Reflections on “Inherit the Wind”,
produced and directed by Stanley Kramer,
script by Nedrick Young and Harold Jacob Smith
(based on the play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E.
Lee),
starring Spencer Tracy, Fredric March and Gene Kelly.
A video presentation of this material is available here.
Introduction
The film (1960) and the play before it (1955) are
based on the Scopes Trial (commonly known as the Scopes Monkey Trial) of 1925
in which a young teacher of science (John T. Scopes) was brought to trial for
teaching the principles of evolution, thus infringing the recently passed
Butler Act which forbade the denial of the Biblical account of the creation of
life in state-run schools.
Although the film is generally faithful to the events,
arguments and spirit of the trial, with Matthew Brady replacing William
Jennings Bryan (former Secretary of State and three times presidential
candidate) who prosecuted Scopes, and Henry Drummond taking the place of
Clarence Darrow (noted lawyer and member of the American Civil Liberties Union)
who defended him, there are some notable differences.
The trial was envisaged (indeed concocted) by some
dignitaries of the town of Dayton in 1925 as a means of drawing attention to
their community and thus earning some cash. These dignitaries approached Scopes
to volunteer to be accused, though he wasn’t even certain he had actually
taught the principles of evolution as he simply followed the course book
provided for him by the state (information courtesy of Wikipedia).
There was no rabid preacher and no romance between his
daughter and Cates (who replaces Scopes) and, given the nature of Scopes’s initial
involvement and the fact he was never actually incarcerated, it is unlikely
there were any burning effigies or threats of hanging. Sadly, William Jennings
Bryan did die, but some five days after the end of the trial.
Clearly, changes and embellishments were made for the sake
of dramatic engagement, and these changes serve largely to clarify the
arguments and the potential impact of the monumental clash of principles and
standpoints on display in the film.
The film and main characters
The film opens with a meeting of local dignitaries
(town office bearers, civic leaders and businessmen) who are discussing whether
or not to prosecute teacher Bert Cates for violating the Butler Act by teaching
the principles of evolution. Some react against the challenging ideas of
Darwinism and want to uphold the status quo, and some want to bend with the
wind of change. However, all factions are united by the prospect of financial,
political and social gain for themselves and for the town as they realise the
extent of national interest likely to be aroused by the legal case they are
proposing, especially if none other than Matthew Brady (devout politician who
has run for the presidency three times) is willing to conduct the case for the
prosecution as he will attract even more attention and publicity.
It is clear, then, from the outset that although we
are dealing with high principles (boiling down to the place of God and science
in society), smaller minds are happy to take advantage of the situation for
more immediately secular gratification.
Before meeting the two representatives of the opposing
sides of the argument (Brady, against the teaching of evolution and
pro-Creationism, and Drummond, in favour of science as a means of attaining
truth, and opposed to blind faith and Creationism), we are introduced to
Hornbeck (based on journalist Henry Mencken), a reporter whose newspaper is
paying for Cates’s defence.
Hornbeck
Hornbeck (played by Gene Kelly) is a wise-cracking
cynic who pours scorn on religious fervor and seems to hold the town’s stance
(staunchly conservative and in favour of Creationism) in no high regard. He is intelligent,
educated, eloquent and knows his Bible, but he is disillusioned and playful
with almost everyone as he gently mocks nearly every adopted stance. Every walk
of life is likely to fall victim to his cutting, if often insightful, remarks
as he has perceived guileful manipulation of events and self-seeking promotion
in the stories he has covered. He may, however, have an underlying respect for
truth, justice and idealism (he tells Cates and his fiancée Rachel that he is
on their side and chides Rachel for her position that teachers should deliver
lessons they are instructed to teach, championing fresh ideas and original
thought), but he is only too aware of the selfish posturing of people in
authority and the mindless rejection of evidence and fact by the faithful. His
outlook appears to have been soured by his encounters and his experience, and
he copes by treating all situations with humour as he perceives apparent
absurdity in them all.
Apart from providing some
comic relief, Hornbeck may also serve to keep the viewer “grounded”. His
remarks can deflate the occasionally haughty arguments and defuse potential
conflict, and they remind us quickly and entertainingly of an alternative view
of things.
Bert Cates
The character of Bert
Cates, although clearly essential, can be viewed as little more than a
catalyst, certainly within the courtroom. He is a principled and upstanding
nice guy who makes a stand and wavers only once but is fairly easily persuaded
to maintain his position as his relatively minor crime is seized upon,
magnified and used by forces well beyond his normal domain for their own ends.
He is of more interest in
terms of his relationship with Rachel Brown, though once again the changes he
inspires in her character may be viewed as of greater interest than his own.
He comes into his own in
his conflict with the Reverend Brown when he refuses to accept the Reverend’s
heartless pronouncement on the fate of the soul of young Bobby Stebbins who
drowned in a tragic accident. As a result of his disagreement, Cates abandoned
the Church (though not God, according to Rachel) and this displays far more
strength of character and a willingness to think challenging and independent
thoughts than merely teaching a “questionable” lesson in a book. As such, he
inspires interest, admiration and support that he had perhaps lacked up to that
point, and with this storyline he makes a real contribution to the themes of
the piece.
Reverend Brown
Reverend Brown (an
invention for the play/film) represents an extreme of religious fervour. His
“fire and brimstone” approach to faith involves rabble-rousing, incitement to
hatred and violence, cursing his own daughter, and a refusal to admit challenge
or a differing point of view. Rather than Christian love, he inspires Old
Testament fear in his own daughter who, out of blind respect, obedience and
even a degree of brain-washing, is tempted to deny her own instincts and turn
away from her fiancé, Bert Cates. When questioned and confronted by his
daughter, he speaks directly to God and refuses to enter into a discussion with
her.
