Inherit the Wind

Rating:
Summary: Ten Reasons to Watch, Learn and Evolve
Review: 10. It removes the issues from history. The Scopes trial was a publicity stunt that had a limited effect, and muted participants.
9. It demonstrates how ensemble acting reflects a libertarian society to which we can all strive.
8. Type-casting and against-type-casting are equally balanced.
7. It lifts reasoning up by way of demonstration, i.e., proof.
6. The anti-McCarthyism points were not obvious, but are still merited.
5. Points of view are shown to be what they are, ever-changing.
4. The core issue of the place of religion in science is not lost, but made clear.
3. The best and worst in religion and science are scored easily by centering on the people who apply them, their selfishness, and thier selflessness, both shown for effect.
2. A rarely seen, important point is made at the end:
Atheists can believe in God. It is not that complicated. God does not exist. But I believe in God anyway. Why. Because faith is in essence the human imagination, and the faculty of reason provides enough meat that faith can be the candy. Belief does not have to be reasonable, it is all in your head anyway. That is what faith is, believing in what you know is not so, for comfort, pragmatically. The sinner is "Without God". The bible says that we are all "Seperate from", or "Without God." Atheism means " Without God." We are all atheists, believing if we choose, in god, by way of faith, the imagination, because it helps us to get along with each other, rather that obeying more powerful people overtly. Simple.
1. Finally, the character of Drummond comes across with a point that must be restated repeatedly:
The Bible is a good book, but not the only one. It contains many truths, but it does not need to be true in order to carry those truths.
There is so much in this film that provokes great thought, I just cannot "Praise it enough."

Rating:
Summary: Good Portrayal of a Topical Issue
Review: This film is as valid today as it was when it was first made; perhaps even more so. I used this film in my Sunday School class to portray the issues of fundamentalism and its impact on mainline education and culture.
Though there are some digressions, understandable in movie making, much of the dialogue is right out of the trial transcripts and the characterizations of Darrow (Tracy), Bryan (March) and H.L. Menken (Kelly) are close to the truth.
Contrary to one reviewer, who probably got his information from a fundamentalist/creationist preacher or the popular overweight draft dodger's radio program, Darrow's request for scientific expert testimony was rejected. (See Scope's memoirs as quoted in "Clarence Darrow, The Creation of an American Myth" by Richard Jensen, p 99).
The acting is superb, the directing outstanding, and the script excellent and thought provoking. Thought provoking is goal of this film and what those still writing these Salem-style laws in the states of the old Confederacy(not to mention the judges of the Kansas Supreme Court) are against.

Rating:
Summary: Spellbinding dual performances!
Review: There are many reasons to watch this movie, one of the essential films of the past 50 years. But the primary motivation is to see the greatest screen actor of all, Spencer Tracy, deliver a performance for the ages. Watch this master emote with movement, voice and nuance. He steals the picture (as he usually does), but there is another brilliant performance as well. This is delivered expertly by the underrated Fredric March, in one of the meatiest roles ever handed to an actor. March is at turns witty, cunning, over-the-top, hammy or contrite, depending upon the demands of the scene. His scenes on the witness stand with Tracy are among the best written and beautifully acted pieces in movie history. It's impossible not to be on the edge of your seat as Tracy quizzes March about various passages from the Bible.

I won't bother with the details of the plot, which is well known to most movie fans. Don't expect real or truthful history, and accept that Kramer's direction is sometimes limited and even claustrophobic. Watch this film because there has never been such an array of spellbinding performances as were delivered by Tracy and March. An astounding display of acting talent.

Rating:
Summary: INACCURATE BUT JUST AS ENJOYABLE TODAY...
Review: I have read many of the negative reviews concerning "Inherit the Wind", and I must agree with one thing: Stanley Kramer's film is filled with too many inaccuracies to count. This sleepy town of Dayton wanted the rest of the nation to notice them, so they reinvented themselves through the 'Monkey Trial'...If Custer hadn't died at the Little Big Horn, would anyone remember him??? So the 'John Scopes' trial that matched creationists against evolutionists was Dayton's 'last stand' I guess. But let's get back to Kramer's film.

So what if "Inherit the Wind" twists all the facts and is more a work of fiction than fact. If you want to learn more about the 'Monkey Trial', read a textbook. If you want to see Spencer Tracy and Fredric March boxing each other with words, watch Kramer's great film. Gene Kelly is also featured as the sharp-tongued reporter who is sent to cover the 'trial'. And Harry Morgan, Dick York and Claude Akins also give good supporting performances.

Don't search for bits of propaganda or stereotypes in this film. You will be sure to find them. Rather, see the film as a classical work of art. The exchanges between Tracy and March are memorable, and Kramer's direction is brilliant.

"Inherit the Wind", no matter how accurate it 'isn't', is still one great piece of Americana you don't want to miss.

