Inherit the Wind

Rating:
Summary: Good Acting, Horrible Portrayal of what Actually Happened
Review: As someone who has become intimately familiar with the Creation-Evolution debate, I cringe every time I watch this movie.

What happens in the film so far removed from reality that they would have been much better off ethically to not even claim that it was based on a historical event (the Scopes Monkey Trial). This movie portrays my beliefs in a perverse and negative light that encourages the viewer to come to an ignorant belief that all Creationists are fundamentalist religious bigots. I plead with you to examine the history behind the actual case itself in addition to watching the movie. It makes an interesting case study to examine how badly Hollywood portrays the Creationists (Anti-thought lynch mobs running around, screaming at and threatening wonderful people?) in light of what actually happened.

As far as the acting is concerned- it is superb, so if you're in it for entertainment, it is a fine movie. Just know that this is an incredibly biased portrayal of what did actually happen in the Scopes Monkey Trial.

If you are interested in what Creationists really believe and who we really are, I encourage you to check out my website at seekthetruth.net, and/or check out my Amazon[.com] book list on 'Understanding the Creation-Evolution Debate'.

Rating:
Summary: Forget the debate between Creationists and Evolutionists!
Review: Perhaps the film distorts the actual Scopes "Monkey" Trial. That in no way takes away from the flawless performances from stars Tracy, March, Kelly, Morgan, and a young Dick York (of "Bewitched" fame).

It's too bad that four of the five are deceased. They would be the perfect guests for Bravo's "Actor's Studio" program.

Rating:
Summary: Timeless, Spellbinding
Review: INHERIT THE WIND was released in 1960, yet remains as topical today as it did all those decades ago. Stanley Kramer's masterpiece depicting the volatile clash of science and religion continues to spawn discussion and debate.

Based in part on the actual 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial" in Tennessee, INHERIT THE WIND is dominated by its two co-stars, Spencer Tracy and Fredric March. Both actors give stellar performances as courtroom antagonists who once were close friends. Gene Kelly strayed from his usual role--playing the lead in musicals--to portray a cynical newspaper reporter, and he pulls it off remarkably well. The entire cast is first-rate, exceptional.

Faith and religion are at the core of human emotion; INHERIT THE WIND taps in to this emotion, spilling and dispersing it throughout the film. Gripping courtroom drama, fierce debates, ugly namecalling and bigotry, and tender human compassion are manifested again and again. The fabric of "interpretation" is woven into the story, very gently suggesting that in order to grow as a society we must challenge that which is taken for granted, be it Creationism or evolution. We must continue to ask questions, no matter how uncomfortable the answers may make us.

This is a superb film. I cannot recommend it more highly.

Rating:
Summary: A wonderful movie about human thought
Review: Inherit the Wind is one of my favorite movies. It is replete with dramatic surprises, and the drama "evolves" (parden the pun) into an insightful thesis about human thought, and how it should not be controlled.

Spencer Tracy is truly a presence on the screen. He can be charming and moving. Fredric March also holds his own quite well. In the progress of the movie, it is possible to see why these two men were friends, and also, why they drifted apart.

Inherit the Wind is, above all, a human drama, and the failings and limitations of each of the main characters is bared for our analysis. Another version (Jason Robards and Kirk Douglas) is also a fine effort. Both serve as a testament to frailty, and power, of human thought.

Rating:
Summary: Inherit the Wind: Theology in Never Dated
Review: No one back in 1922 Tennessee probably gave much thought to a pro-Bible law that prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, no one, that is, except John Scopes, who made a rare stand for that or any age. Scopes decided to teach evolution, not to test the constitutionality of the law, but because he felt it the right thing to do. The entire affair of his arrest, his trial, and his conviction are supremely well done in Stanley Kramer's INHERIT THE WIND. The movie takes a few liberties, mostly with names. The original prosecutor was William Jennings Bryan, a stern bible thumper who had once run for President. Bryan, as Matthew Harrison Brady, is played by Frederic March, who imbues his character with a fanaticism that feeds off the majority of those in court attendance. The defender was Clarence Darrow, the liberal, suspender snapping protector of individual rights. Spencer Tracy plays Darrow, as Henry Drummond, a man who wins cases by giving his opponent just enough rope to hang himself. Much of this movie revolves around a heavyweight boxing match in court with one of the boxers getting a home town decision. Tracy and March go face to face, dragging in convoluted arguments, digressions, and morals, mostly from the bible. As the trial goes on, March's Brady becomes increasingly unglued. Tracy's Drummond forces him to admit that God talks to him, telling him what to do. At that point, Brady stands revealed as the self-righteous fanatic that he is, one who will still win the case but lose the respect that he had garnered over a lifetime.
Though the movie is shot in black and white and concerns an issue that, surprisingly enough has made a recent comeback, INHERIT THE WIND can never be a dated movie. It is a fine movie, mostly for the superb clashes of the aging titans of cinema, but it is a lasting movie which will resonate for all ages because of the danger that freedom of thought must never be curtailed by legislative fiat. If lawmakers try to deny that freedom of thought merely by writing words on paper that deny others to read other words on other papers, then Tracy's closing warning stands as an eloquent warning to those lawmakers: 'He that disturbs his own house shall inherit the wind.'

