That's an interesting comment. My first contact with "Doubt" was watching the original play. The movie didn't change it much, but seeing the play we got to read the playwright's notes. She not only doubts her faith and the church, but the priest's guilt and her own role in forcing him out.
Here's some the author's comments on the end of the play:
Despite being presented as a parable, there is no moral conclusion or resolution to the play. We're left debating the priest's guilt.
People want comfort, you know? And at the same time, we're sick of it, which is why I think people like the play. I'm not interested in morality. One of my larger premises in doing this play, in what's notsaid, is that doubt itself is a passionate exercise. I think it's perceived in this culture as something weak or denatured, and that's a huge mistake. Conviction is what you do to be comfortable, to write The End on thinking. Doubt keeps you in the present, it keeps you conscious and reacting to and acting on what is going on now. It's work, and people like to avoid work. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1041504,00.html
I didn't know that Jeff -- about this being based on a true story. I wondered when watching it if that were so. I found it harder to believe such a strong accusation could be made against a priest in 1964/1965 than today.
The whole point of the film, at least, was about doubt. There aren't supposed to be concrete answers; kind of like real life in that respect.
I didn't believe the priest was guilty of any sort of abuse. I thought it more likely he was gay, at most, perhaps had been caught before or had confessed to some act or thought in a previous assignment. At least there were hints that might have led in that direction.
One thing I found interesting was the head nun (forgive me I do not know Catholic terminology) was willing to bend church law for someone she was willing to protect, the elderly nun who was losing her eyesight, but to anyone and everyone else she applied the strictest letter of the law. And with the priest she went beyond that and allowed her suspicions to move her beyond church law. It's not that surprising therefore that she may have had the biggest doubts of all. I've learned that sometimes those who wrap their lives around a religion and interpret it harshly and strictly do so because they are trying to quiet their own inner demons.
I was surprised that no one sat the boy, Donald Miller, down and asked him what was going on both at home with a physically and emotionally abusive father, as well as what may or may not have happened with the priest.
Was anyone disgusted by the mother's attitude toward the possibility of her son being sexually abused? Something along the lines of "he can have him". I've seen that before too.
It was a good film, but I think the actors raised the level of story that wasn't written as well as it could have been. The three central characters in particular were excellent in their performances. I do not recall the director, but he had some subtle scenes that played well (the nun opening the blinds shining bright light on the priest; or the priest sitting at the nun's desk, assuming authority only to have the nun turn the tables and she sat at the desk when the discussion turned toward the boy).
Chris
