2 hrs & 8 min, b&w, 1960
The big debate in some
quarters about so-called Creationism vs. Evolution shows no sign of cooling
off. Strange to say this sizzling
controversy’s persistence has produced in my judgment at least one good result. It has made a much neglected motion picture
more appealing than it was fifty-four years ago when it was released. “Inherit the Wind,” Producer/Director Stanley
Kramer’s excellent adaptation of the hit play of the 1950s by Jerome Lawrence
and Robert E. Lee, hardly made a ripple among the general public when it bowed
in at movie houses during the summer of 1960, long before the term Creationism
was even invented. At the time the story is set
(the 1920s), so much was unknown at the grass roots about Darwin’s theory, his
contention that human mortals were not fashioned out of the dust in six days
but evolved from ape-like creatures over millions of eons, but enough was known
for fundamentalists in the Bible Belt and elsewhere to dismiss his idea out of
hand as a form of flagrant apostasy, something “right out of the pits of
hell.”
There
was, however, one community in Tennessee at that time that became exceedingly
familiar with the controversy, more than they wanted to be, when the whole
furor was dumped upon their doorsteps. A
public school teacher in that town was arrested for introducing his class to
Darwin in violation of a state ordinance prohibiting the teaching of any theory
of the origin of man contrary to the Genesis account. Other states had similar laws, but only in
Tennessee was anybody ever charged with an infringement. Only in Tennessee was the viability of such a
law ever put to the test. The result of
that testing is not something that I would suppose the average resident or
native of Tennessee enjoys looking back on.
At least that is my guess. The
ensuing battle in the courtroom has been colloquially referred to as the
“Monkey Trial.” A more enlightened name
for it is the “Scopes Trial,” Scopes being the name of the prosecuted
teacher.
The
story is well named, “Inherit the Wind.”
The phrase is taken from a verse in the Book of Proverbs: “He that
troubles his own house shall inherit the wind, and the fool shall be servant to
the wise in heart.” Wind there is plenty
of in the film, generated by passionate rhetoric and exceptional gifts of
oratory, and it blows with the strength of a fierce electric storm. Any thinking person cannot help being totally
absorbed. The play that made it to the
screen is a fictional enlargement upon that factual event. All the names, including that of the town as
well as the notables involved, have been changed. At least three television versions have come
forth over the subsequent decades, but none of them has achieved the power and
driving force of Kramer’s. For purposes
of televising, they were all somewhat trimmed and abbreviated, broken up by
commercials and the restrictive demand of predetermined air time. But Kramer, under no such restriction on the
big screen, spared no detail; he even added scenes that enlarge upon the issues
as well as the fine points of personality, Scriptural interpretation and
legality. He portrays the small town
affair as having the ambiance of a circus, as the outside media world descends
upon the previously isolated rural hamlet, and he uses his fluid camera to
highlight absurdity and elements of satire when it seems appropriate.
There
are numerous touches of pure brilliance, one of which is the opening pan shot
of the town square, accompanied on the soundtrack by a very slow-paced, doleful
singing of “That Old Time Religion.” A
familiar, lively evangelical song treated as a funeral march! Foreshadowing the coming of a war of strong
wills which somebody is going to lose!
The credits roll as we see the hand of intrigue at work in that square –
the community elders moving toward the schoolhouse to make the arrest of the
teacher. But the mood quickly shifts,
once the arrest is made, as the unsuspecting town bursts into life absorbing
the news. From that point on the movie
has pace and delivers one wallop after another.
Another
move on Kramer’s part in making the work superior is the decision to cast two
icons to fill the leading roles of prosecutor and defender, both of them two
time Oscar winners. Here, though the
characters’ names may be fictitious, little is done to disguise the identities
of Clarence Darrow for the defense and William Jennings Bryan for the
prosecution. These two men made
indelible history in that remote place.
Spencer Tracy has one of his finer moments on screen as the Darrow-like
defender. He has the appearance of a
tired warhorse who has suffered through many a battle for the dignity of
vulnerable individuals standing before the formidable bar of blind
justice. Paunchy and gravel voiced, he
scarcely needs to breathe his well chosen words to coil his way into the
listener’s mind. There is also the
quality of naturalism that he always employed.
He was the first notable naturalistic actor in American movies. (Once asked by a student aspiring to learn to
act if he had any advice to give about the craft; with a cool tongue he
replied, “Yeah, don’t let anybody catch you at it.”) If Kramer had been able to resurrect Darrow
from the grave, he could not have improved on Tracy.
The
other giant is Fredric March, as much a veteran at the time as Tracy. He too improves on every other rendition of
the character of the prosecutor we have since seen. His more expansive style of delivering a
line, in contrast to Tracy’s naturalism, serves equally as well in making the
Bryan-like figure come to exciting life.
The man he embodies is the sharp witted, well dressed super salesman in
political and pious trappings, and super self-confident, until the heat and
ferment of the trial betray a hidden and fatal flaw. Gene Kelly does himself quite proud as the
cynical journalist covering the big story, inspired by the figure of H. L.
Mencken, who actually did. The jailed
teacher, also a somewhat conflicted person at first, is played with forthright
tenacity and emotional clarity by Dick York.
He is actually a completely fictional character, in
love with and engaged to Donna Anderson, the daughter of the town’s leading
cleric, who is quite active in the prosecution of the defendant. Scopes himself was single at the time but not
romantically involved with anyone. I
guess the playwrights felt obligated to hand the audience a love theme. Needless to say, the young woman is put into
a very awkward predicament and almost sinks her fiance’s ship.
The
trial is by all standards a travesty of impartial justice. The rulings this judge (Harry Morgan) makes
could not be made today without bringing down the wrath of the Justice System
upon his head. A mistrial would be a
cinch to obtain. And at the very least
any lawyer in Darrow’s place would early on petition for a change of
venue. But back then local jurisprudence
did not fall so squarely under the searchlight of Federal authority, especially
in the prosecution of a controversial law of mostly regional interest. As for the guilt or innocence of the accused
in this case, I have to say that the final verdict is not the end of the
proceedings but the first of a series of climaxes that have a most sobering
effect upon all the parties involved, including the spectators. What was won or lost to this day remains a
matter of opinion and perception.
The
film is so thick with earthshaking issues and questions that just about each
and every scene could be an extensive subject for discussion by itself. Science and the Bible, judicial prerogative
and precedent, intellectual freedom, the education of young minds, the sanctity
of truth, the mixed blessing of democracy, freedom of the press – you name
it! Thought-provoking, ironically
humorous, eloquent, explosive and uplifting!
What a feast!
To read other entries in my
blog, please consult its website:
enspiritus.blogspot.com. To learn
about me consult on the website the blog entry for August 9, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment