At the end of the film, it is not clearly stated whether the priest has violated or not. The principal committed a fraud. The priest finally resigned and was transferred, but he was actually promoted. There is no need to worry about whether the priest has a ghost in his heart or other reasons. The principal has no evidence, only based on experience, she has caught one before, and there was clear evidence that time, so she pays special attention to this kind of thing. This practice is very criticized, but it is not her fault. She will not have evidence. In the first two shots, the priests and the nuns are eating, completely two types of people, and at the end, the nun is saying that I will give you a fuck When the nuns in the diocese called to ask about your situation, the priest instinctively responded "you should ask the priest", why can't the nuns? The headmaster also reported to the bishop that the bishop just didn’t believe it and stopped here. If he doesn’t believe it, does he need to investigate to recover? No, in fact, some incidents in the church have only been exposed in recent years. No investigation is required. The boy's mother said that there is no evidence of this. The child's parents just want to graduate and go to college, and don't want to worry about too much trouble. Moreover, the mother said that the son's behavior is also questionable.
Both priests and young nuns feel that the principal is too dogmatic, conservative, and dignified. It is necessary to interact happily with students, to keep pace with the times and to keep up with the new era, but when the principal says I will visit you for evidence When all the parishes, the priest got angry and told her "You have to obey me, you have sworn an oath in front of us, you have no right to step out of the church", this part is so wonderful that I completely fell in favor of the headmaster, All doubts and sins, and all dogmas and stereotypes, get out of here.
I really liked the stories about feathers that the priest told in his sermons, from doubt to gossip, but in the end, when Meryl collapsed and said "I have such doubts", I just wanted to comfort her, she endured more, she didn't want to pass the evidence To convict, you have to investigate if you want evidence. Without investigation, it will only lead to all kinds of strange directions. There are two types of non-investigation: one is self-righteous and feels that there is no need to investigate; the other is that various external factors interfere with normal investigation.
When I rewatched it, I found something very interesting. The priest asked the principal what I did. You want to judge me like this. The principal said that she saw the priest holding the boy's hand by the window. The boy struggled to break free, and the priest went to She glanced at the window and said that she felt relieved after seeing the evidence, and then she was going to write a small notebook to report her to leave. At this time, the principal could say that she was very wise and used a strategy to completely reverse the situation. The second time I watched it, I didn't think the principal was suspicious or prejudiced. I just felt that the principal didn't see the real truth and was just wandering outside the door to get close to the truth.
If there is another special scene, one is that the light bulb is always broken while the two are talking, and the second is that the priest has long nails and eats half-raw beef with a lot of blood. There is always a strange feeling, maybe I am religious Too many horror movies
View more about Doubt reviews
