Inherit the Wind
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.81 You Save: $8.17 (55%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $5.98 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of Inherit the Wind
Movie Review: Entertaining, never dull, often accurate.
Summary: 5 Stars
The movie is entertaining from start to finish. Please note that the transcript of the trial, obtainable from an internet vendor for about $6.00, is also entertaining. The transcript is entitled, "The Complete Scopes Trial Transcript."
The movie begins with Leslie Uggams' voice, singing a spiritual. The film does not devote much time to introducing us to the local color. It marches us directly into a classroom, where Dick York is shown teaching with an amusing teaching aid--a large poster showing the anatomy of a monkey aside a chart showing an evolutionary tree.
(A pleasant surprise, it was, to see Dick York. He also plays the role of a meek bank clerk in "A Penny For Your Thoughts," a Twilight Zone episode.)
The next ten or fifteen minutes discloses the circus-like atmosphere of the townspeople, where the locals march up and down the streets, holding anti-evolution posters. For example, one reads, "Don't pin a tail on me." This part of the film also shows hawkers and other odd characters, for example, a man with a real monkey, making anti-evolution speech. The hawker cries out, "Monkeys really evolved from man!" The real monkey sits in front of the man's truck, where the side of the truck bears an inscription reading, "DEVOLUTION . . ." The monkey sits in front of the sign, so mostly what we read is the term "DEVO."
(For people who like Devo, and who like Devo's songs (Whip It; Gates of Steel; Through Being Cool), this scene will likely be astonishing. The scene sets forth the notion that man descended from monkeys, and introduces us to a novel term, "Devolution." Because the monkey is situated partially in front of the word, all we see is the term "DEVO." Is this where Mark Mothersbaugh got the concept for his band Devo?)
The movie continues with jury selection, just as in the actual transcript. Towards the beginning of the film, somebody complains that it is too hot, and asks permission for those in the courtroom TO REMOVE THEIR JACKETS. However, this part is different in the actual transcript of the trial. In the transcript, one of the jurors complains about the heat and requests, "If it ain't out of order, I would like to make the request to take up the matter of some ELECTRIC FANS here. This heat is fearful." (fourth day of trial).
The movie uses the joke from the transcript about "why does evolution state that we were derived from old world monkeys? What's wrong with American monkeys?" I was glad to see this line in the movie. The actual comment was, "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the new world and old world monkeys, and from the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory of the universe proceeded. Not even from American monkeys, but from old world monkeys." This was Williams Jennings Bryan reading from Darwin and making wisecracks, on the fifth day of transcript.
However, another humorous line from the transcript was omitted, namely the remark that "in evolution man comes from below, from animals in the sea, but in the Bible creation story man comes from above." In the transcript, the actual remark was, "But it does not mean that they did not come up from the lower animals, if this is the only place they could come from, and the Christian believes MAN CAME FROM ABOVE, but the evolutionist believes HE MUST HAVE COME FROM BELOW." This was a wisecrack by Williams Jennings Bryan made on the fifth day of transcript.
Another difference between the film and the transcript is as follows. In the film, the court refused to allow any expert testimony. However, the transcript from the actual trial contains several pages of testimony by professors--experts in geology or biology. On day 4 of the transcript, Dr.Metcalf of Johns Hopkins provides several pages of expert testimony. On day 7 of the transcript, the defense attorney reads statements from three experts, namely, Cole of U.Chicago, Mather of Harvard, and Curtis of U.Missouri. The transcript does, in fact, reveal the issue of excluding expert testimony--the transcript reveals a dispute between William Jennings Bryan and Mr.Scopes' defense attorney on whether expert testomony should be admissible.
A common feature of the transcript and the movie, is that William Jennings Bryan was called as a witness, and interviewed as a witness. This situation is unusual in the annals of litigation, that is, where one of the attorneys is called as a witness. The film and transcript both disclose that the fine for Mr.Scopes was only $100.
Perhaps the most dramatic aspect of the transcript, which was omitted from the movie, is that the jury was out for only NINE MINUTES.
Two important themes in the transcript were faithfully presented in the movie. These two themes were first, the prosecution's complaint that the defense were from far away, e.g., from far off Chicago, Baltimore, or New York; and second, the argument of the defense that Mr.Scopes did not violate the statute, on the basis that the Bible creation story of the SIXTH DAY WAS ONLY A FIGURE OF SPEECH, and that what was the sixth day could be construed as meaning a much longer time.
The outdoor marching scenes are strident and stagey, while the courtroom scenes sometimes contain too much ferocious yelling. Gene (Singing in the Rain) Kelly provides a counterpoint to this. He is calm throughout the film.
One theme set forth by the film, which is absent in the transcript, is the theme of fanaticism. This sort of theme was on everybody's mind at the time the film was made, that is, in the years following WWII. In the film, Fundamentalists are the "fall guy" and are depicted as brainwashed fanatics. FIVE STARS.
Movie Review: Fact or fiction
Summary: 5 Stars
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.
