|
|
Post by bjobsessed on Mar 19, 2006 13:23:50 GMT -5
I have been feeling a little.....you know--this weekend too. I read the play again yesterday and I've finally decided that he's guilty. Ron's 'boy next door look,' winning smile, and the care and concern shown for the children throughout the play made if difficult for me to believe he was guilty. However, we all know that all criminals don't look like criminals.
Several things stood out to me as I was reading it yesterday. First, in the introduction, the author writes: "In those schools at that time, we were an ageless unity. We were all adults and we were all children. We had, like many animals, flocked together for warmth and safety. As a result, we were terribly vulnerable to anyone who chose to hunt us. When trust is the order of the day, predators are free to plunder. And plunder they did." This statement causes me to believe that he is writing from personal experience. Something either happened to him or someone close to him. He seems to have a personal knowledge of something that went on years ago.
Second, there is Father Flynn's opening speech which means nothing until the end of the play. He's talking about the assasination of JFK and the feelings people had about that and then he says, "How much worse is it then for the lone man, the lone woman, stricken by a private calamity? No one knows I've done something wrong." Is he talking about himself? Is he admitting that he's done something wrong that no one knows about? I have to wonder.
Third, there's the way Donald Mueller came back to class from his talk with Father Flynn--frightened and smelling of alcohol. There are better ways to make someone feel better than to give them a drink--especially a child.
Fourth, the reaction of the boy's mother when confronted by Sister Aloysius. Because he is a Negro, no one likes him. His father doesn't like him because he is 'that way.' Father Flynn is good to her son, puts a hand on him, but she doesn't ask or care why. She asks Sister Aloysisus not to throw her son out of school if nothing started with him. It's almost as if she knows something but is ignoring it because someone is being nice to her son, he's in a good school, and 'it's just until June' which I guess, makes it ok.
Fifth, why three parishes in five years? He gets very defensive when confronted about it, but never explains why he's been around so much--only that his reason for leaving the last one was innocent. If there's nothing to hide, why not give the reason and defend yourself?
Sixth, when asked to leave, he says, "There are things I can't say." Why not? Is it because of confidentiality or is he hiding something. This is his job and his passion. You'd think he would fight for it and his reputation in the community.
Finally, at the end of the play when you find out that Sister Aloysius did not call a nun and says that Father Flynn's leaving was his confession--that's pretty strong. An innocent man would not run and would not remain silent.
|
|
|
|
Post by dogma on Mar 19, 2006 15:12:12 GMT -5
wow,, what food for thought,, as much as i want to believe our ron would never do anything like that ( just because he's a cutie pie ) i know he's an actor,, ,just like in the pizza movie,,etc so , when i go to see this play myself ( third row,, almost center ) i will go with the thoughts that he is guilty,, and pay close attention to see what i can surmise to prove his innocence,, a differant swing for me to look at something,,  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2006 9:19:42 GMT -5
Wow, Anita, that was truly great. I've said it from the beginning that he was guilty - Ron Eldard or not - but not too many agreed. Then I thought it was just me being jaded as I sadly am. But you've pointed out exactly what I saw too when I read it. Well done!
|
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Mar 24, 2006 19:37:45 GMT -5
Several things stood out to me as I was reading it yesterday. First, in the introduction, the author writes: "In those schools at that time, we were an ageless unity. We were all adults and we were all children. We had, like many animals, flocked together for warmth and safety. As a result, we were terribly vulnerable to anyone who chose to hunt us. When trust is the order of the day, predators are free to plunder. And plunder they did." This statement causes me to believe that he is writing from personal experience. Something either happened to him or someone close to him. He seems to have a personal knowledge of something that went on years ago. He could have been writing from personal experience, or, he could have been insinuating that with the mentality pervasive at the time, it would be easy to assume this priest had done it. Second, there is Father Flynn's opening speech which means nothing until the end of the play. He's