Inherit the Wind Reviews

• Utterly and justifiably dominated by two star performances

  
  By A16QODENBJVUI1 on 2003-09-20
  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.
  
  

• Well done myth-making, but mendacious and mean

  
  By A3JJWHINQVAN5I on 2003-12-08
  "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.
  
  

• Spellbinding dual performances!

  
  By A2WLZD9BY669HY on 2003-08-30
  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.
  
  

• Something to Think About

  
  By A1345VRK5MYG7 on 2000-02-19
  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.
  
  

• A LITTLE BACKGROUND

  
  By A2KSU7OOJ5C479 on 2004-04-16
  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.
  
  

• Good film-making, but false
  By on 2002-02-20
  If this movie presented itself as a work of fiction, it could merit four stars for its acting and cinematography. However, the film presents itself as a dramatization of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Its presentation of the Scopes fiasco is so off-base that this film deserves 1 star, no matter how well it was made.

  Let me list some of the historical falsehoods portrayed by the film:

  1. The anti-Darwninists assaulted and intimated the evolutionists. This simply isn't true. The movie shows the beleagured evolutionist high school teacher, who simply wants to expand the minds of his students, being arrested, jailed, and threatened by an ignorant mob. This didn't happen. In fact, the town of Dayton orchestrated the Monkey Trial as a way to put their town on the map. Scopes hosted a party the day before the trial, and was treated as a local celebrity.

  2. The anti-evolutionists taught the Earth was 6,000 years old. That's not true. Mainstream Christians have always believed the Earth was old; the "Young Earth" view emerged from the sub-orthodox Seventh Day Adventist denomination and has spread to some separatistic fundamentalist groups like the Baptist Bible Fellowship, but Young Earthism wasn't a factor in the Scopes trial. All mainstream Christian denominations, like the Southern Baptists or United Methodists, allow the old earth view.

  3. The evolutionists were enlightened, benelovent people who loved knowledge. This is a lie. The textbook used in Dayton was a racist, eugenicistic manifesto that later influenced people to form eugenic societies and support the Third Reich. In court transcripts, the evolutionists open spoke of their racist views, and mused that someday the Negroes would lose out to natural selection and the earth would be solely populated by Whites. By contrast, the anti-Darwinists argued that Darwinism undermined morality and would lead to exactly the kind of evils as the world witnessed twenty years later under Hitler.

  4. The evolutionists won the court case. False. They lost. The only reason that the Scopes trial is perceived as a victory for Darwinism is because unethical reporters found the real story boring, and so they invented a tale about ignorant Fundamentalists descending on a sleepy little town. (Actually, the town wanted to be at the center of a brohaha and deliberately put Scopes up to breaking the law.)

  ... Young Earth Creationists, who I feel subvert classic Christian doctrines about the Bible and creation and who dispute the basic tenants of science itself. But Inherit the Wind simply isn't a reliable historical account. It contributes nothing but misunderstanding and stereotypes to the public's understanding of the creation/evolution debate.
  
  

• Even More Timely Today!
  By A3682V0VO5WTWS on 2006-10-20
  I have always thought Spencer Tracy was one of the best actors ever, and in this movie his relaxed, breezy courtroom style was to become an inspiration for my own courtroom 'persona'.
  
  More than that, however, this movie...the issue highly dramatized therein... is a nice starting point for anyone trying to make sense of this continuing debate on evolution vs creationism. At one point in his cross-examination of Brady [March/Bryan], Drummond [Tracy/Darrow] makes the point that "the first day" could have been millions of years in length, as there was no sun... no way to measure. As a movie this is but one sentence in a script loaded with fabulous dialogue. As an idea, however, it is at the core of what I have always believed. Why are the creationists so unable to see the hand of God in the evolutionary process? Whether Darwin was right on the money or not in terms of scientific truth, and I have no way of knowing that, I have never seen anything in his theory inconsistent with the "pleasant poetry of Genesis". That Biblical book even divides the creation process into 'eras' translated as "days" and shows the gradual appearence of the different features of the planet. I just don't see the inconsistency.
  
  Remember too Drummond's brilliant question about Caine's wife. "Now where did she come from? Think somebody pulled another creation over in the next county?" OBVIOUSLY Genesis, by its own language and choice of sequences, wasn't intending to tell the whole story, [and indeed what great teacher anywhere, any time introduces a complex topic, then proceeds in the next breath to instruct on all its subtle nuances and exceptions?] but it told the faithful enough to appreciate the awesome miracle that our universe is.
  
