe that is why meryl didnt expose him more and just had him moved to another parish

The key is in the dialogue. She confirmed “he was what she thought he was.” But that is not the crime in question. By answering the question here—you expose yourself. Without proof, or confession, or victim’s testimony—there really is no case for a crime. Period. Flynn confessed(if he did at all) to having a secret and that is all. The point of the film is to show how the power of the institution can protect itself from attack by exposing individuals who do not exemplify the ideal. Black? Can’t hide that. Drunk? easier to hide than black. Gay? Possible to expose if you confide in someone.

I believe he was gay, and may have done something with the boy- however if he did, it was just as much as the boy wanting it as the priest. Also, in regards to Hogfarmer’s response, how can you say that there was no proof? There was the mysterious meeting when the boy had alcohol on his breath along with many other instances for suspicion. The point of the movie is that there is no definite answer, that you will always “doubt” what you believe. So while I believe that he may have done what the nun was accusing him of, there is no way to be sure.

What difference does it make if he were Gay or straight. Priests are supposed to be celebate anyway.

Two important points:

1)

The fact that the priest switched parishes does not prove his guilt like Sister Beauvier says. Think about it: How would you feel if someone who’s sworn to ruin you threatens to call up everyone from your past to tell them that you might be a child abuser? And what would you do if she tells you that she won’t do it as long as you leave the school? I’ll tell you what you’d do: YOU’D LEAVE THE SCHOOL! It doesn’t matter that you’re innocent. Gossip like that is almost just as bad as being found guilty.

2)

Research borderline personality disorder. Sister Beauvier’s behaviour is clearly, obviously, & without a doubt symptomatic of this disorder. The jealousy. The sarcasm. The anger. The chaotic interpersonal relationships. The projections: When Sister Beauvier says that he’s incapable of remorse, she’s not really talking about him; she’s projecting what she feels about herself. When she says he’s a liar, she’s not really talking about him; she’s projecting what she feels about herself. This is all classic BPD behaviour. Think about how her perception of reality is based purely on emotions. Again, that’s classic BPD behaviour. Think of the personal & political reasons behind her distortion campaign. Again, classic BPD behaviour.

(If you want to learn more about Borderline Personality Disorder, you should read “Stop Walking on Eggshells.” You’d be surprised.)

The priest is guilty. There is absolutely no doubt in mind about it. I have watched too many films to see the underlining clues. Especially when I work with children on a daily basis. Remember the blonde haired boy who was smoking, cutting class, bullying the next kid (the black boy) that might get raped also, and always making sexual passes at the girls in the classroom? Yeah, he was the one getting raped by the priest.
Wouldn’t you rather bust your nose or burn your foot on fire and get out of school, instead of getting raped? He was quietly telling the world that he needed help. He was quietly angry with the black boy for taking his position as the priests favorite. Nobody noticed, except for me, of course. Do you want to know the most telling clues of all?

First, did you notice hoe angry the priest got after sister said she had spoken to other nuns in his previous jobs? Why was he so angry? A normal person would have been surprised and would have been okay if that had happened. Shot! In order to prove my innocence I would allow you to talk to the whole DAMN city! lol.

The last and most telling clue to me was at the end. The priest was giving his resignation. The blakc boy was sad and crying because he thought he had a friend (which he didn’t) and was going to lose the priest (which he should be glad he did). But….the bolnde haired boy….did you notice once the priest gave his resignation….he smiled in relief and comfort! That little boy was relieved and happy that the priest was no longer going to be at the school! BINGO. She was on the right track….she just simply had the wrong boy.

I believe that the priest was guilty. Not with the black boy, but with the white boy who acted out in class and looked really upset. I truly, honestly believe the priest was guilty and the nun just picked the wrong victim.

The blonde boy’s smile at the end (sitting in a pew) when Father Flynn announced he was leaving, says it all. He was being abused by Father Flynn. Donald was probably not being abused. The story is excellent in my opinion, because it reveals layers of goodness and evil in people. No one is all good or all bad. Not even Sister Aloysius.