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 |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Inherit the Wind
Movie Review: A Black and White Movie For a Technicolor World
Summary: 5 Stars
This is the second in my "series" of films for which I am truly thankful, the problem with that being that it is the first one that most of you will be reading. Such is life. In my first review, which was actually more of a thumbnail appreciation of the original production of THE THING (a film that literally shaped the rest of my life), I mentioned that there was another film that had taught me an important lesson at the age of 12, one that I hope I will carry with me for the rest of my life. Well, INHERIT THE WIND is that film.
Directed by Stanley Kramer, INHERIT THE WIND gives us a very fictionalized account of the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial in which a man was tried and convicted for teaching Darwin's theory of evolution in a Tennessee school. Virtually all of the names and locations have been changed as have many of the pertinent facts because this was never intended to be anything more than a work of historical fiction through which the director and the screenwriters expressed their points of view. I do admit as I've looked back on it over the years that it does come down a bit harshly on the anti-evolution Christian segment, but then they were never intended to portray actual people as much as they were meant to represent the generalized sentiment held by a large segment of society at that time and in that place. The pro-evolution forces are not without their warts--Gene Kelly's newspaper reporter is an extremely obnoxious character who supposedly represents H.L. Mencken who covered the actual trial. He's abrasive,crude,and a symbol of everything that's wrong with the so called "intellectual elite".
As I said earlier this is not a review per se. I merely want to tell you why I am thankful for this particular film. So here goes. At the end of the film Spencer Tracy who has been representing the defendant prepares to leave the courthouse for the last time. He gathers up all of his papers and the copy of Darwin's book he has been using for reference during the trial. Then he spots a copy of the Bible on the table. He picks it up, and holding Darwin's book in one hand and the Bible in the other he seems to be weighing them against each other as if to see which one is physically heavier. Finally he simply puts them together and walks out of the courthouse with them both. What I took from this scene and from the film itself was that it was never necessary to completely discard one thing in order to embrace another, and that seemingly disparate ideas could co-exist as long as the mind that held them was willing to contain them both. Creationism vs Evolution, Christianity vs Atheism are like seeing things as black white when everything is really in Technicolor.
Movie Review: not black and white
Summary: 5 Stars
A solemn cadence, one that brings to mind the drumbeat that drives slaves chained to oars in the movie Ben Hur, and that would chain human thought, accompanies a dramatic au capella reading of "Give Me That Old Time Religion" as town Elders march in formation toward the local high school. The steady beat builds in volume until it becomes a cannon shot fired inside the schoolhouse, point blank, at Darwin's evolution of species. The first shot fired in the battle for free thought.
In real life, Clarence Darrow hated William Jennings Bryon. In the movie, the two were only courtroom adversaries (Drummond vs Brady); outside of court they were old friends with differing viewpoints. Each allowed the other to believe as he pleased without letting it affect the friendship. This is an extremely wise point, given the blood shed in history over irreconcilable beliefs.
Parallel to that is one of the points made by Drummond in the movie courtroom: whether or not evolution conflicts with the Bible is a matter of personal opinion. Strict interpretation (or any interpretation) of the Bible codified into law conflicts with free thought, and can set people against each other.
A better solution is symbolized just before Darrow walks out of the empty courtroom at the end of the movie, when, Bible in one hand, Origin of Species in the other, he weighs the two against each other, like blind lady justice weighs evidence in a court trial. Drummond does not leave the courtroom holding the two books in separate hands. One is stacked neatly atop the other. They fit.
The movie does something admirable. While not pulling any punches in its depiction of religious bigotry, it doesn't dismiss a human need to believe in something. In fact, the end of the movie is a reconciliation of sorts - HL Mencken (movie Hornbeck) was portrayed very much as he was in real life - as having utter contempt for what he saw as ignorant, backward beliefs, and the people who held them, including Brady. But
Drummond gets fed up with Hornbeck, and dismantles his cynical façade just as he dismantled Brady's biblical fundamentalist Bible interpretation. Hornbeck becomes no longer a champion of free thought; he is reduced to a soulless fountain of cynical quips with no comprehension of human need, a man with no need for human connections, or faith. "You poor slob, you don't need anybody, do you? You're all alone." Simultaneously, Drummond also recognizes that Brady, in his own way, was a great man. Perhaps it was his strong faith that made him that way.