  Anyway, this movie is a nice primer, despite its historical inaccuracies [in terms of the detail of those days in Dayton, Tennessee], for anyone trying to understand this issue which both sides seem to continue to see as pro and anti-God. To me, it shows that there is nothing threatening to our image of God in the concept of evolution...nor anything threatening to evolution in the concept of the Creator.
  
  Stanley Kramer never ducked a good controversy... and he did a beautiful job of producing this movie in the key of the pseudo-sophisticated skepticism of the early Sixties. [A time, you'll remember, which several serious commentators of those days were calling the Post Christian Era] Even so, there is so much wisdom in the debate presented that one cannot help but wonder why this issue generates so much hysteria. I respect the passion and integrity of all people who in good faith have struggled with this question. My Point is I just don't think we're that far apart, and I think this movie, wittingly or not, makes that point.
  
  
• Fact or fiction
  By A31YZPP738T2EB on 2002-03-08
  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.
  
  

• Funny, intelligent, and still relevent
  By A2O9VSNVAXMO7V on 2004-09-04
  This movie combines amazing actors with an incredible script to aptly portray an important moment in American history. This is not just a movie you will learn from, it is a movie that will make you laugh and give you great new insight into current political and religious debates regarding creationism, morality and civil liberties. Besides which, there is nothing quite like the combination of an upstanding lawyer and a cynical journalist battling a majority blinded by prejudice to put a smile on my face. It is the formula of a great many classics, and one that never seems to fail.
  
  
• A Text Book Example of Propoganda
  By A2A8M2H2370ZIB on 2000-10-02
  I suggest all seekers of truth purchase this movie in order to better understand the role that propoganda plays in our entertainment industry.

  The standard characterization on this movie as "slightly fictionalized" is an outright lie.

  There is nothing about this movie that is accurate.

  The ACLU advertised for a teacher to deliberately challange the law which had never before been prosecuted. The chamber of commerce of Dayton volunteered their town in order to bring publicity to their little hamlet. They asked the teacher if he would play the part of the accused. The teacher had never taught evolution before -- he knew nothing about the subject.

  The defense team was accorded great respect. As opposed to the lies of the film, the town did not greet them with a parade singing "That Old Time Religion is Good Enough for Me!" No, they through them a welcoming party!!

  The list of lies propogated by this film is so monumental as to be overwhelming. There are a few books on the subject.

  I recommend teachers of civics, science, communications, history, etc. to use this film as an entre to study disinformation, propoganda, revisionist history, etc.
  
  

• Equally Timely Forty Years Later
  By A2Q457CES5ZUZ on 2002-05-04
  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.
  
  

• The real reason people don't like this film
  By A2FYSNDCDNDR8U on 2005-10-16
  Most of the serious criticism of this film has focused on its "massive deviation from fact", changing the facts "to suit the message" and so on. But everyone knows no dramatization can be perfectly accurate--no one would criticize "Julius Caesar" or "Richard III" on this account, or, to use more modern examples, "The Crucible" or "Judgment at Nuremberg". Nevertheless, films should be held accountable for severe falsification if they claim to be accurate, or could even be reasonably mistaken for reenactments. "Inherit the Wind" falls into this second category for reasons I'm not totally clear about--even though it's clearly a piece of advocacy and terribly partial to the defense.
  
  But is it really so inaccurate? Have a look at the transcripts and you'll see that there's a great deal taken verbatim from them. The context of the trial, the carnival atmosphere, the (irrelevant) ulterior motives of certain participants, the partiality of judge and jury, were all attested to, and not contradicted in any important way by every source I looked at.
  
  It was after reading H. L. Mencken's original dispatches from Dayton, Tennessee that I began to understand what the real problem was. It's quite simple really. Religion, alone of all powerful social institutions, claims to be immune from criticism. We are so used to tiptoeing around the subject that flat-out public criticism of religion has become unthinkable, and any sort of behavior in its defense, including violence, understandable if not actually justified.
  
