Rating: 
Summary: Tells its own story masterfully
Review: Any good atheist knows about this movie, based on the Scopes trial of 1925, opposing lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan over the teaching of evolution in Tennessee. What the movie does not tell you is that Scopes did it on purpose - as a test trial for the ACLU. I don't think adding this would have detracted from the drama, on the contrary. But this movie wants to tell its own story, and why not ? All the people are there, but under different names. The succulent H.L. Mencken is now named, bizarrely enough, E. K. Hornbeck (played wonderfully by Gene Kelley). Darrow and Bryan are now named Drummond and Brady, and both actors take over the picture wonderfully - Drummond gruffy and improvisational as he is confronted with obstacle after obstacle, Brady high-strung and severe. How does it play out ? Wonderfully. Hornbeck is as much of an amused satirist as you would imagine. Darrow and Bryan strike all the right notes. The whole proceedings of the trial touches on many atheistic and libertarian notions (Bible fallibility, human fallibility, free speech, freedom of action, and so on). Love interests are added for the teacher, Darrow and Bryan, the last two being the same person and rather unnecessary. So it wants to tell its own story. Fine : watch it and be absorbed. Accurate or not, this is not a masterpiece, but pretty close.
Rating:
Summary: Utterly and justifiably dominated by two star performances
Review: After over forty years this remains a truly powerful film, and the secret is not hard to locate: Spencer Tracy and Fredric March. These two great actors, both near the end of their respective careers (both would make other films, but it would be the last great performance in March's career and one of the last in Tracy's, though he did go on to excel in both JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG and GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER). Remove them from the film, and there wouldn't be a whole lot left. Luckily, they are in it, and between them they manage to chew up scene after scene as they display movie acting at its very finest. The story, of course, is loosely (though not too loosely) based on the Scopes trial, where Clarence Darrow defended John Scopes from charges of having taught the theory of evolution in a public school. William Jennings Bryan, former US senator, secretary of state, and three-time presidential candidate, argued the case for the prosecution. Although the real-life trial was covered by a huge press corps, the movie focuses on only one reporter, the fictional E. K. Hornbeck, who is loosely based on H. L. Mencken and played somewhat against type by Gene Kelly (sadly, it would also be Kelly's last major role; unlike his friend and rival Fred Astaire, his career was cut short partly by the demise of the musical and partly by injuries that made dancing harder for him as he aged, but also unlike Astaire he was unable to find quality acting roles as he aged). The film is also served well by an excellent supporting cast. Harry Morgan, later familiar from M*A*S*H, capably plays the judge in the trial. Dick York, later the first Darren in BEWITCHED (interestingly, a TV show based on I MARRIED A WITCH, in which Fredric March played the "Darren" equivalent) is a familiar face. Claude Akens, who guest starred in literally hundreds of television shows from the 1950s through the 1980s, got one of the larger roles of his career as Rev. Jeremiah Brown, like Kelly against type since he usually played cowboys, criminals, or police officers. I have often had mixed feelings about director Stanley Kramer. While I like several of his movies--especially ON THE BEACH, THE DEFIANT ONES, and this one--I always get the impression that I like them despite his direction. His films always seem to drift in the action, seem to lack focus, and have a poor pace. The overall structure of his films seems to be weak. On the other hand, he seems to have been an actor's director, and many of his films feature strong performances. This is all to say that this is not a well-directed film, and without the two stellar leading actors, it might not have been much to see. As it is, however, it remains a riveting film, and even if there isn't a great deal beyond the two leading performances, that alone is sufficient to make this a must-see film.
