This doesn’t hold water, for me. Whatever he was guilty of, the scandal already broke once. That’s why he left his previous post. He has to be afraid of something more than losing his job, i.e. criminal prosecution. I can’t see a rogue Streep spreading rumors that he’s gay, anyway. If she found out he’s gay, but had no evidence of wrongdoing, would she really persist in discrediting him, knowing as she must that the higher-ups already know? And if she did go after him, who would the parish believe, their priest or an fallen sister? I believe that for his backing down to make sense, he had to be afraid of something more than rumors.

The evidence is the fact that Hoffman backs down and agrees to leave after Streep threatens to leave the nunhood and investigate on her own. Everything up to that point is wild speculation. There was also the mother’s testimony, of course, but that’s just her interpretation of her son’s mental state, and parents don’t always know their kids as well as they think.

The point is, there isn’t any reasonable alternative explanation for Hoffman leabacking down after Streep threatens to leave the nunhood, other than that he had something to hide. A person I saw the movie with suggested maybe he had an affair with a nun, but that doesn’t hold water. Why would he be so afraid of Streep uncovering that? Having sex with a nun is not illegal. Obviously, his superiors knew what was going on, and why he left his previous post, whatever it was. Hoffman might have been concerned with the congregation learning of his misbehavior. But in that case, he could have cast Streep as an irrational ex-employee with a grudge.

No, the only real explanation for his backing down, in my opinion, was that he was afraid of criminal prosecution. And that was definitely the message that the audience was supposed to take away from the scene. He rambles on about some extenuating circumstances, and things that Streep could never understand. But the evidence is clear, he’s afraid of her leaving the nunhood and digging into the past for a reason.

Exactly, James Bond. That was what I got from seeing the play; it is like a Lady or Tiger situation, you have to decide for yourself. Ambiguity was key to making the play work. Unfortunately, one of the devices in the film that removed this ambiguity and sided against Father Flynn was having the camera focus on the blonde boy who was a student at the school; featuring him throughout the film, particularly his aggressiveness and then his smile of relief when the priest is giving his last sermon and leaving, did more to imply that Father Flynn had harassed him at some point and was therefore guilty than anything else. Of course, it goes without saying that there are no children in the actual play, so the director totally added this in.

Also, no subtlety with the use of wind. We got it after the first time, but thanks for repeating it in an anvilicious way so there was no mistaking the symbolism. I did like the lightbulb though.

Streep’s performance at the very end expressing her doubts was masterful. I always interpreted that scene in this way: to protect her students against a possible wrong, Sister Aloysius had to fight against the priest at full strength, no room for doubt or wavering in her convictions of him as a dangerous man or she would never win against him. But once he was gone, the threat removed, that wall of conviction could finally come down, thus her amazing breakdown. Conversely, Sister James played by Amy Adams can never pick one side or the other; she flits back and forth unsure of who to believe. In the play you finally get annoyed at her — just pick a side already, lady — but in the movie they softened this and made her indecisiveness less irksome, more sympathetic; whether from Adams’ acting or the director’s decision, who knows. She becomes hardened from the experience, while Sister Aloysius is softened.

I still think it is a pretty amazing play, but feel that by removing some of the shades of grey the movie took away some of the bite as well.

What is striking is the

If there was ANY evidence of wrong doing other than impressions colored by the odious Sister Aloysius then please, let me know.

No doubt for me, whatsoever. Flynn was innocent until and unless some sort of indication to the contrary was offered that I missed. The suspicious of this woman alone, no matter how profoundly felt, are insufficient to indict this man.

Why did he quit? Heck, I’d have left to to get this harridan off my back. She was going to destroy him, no doubt about that. He had not option but to leave.

IF the writer intended him to be guilty he provided us with insufficient information to draw this conclusion for ourselves.

I would like to see statistical comparisons between abuse by school employees and Priests. My impression is that there is more abuse by school teachers and officials but there is not the media outrage and condemnation when the offender is a Priest.

Having said the above, the Catholic Church should be raked over the coals and truthfully, the Bishops and Church officials who foisted those offenders on unsuspecting congregations should have been excommunicated as they not only fostered those criminals but failed in their primary responsibiity – looking after their flock, so to speak. And they gave a black eye to all responsible Priests and Church officials.

.+30

I would like to see statistical comparisons between abuse by school employees and Priests. My impression is that there is more abuse by school teachers and officials but there is not the media outrage and condemnation when the offender is a Priest.

Having said the above, the Catholic Church should be raked over the coals and truthfully, the Bishops and Church officials who foisted those offenders on unsuspecting congregations should have been excommunicated as they not only fostered those criminals but failed in their primary responsibiity – looking after their flock, so to speak. And they gave a black eye to all responsible Priests and Church officials.

.+30

I have little doubt about his guilt. And as a conservative, I prefer it that way. It means the old cold conservative battle ax that no likes turns out to be the hero over the hippy dippy lefty priest.

One thing I didn’t buy …. Viola Davis’ character and her thinking. No way. That’s a writer’s conceit. It’s there only to throw a dramatic curveball.