Aristotelian Analyses of the Film “Doubt”.
When the principal (Meryl Streep) of a Bronx Catholic High School accuses a popular priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) of pedophilia, a young nun caught in between the feuding pair becomes hopelessly swept up in the ensuing controversy. 1964, St. Nicholas, the Bronx: The winds of change are sweeping through this tight-knit religious community, and charismatic priest Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is doing his best to adapt by revisiting the school's notoriously strict disciplinary practices. Unfortunately, Father Flynn's progressive ideas stand in stark contrast to the longstanding beliefs of Sister Aloysius Beauvoir (Meryl Streep), the iron-willed principal, who believes that an oppressive environment of punishment and fear is the only way to keep the student body in line.
Aristotelian teleology, the philosophical attempt to describe things in terms of their apparent purpose, directive principle, or goal, a purpose that is imposed by a human, teaches us that everything in the objective world has purpose. As telos of the river is to flow into the ocean, human’s telos is to reason her/himself into being wise.
In book two of the Nicomachean Ethics, philosopher explains that will in collaboration with choices making us who we are, step by step, to nurture virtues trough habitual (virtuous) behavior. In Doubt, Shanley plays with our perceptions to guide our opinion of Father Flynn. There are small instances where subconscious clues are injected into dialogue that make us question him upon a re-reading as a hindsight technique. During the scene where Flynn is having a dinner with other priests and highly contrasted with the shot of the sister’s dinner at the end, their conversation and emotions would not look very Catholic to the viewer.
This scene creates split feelings about Fr. Flynn, who was seen as somewhat aggressive and foolish, but the most important as the person who absence moderation. Answering question whether this scene is enough to make a judgment about the protagonist can be a doubtful business, but purposely shown by the director for less than a minute in contrast with highly moderate and moral nuns does its job. In Catholicism, priests figure is nearly a saint, a person who takes the responsibility ought to have higher moral standards, and therefore, better self-control. That is something Fr. Flynn lack and it has been clearly pronounced in the film.
Interestingly, whether he is incontinent or intemperate. In case where he knows good and acts bad, because, clearly, education of the priest pre-supposes knowledge of the good and chooses to be who he really is, and especially, in case if he really is a child molester (which we don’t know) or he mistakes good for bad, because of the confusion, shifts in society, a wish to make school and church more open-minded. The first situation creates a monster, most of all because of the unwillingness to control certain forces and own desires, falling into the sin, according to Catholics, or to the extreme of the mean, that could equally give a virtue, if applied correct, according to Aristotle. In second case scenario, he is rather a fool, who fell into another extreme of the golden mean and, therefore, was punished understandingly by Sister Aloysius.
In both cases, Fr. Flynn did not choose moderation or golden mean. We don’t see his step-by-step moral development, all we see that he is constantly under investigation by the principle of the school and another time either acts weird or trying to be justified. Suspicious, indeed, but depending on how we read the text, Father Flynn can develop into two completely different characters. I’m guessing Fr. Flynn has hard times to call on empathy in many viewers.
On its own, there is nothing that proves Father Flynn is a pedophile or has homosexual tendencies, however, placed in context with the rest of the film it becomes more fuel to the fire that Shane is trying to feed the audience to facilitate a possibility.