Rating: 
Summary: Well done myth-making, but mendacious and mean
Review: "So you, Matthew Harrison Brady, through oratory or legislature or whatever, you pass on God's orders to the rest of the world! Well, meet the prophet from Nebraska! Is that the way of things? Is that the WAY of things! ... Supposing Mr. Cates had the influence and the lung power to railroad through the state legislature a law saying only Darwin could be taught in the schools!" That's from the big scene in "Inherit the Wind": the showdown between Henry Drummond (the fictional stand-in for Clarence Darrow) and the unfortunate Mr. Brady (William Jennings Bryan) over whether schoolteacher Bert Cates (John Scopes) should be convicted of teaching evolution in violation of state law. Stanley Kramer's classic film was taken by many as true to life until debunked in 1997 by UGA Professor Edward J. Larson's Pulitzer-winning history, "Summer for the Gods." The film and play on which it was based did much to perpetuate the legend that the 1925 Scopes "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tenn., had exposed Christian fundamentalism as (in Darrow's actual words) a "fool religion" believed in by "bigots and ignoramuses." But as Dayton residents have long known, "Inherit the Wind" departs from reality at many points. When it comes to contempt for others, it's hard to top Darrow, who fulminated against the "brainless prejudice of soulless religio-maniacs." Not even his ACLU associates thought very much of Darrow's conduct in 1925. And in the film, Drummond/Darrow's interrogation of Brady/Bryan is conducted with such fury that it ordinarily would be called a tirade or diatribe. But as delivered by the beloved, curmudgeonly old actor Spencer Tracy, the tirade is transfigured. It's early '60s liberalism in all its glory, not strident or mean but "impassioned." While humanizing the caustic Darrow, however, "Inherit the Wind" does a real injury to the real-life "Brady," William Jennings Bryan. The film shows Brady winning the confidence of the teacher-defendant's sweetheart, then betraying that confidence by putting her on the witness stand, where his bellowing, hectoring examination reduces her to tears. No such thing ever happened in the Dayton trial. The only real-life badgering seen there was Darrow's of Bryan. The film shows Brady as disappointed that the defendant, when found guilty, is fined only $100. In reality, Bryan had advised the Tennessee Legislature against including any penalties in its anti-evolution law. With the Legislature having chosen otherwise, Bryan told the Dayton prosecutors that "I don't think we should insist on more than the minimum fine, and I will let the defendant have the money to pay it if he needs it." Worse even than this celluloid transformation of the honorable, generous Bryan into the treacherous, vindictive Brady is the fact that the "Wind" playwrights and screenwriters misrepresented Bryan's case against evolution. Unlike many of his fellow fundamentalists, Bryan allowed that the creation might have lasted six epochs rather than six days. What objection did he have, then, against the teaching of evolution? Biographer Robert W. Cherny explains that Bryan disputed "the concept of the survival of the fittest, 'the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak,' referring to it as 'the law of hate.' For Bryan, Christian love was the law by which the human race had progressed and developed." Professor Cherny writes further that Bryan blamed "survival of the fittest" for contributing to the bloodiest war the world had yet seen, through the influence of Friedrich Nietzsche's writings (which were in turn influenced by Darwin). Bryan called Nietzsche's stuff "a defense, made in advance, of all the cruelties and atrocities practiced by the militarists of Germany." Even with the Great War over, Bryan held that "survival of the fittest" was driving society "into a life-and-death struggle from which sympathy and the spirit of brotherhood are eliminated. It is transforming the industrial world into a slaughterhouse." "There is no place in evolution," Bryan wrote, "for the penitent soul; it knows no such transformation as being born again or having sins forgiven." Such were his concerns. His fight was with what we all now deplore as "social Darwinism." But you won't find a hint of that in "Inherit the Wind." So enjoy the movie for its bravura acting, but for the real story, read the book.
Rating:
Summary: As Great As the Play
Review: The performances of Fredric March as Matthew Harrison Brady and Spencer Tracy as Henry Drummond, and in particular their scenes together, are rightly famous. But it is really the across-the-board brilliance of the acting that makes this movie version of the play INHERIT THE WIND a classic. Dick York, Donna Anderson, Gene Kelly (perfect as E.K. Hornbeck, the charming but soulless reporter), Florence Eldgridge (in the expanded role of Brady's wife), and the rest of the cast all deliver acting performances of the first order. Having read the original play before I watched the movie, I noticed several differences between the two scripts. In the play, the Reverend Jeremiah Brown is a rather one-dimensional character; in the movie he is given an additional scene with his daughter, Rachel, which helps us better understand his motivations. The initial entrance of Drummond is much more dramatic in the play; however, the movie gives us the play's courtroom scenes practically verbatim, with the result that the characters of Drummond and Brady are every bit as vivid in the movie as they are in the play. The movie includes all of the play's most highly effective scenes: the revival meeting, Brady's interrogation of Rachel on the witness stand, Drummond's "Golden Dancer" monologue, Brady's weeping in his wife's arms and his climactic death -- and finally, Drummond's denunciation of Hornbeck and his famous exit carrying both a volume of Darwin and a Bible. Any added scenes and dialogue are completely in the spirit of the play and often (as with the aforementioned scene between Rachel and the Reverend) enhance our understanding of the characters. The musical score (with excellent vocals by Leslie Uggams) is also extremely effective, particularly those low, ominous drums in the opening sequence, in which the Reverend and members of the school board walk to the high school and arrest Bertram Cates (the John Scopes figure) for teaching Darwin's theory of evolution. This movie had me captivated from beginning to end.
