Inherit the Wind

I am sad that these two great actors are no longer with us. They both gave so much to us via Hollywood. This movie is one of many productions where their talent shined.

Inherit the Wind -1999- is about a teacher who was tried for teaching evolution back in 1925. The writers and director portrayed both men as honorable, intelligent members of society who simply had a different viewpoint. Unlike movies like Runaway Jury -2003- which demonized the firearm industry, and portrayed the other side as kind and caring. This film, Inherit the Wind, handled both sides of the Evolution debate seriously. Runaway Jury for example, had a jury member initiate the pledge of allegiance in court. A silly stunt that took the credibility of the movie away.

I highly recommend this film for the whole family and teachers should show this film for their students to watch. I am sure the discussions afterwards should be quite interesting.

--shutterbug--

The Showtime cable channel has scored another success here. Recently Showtime gave us Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott in a remake of 12 ANGRY MEN, and now we have these two excellent actors in the remake of INHERIT THE WIND.

The fictionalized retelling of the famous "Monkey Trial" is an interesting study in what is still with us -- the struggle between literal interpretation of the Bible and secular science. The point that INHERIT THE WIND makes is that there may be no contradiction between science and religion -- but that by looking at the letter and not the spirit of religion, we create divisions for ourselves and will eventually inherit the wind. In other words, we will inherit nothing but talk.

The cast is excellent. This is a worthy successor to the powerful 1960 film.

This film is a remake of a 1960 movie about the 'Scopes' monkey trial in July of 1925, argued by prominent statesman William Jennings Bryan (for the prosecution and the Bible) and equally the prominent Clarence Darrow (for the defense, scientific thought and Darwin). Rather than compare it with the original, which I understand was brilliant, I will evaluate it on its own.

This is a powerful and thought provoking courtroom drama about a school teacher who was arrested for teaching evolution, then considered a heresy against God and the bible. The topic is unfortunately as timely today as it was 75 years ago. The film is extremely effective at illustrating the pervasive ignorance and fear so prevalent in fundamentalist religions. It depicts with great clarity, the frenzied and irrational efforts undertaken to suppress any knowledge that threatens to debunk the myth and simple minded traditions that bind the faithful together.

Unfortunately, the presentation of the story had certain flaws that kept it from being a truly great film. My biggest objections are all directorial. First, this film was visually mediocre and pedestrian. The camera basically followed the speaker around the room at the same angles from pretty much the same distances. There were very few reaction shots which would have greatly enhanced the drama. I don't think there was a single reaction shot of any member of the jury and only a couple from the gallery.

Director Daniel Petrie takes enormous artistic license in presenting the trial. The way it was portrayed it seemed more like an unmoderated debate between the lawyers than a criminal trial with rules of court. Granted, it was a small town in 1925, but this was ridiculous. In real trials, lawyers have two opportunities to give speeches in a trial, in opening and closing statements. During the trial itself, they are only to ask questions and gather evidence under very strict rules. They can't give speeches or lead the witness or inject their opinion about a witness' testimony. This was flouted in the film as lawyers violated these rules repeatedly with nary an objection from the other side. Ironically, the most important speeches of the trial, closing arguments were completely missing from the film.

I found Jack Lemon's portrayal of defense lawyer Henry Drummond to be disturbingly restrained. Lemon is clearly capable of unfettered rage and indignation, yet he played his character with resignation and defeatism rather than frustration and wrath. He simply didn't fight hard enough for the principles in which he supposedly believed. I blame this on Petrie.

Without question, the performance of the film belonged to George C. Scott in his last performance before his death (a stunning coincidence since William Jennings Bryan, on whom Scott's character is based, died shortly after this trial. So it was his last performance as well). Scott is magnificent as the bible thumping prosecutor rattling the rafters of the little courthouse with his booming gravel voice. This was the type of part Scott was born to play and it may have been his best performance since Patton. For this reason alone this film should be on every film buff's list. If only Lemon brought similar fire to his part, this film would have been riveting.