Rating:
Summary: Equally Timely Forty Years Later
Review: With the issue of evolution versus creationism flaring up anew in current legal battles, Stanley Kramer's 1960 film has retained its timeliness. This was a period of vigorous activity for Kramer on the message film front as he directed and produced within a four year cycle "The Defiant Ones," a 1958 examination of the race issue in America starring Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis, "On The Beach," a controversial film about nuclear war starring Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner which was released in 1959, followed in turn by the aforementioned "Inherit The Wind" one year later and the highly acclaimed "Judgment at Nuremberg" in 1961, which focused on personal responsibility of German judges to interpret the law humanely during Hitler's Third Reich.

"Inherit The Wind" was adapted by Kramer to the screen from the hugely successful Broadway stage hit written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee about the Scopes Monkey Trial held in Dayton, Tennessee in 1922. While the names were changed, with defense lawyer Clarence Darrow becoming Henry Drummond and prosecutor William Jennings Bryan becoming Matthew Harrison Brady, the chief issue of the actual trial pitting creationism and evolution as applied to the classroom remained intact. Distinguished veteran stars Spencer Tracy and Fredric March perform with astounding brilliance as competing individuals who believed they were standard bearers for important causes governing how civilization would proceed. March stood foursquare for a Biblical foundation based on old line religious values, which he believed were threatened by free thinkers of the agnostic stripe represented by Tracy, who in turn thought his adversary's ideas antiquated and anti-intellectual. Gene Kelly emerges in a different type of role from his usual delightful free spirit as highly cynical newspaper columnist E.K. Hornbeck, in actuality H.L. Mencken, like Drummond-Darrow an agnostic free thinker whose newspaper, The Baltimore Sun, put up the money to pay Clarence Darrow's legal fee in the Scopes Trial.

Great supporting efforts are provided by Florence Eldridge, March's real life wife, who plays his supportive spouse in the film, by Dick York playing the Scopes role of town high school biology teacher, and Harry Morgan as trial judge. Donna Anderson, used by Kramer to good advantage as Anthony Perkins' wife in "On The Beach," does a convincing job as wife of York.

Rating:
Summary: gimme that old time religion
Review: this was a really cool movie and spencer tracy is awesome (as always); his arguments and speeches were the coolest I've seen in any movie, ever. And it gives you something to think about. I only had one objection to this movie and that is you'll walk out hearing "give me that old time religion" in your head for days on end (I say this from experience) and it's really annoying.

Rating:
Summary: 4 and a half actually, but that's neither here nor there
Review: One of the greatest courtroom dramas in film history, "Inherit" is on of the few in it's genre that can be viewed repetedly with the same level of enjoyment. The centerpiece of the film is the performance of Spencer Tracy. Sly, clever, and delightfully understated, Tracy helps to bring the humanity out of the evolutionist theory.
At first, the film seems preachy, picking on the 'poor ignant bumpkins,' but toward the end it fleshes out the characters more, and we see the numerous virtues of those opposing the scientific explenation of existence.
I once performed in a production of "Inherit" on the stage, and it is almost as much of a learning experience as the film.
Almost a masterpiece.

Rating:
Summary: Nothing to get all upset about
Review: ...this isn't an attack on Christianity anymore than it's a letter for letter account of the Scopes monkey trial. Do you remember Matthew Harrison Brady in the actual trial? No? That's because it's a ficticious name, and THAT'S because the movie is fiction...and that's all it's trying to be. The movie's point is to entertain with brilliant dialogue, brilliant acting, and brilliant camera shots. Even the 1 star ratings folks will tell you it's a great movie for its acting, etc.

