|
Is such an image REALLY accurate about ANYONE. A teacher who shows this to his class is perpetuating this prejudice. But, isn't such a hateful portrayal itself bigoted, hateful, & intolerant. Use science to carry on this controversy - not ridicule. It was Darrow, not Bryant, who was cited for contempt for his rudeness. As for its content: The film is technically fine - a courtroom drama. The ACLU convinced Scopes to play this role and even the prosecution cooperated as a test case. And by the way, before you mock creationists, intelligent design proponents, religious people, or atheists, be intellectually honest by taking a couple of hours to hear the specifics of what your opponents are saying; have you ever even heard what they have to say.
Really, if such a movie targeted blacks or gays or Muslims, it would arouse an outcry, and it should. I did a little research on this movie and turned up some unpleasant truths: About once a decade, an "anti-religion propaganda film" comes out of Hollywood. And. Thus, it wasn't really a normal trial - this is why the defense freely admitted Scopes "guilt". As for the angry fundamentalist preacher and the violent lynch-mob, these were complete fiction - a straw man falsely representing only what the filmmaker WANTED to envision - in short, a lie.
Anyway, "hate & mockery" truly describe the spirit of this film - it is so extreme, it is almost unique in this way. Darrow was an avowed atheist who admitted in his own autobiography that his real goal for the case was to attack what he called "fundamentalists". For instance, no one arrested Scopes, the whole trial was initiated by the ACLU in order to overturn a penaltyless anti-evolution law. Here in Canada we are taught not to tolerate religious bigotry any more than racial bigotry. This movie, produced by an atheist Christian-hater, is simply a thinly disguised attack on Christians.
The whole movie deliberately twists the facts much like a Nazi or Soviet styled propaganda film. By contrast, Bryant, Darrow's opponent, was no intolerant, ignorant buffoon, as he is portrayed in the film - Bryant was chosen as the democratic candidate for president three times and was Wilson's Secretary of State. In fact, the last day of the trial this man broke his word by refusing to testify. But unfortunately, it is not faithful to the facts of the trial; in fact, the whole picture is essentially a lie. Scopes himself hadn't even taught evolution, the "defense" attorneys had coached the children three months later to say he had (read perjury). This movie is simply a deliberate slander: it has nothing to do with science - it was designed to slander Bible believers.
I can name three of them and this is one. Darrow wouldn't even let them testify because he knew what Bryant could do to them on the stand. And the scientists. Think about what you are really doing before you embrace this film.
Have you. Anyway, Scopes himself said in his autobiography that he was treated very well by everyone in town. The film does everything it can to portray southern American Christians as hateful, bigoted, intolerant, narrow-minded, ignorant, anti-scientific, and utterly unsophisticated. There are few films I'd actually condemn - this is one of about ten.
Scopes was not poor and defenseless either, a whole team of lawyers and scientists was brought from NYC by the ACLU. What Scopes had done is teach from a book which did teach evolution (the same textbook also declared evolution proved whites were superior to other races, by the way). Using this film in a science class does not teach science; rather, it trains children to despise Christians. Ridiculing others, as the filmmaker has so eagerly done, is just plain wrong.
Of course, I am all for it because evolution makes the most logical sense. It's basically a mocking of the religious people and their concept of life, and take that away, there isn't much else to speak of in the play because there is not enough of substance.
While I did like the play, I prefer to read the real thing: the transcripts, the description of the atmosphere, and the whole nine yards. What I really didn't like about Inherit the Wind is how childish it seems.
Inherit the Wind is a fictional play of a real trial that did happen in the early part of 20th century, tackling on the education of the students on evolution. I like to say that I felt a deep meaning within the play, but that's not the case.
Most of the time, I was feeling, "Is this a kangaroo court or what." Also, I didn't like a few of the characters, most especially E.K. Hornbeck the reporter from Baltimore.
In the end of the play, the idea of evolution eventually wins. All in all, Inherit the Wind is a good play filled with humor, but there is not enough of substance.
This was a must read for a college literature class. Although it is referred to as classic literature, it is very biased against Christians and those who believe in Intelligent Design. It makes christians look like the bully bad guys.
It was written decades ago, inspired on a famous trial that had taken place years earlier, yet Inherit the Wind feels as powerful and relevant today as, I imagine, did when it first opened on Broadway. That's a testament to the fantastic writing, of course, but unfortunately also shows how little we've learned since then.
Based upon the Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, TN, Inherit the Wind looks at the trial as a battle over the suppression of ideas that is reminiscent of Arthur Miller's The Crucible. However, it also includes some interesting thoughts reagarding fundamentalist interpretations of the bible. Some of these were taken from the actual testimony from the trial, although the book does take some liberties with history in order to make its point. Its themes are universal and the book/play definitely brings up some ideas that are still worthy of consideration today.
|
