He was a pedophile, but....."spoilers" - Doubt (2008) Discussion

[–] crowfr 9 years ago

Oops. I didn't realize the boy in the begining isnt the same that grinned in the end. As im watching this again though I believe the opening scene in the boys room is crucial. Im noticing some repetitive themes. I do believe the awnser lies in color schemes, framing and scenery; since the author of the novel did write the screenplay and direct the movie.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (61898174) 9 years ago

Hey crowfr. I enjoyed your comment, and do agree with you. I've wondered for a while why no one discusses the significance of Donald's character. He frames the entire movie. And one thing really stood out the first time I watched this movie: the scene in the gymnasium, when Father is showing the boys his nails and telling them how to best groom themselves. When he reaches William London and sticks his hand out towards him, London rears back, seemingly in a mix of disgust and fear...but more disgust. There's contempt in his face whenever we see him looking at Father Flynn. Anyway, the reason it stood out is that I once read abused children, especially those that have been sexually and physically abused, always remember their abuser's hands, and feel a general sense of revulsion whenever they are faced with their abuser's hands.

It's a brilliant movie, but details like that are pretty scary. Either because the people involved know too much, or someone wrote it from experience. Sad either way.

I believe this movie is trying to normalize pedophilia as another free-choice and HARMLESS form of "love." All you have to do is listen to the Black boy's mother (I'm sorry, I forget their names at the moment).

- Cunspeerissy Theery

reply

[–] crissttigaldames 9 years ago

It's a brilliant movie, but details like that are pretty scary. Either because the people involved know too much, or someone wrote it from experience. Sad either way.

Uhm, couldn't they know the same way you do, by reading about it, researching?.

reply

[–] crowfr 9 years ago

Yes I think it was Cory Feldman that talked about the casting couch as a child, and not being able to help Cory Haim, after hearing that I watched the lost boys. You have to check out the scene with him in the bathtub. Disturbing after that knowledge. You can see the sexualization of children and
projection of homosexuality all over film and television. You are right about doubt and the haunting knowledge of a true pedophile. Im actually watching this now again and am sure about the two white boys, but not sure about Donald. There are a heavy use of lamps used in odd places, on during the day. and the colors red and blue side by
side. The scene in the gym with his nails is a dead give away, and the three boys reactions when hes talking about women. The scene with the balorina toy being repeled by opposing magnets making her twirl in front of the mirror. Donald came to see the priest on his own accord. The boy has the balorinas effeminate nature, and the mirror repelling the ballorina is the priests inability to accept his own nature. Might be reaching but explains his repression and similar nature to donald (himself).

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (61898174) 9 years ago

Crowfr, I like your reading on the lamps! I'm watching it right now, too, and just watched the office scene where Viola Davis visits...and the first thing Sister Aloysius discusses when Viola comes into the office is how she was "just changing a light bulb". Weird, and definitely loaded with meaning.

Re: Cory Feldman. YES! I read his book, and then re-watched some of his and Haim's older stuff and some scenes look like straight up child p---n material. It's stomach churning. I re-watched Apt Pupil too, for some references Feldman made to Brad Renfro and Brian Singer, and wow...sickening.

I'll find The Lost Boys and watch it again, thanks.

I think it's quite possible that Flynn has molested Donald, but Donald perhaps isn't reacting the way London is/does. Donald may just be keeping it quiet because he's, for lack of a better term, as comfortable with the arrangement as his mother is. Really accomplished pedophiles know who to pick on, and the best targets for these predators are first and foremost the children who are love-starved. Maybe he TRIED something with London, but London fought back, and that would explain London's utter (but unspoken) contempt for him. Donald on the other hand is a Black child in the 60s, with an abusive father, a budding homosexuality, and a clueless idiot of a mother. So a nice priest at school -- where no kids like him, by the way -- pays him some attention and kindness...manipulates him...it's not hard to believe that Flynn is molesting Donald. Donald just isn't saying anything, for his own reasons. He hasn't SAID anything, but even his own mother intuitively knows what's up when Sister Aloysius summons her for a chat.

UGH, such a great movie.

reply

[–] lisac_2829 9 years ago

His mother wasn't clueless or an idiot. She knew her son and his character. Yet, she was afraid of her husband. Plus, she was a blavk woman. She knew her place. She wasn't going to ruffle feathers with anyone. It happened alot back then.

reply

[–] crowfr 9 years ago

Wow..the lamps. In the scene where he is first confronted he is sitting at the desk. There is a lamp behind him lit. And two lamps on his desk not lit. After he explains the whine incident sister James stands up and says "that explains everything" the large lamp on his desk directly behind her is suddenly on. He leaves. Streep sits down where he was sitting making her declarations about types like him. The lamp that was on behind him is now off. She sits in his place with the front lamp still on. When sister james gets mad a light blows. I believe her initi
al accusations are false (front lamp off) but the truth is lit behind him. (Back light on). The wine story was true (front lamp on). But she sits in his place and knows what he is with the front lamp still illuminated. But the back light off. She knows hes a monster but the real truth is still hidden behind him. He is a monster. When he opens the bible to talk to sister James pause. 1:02 for me. The words of justification in the eyes of a pedophile. I will comfort you as suckle at my teet. Like yoir mother. In my lap. I am god. Some of what can be read between the flowers. Explains all the milk the nuns were drinking too. Three flowers. Three sugar cubes. Three victims. Hes actually taunting sister James at this point with his trophies.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (61898174) 9 years ago