At the end of the movie, Spencer Tracy picks up the Bible. He picks up the book on Evolution that Cates was teaching with. He balanced them in his hands. And he showed the symbolism that people seem to have let fly above their steaming heads: It's possible to learn from both books without feeling like you're reading from viewpoints that contradict or try to disprove the other. Science only proves the Bible. It doesn't dispute it.

...People who believe in evolution aren't Hitler sympathizers, and Christians aren't closed minded idiots. Yes, the movie would've been better had Brady put up a better fight in the last day. So what? The movie still showed Brady's compassionate, human side...even if he was the object of jokes poked at him. Don't forget...the guy who was poking the most fun ended up looking like the biggest jerk in the movie...

Rating:
Summary: Fact or fiction
Review: First, I have to dispel some of the myths about the movie purported not only by reviewers on this site, but mainstream film reviewers and social commentators.

1. It's true that a consortium of Dayton (Hillsboro) businessmen hired Scopes (Cates) to 'take the fall' because it would mean a boon to the local economy, but there were also a number of people opposed to the teaching of evolution that thought the trial was a sham and let it be known. The insults and threats were hurled from both sides. The film is a dramatization from Cates and Drummond's point of view. The threats and intimidation are shown to make Cates a sympathetic character and present him in the light of an underdog with the world against him. To quote Matthew Harrison Brady, "If St. George had killed a dragonfly instead of a dragon, who would remember him?"

2. Also, "...Young Earthism wasn't a factor in the Scopes trial."

Here is the direct transcript from Day 7 of the Scopes trial (Darrow examines Bryan):
Q--Have you any idea how old the earth is?
A--No.
Q--The Book you have introduced in evidence tells you, doesn't it?
A--I don't think it does, Mr. Darrow.
Q--Let's see whether it does; is this the one?
A--That is the one, I think.
Q--It says B.C. 4004?
A--That is Bishop Usher's calculation.
Q--That is printed in the Bible you introduced?

A--Yes, sir....
Q--Would you say that the earth was only 4,000 years old?
A--Oh, no; I think it is much older than that.

Q--How much?
A--I couldn't say.
Q--Do you say whether the Bible itself says it is older than that?
A--I don't think it is older or not.

The point of Darrow's (Drummond's) cross-examination was not whether or not the earth is 6000 or 6,000,000 years old, but to get Bryan (Brady) to admit the possibility that there may be inaccuracies in the Bible (exactly the same thing Scopes did).

3. "In court transcripts, the evolutionists open (openly?) spoke of their racist views...". I can't find anything to support or refute this statement. In fact, the Judge excluded all expert testimony relating to the origin of man and life (both in the film and trial). If that's the case, then the only racist statements that could be entered would be by Darrow or Scopes or by prosecution witnesses. Check out Drummond's speech about "...turning Catholic against Protestant and Protestant against Protestant". It's Darrow's speech nearly word for word and shows the feelings of the man. It's hard to believe that he would have approved of the Third Reich after hearing or reading this.

4. "The evolutionists won the court case. False. They lost". I have to wonder if the reviewer watched the end of the movie. SPOILER: Cates and Drummond do lose the case. Cates is fined $100 and Drummond says that they have no intention of paying and will challenge the ruling.

The Final Verdict: Like any movie "Based on a True Story", Inherit the Wind is bound to stir up controversy over whether or not it really happened that way.

Stephen King once wrote a review of "The Amityville Horror" in which he said that the mere medium of film makes the story fiction and not fact. That's the case here. Inherit the Wind is written from a certain point of view (just like this review, and the review before mine, and the review before that) and points of view are just that -- points of view.

As for the movie itself, what more can be said? The non-trial dialogue is crisp and brilliant (Kelly's line to the woman who offers him a nice, clean place to stay always brings a smile to my face). March and Tracy are appropriately titanic in the courtroom and low-key in the rest (the porch scene, specifically). Stanley Kramer's direction is spot-on, getting close-ups at the right time and pulling back to reveal the packed courtroom at others (look for the canted and off-center frames during the prayer meeting).

The DVD looks just fine, preserving the aspect ratio is very important to a film like Inherit the Wind which uses the frame to tell a story. I could have used some extras (comparison of the real life trial and the movie). The extas are a minor point, though, the film is enough.

Inherit the Wind is a brilliant film based on a brilliant play based on a factual trial between two brilliant legal minds. That is all that I, as a viewer, can ask.