Inherit the Wind

With the gradual liberal shift beginning to prevail in Hollywood in the mid 1950's, thanks to the strong opposition within the filmmaking community of the radical conservative policies regarding Communism, a new wave of court room dramas, steeped in realism, yet paced like action films, arrived. The best example of this type is Sidney Lumet's riveting "12 Angry Men", a film translation of a hit Broadway play in which a seemingly slam dunk guilty verdict dissolves over the course of one chaotic day of arguing in a jury room, thanks largely to the curiousity of one juror, played by Henry Fonda. Another film worth mentioning in this small sub-genre, also based on a successful Broadway play, is 1960's "Inherit the Wind". Directed by Stanley Kramer, the film is a dramatic interpretation of the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of the 1920's, one of the first significant clashes of culture in American society, a theme that is even more topical today as that rift has widended significantly in the 70 year interim. The Scopes Monkey trial concerned a high school biology teacher, John Scopes, imprisoned because he taught his students the theory of evolution (hence the monkey), in effect "renouncing" religious monotheistic doctrine, which states that God created the world, man included. The prosecution was headed by William Jennings Bryan, three time loser of the presidency of the United States, but still one of the most influential and powerful conservative politicians of the time. For the defense, Scopes was represented by celebrated trial lawyer Clarence Darrow. The trial became a national fascination, thanks to the larger than life personalities on either side of the case, and its legacy is incredibly important, considering the gap between the religious right and the liberal left today. The film version was no less celebrated, thanks to Spencer Tracy and Fredric March as Henry Drummond (Darrow) and Matthew Harrison Brady (Bryan) respectively, giving typical towering performances; their courtroom scenes are positively spellbinding, and the film as a whole is a startling depiction of problems we still see affecting politics today.

As the film opens, biology teacher Bertram Cates has just made his fateful decision, knowing full well the consequences that await him as the local police stand in the back of the classroom. Held in the town jail, the impending trial begins to attract national attention, thanks to newspaper columnist E.K. Hornbeck, writer for the Baltimore Sun. Played by Gene Kelly in a delightful, different turn for the actor, Hornbeck is ostensibly the film’s narrator, (somewhat) impartially observing from the vantage point of reporter, but really as invested as the entire town is. He chides the locals for their superstitious ways regarding religion, believing Cates is doomed to burn in Hell for his sins, and Kelly maintains a perfect sarcastic, comedic wit, making you wish he had stepped outside of his bread and butter zone more often. Hornbeck, like the two lawyers, is based on acclaimed satirist/columnist of the time H.L. Mencken, and in reality his paper did help pay for Scopes’ defense. The film portrays Matthew Harrison Brady as an old war horse, eager to remain relevant even as the times are passing him by. He jumps at the opportunity to prosecute in the case and enters the small town to a hero’s welcome (so much for an impartial jury). Also implied is a longstanding friendship between Brady and his ultimate adversary, Henry Drummond, who seemingly accepts the case more as a last duel with Brady than anything else. A devout agnostic and firm believer in modern science, Tracy plays Drummond with an air of reluctant enthusiasm, the once proud king of the jungle in the twilight of his career, but whose interest grows as the case becomes more heated. Brady’s main argument is that Cates broke the state law, forbidding the teaching of anything contrary to the theory of Divine conception. To him, it is a slam dunk. Drummond, like a fight, absorbs the obvious blows early, rolling with the punches as it were, until he launches into his (both Darrow the lawyer and Tracy the actor) signature speeches. As the trial plays out, the town slowly begins to take sides. Cates’ fiancee is daughter to the town’s preacher, and this is played out in a somewhat melodramatic subplot, but the friendship explored between Drummond and Brady is quite compelling. A quiet scene between the two men sitting on the porch of the lodging house they are sharing is so sublime it feels improvised, just two great actors, speaking as their respective characters would have.

The film’s climax comes when Drummond calls Brady to the stand as a witness for the defense. The move stuns the courtroom, but Brady, confident in an apparent victory, steps forward. Drummond proceeds to bombard him with questions concerning events regarded as biblical fact. Brady begins by curtly answering each question with a similar response, essentially “I believe everything in the Bible”. But Drummond keeps chiseling away, asking about Jonah and the whale, asking about turning water into wine and walking on water, and other miracles. His questions begin to create contradictions as an increasingly frustrated Brady attempts to answer in greater detail. Eventually Drummond gets the answer he wants, Brady throws his hands up and cries ignorance. Drummond has proved his point: no one can confirm biblical events, and a law attempting to do so will create a multitude of problems concerning interpretation. Despite a compelling case, one that leaves Brady visibly shaken, thanks to the stress, his age, weight and the crippling heat of the courtroom, the jury finds Cates guilty. However they impose a lenient fine, prompting a last gasp from Brady, before he drops dead from exertion. As the courtroom dismisses, Drummond and Hornbeck share a moment, each offering their thoughts on Brady; Drummond says he was “once a great man”, while Hornbeck is less kind, referring to the cause of death as a “busted belly”, broke by too much hot air. Despite the verdict, Drummond knows he has won, and the film definitely plays towards a victory for progressive thought, and a criticism towards religious bigotry and relative simple mindedness. In addition to its significant subject matter, the film also is celebrated for its two lead performances. Spencer Tracy and Fredric March were two long time veterans of Hollywood and Broadway, in an odd coincidence, both men had even portrayed the title roles in different film versions of “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”, and their performances here are typically impressive. The film was nominated for only four Academy Awards, Fredric March (whom I consider the more impressive of the two in this film) was not even nominated, nor was the picture or Stanley Kramer’s skilled direction. No matter though, the film has achieved its status as an American classic, one that is still relevant today.