  "Inherit the Wind" doesn't go out of its way to find excuses for these people--ignorance, viciousness, prejudice and superstition are depicted in all their hideousness. What shocks me is that this picture, corny and dated as it is in places, should now be seen as so "out of line". You wouldn't think people who are comfortable with hell-fire and God's wrath, or with amputations and beheadings, would be so thin-skinned. But there you have it. And it's getting worse.
  
  
• Good Acting, Horrible Portrayal of what Actually Happened
  By A39632VQ5G7RCS on 2002-12-23
  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'.
  
  

• Ten Reasons to Watch, Learn and Evolve
  By A3F8W7R5YJC7BV on 2003-11-06
  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."
  
  
• A great piece of fiction
  By A2G9DGP3L4JGV1 on 2003-11-25
  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.
  
  
• A Complete Distortion of the Scopes Trial
  By on 2001-06-05
  Inherit the Wind is, at best, a shallow form of propaganda directed at Creationists and Christianity. The movie completely distorts the events of the Scopes vs. Monkey trial. The evolutionists are given every benefit of wit, intelligance, and sarcasm while the creationists are shown to be ignorant, hypocritical,and narrow minded. Though the movie has some entertainment value, it should be banned from the classroom if for no other reason than that it is completely contaminated with bias.
  
  
• Remember these words: "BASED ON..."
  By AO6L5RJILSLDX on 2005-04-09
  Going through these reviews, you'll find that there are quite a few reviewers who take issue with "Inherit the Wind" not being a literal re-enactment of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. Well, breaking news, folks: there's this little thing called "artistic license".
  
  This film is not intended to be a dead-on retelling of the Scopes Monkey Trial, but is merely BASED ON it. As another reviewer so deftly pointed out, this is one of the reasons that they didn't use the names "Darrow", "Bryant", etc. Also, though the trial is the central event of the whole movie, the script and original play are far more concerned with the character dynamics within the courtroom.
  
  If you want the true-life facts of the Scopes Monkey Trial, you can break out a textbook, dig up a court transcript, whatever. But watching a film that claims to be neither a literal biography nor historical documentary, and then picking it apart because it doesn't jibe with real life events, just makes you sound like a jag-off.
  
  
• Timeless, Spellbinding
  By A11PTCZ2FM2547 on 2002-11-01
  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.
  
  

• Alternate Title: Stanley Kramer vs. God
  By A2GOTTK868X1CR on 2005-02-27
  Stanley Kramer was a liberal member of the hollywood elite
  who hated america. He also hated God. And this was his
  anti-God epic. Its set in a courtroom, but for all the justice
  and law in the film, it might as well be a courtroom in
  Stalin's russia or Saddam Hussien's Iraq.
  
  From beginning to end, the facts in this film are changed to
  fit the message. Which is that religion, god and anyone
  who isn't at minimum an agnostic or (better) an Atheist
  is a clown and a fool and probably in need of a re-education
  camp.
  
  What you never see in this movie, for example, is the case
  that Bryan made in various forums against the social implications
  of Darwinism. The liberals and agnostics were not simply
  concerned with Darwinism as science, but Darwinism as a
  philosophy of life. In that philosphy, the concept of man and
  morality, was replaced by the iron law called "survival of the
  fittest" or as the never-mentioned alternate title of
  Darwin's book "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Darwinism was the phiosophical basis
  of Social Darwinism, Eugenics and many sick ideologies based
  on the concept that all human life was a struggle for
  preservation of race with no rules.
  
  We also don't see agnostic Clarence Darrow rampaging through
  the courtroom demanding that the Bible be removed from the
  countroom and that no one should dare to pray in his presence.
  Kramer makes Darrow into the good rational nice man. The good
  man compared to Bryan the raving irrational lunatic who ideas
  (as created by Stanley Kramer) are obviously insane.
  
  Kramer also has no sense of the irony of the absurdity of
  using a courtroom to decide issues of religious belief and
  science. Its not the place of any court to decide matters
  of science. The court can decide if a law restricting the
  teaching of a subject is valid in the broad sense, but a
  court cannot decide or place a value on a specific subject
  or announce to the world that evolution is truth.
  
  The abusurdity of the case is that any decision in the matter
  that touches on the issue of evolution itself pushes the
  court toward an establishment of religion. If the court rules
  one way, it has endosed christianity, if it rules the other,
  it has made a move against christianity.
  