Movie Review: We the Jury Find in Favor of This Movie
Summary: 5 Stars
"Inherit the Wind" is Stanley Kramer's Oscar-winning, black and white, recreation of the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 in Dayton, TN. This dramatized version pits two American legal collossus' against each other played by two collosal actors of their day--Spencer Tracy and Frederic March playing the characters Henry Drummond and Matthew Brady respectively. The character, Henry Drummond was the real-life, renowned barrister Clarence Darrow, and Matthew Harrison Brady is based upon the three-time presidential candidate, William Jennings Brian, a populist whose oratory was unparalleled in his day. He was also first to conduct a modern campaign for office.
The remaining cast of character actors are instantly recognizable from TV shows and movies of the 1950's and early 60's with the exception of Gene Kelly who made a rare dramatic appearance as the Bible-hating journalist, H.L. Mencken. Dick York plays the teacher who is arrested for teaching the theory of Evolution, and Harry Morgan, who was typecast earlier as Detective Bill Gannon and since as Colonel Potter, plays the judge. Claude Aiken, another typecast-as-tough-guy is less believable as a fundamentalist minister who "troubles his own house."
This is a powerful dramatization of the Scopes Trial that is a tour de force for dialogue, comedy, and sheer performance--yes comedy. Despite the gravity of the trial, it is amusing to hear Henry Drummond wryly suggest that Matthew Harrison Brady not be referred to by his honorary title of colonel. He suggests to the judge, "Break'im. Make him a private. I have no objection to him being called Private Brady." When you watch Henry Drummond examine the prosecutor and witness Matthew Brady, it is nothing short of jolts of juristic electricity. When you hear the words, "My client wishes to be accorded the same privilege of a sponge; he wishes to THINK," you are hearing a script that resonates with emotion against fanaticism.
There is dramatic license in every recreation of an actual event, and this movie takes it wherever it can, but it is the kind of license that can make the viewer more curious about the real event. It is also just plain entertainment that never wears thin.
The jury is not out on this one. We find in favor of the movie.
Review adjourned.
P. S. The trial was too much for William Jennings Bryan who had an enormous appetite. His food intake, the heat, the strain, and age caught up with him five days after the trial when he would collapse and die. His days of helping states pass anti-Darwin legislation for education came to an abrupt end.
P. P. S. The conviction was overturned but not because the law was judged unconstitutional. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the decision because the judge had decided the fine instead of the jury. The A.C.L.U. hoped this would eliminate the law. It didn't. It would remain on the books for another fifty years.
P. P. P. S. One in three Americans still believe in creationism, and reject evolution.
P. P. P. P. S. I stand corrected. According to the Coach, as much as 63% of our population do not believe in evolution.
Movie Review: Utterly and justifiably dominated by two star performances
Summary: 5 Stars
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.
Movie Review: It happened in 1925...
Summary: 5 Stars
...this movie was made in 1960, and we are now in 2005. Since christian religions emerged (superstitions attain the religion' status when they have been around a while, or when they have eliminated competition), started the biggest non-stop mass-murderings (never seen before on this scale and duration) so to impose upon others the name every one gave to their own idea of god.
JFK said once that "you can't reason out what have not been reasoned into", Konrad Lorenz that "The missing link between apes and man, it's us". And yet there is still no indication that the first step, necessary to reach mankind stage, is going to be taken : the ban of ANY religion, since their main purpose is dividing (forgetting that the original roman word 'religare' had 'to unit' as meaning), preventing mind-openness (370 years ago, Galileo escaped burning only by admitting earth was the center of universe and the sun was revolving around it - "E pur, si muove), and enforcing wherever and whenever they could a state of poverty and ignorance. Unrestrected hate is also part of their basics, love being only used as a word without any substance, so to strenghten their self-righteousness.
I can see why brainless bipeds refuse freedom of thought for themselves (or claim absence of thought as a right - small spoiler : "do you have a hole in your head or your head in a hole?"), but to allow them imposing their shortcomings upon the gullible should be regarded as a crime, and punished by internment in a zoo, where they could meet their cousins, and maybe learn something from them.
I found especially interesting the performance of Fredric March, crumbling when realizing he could not face the contradictions between discrepancies in the very crap that molded him and those whose main indoctrination was to disregard and/or fight anything which didn't get full approval from their priests/imams/rabbis, and other shamans or gurus. True men think and adjust their thinking to new information; trained monkeys, pretending to be men because they have a driving license, only believe, and their main belief is they have to avoid any new information. Best "Good Books" are from Confucius, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, even some by Cicero. All of them having a good supply of various gods, all of them reckoned angry gods could mess with human lives, but none of them thought for one second that these gods and their priests had any right to prevent them from thinking by themselves.
For God's sake, let's get rid of those "Old-time religions", none of them, during 20 centuries, had brought any proof of being anything but evil (and if god did really exist, he's sure as much evil, or wouldn't have allowed any of this crap).