It is difficult to make the decision if Father Flynn is innocent or guilty. In John Patrick Shanley’s Doubt; a parable, he eclipses the truth very well. The scenes about the toy, the camping trip and the undershirt cause much confusion; causing the audience to go back and forth in their minds and doubt Father Flynn. Law says that people are innocent until proven guilty although; realistically, everyone knows that people are guilty until proven innocent. It is very possible that Father Fynn is only helping Donald, because he is less fortunate than the other students at his school; and it is also very possible that he is hurting the child by molesting him. The decision is left to the audience as the jury.
Father Flynn gave Donald Miller a toy. It was no big deal, just a little dancing ballerina that spun in circles with magnets. "That’s for you, take it." (Shanley, 2008) Donald liked the toy, and found it fascinating. Father Flynn gave him the toy, possibly because he was an underprivileged child, and did not have many toys at home. However, maybe Father Flynn gave it to him with ulterior motives. Perhaps he gave it to him just to give the boy a gift, to make Donald like him. It was a girl’s toy, and Father Flynn, being a priest, giving a little boy a toy is slightly inappropriate when the purpose of why he did this is unclear. "Every perfect gift has its origin in God- it comes from above." (James 1:17, King James Bible) Shanley leaves it completely open for interpretation. The segment is brief and vague of Father Flynn’s intent. Later on, there is a scene where the toy was stepped on and broken by the other kids at school. Father Flynn helped him pick it up and gave him a hug; comforted him. Either in a parental way, or a roma...
... middle of paper ...
... Nonetheless, the signs also point to Father Flynn hurting him, because he was violating him. People’s assumptions are based upon personal experience and gut feeling, also on their upbringing; nature and nurture. Shanley uses inference in this play to create doubt in the audience’s minds'. The verdict is never in, on Flynn; guilty or not guilty. Shanley’s audience is left to be the jury.
Works Cited
Rossetti, S. J. (1996). A tragic grace: the catholic church and child sexual abuse. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=JAgyfIkgNSoC&dq=A+tragic+grace+:+the+Catholic+Church+and+child+sexual+abuse+/+Stephen+J.+Rossetti.&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Shanley, J.P. (2005). Doubt, a parable. New York,
NY: Theatre Communications Group, inc.
Shanley, J.P. (Writer). (2008). Doubt, a parable [DVD].
Available from
http://www.zshare.net/video/571620053fc03455/
The play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, written by Reginald Rose, explores the thrilling story of how twelve different orientated jurors express their perceptions towards a delinquent crime, allegedly committed by a black, sixteen-year-old. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness how the juror’s background ordeals and presumptuous assumptions influence the way they conceptualise the whole testimony itself.
John Patrick Shanley creates a movie as a whole I feel was more informative than the play. In the play you have 4 characters Sister Aloysius, Father Flynn, Sister James, and Mrs. Muller. While the movie introduces a few other characters, for instance the children. For me the children made a difference because they for one made me understand what kind of kids Sister James was dealing with. I really thought that being able to see the way Father Flynn interacted with all of the young boys including Donald Muller was really helpful when trying to draw your conclusion of Father Flynn versus when reading it your left to imagine for instance; what some of the kids are like. The way the book sets you up your left leaning to Father Flynn being exactly what Sister Aloysius accuses him to be. We also get to see how sister James interacts with the kids and how Sister Aloysius influences her to change the way she deals with and teaches her class.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
...it up to each reader to draw their own conclusions and search their own feelings. At the false climax, the reader was surprised to learn that the quite, well-liked, polite, little convent girl was colored. Now the reader had to evaluate how the forces within their society might have driven such an innocent to commit suicide.
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
In the play, Priestley is trying to show that there is a change in the
In this male dominated investigation, it is empathy that truly is the mark that allows the investigation to be solved from an unsuspected place. Void of empathy, nothing can genuinely be understood. Empathy is the foundation with which we can see the world and understand the reason behind everything whether for the good or bad. Condoning the action of an individual is not taking into account their situation or what other options were available to them considering any existed. Labeling a criminal is putting an individual into a category of black and white without considering the complexity of the matter or the many shades of gray the world presents. In the eyes of the law, Mrs. Wright was a murderer. To those who could empathize with her struggles she was a survivor—despite her wrongdoing. Justice is found in this play, or rather the term may be favored as mercy, that Mrs. Wright was a victim who believed in her heart she chose the only path that lead to
...der further than what we have in front of us. We want to impose our opinion on everything. We want to relate to it in a way that can only be done through out imagination. So, due to this, when we are not given the flexibility, then the context no longer becomes entertaining. The viewers do not want to be told how to think. Given these points, if they are influenced to believe that Sister Aloysius is a cruel individual like the movie portrays, then at the end of the movie and book when Sister Aloysius says, “ I have doubts! I have such doubts!” they will take that as a confession from her, and be further lead to believe that the accusations against Father Flynn are false. I think John Patrick Shanley chooses specific diction to create a conflict that has no precise resolution,he wanted the reader get lost in story and enter into their own story manifested within.
opinions in Act 1, Scene 2. The aim of this is to build the suspense
Doubt: A Parable follows Sister’s Aloysius, the principal in a Catholic School, as she investigates Father Flynn, who she suspects of molesting a student, Donald. Sister Aloysius is certain that Father Flynn is guilty, but does not have any evidence to prove that guilt. Shanley is depicting that one does not need evidence to be certain of one’s guilt. Sister Aloysius enlists in the help of a younger nun, Sister James to gather evidence and confront Father Flynn. However, Sister James finds difficulty in believing Father Flynn’s guilt, and harbors doubt and uncertainty. The characters’ position on doubt vs. certainty divides their personalities. Sister Aloysius is a strict and strong-willed character, while Sister James has an insecure and innocent
Tuohy, John (1993). There's no such thing as a childhood on the streets. U.S. Catholic, 3, 18-26.
Zieve, David, Juhn, Greg, and Eltz, David R. "Child Abuse-Sexual." New York Times. N.p., 13 Oct. 2008. Web. 12 Jan. 2014.
Giovannoni, J. M., & Becerra, R. M. Defining child abuse. New York: Free Press, 1996.
In the Catholic Church, priests are the moral authority. When one has questions with his faith he is taught that he can go to his priest for informed answers. In this paper I also hope to deal with how these priests failed their flock. They took advantage of men who came to them for help when in trouble and preyed on the little boys who came to the church for guidance. In addition to the tacit feeling that as a priest they will only do what is right, these men told their victims that they would deal with the moral implications.
7. Kadushin, A., and Martin, J. Child Abuse: An Interactional Event. Columbia University Press 1981.