How sure are you?
Several years ago as we were returning from a trip to Italy, one of my traveling companions presented us with a short play to read on our flight home -- Doubt: a Parable by John Patrick Shanley. We all read it and as we talked about it, none of could say with any degree of certainty that the priest was guilty.
I never saw a performance of the play, in which the 4 main characters have the entire dialog: priest, mean nun, nice nun, boy’s mother. There are no children on stage.
But I recently saw the movie and had no trouble making up my mind that the priest was indeed guilty as charged. I would say I was about 95% sure. Now why was that? From the onset, he seemed a little sleazy. I was repulsed by his statement about growing his nails long and then making all the boys look at his carefully manicured nails. Meryl Streep did her usual wonderful job of playing the mean nun, whose job it became to make the case against the priest. But in addition to what happened in the film, over the past few years I had been conditioned to suspect priests in matters of child abuse.
However, my husband and others who saw the movie with me said their certainty level was 50% and 60%. I’m wondering if this implies that I make snap judgments in matters such as this, perhaps without the necessary proof? I do find that I’m seldom ambivalent, instead falling on one end or the other of the spectrum of possibility.
Just yesterday as I read the Post article about the shooting of 14-year-old DeOnte Rawlings by an off-duty DC cop over the possible theft of a red motorbike, I found myself quickly laying the guilt squarely on the cop. There are many things about the story that still don’t make sense. The mayor’s office must have recognized the high probability of wrongdoing on the part of its police force since the DC government paid for the boy’s funeral. The motorbike was recovered, but the boy was dead, never to resume his place in the world. The charges against the cop and his cop friend have since been dropped. We will probably never know for sure exactly what happened in those few minutes before and after the shooting. And yet I want to pronounce the cop guilty.
Do you have an opinion about either of these -- one fiction, the other quite real? Are you more comfortable that I seem to be in honoring the room for doubt?
posted by Barbara at 1:47 PM
8 Comments:
Interesting post, Barbara!
I have no familiarity with either of the stories you wrote about, so will comment on my own experience...In general, I don't know if I'd call myself "comfortable" with doubt. I certainly live with a lot of it! I tend to both hold multiple points of view simultaneously (or, rather, a "big picture" view), & try to not make too many assumptions, and also at times have an inner, pre-verbal sense of my belief about something. But: often it's fear-driven if it's a personal matter. I think it sometimes depends in part on how much direct prior experience I have with the question. I tend to be both a hypervigilant worrier and a loyalist, so I spend a lot of time wondering! :-) As you know, there's a lot to "wonder about but not know for sure" in my life these days! I think on average I balance doubt and faith, but by no means in equal measure at any given moment.
F.
I had trouble forming an opinion based on the movie! I thought it was amazingly well acted and challenging; the actors had to have formed their own opinions.
I'm unfamiliar with the story of the cop and boy, being so far removed from everything in the Pacific Northwest.
I keep working on not passing judgment. I guess it's good that I don't have an opinion.
Anon -- Read the play AND watch the movie. I will be curious to hear your reaction. It will be a good exercise for you, given the current level of necessary doubt you must carry.
Kristin -- Here is the recent WaPo story, revealing a lot of holes in this botched investigation.
I sometimes have trouble forming opinions about things because I'm always asking myself "And what don't I know about this?"
When I saw Doubt, my impression was that even though the priest creeped me out, there was a rather distinct possibility that he was, for the most part, innocent. And although I trusted the Meryl Streep character's intentions much more than I did those of the priest, I thought it would be easy for her to become misguided by her own self-righteousness. The only character who I actually felt any sympathy for was the boy's mother.
It was an excellent yet very disturbing movie about certain kinds of manipulation. And there was a good deal of manipulation oozing out of the screen towards the audience as well. It left me feeling very wary.
Cyndy used the word manipulated - we're not only manipulated by others, we manipulate ourselves into believing one thing over another. I have neither read the book nor watched the movie but I remember a line from Sound of Music in which the Reverend Mother said she liked to keep faith in her doubts. Belief and betrayal go hand in hand. Belief and truth don't always...
Pauline, I like that, I like that alot.
Cyndy -- I regret that I seem to be easily manipulated. I tend to want to take the side of the underdog, in these 2 cases both young boys.
Pauline -- Your wisdom never ceases to amaze me.
Bulletholes -- I agree with you 100%!
I've never read the play, but I saw it on Broadway. It's been a while, but as I recall I was on the fence about the priest. The chief nun was blinded by her own certainty, in my eyes.
The play was certainly effective for you, though -- its purpose is to make us consider these questions, the nature of faith, the absolute and the questionable, the certain and uncertain. Fascinating post!
Post a Comment
<< Home