Movie Review: A LITTLE BACKGROUND
Summary: 5 Stars
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.
Movie Review: Great flick, great acting, bad logic
Summary: 5 Stars
It's heartwarming to see that this fine old chestnut can still get some religious folks really riled up. No, this "fiction" is not an accurate rendering of the real-life Scopes Monkey Trial, but it does capture the spirit of H.L. Mencken's extraordinary dispatches to the Baltimore Sun and I'd guess that was the intention. Mencken is the Hornbeck character played by Gene Kelley but many of his thoughts, and certainly his philosophy, are given to Spencer Tracy's character. That he's made out to be a mere glib and shallow cynic in this movie is more injustice than Christians have ever suffered here. Mencken was passionate about the greatness man was capable of.
If any offended party took time to read Mencken's full take on the proceedings they'd find this movie pretty tame...and Mencken was there, as a journalist. His legendary obituary for William Jennings Bryan was the prototype for the scatological one Hunter Thompson wrote for Nixon.
Spencer Tracy is excellent but Frederic March is truly astounding. Some reviewers find his performance a bit over-the-top but they are clearly young 'uns who have no recollection of the legend of Bryan, who was over-the-top to begin with. What March managed to do was convey that P.T. Barnum quality while fleshing out the character, giving him depth, and making him believable. People need to understand that some historical characters had tremendous presence.
The only problem I have with the film is with the logic of some of the arguments. There's a lack of tautness and a vague fumbling at ideals that may reflect the real events. I haven't read the full transcript, which is or was available.
For Christians who may be offended by their depiction as mindless fanatics, take heart in the fact that they're not alone--the most recent groups I've seen act this way were a bunch of politically correct militant feminists back in the 90s and more recently some other religious types from a part of the world with a lot of sand. This movie never really loses its relevance, sadly.
Movie Review: an intense drama - excellent delivery and never outdated
Summary: 5 Stars
With Spencer Tracy, Federic March and Gene Kelly, I have high expectations of this film. And they raise the standard to such a high level! Credits must be given to the director Kramer, the cinematographer and the inspiring hymns.
Spencer Tracy was fierce, determined as ever. Like Bad Day at Black Rock, he is the lone man fighting for a cause. Here he has the upper hand, judging from his quick response and angle in the court. He plays the lone crusader and the underdog excellently. However, it is Fredrick March that impresses me even more. If you see Dr. Jerkll and Mr. Hyde, The best year of our lives, you will see how much he has changed for this role. If anything is flawed, it will be the make up for the baldness and wrinkles. However, his effort to portray the attorney with insatiable appetite, loud speech and thirst to advance his cause for the fundamental christians is undeniable. It is so un-Federick March! That said, it is a rare gem to see the two two-time Oscar winners, Tracy and March, opposite one another in the court. Another surprise is Gene Kelly. I wish to see more of him in non-dancing roles.
What makes the movie so special is that the script is so tightly woven and lines so well-crafted. It is unfortunate there is no subtitles. The movie should be shown in the classrooms for open discussions. Not to say which is right or wrong (for that matter, I do not think anyone can retrieve any new arguments which can change people's mind on christinaity vs evolution), but more to say that a person should believe in something deep, in themselves, rather than blindly follow a person. Even the idea or the person has a flaw found, one can still be themselves and not be lost. This is what convictions and giants are for. I would love to believe that both Spencer Tracey's and Federick March's roles are doing what they think is good for others and not for themselves. The crowd, on the other hand, changed sides rather too quickly.
The movie ended with a positive note. Great movie.