talking about the assasination of JFK and the feelings people had about that and then he says, "How much worse is it then for the lone man, the lone woman, stricken by a private calamity? No one knows I've done something wrong." Is he talking about himself? Is he admitting that he's done something wrong that no one knows about? I have to wonder. I think the sermon at the beginning was meant to be a creepy harbinger of things to come for Father Flynn. He was pointing out the importance of a community of faith, while little did he know, he was about to be betrayed by his. Third, there's the way Donald Mueller came back to class from his talk with Father Flynn--frightened and smelling of alcohol. There are better ways to make someone feel better than to give them a drink--especially a child. Father did not say he gave the boy the drink to calm him down. He said the boy had broken into the altar wine stored in the Sacristy and taken a drink. He was frightened because he had been caught. He smelled of alcohol because he had some to drink. Fourth, the reaction of the boy's mother when confronted by Sister Aloysius. Because he is a Negro, no one likes him. His father doesn't like him because he is 'that way.' Father Flynn is good to her son, puts a hand on him, but she doesn't ask or care why. She asks Sister Aloysisus not to throw her son out of school if nothing started with him. It's almost as if she knows something but is ignoring it because someone is being nice to her son, he's in a good school, and 'it's just until June' which I guess, makes it ok. Although I can't quite justify the mother's reaction, it is easy to see where she is coming from. A man is showing interest in her son's success. That is huge. Not only is the boy a Negro in the time of Jim Crow, she seems to be intimating that he is homosexual and his dad beats him. Those are three big strikes against that boy. All the mom wants is for him to get through so he can get into a good school and attempt to make something of himself. Her deciding not to pursue the issue with Father Flynn says nothing about what she knows or doesn't know about the situation, it just says she doesn't want to open this particular can of worms. She does not see how that could possibly help her son. Fifth, why three parishes in five years? He gets very defensive when confronted about it, but never explains why he's been around so much--only that his reason for leaving the last one was innocent. If there's nothing to hide, why not give the reason and defend yourself? It is like the story about the guy who is asked "Have you quit beating your wife?" There is no right answer to that question, if he answers yes, that insinuates that he beat her at one time. If he answers no, that insinuates he is still beating her. Sister is thoroughly convinced he did it. Nothing he can say will convince him otherwise. Sixth, when asked to leave, he says, "There are things I can't say." Why not? Is it because of confidentiality or is he hiding something. This is his job and his passion. You'd think he would fight for it and his reputation in the community. I refer you to my previous explanation. Also, why should he have to answer to her? The hierarchy of the Church is very clearly laid out, priests do not have to answer to nuns. Right or wrong it is that simple. I'm guessing there was an awful lot of misogynism in the Church back then, he most likely felt no need whatsoever to defend himself to a woman. Finally, at the end of the play when you find out that Sister Aloysius did not call a nun and says that Father Flynn's leaving was his confession--that's pretty strong. An innocent man would not run and would not remain silent. His reputation is in tatters. There is nothing he can do to redeem himself in this parish. His only choice at this point is to move on and start over. |
|
|
|
Post by bjobsessed on Mar 24, 2006 20:04:59 GMT -5
I refer you to my previous explanation. Also, why should he have to answer to her? The hierarchy of the Church is very clearly laid out, priests do not have to answer to nuns. Right or wrong it is that simple. I'm guessing there was an awful lot of misogynism in the Church back then, he most likely felt no need whatsoever to defend himself to a woman. I was just thinking that things have a way of getting around. In the end, I don't think he'd be defending himself just to a woman. edited to add: I stand corrected on the alcohol issue. You're right. |
|
|
|
Post by Katryna on Mar 24, 2006 20:29:53 GMT -5
Well said, Mouse. There are strong arguements both for and against Father Flynn. I plan to read the play again, this time looking for things that would indicate he is not guilty. That was the impression I was left with after we saw the play on the 11th. You have certainly presented a case for his being innocent. Karma for you!