  The core of the film takes all the life and complexities out
  of Byran. He is reduced to a pompous demagog who is fed
  arguments by Stanley Kramer while the real words of the man
  are forgotten.
  
  Meanwhile, real-life drunken moral degenerate adulterer
  Spencer Tracy is played up as the kindly "good american" home
  spun man of the people who is the heart of good sense and
  reason. His Darrow is about as far from the real thing as
  its possible to get.
  
  It would have been possible to make a good film about this
  subject. But to do so, the film-maker and writer has to
  respect both sides of the arguement at a minimum enough
  so that both are allowed to make their case.
  
  But what Stanley Kramer set out to do was to make a vicious,
  untrue film where he got to ridicule his enemy (religious
  people, people in middle america, ministers and anyone
  who isn't agnostic or atheist) while the opposing side was
  gagged and locked out of the courtroom.
  
  
  
  
  
• DON'T SLIP ON THIS ROTTEN BANANA PEEL!
  By A1LTJCQGRPTOTD on 2005-05-18
  I recently rented INHERIT THE WIND to see for myself if it was really as bad as I'd heard. It was. I am astounded to find how many reviewers have excused its massive deviation from fact under the banner of "entertainment." Has our capacity to evaluate information diminished to the point that we are no longer able to differentiate between simple entertainment and pure propaganda? When a movie presents a supposedly intellectual argument, and paints EVERY SINGLE MEMBER on one side of that argument as a buffoon maroon, but shows the other side as thoughtful, open-minded, and humanitarian, you can bet the farm that you're being propagandized! A couple of reviewers here have equated the movie with an indictment of the horrors of "McCarthyism." These folks have been twice-bamboozled! Obviously they don't do any independent research, but ingest whatever gets fed to them. Go to www.thenewamerican.com and click on "Profiles" if you want to learn the truth about Joseph McCarthy and "McCarthyism."
  
  INHERIT THE WIND pretends to portray the famous 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial" with a little dramatic license. This movie strays SO FAR from the facts that even saying it is "based on" the actual event renders that term so elastic as to be meaningless! John Scopes is renamed Bert Cates (Dick York), Clarence Darrow becomes Henry Drummond (Spencer Tracy), William Jennings Bryan becomes Matthew Harrison Brady (Fredric March) and Dayton, Tennessee becomes Hillsboro, Tennessee. The playwrights, Jerome Lawrence & Robert Lee, did not alter the names because they thought they could improve on them, but so they could legally reinvent history. The idea was to twist the truth & present it as entertainment "based on" a true story, knowing that over time, the drama will become accepted as factual by the masses. And it worked! Look how many of us grew up thinking that INHERIT THE WIND was an essentially accurate account of the "Monkey Trial."
  
  All of the Christians (believing in "Creationism") in the movie are portrayed as emotionally-overwrought, brain-dead bigots. Paint any other group with such a broad brush and you'll be in court for the rest of your life, but here in Amerika, it's always "open season" on Christians. Hardly sympathetic to both views, in reality, Darrow called Christianity, Bryan's "fool religion."
  
  Contrary to many opinions posted here, the acting does NOT make INHERIT THE WIND worthy of your time. March & Claude Akins are mere caricatures, but they're not to be blamed as Brady and Rev. Brown were written as cartoon blowhards. Tracy's naturalistic performance is enjoyable as usual, but Tracy was ALWAYS Tracy from film to film; there's nothing new here. Gene Kelly was fine as the cynical, MENSA-donkey newspaper reporter, but it was a simple part to play. The best, most sympathetic performance was actually turned in by Florence Eldridge as Mrs. Sarah Brady. Now her I believed.
  
  If you're interested in comparing the events portrayed in the movie, INHERIT THE WIND with the REALITY of the 1925 "Monkey Trial", to see just how far the playwrights deviated from truth, click on my name above, and go to my Amazon guide called, "SO YOU'D LIKE TO...STOP FALLING FOR SPENCER TRACY'S MONKEY BUSINESS!" You'll be surprised at how seriously the movie distorted the facts in order to condition people to the dogma of Darwinism!
  
