Embedded Files
Post date: Dec 1, 2018 3:09:30 AM
"Inherit the Wind" is one of the Keith 150 movies that I have watched the most. It has sharp writing, a tight story line, and outstanding performances without falling into melodrama. For example, I found the parade in the beginning where people were singing "give me that old time religion" compelling because I understand people's desire for a simpler time. It is effective later when that same tune is used by the same group of people, but as a lynch mob song. In a world of extremism, it is a comforting movie for moderates because its final message is tolerance.This is the ultimate court room picture. Most of the movie takes place in the courtroom, and the scenes that do not, frame the courtroom drama. There are no gunfights, car chases or gratuitous love interests. It is similar to other courtroom movies like "A Few Good Men" and "The Verdict" where the favored side is the underdog. "The Verdict" is a most extreme case of underdog syndrome. Paul Newman's character loses every single legal battle and even his last point is disqualified as evidence. He has nothing, yet implausibly he wins the case for more money than he asked for. It is the Rocky of courtroom dramas. "Inherit the Wind" is much more evenly matched because the opposing counsel is a legal force as dynamic as the underdog.
The movie is based on the Scopes' monkey trial of 1925. A schoolteacher named John Scopes was charged with teaching evolution in the classroom. What began as a small town trial soon became a flashpoint for fundamentalism vs. science. WGN of Chicago, which covered the trial as a national radio broadcast, made it center stage in America. This was the first trial to be broadcast and WGN even rearranged the courtroom to suit their own needs. There were several main personalities. William Jennings Bryan defended Christian teachings. Clarence Darrow defended the way of science. Famous author H. L. Mencken covered the trial and he put a cynical spin on the whole proceeding.
As the facts of this case prove, truth is stranger than fiction. In the summer of 1925, the town elders of Dayton, Tennessee gathered in the local drugstore and considered how to best promote the town. They thought it would be a good idea to accept the outstanding offer from ACLU to defend any teacher accused of teaching evolution. One of town elders contacted a local schoolteacher and asked him if he was willing to be charged with this crime. So in July of 1925, in the Dayton town drugstore, John Scopes agreed to be charged with the crime partly to help out his boss and partly because of the free speech implications. Later, he said he felt guilty because he did not recall even teaching evolution. Ironically, he must have since the official Tennessee biology textbook at the time had sections on evolution.
It is believed that William Jennings Bryan volunteered for the case not just because he was a devout Christian and liked the sound of his own voice, but also because he was a believer in the equality of man. He had noticed that Darwin's ideas were being adopted by industrialists and applied in a social context, meaning the poor were viewed as unfits who deserved to be left out of society. Charity and social programs were contrary to Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest. Furthermore, Bryan was familiar with work on eugenics and Nietzsche's work on the superman. Bryan even referred to Darrow's previous case of Leopold and Loeb who performed a senseless killing because they read Nietzsche and believed they were supermen. These are all factors that may have influenced Bryan to believe that topic of evolution was inherently bad and should be banned.
When legal legend Clarence Darrow heard about the trial, he came out of retirement to act as defense counsel. He wanted to defend Free Speech as well as challenge Bryan's beliefs. Darrow and Bryan used to be friends. Darrow had supported Bryan in a presidential bid but religion had come between them. Darrow was excited about the new Jazz Age and Bryan had helped order in prohibition. Darrow considered himself a man of the future and considered Bryan a man of the past. In the trial, Darrow played a nasty trick on Bryan. At the end, Darrow waived his right to a closing argument knowing that it would prohibit Bryan from giving the speech he had worked on for the whole trial. The speech was never given but part of the text can be found here: Interestingly enough, Darrow did not want an acquittal. He wanted the judge to overturn the law or have Scopes convicted so he could appeal it to a higher court. He picked the jury accordingly.