|
|
|
|
Post by anna on Mar 24, 2006 22:56:15 GMT -5
Finally, at the end of the play when you find out that Sister Aloysius did not call a nun and says that Father Flynn's leaving was his confession--that's pretty strong. An innocent man would not run and would not remain silent. His reputation is in tatters. There is nothing he can do to redeem himself in this parish. His only choice at this point is to move on and start over. Are we sure that his reputation is in tatters? I thought that there were only two people who knew of Sister Aloysius's suspicions: - another nun, who, like Sister Aloysius, has no power in the hierarchy, and - a mother, who, as an African American woman, also has no power in that day and who already has said that she will not cooperate in an investigation. I'm not sure that Father Flynn is aware that the mother knows of the accusations, and I'm not convinced that an innocent priest would have been intimidated if he had known. I believe that an innocent priest, who knew that no evidence could be found in another parish and who was as willing as Father Flynn to use his hierarchical power, could easily have gone to his superiors and had Sister Aloysius removed and her reputation ruined. |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Mar 25, 2006 12:22:27 GMT -5
His reputation is in tatters. There is nothing he can do to redeem himself in this parish. His only choice at this point is to move on and start over. Are we sure that his reputation is in tatters? I thought that there were only two people who knew of Sister Aloysius's suspicions: - another nun, who, like Sister Aloysius, has no power in the hierarchy, and - a mother, who, as an African American woman, also has no power in that day and who already has said that she will not cooperate in an investigation. Didn't she also talk to the Monsignor at their Parish? Kind of like Terry shooting himself in Up on the Roof, these things have a way of getting around. I'm not sure that Father Flynn is aware that the mother knows of the accusations, and I'm not convinced that an innocent priest would have been intimidated if he had known. I can see Father Flynn becoming frightened that if he sticks around to fight the allegations word would get out and he would be all but helpless to stop it. Sister Aloysius was like a dog with a bone, she would not have let it go until he was gone. Honestly, I respect Sister's stand, I'm just feel compelled to argue for the possibility of his being innocent. I believe that an innocent priest, who knew that no evidence could be found in another parish and who was as willing as Father Flynn to use his hierarchical power, could easily have gone to his superiors and had Sister Aloysius removed and her reputation ruined. Who knows why he left his last parish. Seemingly, he did leave rather abruptly, but who knows for what reason. It could have been as simple as his not getting along with the Monsignor. It could have been him who was caught drinking altar wine. My point is, there are plenty of reasons for his leaving that he would not want broadcast, but that did not necessarily include molesting boys. Even though it is a vocation, the priesthood is still a job, and all kinds of personality issues can arise on the job. |
|
|
|
Post by anna on Mar 25, 2006 13:09:37 GMT -5
Are we sure that his reputation is in tatters? I thought that there were only two people who knew of Sister Aloysius's suspicions: - another nun, who, like Sister Aloysius, has no power in the hierarchy, and - a mother, who, as an African American woman, also has no power in that day and who already has said that she will not cooperate in an investigation. Didn't she also talk to the Monsignor at their Parish? Kind of like Terry shooting himself in Up on the Roof, these things have a way of getting around. I can't remember if she had told the Monsignor yet or if she had just threatened to do so. Anyone else remember? Honestly, I respect Sister's stand, I'm just feel compelled to argue for the possibility of his being innocent. Well, sure, that's what I thought.  |
|
|
|
Post by Katryna on Apr 12, 2006 18:46:10 GMT -5
This is for those of you who have seen the play. I have got to hear opinions!! Who thought he did it? Who thought he didn't? I thought he did, my sister thought he didn't. I have to say, I am a lapsed Catholic and my sister is a practicing Catholic so I wonder if our perspective had anything to do with it. In the end, I figured he did it because of his reaction to the final showdown with Sister Alouicious (sp!). Why, after she finally confronted him, did he ask the Bishop to transfer him? Why didn't he just ask the Bishop to help him clear his name? Because of the heirarchy of the church they could easily have brought the nun down and ruined her reputation. Please, everyone who saw it, share you takes! I am a little late in adding to the general discussion of guilt Vs innocence. Last weekend I read the play again and this time looked for evidence to argue the point of innocence. In the end, I do not believe that Sister Aloysius had any physical proof of his guilt, nor did Father Flynn have any physical proof of his innocence. They only had their words. Sister Aloysius was a rigid, unbending, cold woman. I don’t think we ever know exactly what it was that made her think initially that Father Flynn was behaving in an inappropriate way with the boy. The first hint we get is when she is trying to get information out of Sister James. Whatever started it, she was out to get Father Flynn. She tells Sister James “It’s my job to outshine the fox in cleverness.” What are the signs of guilt? There is the wine that the boy has drunk. However, it is never proven that Father Flynn gave him the wine. Mr. McGinn is said to have caught Donald drinking wine, but does not know how the boy got the wine. There are Father Flynn’s long fingernails, his suggestion of the camping trip, and that little hip wiggle that may have been just an attempt to make the boys laugh; or may have had a more inappropriate basis. Donald was acting strangely in class, but his mother relates that the boy’s father does not approve of him and beats him. These clues may have had a sinister origin, or perhaps were just red herrings to make