  
  
• Darrow v. Bryan or, more precisely, Tracy v. March
  By A2CW9IQAPFEYLM on 2006-01-08
  
  About the Scopes "monkey trial" in which a school teacher in Tennessee was arrested for teaching Darwin's theory of evolution (he was found guilty and fined $5.00); Clarence Darrow defended him against William Jennings Bryan. Spencer Tracy plays Darrow (here renamed Henry Drummond) and Frederic March is Bryan (renamed Matthew Harrison Brady). The reality of the courtroom proceedings is totally sacrificed to the tour-de-force acting performances of Tracy and March - March the Bible-thumping fundamentalist and Tracy the secularist. Added to this is Gene Kelly as E.K. Hornbeck, an H.L. Mencken type who is on Tracy's side, but is even too cynical and empty for him. The movie is very stagey and forced in places, but all the principals rise to the occasion, including Henry Morgan as the judge. The almost psychopathically overzealous Reverend Brown (Claude Akins) consistently puts a bad taste in the mouth everytime he's on screen - an example of one of those forced things about the picture that don't seem to be necessary.
  
  
• A memorable example of artistic license
  By A32K4EKUU52FZ2 on 2006-02-26
  Have you ever watched a program in which - as would be announced prior to it being broadcast - "only the names have been changed to protect the innocent"? Well, here almost everything has been changed - not only the names - and that not to protect the innocent but rather to delude them. When I first saw the film, I thought that it was an accurate protrayal of the Scopes Trial, and, being uniformed as I was, I continued to think that for many years afterwards.
  
  Is the film enjoyable? Yes, definitely; however, for the sake of honesty there should be a disclaimer at the start, declaring that it is a piece of fiction and that if one wants to know the truth about what happened at the Scopes Trial, they should not depend on this film for that.
  
  So I give the film 5 stars for entertainment value and 0 stars for truthfulness.
  
  
• A classic? Yes. A fair portrayal? Hardly.
  By A1L10CEXK29O1N on 2001-09-18
  This film includes some of the best writing, acting, and directing around. In terms of technical achievement, it is the quintessence of the classic film. The reason I give it only one star is that it is also little more than melodramatic propaganda. And politically manipulative cinema well-done is worse even than B-movie vulgarity.

  Spencer Tracy's Clarence Darrow is sage, debonair, and self-effacing. He gets all the witty and eloquent dialogue. Conversely, Fredric March's William Jennings Bryan is a self-righteous, maniacally-bumbling troglodyte. Who wouldn't love Darrow and loathe Bryan after such a depiction? These are not people but caricatures right out of a political cartoon.

  What's wrong with giving such a biased representation? Nothing-unless you're trying to pass it off as a serious and objective portrayal. Even if this film is meant as a metaphor for the McCarthy witch hunts, it uses the insidious techniques of propaganda in presenting that metaphor (unlike the admirable metaphorical treatment of the same subject in Arthur Miller's The Crucible). Instead of carefully and responsibly depicting its characters as complex and real human beings, it portrays one as the flawless hero and the other as the inferior villain with a convenient disregard for fact or subtlety. Regardless of what "true life" situation it is used to portray, melodrama can only provide a simplistic distortion of that situation. And when it treats a political controversy with such an exaggerated imbalance, it becomes propaganda, calculated to dupe an audience into rating a cause by its advocate's personality traits instead of by the merits of the cause itself.

  In this sense the renowned and talented Stanley Kramer (as well as the playwright of the original stage drama) are no better here than D. W. Griffith's was when, with his classic Civil War epic The Birth of a Nation, he effectually portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as knights in shining armor and the blacks as conniving devils.

  Good film making? Yes. Intellectually insulting? Also, unfortunately, yes.
  
  

• 'Inherit the Wind' is as Relevant Today As Ever
  By A324LH8S4C8U4W on 2002-01-31
  Loosely based on the "Scopes Monkey Trial," this film is the acting version of a heavyweight fight. "Inherit the Wind" pits two stellar actors in Spencer Tracy and Fredric March against each other, and it's hard to determine which is the better acted role. They act their guts out in a film that has issues people STILL debate fiercely today.

  It focuses on the issues of Creationism, Evolution, and the arrogance often exhibited by both theory's adherants. March being the staunch defender of Creationism, and Biblical truth, and Tracy's defense of Evolution, and science over superstition.

  It is gripping, well-produced, and well worth the time invested in it. It will either reaffirm your beliefs, or challenge them. Either way, it is an experience not to be missed.
  