Are you a mad genius? I'll have to re-watch that scene tomorrow and pause at the mark.

reply

[–] StrontiumAE 9 years ago

I haven't seen a scene deconstructed like this since my uni days. Gotta watch the whole film again.

http://www.1971-reviewae.com

reply

[–] steamtownengine 9 years ago

Super late reply. Rewatching the film now (I'm two minutes in). Is it just a coincidence that the film opens with Jimmy's mom turning the lamp on and it shining directly over him? After reading your comment on the lamps, I can't unsee it.

reply

[–] crowfr 9 years ago

Lol. I wish. Just noticed the theme in the boys bedroom and its throught the film. Although Im confused. When she forces his hand to resign. He takes out his bible knowing hes leaving and takes only two flowers out. I guess having to leave two boys. I think he had to give up two posessions but felt actual love for Donald because he is Donald. Amazing movie looking further into the themes.

reply

[–] crowfr 9 years ago

Also. The street name next to the candy store. Shown several times was Saint Lawrence. Known for being a possible martyr. When he learned she went to nuns instead of the bishop he conceded. He was transfered to St Jerome. Who was sent by his father to Rome where he had pagan influence and indulged in hedonistic pleasures. It sounds like he martyred himself to take her eyes off his pedophile conspirators and was tranferred somewhere where he could go buck wild. I think this author might be a pedo sympathiser cause that stuff was way too subtle to be noticed at all.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (61898174) 9 years ago

"I think this author might be a pedo sympathiser cause that stuff was way too subtle to be noticed at all."

Absolutely! I tried finding information on who funded the movie, who promoted it heavily, because it's definitely in the territory of Alfred Kinsey-type normalization of "deviant" behaviour. I wouldn't be surprised if Doubt was NAMBLA's top pick for 2008.

And not to get *too* dark, but I always thought Philip Seymour Hoffman's involvement in this movie and subsequent accolades for playing the role was a slippery slope for him. If you know anything about Hollywood, you give up a piece of your soul for not just the opportunity to play these high profile roles, but to get the floods of praise and glory after the movie is out. But for these big agenda-pushing movies that are subversive and designed to sway public thought around a major issue...it's possible Hoffman knew what role he'd played not just in the movie but in the public sphere Hollywood helps control.

Pedophilia is not a medicalized illness, not a lifestyle choice, not okay if x meets y and intersects with x and the 14 year old boy was twice as mature as you'd expect. No, no excuses -- pedophilia is a crime. It's an abhorrent crime against powerless victims: children. So while I love this movie and relish the themes it presents to the audience, at the end of the story, I am not convinced that Father Flynn's song about there being "nothing wrong with kindness" isn't just the tip of the iceberg in the pedophile's standard argument that the abuse of a minor is the same as "love".

reply

[–] resmat-1 9 years ago

I strongly disagree that the film is a "normalization of deviant behaviour".

John Patrick Shanley has included enough clues to inspire doubt about Father Flynn but nothing that would allow us to conclude, with absolute certainty, that the priest was a pedophile.

Shanley isn't, as the poster crowfr suggested, being subtle in order to slip Flynn's pedophilia by us. No, the reason he's being subtle is because the ultimate purpose of his film is to explore what people do in the face of their inability to know with absolute certainty.

For all intents and purposes, the character of Father Flynn as he's presented in the film is, at the same time, both a pedophile and not a pedophile. When he says that there's "nothing wrong with kindness", he's both a pedophile using what you call the "pedophile's standard argument" and an innocent man just trying to explain himself. If you can't at least entertain both options, then the film hasn't worked.

In order to think of this film as a "normalization of deviant behaviour", you would have to believe with certainty that Father Flynn is a pedophile. But, speaking for myself, I would struggle to do that when Father Flynn is a character in a film called 'Doubt' and that film's main theme is our inability to know many things with certainty.

