Inspiré d'une affaire réelle de 1925, deux grands avocats plaident pour et contre un professeur de sciences accusé du crime d'enseigner l'évolution.Inspiré d'une affaire réelle de 1925, deux grands avocats plaident pour et contre un professeur de sciences accusé du crime d'enseigner l'évolution.Inspiré d'une affaire réelle de 1925, deux grands avocats plaident pour et contre un professeur de sciences accusé du crime d'enseigner l'évolution.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Nommé pour 4 Oscars
- 3 victoires et 11 nominations au total
Avis à la une
But what stays most passionate about the film, and also at its most flawed, is its conviction about the issue. Kramer is a right director for this material, if not the best. It's full of passionate speeches- it could also be said 'preachy' not too ironically enough in some scenes- and blazing courtroom scenes that are not very realistic (the way the lawyers speak and speechify to the jury and the people in the courtroom and, of course, the audience in the theater), but somehow they're highly enjoyable. This doesn't mean the writing in the film is always great, or all of the characters. But the film is compulsively watchable 'issue' film-making, self-important but full of poignant touches.
The wisest choice that Kramer made, akin to what he did with The Defiant Ones, is put BIG actors in these BIG roles. Chiefly these are for Henry Drummond, the defense attorney played by Spencer Tracy, and the prosecutor Matt Brady played by Federic March (or rather, devoured by March). Like Frost/Nixon, the film becomes really as much about these two men, two old characters who have known each other over the years and have a real respect/hate relationship with one another (see the scene where they're on the rocking chairs to see their connection). So throughout the film, while the issue of evolution vs creationism is brought simmering to a boil, Tracy, a sensational actor, has to try to keep up with March who is so over the top that he cracks the ceiling with a sledgehammer.
Best of all is to see their showdown when Drummond puts Brady on the stand, a theatrical gesture but in keeping with the fact of the case (William Jennings Bryant really was called to stand during his own trial), and in having these two actors yell and stare and make big gestures at each other. If nothing else, it's worth it to watch the film for these two, though I might consider Tracy the winner overall, while March gets points in individual scenes, like when he grandstands towards the end when the case is dismissed (also when he stands up for the girl Rachel Brown when she is "damned" by her father, but as a calculating move to get her on the stand).
Which brings me to some of the flaws in the film. Kramer has a lot that he wants to say as a filmmaker, but he doesn't know how to tweak anything down past it being super theatrical. It would've helped, for example, to cut just a little of the dialog, some of the pompous exchanges between characters (albeit some of the dialog is actually pretty funny, mostly when Gene Kelly's reporter disses Brady). Another problem was Rachel Brown, who firstly is concocted as a contrivance (hey, let's make the daughter of the evangelical reverend also the fiancé of the science teacher), but more-so that she's just a lame character, poorly written like many characters end up being in Kramer films, if not anywhere near as bad as the daughter in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. And the last little moment of the film, when Drummond puts together two specific books together, is a completely tasteless gesture, meant to appease both the believer and non-believer sect after what was a satisfactory ending between Tracy and Kelly where the former tells off the latter.
But faults aside, the film does carry some legitimate power, and if nothing else I would watch it again just for the scenes between the two big stars. It's an actor's picture as much as a "message" picture, and as the themes carry some strong weight for discussion, not to mention the impressive semi-frightening sight of the Hillsboro religious mobs, it's really the actors who make it a (near) must-see.
All in all, there's no doubt whose side the movie's on. At times the backwoods fundamentalists are near caricatures, aggressively smug in their trust in the Bible and loud rejection of science as to humanity's origin. But it's important to note that Drummond's (Tracy) basically arguing for freedom of thought and not atheism per-se. Doing the latter would, of course, have spelled box-office doom. Still, it was pretty gutsy of Kramer to take on biblical literalism, even in 1960. In fact, Drummond's religious views are never made clear, though Kramer has him add the Bible to Darwin's tome as the movie closes.
I think it's fair to say that the movie takes a basically liberal position toward religion and reason, rejecting only that which cannot stand up to science. All in all, it's a histrionic powerhouse that at times fairly crackles with emotional give and take in an epic cultural clash.
I would be tempted to say that all you need is a basic knowledge of the plot and the ability to jump straight to the court room scenes, but that would be unfair. Watch the movie once and then after that you can simply watch the fireworks.
What can I say about the battle between Tracy and March? Nothing. Words fail me. This is one of the great battles on screen in any film. It should be seen by anyone who wants to see how "easy" acting should appear. All the more important is the fact that this is a battle of ideas that still matter today as much as then. If only all of the world's problem could be debated this perfectly we'd live in a happier place.
See this movie.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesTo heighten the tension of Spencer Tracy's final summation to the jury, the scene was filmed in a single take.
- GaffesDuring the voir dire phase of the trial concerning jury selection, Henry Drummond is forced to use his limited number of peremptory challenges to disallow prospective jurors who are obviously not interested in being impartial in any way to the point where one likens Prosecutor Matthew Brady to God. In that situation, Drummond should have called for such obviously biased prospective jurors to be struck for cause, a motion that can used an unlimited number of times with the permission of the court. If the court, which itself has obvious signs of partiality itself in the story, had rejected such a motion, Drummond could have resorted to using his peremptory challenges.
- Citations
Matthew Harrison Brady: We must not abandon faith! Faith is the most important thing!
Henry Drummond: Then why did God plague us with the capacity to think? Mr. Brady, why do you deny the one faculty of man that raises him above the other creatures of the earth, the power of his brain to reason? What other merit have we? The elephant is larger, the horse is swifter and stronger, the butterfly is far more beautiful, the mosquito is more prolific. Even the simple sponge is more durable. But does a sponge think?
Matthew Harrison Brady: I don't know. I'm a man, not a sponge!
Henry Drummond: But do you think a sponge thinks?
Matthew Harrison Brady: If the Lord wishes a sponge to think, it thinks!
Henry Drummond: Do you think a man should have the same privilege as a sponge?
Matthew Harrison Brady: Of course!
Henry Drummond: [Gesturing towards the defendant, Bertram Cates] Then this man wishes to have the same privilege of a sponge, he wishes to think!
- Versions alternativesDifferent versions of the opening credits exist with slightly different fonts. In general the film uses a copperplate-type font, but the early MGM widescreen DVD substitutes a different, rounder one on the three stars' names before the title, and has proportionally taller capitals throughout the rest. The Twilight Time Blu-ray uses the copperplate throughout with less pronounced size differences.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Viewpoint: Can We Bury the Hatchet? (1960)
- Bandes originales(Gimme Dat) Old Time Religion
(uncredited)
Traditional spiritual
Sung by Leslie Uggams at the start of the movie
Reprised often by the Townfolks
Variations included often in the score
Meilleurs choix
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Heredarás el viento
- Lieux de tournage
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 2 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Durée2 heures 8 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.66 : 1