A couple years back, I watched a movie called *God's Not Dead*. And I hated it. All the Christians in the movie are flawless saints, all the non-Christians in the movie are worse than Hitler, the "argument" it gives for the existence of God at the end has more holes than Swiss cheese on a firing range, and it's overall completely biased and manipulative in its message. It remains the most insulting movie I've ever seen.
Which is why, when making a film about a topic as sensitive as religion, you have to be careful. If you have a message to send which you see as important, it's so easy to make your side the good guys and the opposing side completely evil. But that's not the case in reality, and that's not the case in Stanley Kramer's 1960 movie *Inherit the Wind*.
This story is loosely based on the Scopes Trial of 1925, where a Tennessee schoolteacher got in trouble for teaching evolution in the classroom, which was against state law at the time. It revolves around the trial, the questions it raises about religion and morality and law and government, and its human repercussions. And while it clearly seems to favor the side which believes scientific fact has a place in education, it shows both sides in a fair, sympathetic light. The trial in this movie, as in reality, takes place in a small town where the locals have a deep fundamentalist faith. But, it doesn't treat them as stupid. It shows how their faith gives the people meaning and purpose in life, how they'd naturally feel defensive if anyone challenged it, and how they're susceptible, like everyone, to human blunders. The movie's sympathies clearly lie with the modern viewpoint that public schools shouldn't base their curriculum on a Christian worldview (who would disagree?), but rather than demonizing the other side, it presents them as well-meaning but misguided.
The movie also criticizes the other side - namely, any atheist who tries to shatter people's beliefs for no reason. One character, a journalist named E.K. Hornbeck played by Gene Kelly, is a slimy city-slicker and cynical atheist who constantly has a condescending remark about the uneducated townsfolk and the "fairy tales" they believe in. He rightfully gets a verbal slap in the face at the end. The defense is Henry Drummond, who's more quiet about his atheism and respects the beliefs of others, only lashing out when the separation of church and state is being undermined, so I identified with him the most. The teacher himself is actually a fairly minor character, but he's shown to be what I think most people would identify with - a Christian who doesn't take the Bible literally and has moments of doubt when times are tough, but takes to heart Jesus' message of love and tolerance. The prosecution is Matthew Harrison Brady, who's probably the most interesting character. A loud-mouthed politician and fundamentalist who's a nationwide celebrity for his preaching, kind of the equivalent of a modern-day televangelist. He's charismatic, eloquent, and larger than life. It's interesting how conservatives and reactionaries tend to rally behind confident men who are great at public speaking and telling people how to think, act, and live. It was William Jennings Bryan back then, and nowadays it's Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. Still, unlike Ben Shapiro, Brady in this movie has moments of humanity. He has a strong, loving connection with his wife. He's shown to be former best friends with Drummond, making their arguments in the trial all the more gut-wrenching. He's firm and convincing in his arguments for his faith, coming across not as a strawman but as very much how a modern fundamentalist talks. But even he can acknowledge when religion goes too far. In the most chilling moment in the movie, a pastor damns his daughter to Hell for supporting the pro-evolution teacher (her husband), and Brady, visibly shaken, interrupts the sermon, gives a Bible verse which suggests being kind to your family (and gives the movie its title), and tells everyone to go home.
One of the main complaints I hear about this movie is that it doesn't really follow the events of the Scopes Trial, and alters them quite a bit. But it never claims to be a portrayal of real events. As a History major, I can say that the real story of the Scopes Trial is a lot more boring than this one, and would've made for a worse movie. The differences were all conscious decisions, not mistakes. Hell, they even changed the names! It's pretty easy to figure out who's who if you know your history, but they clearly wanted just to get at the *spirit* of what the Scopes Trial meant for our culture, without worrying about getting every single tiny little detail right so condescending critics wouldn't point out the inevitable goofs. And yet they did anyway. It seems to me that the changes they made, or rather that the two playwrights made for the play this was based on, was meant to make it a more flowing, meaningful narrative. I support all the changes, and it's really cool to see the parallels and differences. It'd be incredibly easy to go on Wikipedia and fact-check every unimportant detail they got "wrong" in this movie. But I'd like to see those smug critics try and type up a better script than this one.
Oof. Sorry, I just had to rant after reading some of the 1-star reviews for this movie. Anyway, in the same way *12 Angry Men* should be viewed by anyone who plans to practice law, I think *Inherit the Wind* should be viewed by anyone who's religious, or not religious, or...well, just everyone. It really examines all sides (except for religions other than Christianity, but eh, it was the early 60s) and gives them a fair hearing. It seems that American people have been split into not just into two different parties, but two different worldviews which have entirely different values, speech patterns, role models, and news sources: the more secular, liberal, cosmopolitan worldview, and the more religious, libertarian, patriotic worldview. This movie shows what our country desperately needs right now: real, honest dialogue between both sides. Few movies openly and fairly discuss religion nowadays - and I'm excluding those mass-produced evangelical flicks from the likes of Kirk Cameron, which are meant only to reaffirm the beliefs of people who already believe. Not meant to challenge you or make you think in the least, at *Inherit the Wind* does. My hope is to see another movie like this one in theaters sometime before I die. Our country sorely needs it.