reply

[–] crowfr 9 years ago

If the point of the film was to project doubt then Father Flynn would simply act sheepish and assertive at the same time suggesting he has something to hide. Not like a pedophile and not like a pedophile at the same time. What validates the writer normalizing pedophilia is a third party suggested that "maybe some of them boys want to get caught" "it's his nature" "if this man wants to love my son and that make my son happy then so be it" last one paraphrased but it was to that effect. Pedophilia rhetoric coming from the mother who has authority over the son and loves her son. So we have what the priest was suggesting said with more transparency by a third party who the audience trusts. Conspiracies and motivations aside; There is no doubt that father Flynn was a pedophile and a predator. The doubt was Sister A's faith and whether he was molesting Donald or not. Look very carefully at the subtext. Look in the boys bedroom at the beginning of the movie. Father Flynn mentions the two items on the boys wall in his first sermon. In the first 5 min of the movie Father Flynn is put in the boys bedroom plus the shot of the boys room in the begging was very voyeuristic; Shot from outside the bedroom looking in. Also see the actions Father Flynn takes after being accused. He uses the pulpit to shame his accusers, then sulks to the weaker nun using the manipulation of mirroring her personality. This is the mark of a sociopath and a predator. I also wanted to add that Sister A never doubted what Father Flynn was. She had contempt for his promotion. Also look into the Saint the school and church was named after. This is where Father Flynn was sent. I believe it's saint Jerome. He was known for carnal desires.

reply

[–] resmat-1 9 years ago

If the point of the film was to project doubt then Father Flynn would simply act sheepish and assertive at the same time suggesting he has something to hide. Not like a pedophile and not like a pedophile at the same time.

I meant that the character was written and acted in a way that would allow us to interpret his behavior in two different ways.

He uses the pulpit to shame his accusers, then sulks to the weaker nun using the manipulation of mirroring her personality.

This is an example of behavior that is open to interpretation. Are you sure that only a "sociopath" and a "predator" would behave this way? Perhaps you're opinion of the human race is higher than mine but I believe that a fair number of people, given the opportunity, would try to get back at someone if that someone had threatened their reputation.

What validates the writer normalizing pedophilia is a third party suggested that "maybe some of them boys want to get caught" "it's his nature" "if this man wants to love my son and that make my son happy then so be it" last one paraphrased but it was to that effect. Pedophilia rhetoric coming from the mother who has authority over the son and loves her son. So we have what the priest was suggesting said with more transparency by a third party who the audience trusts.

The audience is expected to sympathize with Mrs Miller but I disagree that they're meant to trust her enough to accept what she says without question. Just because she's the closest to Donald, the victim, doesn't mean that she's got the right of the situation.

Mrs Miller never fully condones pedophilia. She's responding to a situation in which there's no actual evidence that the priest is guilty. So long as there's doubt about Father Flynn's guilt, she's just going to continue to act according to the one certainty in her life: her love for Donald.

So how does this scene normalize pedophilia? Does it suggest that it's normal to offer your child up to a pedophile? No, I don't think it does, since Mrs Miller doesn't even know that Father Flynn is a pedophile. Again, I have to say that I think the film is more complex than you're suggesting.

Father Flynn mentions the two items on the boys wall in his first sermon.

the shot of the boys room in the begging was very voyeuristic

Also look into the Saint the school and church was named after. I believe it's saint Jerome. He was known for carnal desires.

This subtext may form a compelling basis for one particular interpretation of the film but I don't think it's explicit enough to rob the film of its ambiguity. There's a difference between strongly hinted and unequivocally confirmed.

None of the characters are aware of this pedophilic subtext, so none of their behavior can be taken as an example of what should be the normal or expected reaction to pedophilia.

reply

[–] TheCommenteer 9 years ago

You've given me a different, albeit obvious, way of thinking about the film. I was trying to piece everything together throughout and then at the end felt like they were pushing the "guilty" line a bit hard and assumed we were meant to believe he was definitely guilty. Meanwhile I was thinking that was crap cos none of the information presented proved anything one way or another.

It never really crossed my mind that the aim could actually be to instill doubt and leave you unsure of whether he is guilty or not still.

Yep. Kinda should have seen that coming hey?

reply

[–] SteverB 9 years ago

The majority of this thread, from the title on, suggests that you two are merely creating gossip. LOTS of feathers flying around in here. "He was a pedophile, but...", really? You, above all others in the world, except the author, know this to be a fact? Do you have any evidence, within the construct of the film, beyond your fevered imagination? No, you don't. You can't write any of this with any certainty and just because it fits in with your "deconstruction" doesn't make it true. Remember that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

reply

[–] dharvestmoon 8 years ago

I watched again today. My take is that this is about viscioud lies and charactervassassination by a controlling nun competing for control over tge church and its direction.

She knows the only way to run him off is by setting up suspicion and then making him leave by using another (fake) nun and gossip. Thats why he told her to call the priest to clear his name. He probably got the same treatment from a nun at former church/schools and knew he was doomed while trying to get her removed.

Thevsermon about the pillow and feathers blown by wind ties all together. Windvand feathers of gossip blow him to another church and school.

If there were truth to it, he would not get a promotion and a biggerbchurch and school.

Pedophile priests (as weve learned), got demoted and not to another school.

This is about charaxter assassination and retaining power and control. And whats with her becoming a nun after being widowed?

Has the author ever explained? In the trivia notes it mentions that only the actor on stage and Phillip for the film were told by the author the truth about whether the priest was a pedophile or not.

I think not.

Lies gossip-control-and evil.

reply