Enemy of the People
The final question focuses on your interpretation of the multiple plot twists in the final act of Enemy of the People. My understanding of it has to do with whether Dr. Stockmann was perceived as incorrect all along and was merely attempting to gain financially from the scandal when he pronounces the baths poisoned. Is this correct? Or was he sincere therefore should be dignified in our eyes as the one who told the truth as he saw it, even though he stood to gain millions via his inheritance of the tannery owned by his father in law? What does it mean to tell such a truth? To what extent is he assuring that society should respond to the voice of scientific and moral authority when the majority is wrong? Is such a measure an attitude a democratic I deal or is it more about ego and authority? Can you compare Dr. Stockmann to someone in the world of famous advocates who although incorrect, told the truth as he or she saw or see it? Are these people (Stockmann and your example) heroes or enemies of the people?