Beau Bridges was a bit overly obnoxious as the sardonic reporter E.K. Hornbeck. The role called for a good deal of cynicism, but Bridges got carried away.

Lane Smith gives a terrific performance as the Lord possessed Reverend Brown, who damns his own daughter to hell for refusing to renounce her love for her fiance Cates, the accused school teacher. His sermon at the prayer meeting was more than worthy of any cable TV evangelist.

I gave this film a 7/10. I think it would be rated higher by most people who think of a courtroom as more of a dramatic setting than place of justice. Overall it is a credible update of a topic that should remain in the forefront of our minds if we hope to continue living in a free and rational society.

I'm sure we'll see another version of Inherit The Wind with some of the players of a new generation. This story about religion being written into the civil law is sadly not out of style.

When the first version that starred Spencer Tracy and Fredric March came out it was heralded as the Broadway play it was based on. But in 1960 it was looked on as look back to another era where we presumably learned of the folly of imposing religious views on the body politic. I don't think anyone thought that the religious right would reawaken and become the force it has. Not in 1999 when this film came out or when another version that starred Kirk Douglas and Jason Robards, Jr. was made in 1988. All three versions have a chilling timeliness about them now.

Tom Everett Scott is the high school biology teacher who violates a newly passed law making the teaching of Charles Darwin's The Origin Of The Species a crime. He's the first charged under this new Tennessee statute and three times presidential candidate Matthew Harrison Brady modeled on William Jennings Bryan volunteers to be on the prosecution team.

Of course that generates a lot of publicity and Henry Drummond based on Clarence Darrow is brought in to defend.

In the original film Fredric March really got the Bryan character down pat. But George C. Scott is a fascinating Matthew Harrison Brady. Certainly the most fanatical of the group. Then again few actors could get as intense as George C. Scott.

Jack Lemmon is a more relaxed and low key Henry Drummond. He was not in real life as noble a character as Spencer Tracy played him in 1960. Jason Robards, Jr. in the 1988 film was the closest to the real Clarence Darrow. But closer than Robards is Orson Welles as Jonathan Wilk from the 1959 film Compulsion based on the Leopold/Loeb murder case.

Of course the highlight in the film and the real trial itself is the confrontation when Drummond(Darrow) calls Brady(Bryan) as an expert witness on the Bible. Then as now how willfully ignorant Lemmon shows Scott to be. Not just ignorant but determinedly so and determined to keep all views but his own out of our educational system.

I can hardly wait for this oft told tale to be told again. Till then this and the other version are to be seen and seen again.

How do you improve a great film? You don't. Showtime tried, with George C Scott and Jack Lemmon as the opponents in the 1925 Scopes Monkey trials story, but just as Kirk Douglas and Jason Robards Jr failed to so in 1988, this version doesn't come close to the brilliance of the Fredric March-Spencer Tracy version on 1960.

Scott doesn't seem to know how he wants to play Matthew Harrison Brady, the Biblical prosecutor of heavenly Hillsboro. He doesn't seem emotional at the right times. Lemmon, on the other doesn't try to be Tracy and thus his performance as Henry Drummond is more believable than Scott's. The two best performances are by Beau Bridges as EK Hornbeck and by John Cullum as the judge.

The biggest sins are committed by the secondary leads, Tom Everett Scott as Bertram Cates and Lane Smith as Reverand Brown can't find the fire displayed by Dick York, and Claude Akins in the Stanley Kramer Classic. And despite the fact that Donna Anderson was weak as Rachel Brown in the original, Kathryn Morris in this version, was weaker, in fact one can't feel any sympathy for Rachel after watching Ms Morris.

Still, it's tough to ruin a great story. Inherit The Wind is a classic that is successful despite subpar acting and a directing job that virtually duplicates Stanley Kramer's film, scene for scene.

The question is, why bother?