Which is why, when making a film about a topic as sensitive as religion, you have to be careful. If you have a message to send which you see as important, it's so easy to make your side the good guys and the opposing side completely evil. But that's not the case in reality, and that's not the case in Stanley Kramer's 1960 movie *Inherit the Wind*.
This story is loosely based on the Scopes Trial of 1925, where a Tennessee schoolteacher got in trouble for teaching evolution in the classroom, which was against state law at the time. It revolves around the trial, the questions it raises about religion and morality and law and government, and its human repercussions. And while it clearly seems to favor the side which believes scientific fact has a place in education, it shows both sides in a fair, sympathetic light. The trial in this movie, as in reality, takes place in a small town where the locals have a deep fundamentalist faith. But, it doesn't treat them as stupid. It shows how their faith gives the people meaning and purpose in life, how they'd naturally feel defensive if anyone challenged it, and how they're susceptible, like everyone, to human blunders. The movie's sympathies clearly lie with the modern viewpoint that public schools shouldn't base their curriculum on a Christian worldview (who would disagree?), but rather than demonizing the other side, it presents them as well-meaning but misguided.
The movie also criticizes the other side - namely, any atheist who tries to shatter people's beliefs for no reason. One character, a journalist named E.K. Hornbeck played by Gene Kelly, is a slimy city-slicker and cynical atheist who constantly has a condescending remark about the uneducated townsfolk and the "fairy tales" they believe in. He rightfully gets a verbal slap in the face at the end. The defense is Henry Drummond, who's more quiet about his atheism and respects the beliefs of others, only lashing out when the separation of church and state is being undermined, so I identified with him the most. The teacher himself is actually a fairly minor character, but he's shown to be what I think most people would identify with - a Christian who doesn't take the Bible literally and has moments of doubt when times are tough, but takes to heart Jesus' message of love and tolerance. The prosecution is Matthew Harrison Brady, who's probably the most interesting character. A loud-mouthed politician and fundamentalist who's a nationwide celebrity for his preaching, kind of the equivalent of a modern-day televangelist. He's charismatic, eloquent, and larger than life. It's interesting how conservatives and reactionaries tend to rally behind confident men who are great at public speaking and telling people how to think, act, and live. It was William Jennings Bryan back then, and nowadays it's Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. Still, unlike Ben Shapiro, Brady in this movie has moments of humanity. He has a strong, loving connection with his wife. He's shown to be former best friends with Drummond, making their arguments in the trial all the more gut-wrenching. He's firm and convincing in his arguments for his faith, coming across not as a strawman but as very much how a modern fundamentalist talks. But even he can acknowledge when religion goes too far. In the most chilling moment in the movie, a pastor damns his daughter to Hell for supporting the pro-evolution teacher (her husband), and Brady, visibly shaken, interrupts the sermon, gives a Bible verse which suggests being kind to your family (and gives the movie its title), and tells everyone to go home.
One of the main complaints I hear about this movie is that it doesn't really follow the events of the Scopes Trial, and alters them quite a bit. But it never claims to be a portrayal of real events. As a History major, I can say that the real story of the Scopes Trial is a lot more boring than this one, and would've made for a worse movie. The differences were all conscious decisions, not mistakes. Hell, they even changed the names! It's pretty easy to figure out who's who if you know your history, but they clearly wanted just to get at the *spirit* of what the Scopes Trial meant for our culture, without worrying about getting every single tiny little detail right so condescending critics wouldn't point out the inevitable goofs. And yet they did anyway. It seems to me that the changes they made, or rather that the two playwrights made for the play this was based on, was meant to make it a more flowing, meaningful narrative. I support all the changes, and it's really cool to see the parallels and differences. It'd be incredibly easy to go on Wikipedia and fact-check every unimportant detail they got "wrong" in this movie. But I'd like to see those smug critics try and type up a better script than this one.
Oof. Sorry, I just had to rant after reading some of the 1-star reviews for this movie. Anyway, in the same way *12 Angry Men* should be viewed by anyone who plans to practice law, I think *Inherit the Wind* should be viewed by anyone who's religious, or not religious, or...well, just everyone. It really examines all sides (except for religions other than Christianity, but eh, it was the early 60s) and gives them a fair hearing. It seems that American people have been split into not just into two different parties, but two different worldviews which have entirely different values, speech patterns, role models, and news sources: the more secular, liberal, cosmopolitan worldview, and the more religious, libertarian, patriotic worldview. This movie shows what our country desperately needs right now: real, honest dialogue between both sides. Few movies openly and fairly discuss religion nowadays - and I'm excluding those mass-produced evangelical flicks from the likes of Kirk Cameron, which are meant only to reaffirm the beliefs of people who already believe. Not meant to challenge you or make you think in the least, at *Inherit the Wind* does. My hope is to see another movie like this one in theaters sometime before I die. Our country sorely needs it.
Tell Your Friends