The 1960 black-and-white drama entitled Inherit the Wind - based on the historic Scopes Monkey Trial - covers both the aspects of fundamentalism and atheistic evolution--the two religious extremes of the strict and the cynical. However, by observing these polar opposites in this well-paced picture, the doors are opened to what can be found in-between.
Inherit the Wind is a vivid dramatic production full of wisdom and exceptional acting, but in the grander look of things, it is an informative reenactment of a famous historical event that is plainly inaccurate and exaggerated—resulting in only a mildly above par overall picture. However, to defend the film, it is basically just a work of fiction, loosely based on a real-life ordeal, that skillfully allows literary license.
Inherit the Wind (a title taken from a line found in the Book of Proverbs) addresses the controversial topic of evolution being taught in public schools and how Charles Darwin’s theory challenges the fundamental teachings of the Book of Genesis. It recounts and recaps the 1925 trial of teacher John Scopes in his defensive attempt to free the school systems of the close-minded fundamentalists’ views of evolution and allow young individuals to freely learn the scientific subject matter.
Conversely, there are several differing elements to take into account that make this more of a theatrical-enhanced rendition rather than a historically honest account of actual events; Inherit the Wind’s factual basis is tweaked a little too much in order to meet Hollywood’s “picture-worthy” standards.
For starters, the movie’s characters’ names are all symbolic for the real Monkey Trial players’ (Bert Cates = John Scopes, Matthew Harrison Brady = William Jennings Bryant, Henry Drummond = Clarence Darrow, E. K. Hornbeck = H. L. Mencken, etc.). Also, the movie never speaks of the actual act and its details that Cates (Scopes) violated (the Butler Act). Furthermore, throughout the film, Cates (Scopes) is depicted as if he was shaking in his booties in fear of the serious threat of being locked up for quite some time. This is only shown to increase the tension and drama of the fate of the film’s protagonist; John Scopes was never in danger of facing serious jail time. In fact, Scopes was never even arrested; he actually volunteered to test the law in order to call attention to his hometown of Dayton, Tennessee. Scopes was also, in truth, a Math professor who only briefly substituted as a teacher of Biology and actually never even taught or spoke of evolution in any public school. There are countless other dissimilarities between the actuality and the production to spout off about, but none that you could not locate on your own with a little undemanding research.
Article comments
1 - Tan The Man
Good stuff...
2 - Victor Lana
Brandon, great review.
And anyone wondering why movies aren't so great today, just look at this film. Spencer Tracey AND Fredrich March. I mean, that's the equivalent today of:
hey, wait a minute, there is NO EQUIVALENT today. Maybe if you put Clint Eastwood, Harrison Ford, Dustin Hoffman, Robert DeNiro, and Al Pacino in one movie you'd = Tracey. But how would you also get March in there?
The answer is like Dana Carvey's old Bush impersonation: "Ani't gonna do it."
3 - Steve
Thank you Brandon for your review of the movie and pointing out at least some of it's historical inaccuracies...it never ceases to amaze me how so many people take the Hollywood version as gospel truth...but certainly, on a purely fictional level, the film does build a certain suspense between the characters. There was some great acting to be sure.
4 - Dave Nalle
BTW, as I understand it, one of the main reasons for changing the names of the characters was that Scopes was still alive when the film was made. In fact, having been a young man at the time of the actual trial, he didn't end up dying until 1970.
Another little historical liberty in the film - the Bryan character is shown dying pretty much on the spot at the end of the trial. In reality he lived for another two weeks and then died, but that's much less dramatic.
Dave
5 - Brent McKee
You have to remember that the movie is not a recreation of the historical event, it is a film adaptation of the original Broadway play, which I believe won the Pulitzer Prize. The dramatic license with the "truth" seen in the film is in fact what the writers of the play intended. It makes dramatic sense to show Matthew Harrison Brady dying as he makes the grand oration that no one is interested in hearing, least of all the radio men. Modern times have rendered him and his ideas irrelevant and their defender must therefore pass from the scene.
The final scene, where Hornbeck mocks the dead Brady and is castigated by Drummond - who it turns out knows his bible almost as well as Brady had - is an effort to show the middle ground where belief in religion does not necessarily preclude belief in science. Sadly the message doesn't seem to have gotten through.