There are few political topics of ethics and morality as relevant today as they were in 1925 as the debate over evolution and Creationism. Stanley Kramer’s “Inherit the Wind,” a film adaptation of a play based on the real life events of the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial, has aged remarkably well because of it.
The film is accurate in every detail except the names of the main players. It tells how a town arrested a teacher in 1925 for teaching evolution, revered a presidential candidate serving as the prosecutor as a prophet and demanded him hung for spreading his atheist teachings and disputing the holy word of God. The Baltimore Sun sent a reporter and a famous lawyer to defend the teacher, and a battle between the right to think and the belief that faith is more holy than thought raged on.
I was stricken by how strongly Frederic March’s Matthew Harrison Brady (in actuality William Jennings Bryan) defended fundamentalism, so confident of the Bible’s literal translation and stubborn to complete ignorance to anything else, and further how he as a prosecutor convinced the townspeople and the courtroom that this was the virtuous path to follow. March plays his character as such a broiling hothead, a religious zealot if there ever was one, and combine that with a pompous movie lawyer and you have a hell of a character.
His speeches, and Kramer gives great weight and time to speak from both parties, are so firmly set in this religious mind set that God is the end all and be all of everything that much of what he says is almost unbearable to listen to. But that is to say that the arguments surprisingly reflect similar stances that would be taken today by strict Creationists.
The lawyer Henry Drummond (in actuality Clarence Darrow) as played brilliantly by Spencer Tracy, is forced to argue on semantic pretenses outside of terms of science or morality in order to destroy Brady’s argument, and I was again amazed at how relevant this all seemed. If I were Drummond, or better if this took place today, I would find it very difficult to not lose it on these people and just flat out say how wrong they are.
Let me say none of this should have any bearing on my position on God, but these are just a few observations in regards to evolution and how it is defended today.
As a movie, it is very well performed and even looks impressive thanks to striking black and white cinematography by Ernest Laszlo that proves once again how black and white can be a strong friend to actors. I especially enjoyed Gene Kelly’s performance as the cynical journalist. Never before has the happy dancing legend of “Singin’ in the Rain” and “An American in Paris” made me both hate and love him so.
I will say some of the film feels a bit too “written” and can be fairly cute and jokey with its dialogue. And for a Kramer picture, it is still very relevant. Kramer was a legendary movie producer and director of movies like “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” and “The Defiant Ones.” Nearly all of his films were “message movies,” movies that contemplated prejudices and morality and made no secret about it. In that way, I can’t think of a more “appropriate” director for this material than Kramer, and the evolution debate has held up quite well whereas something like “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” has aged terribly.