"If Clarence Darrow wanted a jury inclined to believe in the Bible, he got exactly that. The fate of John Thomas Scopes would be decided by six Baptists, four Methodists, one disciple of Christ, and a single non-churchgoer. Some of the jurors had no opinion about evolution because they said they didn't know what it was." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytrial/filmmore/index.html
The most notorious journalist at the trial was author H.L. Mencken. He was writing for the northern paper 'The Baltimore Sun' and he did not try to hide his disdain of the south and its people. He is noted for not believing in democracy because he felt not everyone had the intelligence to vote.
I do not say this often about movies but I enjoyed the acting in "Inherit the Wind". The three main actors were given meaty characters and they performed with flair. Like in the real trial, the defendant faded into the background in the presence of the three main players. Spencer Tracy, who is one of my favorite actors, plays Henry Drummond, the character based on Clarence Darrow. Frederic March plays Mathew Harrison Brady, the character based on William Jennings Bryan and Gene Kelly plays EK Hornbeck, the character based on H.L. Mencken. The choice of Gene Kelly for the cynical newspaperman was an interesting one. I have often wondered if Kelly was chosen because he looked like the cynical newspaperman Wally Cook from "Nothing Sacred" played by Frederic March twenty three years earlier.The similarities between the actual trial and the movie are striking. The movie was laid out almost exactly like the trial. Some of the lines in the movie were lifted from the actual trial. Even Drummond's surprise witness was the same. The laughable declaration by Brady that [Man descended from monkeys] "not even from American monkeys, but Old World monkeys." was actually said by Bryan at the trial. The main difference is that in the movie Brady is presented as more of an extremist than Bryan. In the movie, Brady does not know anything about evolution and only declares that science has only given us better ways to kill each other. In the end, he gets caught up in the moment and his own rhetoric which lead to some unfortunate incidents.
"Inherit the Wind" is usually categorized as a "Message Movie". That is, a movie that preaches some moral point of view. It preaches tolerance of beliefs. Drummond says that the bible is a good book, but it is not the only book. The film was directed by Stanley Kramer who was no stranger to the message movie. He also produced and directed: "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" and "The Defiant Ones" both of which preach racial tolerance. I enjoyed "Inherit the Wind" better than those two because it is more complex with many more characters who each have different motivations and moral codes.
Another reason I enjoy the movie is the tightness of the story. Even though there are many characters, every story arc relates to the main point. This is different that Kramer's "Judgement at Nuremberg" which turned into a three hour star studded vehicle. However, "Judgement at Nuremberg" does have an interesting message. In a speech at the end of the movie, one of the accused nazi admits to feeling guilty for the rise of Hitler and confesses to his biggest crime which was apathy. This is a powerful message in any society. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is all over the place. I got the feeling the director was attempting to explain World War II and was afraid of leaving something out.
I find it interesting to compare "Inherit the Wind" with another Spencer Tracy courtroom drama: "Adam's Rib". This movie pairs Spencer Tracy with Katherine Hepburn as a married couple of lawyers. Hepburn takes on a case, defending a woman who shoots her unfaithful husband, hoping to present it in a feminist light. Tracy prosecutes, arguing that taking the law into your own hands is bad news and nobody deserves to be shot. In both "Adam's Rib" and "Inherit the Wind", Spencer Tracy represents the side of rationalism. However his adversary in each movie is completely different. In "Adam's Rib", Hepburn's character has taken an impromptu reactionary stand, while in "Inherit the Wind", Frederic March's character has taken a stand based on his long-standing deep held beliefs. March's character argues to get his belief across and Hepburn's character argues so she doesn't have to admit she is wrong. In "Adam's Rib", Hepburn's character's case is weak, based on emotionalism, and Tracy's character easily shoots her down with logic. Not quite a fair fight if you ask me. Even more annoying, when Tracy's character finally gets Hepburn's character to concede, the movie doesn't end, but meanders on for 15 more minutes! This is strange because it was directed by George Cukor who also did the tightly constructed Keith 150 movie:"The Philadelphia Story"
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse