Talk:Doubt (2008 film)

Conclusion
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)

Dedication
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
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)
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doubt (2008 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427222114/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/107473.html to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/107473.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Can someone pin down the use of the word 'doubt' at the end of the film
Thanks TwoTwoHello for your edits at Doubt. The end of the film seems to indicate that she is going through a crisis of faith. If you believe this crisis of faith has to do with her telephone conversation with another nun then let me know why you believe this. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to talk, although I did rather mean to article talk. Never mind. I am quite sure that she is undergoing a crisis of faith, but my opinion is irrelevant. The end of the film is open to several interpretations and it is not our job to choose one for the reader. On the 'phone call, I think the way SA freely admits to lying and is amused at SJ's shock is interesting (and I disagree with your removal of freely) and could also be interpreted in a variety of ways, if we were in the business of doing so. Regards. TwoTwoHello (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Its useful to indicate the reason for the crisis of faith at the end of the film from these two choices. Your choice appears to prefer to state that her use of deception over the telephone is the cause of her crisis in faith. The other reason for her crisis of faith is that she has failed to have a child abuse priest removed from the priesthood by the Bishop and sees him promoted instead. Since the 2 hour film is almost entirely about the child abuse issue, the reason for her crisis of faith at the end of the film concerning the child abuse issue should be explicitly stated at the end of the plot summary. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * SA gives no indication that she is at all concerned about lying to Father Flynn, quite the reverse, and yet we have "admits to lying", which you made stronger. Would it help if we rewrote it to "agrees with SJ that she lied". SA does not make explicit what her doubts are about, and we cannot put words in her mouth. We could add a sentence about her considering his resignation a confession if it's the proximity of the lying to her doubts you are concerned about. TwoTwoHello (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you pin that down here. In a film titled 'Doubt' made from a stage play titled 'Doubt', it seems important to state what that word means at the climax of the film at the very end when she speaks this word. If I understand you, you believe that her doubt expressed at the very end is about the morals of her use of deception over the phone. You prefer this understanding to the alternate understanding of looking at this phone conversation as a throw away line which she uses to try to ferret out a child abuse priest. Throughout the film, her 'doubt' is expressed in determining whether a new priest is a responsible addition to her church. This doubt about the status of her church should be added to the plot summary conclusion. JohnWickTwo (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You should look to secondary sources for the meaning of SA's doubt. I notice that both Roger Ebert and Daniel S. Cutrara have things to say about it in the reception section. The plot summary is for a basic description of the plot, not analysis, interpretation or even explanation, per WP:FILMPLOT. TwoTwoHello (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries also need to get key terms used in the film correct which are used in the film and to inform readers correctly, as in the use of the key term 'doubt' as used in this film. The other version of the closing paragraph in the plot summary version states this more accurately than the current version. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no qualms that we use the term correctly as, unusually for a plot summary, we quote the line in question. But I don't think I am going to convince you that you are in WP:OR territory, so as a last comment on this subject I leave you with a quote from Roger Ebert's review "I know people who are absolutely certain what conclusion they should draw from this film. They disagree." TwoTwoHello (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Missing word in Plot Summary
"Aloysius...states that even Flynn gave him special treatment like their private last week."

Private what? Meeting? Captain Quirk (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)