Rating:
Summary: Great drama but not history
Review: This is a wonderful film with outstanding acting. The only problem is that too many viewers assume it is historically accurate. In fact, the Scopes trial (and surrounding events) as dramatized here bear little resemblance to the actual events. "Summer for the Gods" by historian Edward J. Larson is an excellent discussion of the actual events surrounding the trial (promoted by the town for publicity purposes) of a gym teacher who had never taught evolution in his life. Enjoy the movie, but get your history from Larson's book!

Rating:
Summary: Torn between "God" and the "Devil"
Review: They don't make movies like this anymore. The acting is superb. You are torn between the forces of "good" and "evil", "right" and "wrong", "God" and the "Devil". By the end of this movie, you have changed your mind so many times about who is right and who is wrong you just have to admit that they both have flaws and both should win. No matter your religion or philosophical viewpoints, this movie addresses them all, and in a manner that is non-judgmental and forces you to think. When this movie is over, all you can do is sit there in a state of contemplative thinking and ponder what you would have done.
This movie is excellent. It makes you think, and best of all, there is no "good guy" or "bad guy" they are both equally right.

Rating:
Summary: Don't monkey around with religion
Review: This film is based on the play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee about the 1925, Scopes Monkey Trial. It is tricky to keep the differences between this play and the real trial apart in one's mind. Spencer Tracy (Henry Drummond) and Fredric March (Matthew Harrison Brady) spar over the legality of teaching of evolution in Tennessee. This combination is guaranteed to keep you glued to your seat. In this movie Scopes, while teaching evolution to a high-school biology class is arrested and placed in jail.

Some time the other characters get lost in the shuffle yet one other will show through. That is Gene Kelley who plays E. K. Hornbeck who reports the trial.

I will not give a blow by blow of the trail but to say it gets rather heated and is broken up with several adjournments with time to reflect on what was said and going to be said.

If you are interested in the real thing then read Scopes Autobiography "Center of the Storm."

Pr 11:29... "HE WHO TROUBLES HIS OWN HOUSE WILL INHERIT THE WIND."

Rating:
Summary: Real Acting
Review: Inherit the Wind is a tour de force for two of the greatest actors ever to grace the screen, and while in most films one part, if not actor as well, overshadows the other, here you have two giants at their peak. My FAVORITE movie

Rating:
Summary: A Great Movie - Frederick March is excellent
Review: Wonderful acting. While many have pointed to its historical flaws, much of the courtroom testimony was taken from the trial records. If you have read them you will know that they mixed up the sequence of some of the remarks, but kept much of the testimony intact. There is also the fact that Clarence Darrow did dominate the proceedings and that W.J.B. was bombastic self absorbed.

Rating:
Summary: Stereotype, TN
Review: A star to Stanley Kramer for his superb directing.

Unfortunately, the INHERIT THE WIND has not met its potential for being a truly great movie.

The film, in terms of historicity, is similar to AMADEUS; that is, although it is placed in a historical setting and based on actual events, most of the events and characters are fictionalized. Thus, the changing of the names of the characters. Don't expect a portrayal of actual occurences.

The reason for this departure from the truth is obvious: the screenwriters had an agenda to portray evolutionism as the force of progress and science and to show all creationists to be hateful and ignorant.

In this paradigm, the film has snugly fitted most of the main characters into stereotypes. Bertram Cates (based on John Scopes) is a lonely protagonist, fighting society to proclaim the truth. His fiancee, Rachel Brown (completely fabricated), urges him to give in but eventually comes to agree that he needs to fight. For her support of Cates, her father--the hell-fire-and-damnation-preaching local minister, Jeremiah Brown (also fabricated)--consigns her to hell. Matthew Harrison Brady (William Jennings Bryan), the attorney for the prosecution, is a pompous, narrow-minded, scheming yet bumbling, long-winded "Bible thumper" who eats like a pig and has the belly to match. Henry Drummond (Clarence Darrow), the defense attorney, is the typical Spencer-Tracy character, generally goodhearted, largely inscrutable, and unnervingly clever. E.K. Hornbeck (H.L. Mencken) is a cynical big-city reporter who largely remains true to his real-life counterpart.

The film portrays the Scopes trial as a landmark struggle for the minds of a nation. In reality, the trial was a mostly good-natured publicity stunt set up by local commerce and the ACLU, with little impact except what the media gave to it. Apparently, the writers largely ignored the trial transcripts and many other resources available to them.

One example among many of the inaccuracies of the film:
- In the film, Drummond is denied the right to put his scientific witnesses on the stand due to a clear bias on the part of the judge.
- In real life, Darrow kept his own scientific witnesses off the stand and instead submitted affidavits from the intelligencia, because he feared Bryan would tear them apart on the stand. When questioned, Darrow told the judge that the purpose of cross-examination was to bias the testimony.

Many say this film has relevance today, as indeed it does. Only watch for the roles to be reversed, as evolutionists frantically try to squelch any whisper of creationism in the classroom or any insinuation that their pet theory might be wrong. Watch the press to remain on the side of evolutionary theory.

If you watch this film, take it with a grain of salt. ...