us think of guilt. Father Flynn appears to be a concerned and compassionate person; genuinely concerned with the welfare of the children, the school, and the parish. He feels the church “needs to take on a more familiar face”. He says, “It’s me that cares about that boy, not her. Has she ever reached out a hand to that child or any child in this school? She’s like a block of ice….She sees me talk in a human way to these children and she immediately assumes there must be something wrong with it. Something dirty. Well, I am not going to let her keep this parish in the Dark Ages. I’m not going to let her destroy my spirit of compassion.” Later he says: “I’ve done nothing. There is no substance to any of this. The most innocent actions can appear sinister to the poisoned mind. The only reason I have not gone to the Monsignor is I don’t want to tear apart the school.” I wonder if his being transferred to another Parish was his admission of guilt or his wish not to tear apart the school? I am still on the fence, I am afraid. I really, really, really want to think him innocent. But I have such Doubts… |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Apr 12, 2006 18:57:11 GMT -5
Sister Aloysius was a rigid, unbending, cold woman. I don’t think we ever know exactly what it was that made her think initially that Father Flynn was behaving in an inappropriate way with the boy. The first hint we get is when she is trying to get information out of Sister James. Whatever started it, she was out to get Father Flynn. She tells Sister James “It’s my job to outshine the fox in cleverness.” I think I remember Sister Aloysius saying her first inkling came when Father Flynn touched a boy and the boy pulled away. |
|
|
|
Post by Katryna on Apr 12, 2006 19:19:31 GMT -5
Sister Aloysius was a rigid, unbending, cold woman. I don’t think we ever know exactly what it was that made her think initially that Father Flynn was behaving in an inappropriate way with the boy. The first hint we get is when she is trying to get information out of Sister James. Whatever started it, she was out to get Father Flynn. She tells Sister James “It’s my job to outshine the fox in cleverness.” I think I remember Sister Aloysius saying her first inkling came when Father Flynn touched a boy and the boy pulled away. You are right. I do remember her saying that! Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by bjobsessed on May 7, 2006 22:55:08 GMT -5
So what did you and Mary think this time? Did you ask how long he's staying? Someone said June, but that could change.
|
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on May 24, 2006 21:47:08 GMT -5
After seeing the play, I can now add my two cents' worth to the "guilty or not guilty" discussion. I have to admit to being firmly seated on the fence -- which may be where the playwright wanted us to end up.
I think the time when the play takes place is significant: 1964. That was a time of change in the Catholic Church. The Vatican II council was in progress, and it brought about many major changes. One possible interpretation is that, to Sister Aloysius, Father Flynn represented the changes that were taking place in the church, and she most certainly did not approve of them. I wonder if she embarked on a vendetta against him, because he represented the changes which she was powerless to stop. A boy pulling his hand away seems like a pretty slender reed on which to base her suspicions.
My initial reaction when Father Flynn says "Wait!" during his confrontation with Sister Aloysius, and later, when we learn he has transferred to another parish, was that she had successfully called his bluff. But when I thought it through some more, I realized that she really wasn't much of a threat to him. As I understand it, the only person she could go to was the Monsignor, and he was senile and not likely to believe her accusations or do anything about them. As I recall, he made it pretty clear that if she persisted in her accusations, she would not be believed, and it would be her reputation, not his, that was ruined. So why Father Flynn's impassioned defense of himself, followed by the transfer? It's certainly consistent with guilt. It's also possible he was innocent but chose to leave rather than tear apart the parish and the school.
One thing bothered me a little about the ending of the play. The friends with whom I was staying, who had seen the play with the original cast, brought this up when we were discussing the play, and I noticed it, too. It seemed to me that Sister Aloysius's admission, at the very end, that she has "such doubt" came out of left field. Throughout the entire play, she is a woman on a mission, unwavering in her certainty that Father Flynn is "a bad guy" (to quote Jim Dunbar). I suppose it might have been intended as a dramatic device, to underscore the ambiguity of the whole situation, but her sudden admission of doubt seemed out of character to me. Did anyone else feel that way?
|
|
|
|
Post by anna on May 24, 2006 21:54:26 GMT -5
One thing bothered me a little about the ending of the play. The friends with whom I was staying, who had seen the play with the original cast, brought this up when we were discussing the play, and I noticed it, too. It seemed to me that Sister Aloysius's admission, at the very end, that she has "such doubt" came out of left field. Throughout the entire play, she is a woman on a mission, unwavering in her certainty that Father Flynn is "a bad guy" (to quote Jim Dunbar). I suppose it might have been intended as a dramatic device, to underscore the ambiguity of the whole situation, but her sudden admission of doubt seemed out of character to me. Did anyone else feel that way? First, let me admit that I was not perceptive enough to figure this out on my own. It comes from watching interviews with Eileen Atkins and reading interviews with Shanley. The "doubt" that Sister Aloysius expresses at the end of the play is not about Father Flynn's guilt. Of that, she is convinced. Her doubt is about the church itself - a church and a hierarchy that (as she believes) would allow this sort of thing to happen again and again and just keep reassigning the guilty priest. Her doubt is about her ability to believe in such an institution. |
|