  

• Stereotype, TN
  By A3HSH43NXP075Y on 2003-02-02
  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. ...
  
  

• Good Portrayal of a Topical Issue
  By A3DPLF1J3ILMTO on 2003-09-13
  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.
  
  
• Great flick, great acting, bad logic
  By A1Y8FBJLVK6LS9 on 2006-05-11
  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.
  
  
• A classic? Yes. A fair portrayal? Hardly.
  By A1L10CEXK29O1N on 2001-09-18
  This film includes some of the best writing, acting, and directing around. In terms of technical achievement, it is the quintessence of the classic film. The reason I give it only one star is that it is also little more than melodramatic propaganda. And politically manipulative cinema well-done is worse even than B-movie vulgarity.

  Spencer Tracy’s Clarence Darrow is sage, debonair, and self-effacing. He gets all the witty and eloquent dialogue. Conversely, Fredric March’s William Jennings Bryan is a self-righteous, maniacally-bumbling troglodyte. Who wouldn’t love Darrow and loathe Bryan after such a depiction? These are not people but caricatures right out of a political cartoon.

  What’s wrong with giving such a biased representation? Nothing—unless you’re trying to pass it off as a serious and objective portrayal. Even if this film is meant as a metaphor for the McCarthy witch hunts, it uses the insidious techniques of propaganda in presenting that metaphor (unlike the admirable metaphorical treatment of the same subject in Arthur Miller’s _The Crucible_). Instead of carefully and responsibly depicting its characters as complex and real human beings, it portrays one as the flawless hero and the other as the inferior villain with a convenient disregard for fact or subtlety. Regardless of what “true life” situation it is used to portray, melodrama can only provide a simplistic distortion of that situation. And when it treats a political controversy with such an exaggerated imbalance, it becomes propaganda, calculated to dupe an audience into rating a cause by its advocate’s personality traits instead of by the merits of the cause itself.

  Good film making? Yes. Intellectually insulting? Also, unfortunately, yes.
  
  

• Review of the film, NOT the point of view
  By A3RBVL167FXSOV on 2001-11-26
  People have written previously here about how this is a totally distorted representation of the Scopes trial, how things were much more amenable in real life, etc. Sure, I know this and recognize that factually, sure, you're right.

  But what this movie adaptation of an award-winning stage play does, what all good art does, is it gets past what is or was reality to show us what really was and is in the human psyche -- in this case to show not what really happened in the Scopes trial but what people in this nation FELT was happening, how people across the country saw it in their own minds, and how it affected them. Reality's boring and messy and people don't like to pay to sit & watch reality for 2 hours when they can do it for free at home. They want a story, and they want a story that means something, and I feel ItW certainly means something to those who see it. One thing the True Believers here who'd like to review what they think is the movie's bias rather than its quality and story fail to see is that this is a very even-handed treatment that gives every side its due and seeks a compromised middle path. If the Bryan character is a gluttonous blowhard on the downslope of his political career, the Mencken character is a self-absorbed dandy fool who loves nothing more than the sound of his own voice and would rather make news than report facts.

  Like Griffith's Birth of a Nation, Inherit the Wind takes alot of hits for points of view presented in the film. What we have to do as critical movie viewers though is look beyond the point of view to the quality of the storytelling and effectiveness of the use of the medium. In both cases I find them stunning, and I think anyone who rents Inherit the Wind will find themselves both entertained and challenged.
  
  

• An unforgettable tour de force and superb script!
  By A16CZRQL23NOIW on 2004-07-02
  This film is a triumph against the intolerance and the dark sides of the reason. The dreams of the reason produce monsters.
  The generated legal battle between a Mathew Brady the hard fan religious and politician and Henry Drummond an opened mind lawyer about the Darwin ideas , keep full intensity all the movie.
  
  This historical process lets you thinking about the imaginary circunstance about what would the destiny of USA if Brady would have been President?
  
  Spencer Tracy and Frederic March are like the alpha and the omega in this match . One timeless classic film in any age.
  Don't even doubt it. This film is for you and for a wide target in the social spectre.
  
  A must-see; a winner movie!
  
  

• 12 Angry Men (50th Anniversary Edition)
• Judgment at Nuremberg
• Witness For the Prosecution
• To Kill a Mockingbird (Collector's Edition)
• The Grapes of Wrath