Talk:Doubt (2008 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Christian films task force.
 
WikiProject New York City (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Conclusion[edit]

I added a final paragraph (subsequently provided with a heading "Themes") which was deleted by an anonymous editor. I suspect that it was deleted for religious reasons, not for good editorial ones. Considering that the name of the film is "Doubt", and the final line of the screenplay refers to "doubts", I think that it is justifiable to have a paragraph exploring this theme. PeterKidd (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Kid with Ipod[edit]

Why does one of the kids in the beginning have an Ipod? It gets confiscated by the grumpy nun in the first classroom scene. Is it something else? is it just an easter egg? its driving me mad with insomnia!!--Swizzler121 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

ok, apparently it was a 'transistor radio' but it still doesn't explain the earbuds... did they exist back then, or is that just hollywood?--205.153.246.118 (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You see earphones and you immediately assume it's an iPod? I'm pretty sure earphones were around before 2001... --Akronym (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Silly...follow this link to see a similar period transistor radio with earphone - http://www.radiophile.com/mellow.htm - I remember having similar radios as a kid growing up. I didn't catch in the movie whether he had a single ear bud or a pair. If it was a pair, it was probably a mistake to include it, as I remember only single ear pieces, as a stereo radio was much bigger. 76.187.126.177 (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It was just a single earphone, white cable and color. The transistor radio itself was a clunky black thing though, nothing like an Ipod. 125.27.127.31 (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all tansistor radios were "clunky black things" in 1964. It would be quite easy to conceal a small one. Cresix (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dedication[edit]

The film was dedicated to a woman known as Sister James (I didn't catch her real name in the dedication). Does anyone know how she relates to the character of the same name? If informtion could be added on this, it would be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.153.87 (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(repositioned new discussion at the bottom of the page - as is convention) According to the bonus features of the DVD (and the film's imdb trivia page), the movie was dedicated to Sister Margaret McEntee, formally known as Sister James, John Patrick Shanley's first grade teacher. Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Doubt (2008)...the ending[edit]

I think the article misses the point of the ending of this film.

From early in the film Sister Aloysius has no doubts whatsoever about the guilt of Father Flynn. This is because she sees him in the playground trying to grab the wrist of a boy who pulls away. She freely admits she has no proof. Father Flynn uses this lack of proof as justification for his argument that she cannot be certain so there must be doubt.

Sister Aloysius is consistent throughout. She proves the guilt of Father Flynn to Sister James by explaining her trick of pretending to telephone a nun at his former parish. If Father Flynn were innocent he would not have been rattled by this. He would have stood his ground and he would not have left his position.

Finally Sister Aloysius bursts into tears and says she has terrible doubts. This comes immediately after she explains her proof of Father Flynn's guilt. My point is that she is actually saying that she has doubts about the existence of God.

This ties in to her comment from earlier in the film that you have to take a step back from God in order to do His will. She repeats that comment to Sister James in the same scene because Sister James is shocked that Sister Aloysius lied. Earlier Sister Aloysius was shaken by the attitude of Mrs Miller who cleverly explains why she'd prefer her son to be left alone and also because Father Flynn was promoted and given control over another school.

There is no way that that Sister Aloysius explains why Father Flynn is definitely guilty and then bursts into tears and says she has terrible doubts of his guilt.

The author of the article missed the twist in the ending.

Sister Aloyisis's trick dosnt prove her accusations. A nun from the previous parish could have falsly accused the priest; he could have been the victem of a misunderstanding or a false accusation of a child; there are any number of reasons why the priest would fear communication with the previous parish other than his guilt. Remember the "feather" sermon at the start...--Aaronsdavis (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A wonderfully acted and directed film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.147.52 (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions are fine, but neither yours nor the opinions of the writer of the plot summary belong in the plot summary. The writer obviously knew that and simply summarized what happened in the film without commenting about it. Read WP:PLOTSUM. No one missed any twist; it's quite obvious to most people, not just you, but it is an interpretation. The plot summary is written according to policy. If you want to add analyses of the film, find reliable sources to back them up and create an interpretation or criticism section. Cresix (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Conservative religious article protection (CRAP)[edit]

As noted back in 2009, this film's theme, that catholic priests have habitually buggered children seems to explain why this article is composed in such a manner. Unlike the less popular article concerning the play which is the basis for this cinematic work, this "main" article seems to do all that it can to avoid the elephant in the room.

How ironic because the film's presentation of the evidence is made much more obvious than in the theatre version (which is left to the audience's interpretation). Yet none of these cinematic moments are included in the plot, the touching, the looks, or the conclusion (the unwilling boy's smile when he knows Flynn is leaving or the dejection in the submissive boy's eyes). Furthermore why does this article conspicuously not concern itself with the fate of Fr Flynn? I mean he has just been accused of impropriety with children but rather than investigate such matters, the Catholic Church promotes the priest to a position where he is now head of a school. So like the novel From Here to Eternity when Capt Holmes is rewarded with a promotion rather than being kicked out of the service, as in the film version.

Even this very talk page has a "not a forum" tag. How interesting? Another conservative attempt to avoid the elephant in the room that child abuse in the catholic church is such large matter that is has become worthy of an artistic work. This article has all the downplayed style of denial in its finest form. If this article is ever going to be more than an uncomfortable blip in the annals of creativity concerning the Holy See then more work has to be done to express it's deeper meanings.109.150.46.151 (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(CRAP=Concocted Ridiculous And Pretentious opinion on this talk page). You missed a few very major points about the way things are done on Wikipedia. First, articles about films are usually more popular than articles about the books on which they are based because films are usually more popular than books; it has nothing to do with some sort of hidden conspiracy that you have concocted. Secondly, plot summaries don't comment on the unspoken conclusions, or the audience's interpretation, or the Wikipedia editor's interpretation, or your interpretations. They only summarize the plot (of the film, not the book); and this plot summary is more than adequate, including its explanation of Fr. Flynn's fate. If you want to write an interpretation section, then please do so. But make sure it is properly sourced and well balanced, because the article is not a soapbox for your opinions, such as the meaning of "the unwilling boy's smile when he knows Flynn is leaving or the dejection in the submissive boy's eyes". Now, if you disagree with the way things are done on Wikipedia, please go elsewhere because this isn't the place for you. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have just edited a very loaded sentence in the summary which referred to Sister A's "determination to ruin [Father Flynn's reputation." I agree with the original poster that this article reflects a reading of the film in which Father Flynn is not guilty, though I am not sure that this has anything to do with conservatism or religion. Indeed, a traditionalist Catholic might well point to the permissive, therapeutic atmosphere of Vatican II of which Fr. Flynn is an exemplar as something that enabled, or at least catalyzed, abuse.Stealstrash (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)