Rating:
Summary: Something to Think About
Review: Inherit the Wind is a movie about ideas, and in the hands of master actors like Spencer Tracy and Fredric March, the ideas are well delivered. March and Tracy bring the full force of their talents to their roles as opposing lawyers (and one time friends) who face off on the issue of evolution vs. Creation. The fact that this is based on a real life court case only adds to the drama. Florence Eldridge, March's real life wife, is excellent as March's movie wife who recognizes the flaws in her husband, but loves and admires him anyways. Harry Morgan also gives a solid performance as the judge caught in a very controversial case. Gene Kelly plays a very cynical reporter and has some good scenes, but overall isn't completely effective. The movie is full of dialogue, and is obviously based on a stage play, but the ideas are so strong, the actors so dynamic, and there are enough scenes away from the court case, so that the movie doesn't drag. And of course, the issues raised about freedom of speech and thought are still relevant today. This is a movie and a story to learn from.
Rating:
Summary: A LITTLE BACKGROUND
Review: As previous reviewers have noted, _INHERIT THE WIND_ is a work of fiction that is based on what came to be known as "The Scopes Monkey Trial." Also previously noted is the fact that Spencer Tracy, as Henry Drummond, the character adapted from the real life Clarence Darrow, and Frederic March, playing the role of Matthew Harrison Brady, whose character is based on William Jennings Bryan, engage in a carefully choreographed and outstandingly acted "pas de deux" that, to this day, has rarely been matched in any movie. It should be understood that this is a work of fiction, and is not meant to duplicate the facts of the Scopes trial. That's why the names have been changed -- to allow literary license for dramatic purposes. With this as background, one needs to understand the political climate that prevailed when the play from which the movie was adapted was written. The play was written in 1950, in the middle of what has come to be known as the "McCarthy Era." The anti-Communist hysteria of the time was seen by many as a threat to intellectual freedom. It was politically dangerous, at that time, to directly take on those threats to freedom of ideas, so the playwrites (Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee) came up with the idea of using the Scopes Trial, which was safely in the past, as a vehicle to express the importance of the constitutional guarantees of such things as freedom of speech. That the play they wrote in 1950, and its 1960 movie version, were of such dramatic intensity was just icing on the cake. I think that looking at _INHERIT THE WIND_ from the standpoint of historical perspective should do away with some reviewers beliefs that it is some sort of atheistic plot to challenge their belief systems. Also, repeating myself, I believe that it is important to realize that it is a work of fiction and need not accurately reflect the details of the real trial. It's worth seeing from several perspectives. As a well acted movie; as one that creates an atmosphere that makes the viewer feel that he is in that hot, humid courtroom; and as one that expresses how important our freedoms really are.
Rating: 
Summary: Incredibly Boring at Best
Review: This movie is terrible. When people make a movie, you assume they would try to make it entertaining at the very Least. Don't waste your time viewing this film. It lasts way too long and you'll be happy when its over. Even if you do like the movie, it has a terrible ending. Hardly any of the conflicts are solved, and you're left with a feeling of disgust. That is only if you manage to make it through the entire movie. The songs in it as well are way too long and sound terrible. To sum it up, this movie is terrible.
Rating:
Summary: A LITTLE BACKGROUND
Review: As previous reviewers have noted, _INHERIT THE WIND_ is a work of fiction that is based on what came to be known as "The Scopes Monkey Trial." Also previously noted is the fact that Spencer Tracy, as Henry Drummond, the character adapted from the real life Clarence Darrow, and Frederic March, playing the role of Matthew Harrison Brady, whose character is based on William Jennings Bryan, engage in a carefully choreographed and outstandingly acted "pas de deux" that, to this day, has rarely been matched in any movie. It should be understood that this is a work of fiction, and is not meant to duplicate the facts of the Scopes trial. That's why the names have been changed -- to allow literary license for dramatic purposes. With this as background, one needs to understand the political climate that prevailed when the play from which the movie was adapted was written. The play was written in 1950, in the middle of what has come to be known as the "McCarthy Era." The anti-Communist hysteria of the time was seen by many as a threat to intellectual freedom. It was politically dangerous, at that time, to directly take on those threats to freedom of ideas, so the playwrites (Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee) came up with the idea of using the Scopes Trial, which was safely in the past, as a vehicle to express the importance of the constitutional guarantees of such things as freedom of speech. That the play they wrote in 1950, and its 1960 movie version, were of such dramatic intensity was just icing on the cake. I think that looking at _INHERIT THE WIND_ from the standpoint of historical perspective should do away with some reviewers beliefs that it is some sort of atheistic plot to challenge their belief systems. Also, repeating myself, I believe that it is important to realize that it is a work of fiction and need not accurately reflect the details of the real trial. It's worth seeing from several perspectives. As a well acted movie; as one that creates an atmosphere that makes the viewer feel that he is in that hot, humid courtroom; and as one that expresses how important our freedoms really are.
