Doubt

This was a film deserving of its nominations. While the obvious preoccupation with this movie would be deciding whether the priest did indeed commit the undeclared acts suggested of him or not, I avoided that debate, since it was never satisfactorily stated. Big surprise. Instead, I appreciated the subtleties of the filming, like how slight tilts of the camera angle at certain moments in the plot added to the suspicion, and the greater lessons suggested.
The plot itself was brilliantly set up. There was a fair balance between the two rivaling characters, giving them equal ground to walk on, negative and positive aspects. As the viewers we did feel the pull either way, making the doubt most realistic.
The accuser, the principal of a religious school based in 1964 in New York (before the mess with the Catholic Church was going on), is an intolerant leader who expects her students and others in the Parish to follow the guidelines strictly. She is constantly correcting the people around her and demands a way of perfection. The preacher however, is portrayed as a lenient father, who breaks the rules on occasion for simple pleasure: sugar in his tea, a smoke outside, drinking with his fellow priests. He teaches boys basketball and regards his students with respect, letting them ask questions that pertain to their immediate lives, giving them advice and modeling they need. When his relations with a particular child come into question, he is accused of making advances on him. He claims to be taking him under his wing to protect him. The boy is an outcast, bullied, isolated, abused by his home father, and black in a white school. However, the sister believes the boy to be a prime target for a wandering priest. Right off she suggests that she's seen it before, that her experience tells her the Father is trouble. Above all the rest of the suggestions made by the camera angles, the shots, the lack of information, hers is key. She saw everyday behaviors, possibly misdiagnosed behaviors that she came to conclusions about because of past experience. It only takes one to ruin it for the rest.
One accusation or case of sexual assault on someone thought to be the most trustworthy and holy of men spreads doubt like a brush fire through the church. Suddenly everyone is concerned about the behavior of religious leaders in relations with children. A touch on the shoulder becomes force, a place of confession becomes the right circumstances for a predator to strike.
In psychology we recognize the Power of Suggestion; we compensate for it in studies by using a placebo effect and go to great lengths to control it. It takes one scare and suddenly we have instances of discrimination: those of Japanese descent are forced into camps, the wrong words could put you on the Black list, "random" searches of persons thought to be Islamic or of Middle Eastern descent. Our history is built on the doubt that leads to the rights of innocent people being ignored.
We never get to learn if the Father accused in this movie was guilty. We are left guessing if he who breaks the rules once in a while is truly out to help those who need a role model, or is abusing his position. Is the strict principal filled with conviction that is based on no definite evidence only seeing what she expects to see? How can we ever really know the truth when the mob mentality holds the control with its chaos, when its better to be safe than sorry.