Rating:
Summary: Well done myth-making, but mendacious and mean
Review: "So you, Matthew Harrison Brady, through oratory or legislature or whatever, you pass on God's orders to the rest of the world! Well, meet the prophet from Nebraska! Is that the way of things? Is that the WAY of things! ... Supposing Mr. Cates had the influence and the lung power to railroad through the state legislature a law saying only Darwin could be taught in the schools!" That's from the big scene in "Inherit the Wind": the showdown between Henry Drummond (the fictional stand-in for Clarence Darrow) and the unfortunate Mr. Brady (William Jennings Bryan) over whether schoolteacher Bert Cates (John Scopes) should be convicted of teaching evolution in violation of state law. Stanley Kramer's classic film was taken by many as true to life until debunked in 1997 by UGA Professor Edward J. Larson's Pulitzer-winning history, "Summer for the Gods." The film and play on which it was based did much to perpetuate the legend that the 1925 Scopes "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tenn., had exposed Christian fundamentalism as (in Darrow's actual words) a "fool religion" believed in by "bigots and ignoramuses." But as Dayton residents have long known, "Inherit the Wind" departs from reality at many points. When it comes to contempt for others, it's hard to top Darrow, who fulminated against the "brainless prejudice of soulless religio-maniacs." Not even his ACLU associates thought very much of Darrow's conduct in 1925. And in the film, Drummond/Darrow's interrogation of Brady/Bryan is conducted with such fury that it ordinarily would be called a tirade or diatribe. But as delivered by the beloved, curmudgeonly old actor Spencer Tracy, the tirade is transfigured. It's early '60s liberalism in all its glory, not strident or mean but "impassioned." While humanizing the caustic Darrow, however, "Inherit the Wind" does a real injury to the real-life "Brady," William Jennings Bryan. The film shows Brady winning the confidence of the teacher-defendant's sweetheart, then betraying that confidence by putting her on the witness stand, where his bellowing, hectoring examination reduces her to tears. No such thing ever happened in the Dayton trial. The only real-life badgering seen there was Darrow's of Bryan. The film shows Brady as disappointed that the defendant, when found guilty, is fined only $100. In reality, Bryan had advised the Tennessee Legislature against including any penalties in its anti-evolution law. With the Legislature having chosen otherwise, Bryan told the Dayton prosecutors that "I don't think we should insist on more than the minimum fine, and I will let the defendant have the money to pay it if he needs it." Worse even than this celluloid transformation of the honorable, generous Bryan into the treacherous, vindictive Brady is the fact that the "Wind" playwrights and screenwriters misrepresented Bryan's case against evolution. Unlike many of his fellow fundamentalists, Bryan allowed that the creation might have lasted six epochs rather than six days. What objection did he have, then, against the teaching of evolution? Biographer Robert W. Cherny explains that Bryan disputed "the concept of the survival of the fittest, 'the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak,' referring to it as 'the law of hate.' For Bryan, Christian love was the law by which the human race had progressed and developed." Professor Cherny writes further that Bryan blamed "survival of the fittest" for contributing to the bloodiest war the world had yet seen, through the influence of Friedrich Nietzsche's writings (which were in turn influenced by Darwin). Bryan called Nietzsche's stuff "a defense, made in advance, of all the cruelties and atrocities practiced by the militarists of Germany." Even with the Great War over, Bryan held that "survival of the fittest" was driving society "into a life-and-death struggle from which sympathy and the spirit of brotherhood are eliminated. It is transforming the industrial world into a slaughterhouse." "There is no place in evolution," Bryan wrote, "for the penitent soul; it knows no such transformation as being born again or having sins forgiven." Such were his concerns. His fight was with what we all now deplore as "social Darwinism." But you won't find a hint of that in "Inherit the Wind." So enjoy the movie for its bravura acting, but for the real story, read the book.
Rating: 
Summary: A great piece of fiction
Review: This is a gripping,exciting film with wonderful performances by Spencer Tracy, Frederick March and Gene Kelly, a thrilling story of a fight against ignorance and bigotry. Unfortunately, I was under the impression that it was based on a true incident, and felt somewhat cheated when I found out the real Scopes monkey trial wasn't at all like that. Scopes wasn't a noble idealist risking martrydom as he's protrayed in the film, he wasn't even that interested in science, he was a sports teacher. The whole trial was a put-up job, engineered by the ACLU and the Dayton town fathers, who wanted publicity for the town. The worst thing about the film is the hatchet job it does on William Jennings Bryan (the Frederick March character) who is portrayed as a self-satisfied bigot. In fact Bryan was a radical who supported women's suffrage, trade unionism, and the graded income tax. His main objection to evolution was that he thought the 'survival of the fittest' doctrine justified the oppresion of the weak by the strong. Finding out all these things somewhat spoilt my enjoyment of the film. I still think it is a brilliant film, but it is fiction, not history. Enjoy it, but don't imagine (as I did) that you are seeing an accurate portrayal of actual events, because you aren't.
|