The Reverend Brown’s
faith in the Bible and the dogma of the Church are such that he declared that a
young lad who drowned in a tragic accident would burn in the fires of Hell
because he was not baptised. Bert Cates could not accept this and challenged
the Reverend’s whole perception of religion, suggesting it should offer
consolation, comfort and hope in times of despair, rather than condemnation.
This situation also leads to the beginning of a rift with his daughter Rachel
who comes to share Bert’s view of a kinder, gentler and less dogmatic religion,
and who tries to broach the subject with her father only to be shunned and
ignored.
The creation of Reverend
Brown provides dramatic impetus (both in terms of his relationship with Bert
Cates and a more emotionally charged reason for pursuing him to court, and in
terms of his terribly flawed and restricted relationship with his daughter),
but it also provides a picture of religious extremism – the possible result of
blind and total faith which denies challenge, interpretation, thought or
humanity.
Rachel Brown
Few of the characters
evolve as such in the course of the film – there is exposition of position and
a deepening understanding of their natures, but in terms of character
development, Rachel Brown is one of the most interesting characters due to the
change she undergoes during the film.
At the start, she is a
meek and timid girl who does not truly understand her fiancé’s stance (more or
less denouncing him), and we discover she is downright fearful of her father.
We realise the position she espoused vis-à-vis Cates is the result of her
father’s black-and-white view of life, but she has been influenced by time
spent with Cates and especially the conflict of views over the fate of young
Bobby Stebbins, and her rejection by her father when she tries to reason with
him causes her to doubt not just the validity of his stance with regard to
Bobby Stebbins, but his position on religion and life in general.
When the Reverend goes
overboard and tries to incite a crowd to violence, and then curses his daughter
for consorting with Cates, she is “saved” by Brady who offers a voice of
moderation and reason, calming the crowd and encouraging Rachel to confide in him.
She recounts the story of Bobby Stebbins and Cates’s reaction and it is clear
she shares Cates’s condemnation of her father’s hard-line mode of religious
interpretation. She pulls away from her father’s influence to become an
independent thinker, believing in a gentler and kinder interpretation of
Christianity, but without accepting Cates’s view either – she will not go so
far as to accept evolution. This represents a genuine evolution in her
character and demonstrates the advantages of the freedom of thought advocated
by Drummond.
When Brady puts her on
the stand and tries to manipulate her evidence about Cates and his abandonment
of the Church to his advantage, Rachel is terribly upset and disappointed by
Brady’s abuse of her confidence and his attempt to twist her evidence. This
exploitation of her trust may push her farther down the road of disillusion,
self-reliance and independent thought, while it also reveals a darker and more
desperate side of Brady’s character.
Matthew Brady
From the outset, Matthew
Brady seeks and enjoys the attention and publicity surrounding the case. In a
deliberate (and at times undignified) campaign of promotion for the case, Brady
not only participates in the veritable circus atmosphere, but is more than
willing to take on the role of ring-master. Speaking loudly, forcefully and at
every opportunity in defence of faith over reason and denying the importance of
knowledge, Brady is something of a rabble-rouser who encourages people to be
pleased with themselves and the status quo, and reject science and the
challenges it brings with it. Of course, there is no substance to his
“arguments” – he merely insists upon the traditional view of morality and
standards and suggests that science and knowledge may actually erode the values
by which people live, encouraging them to view advances in knowledge as harmful
and to be viewed with suspicion. He depends largely on his personal charm and
presence, resembling a dynamic and spirited evangelist trying to drum up
support for his cause.
Because of his constant
performance and his good-humoured attempts to ingratiate himself with the crowd
and manipulate their feelings, one wonders if he is as sincere as he might be.
He appears to be seizing an opportunity to promote himself as much as the cause
he purports to represent.
Presumably used to
winning arguments and debates with less charismatic and self-assured speakers
(which he would expect to face in the small town of Hillsboro), he is visibly
shaken when he discovers he will face Henry Drummond, “the most agile legal
mind of the twentieth century” (according to Hornbeck, whose paper has hired
Drummond). Brady’s reaction, though slightly comical, reveals something of the
man behind the act and suggests he is indeed producing (and maybe even living)
a performance. He may be less sure of himself than we imagine.
Brady and Drummond are
good friends and have known one another for years, suggesting society can
survive even profound differences of opinion. Late in the film there is a
lovely scene in which they hold a discussion while swinging in rocking chairs
(moving in different times to represent differing rhythms of life). Brady
shares that he sees religion as offering hope, and in response Drummond
recounts a tale of an idealised rocking horse he coveted as a boy and was
sorely disappointed by the poor-quality reality once it became his. He contends
that hope is not worth it if it requires ignorance, bigotry and hate in order
to be maintained. While Brady affirms faith in his convictions, Drummond seeks
and supports tangible truth and evidence.
Brady continues to
“grandstand”, whether it be in court or at a meal, currying favour with the
courtroom audience or pontificating for the benefit of reporters.
However, while attending
a meeting called by Reverend Brown at which he tries to incite violence and
curses his own daughter, Brady intervenes to preach forgiveness and defuses the
situation. Rachel turns to Brady as the embodiment of Christian values and
confides to him why Cates abandoned the Church and has an ongoing disagreement
with her father. Unfortunately, later in court Brady tries to use Rachel’s
information for his own ends, causing severe upset to the devout and sincere
Rachel, and revealing himself to be less high-minded and ethical than he might
have appeared. In desperation to bring Cates into disrepute and to win his
case, Brady resorts to verbal bullying of Rachel on the stand, which is frowned
upon by all present.
Brady has been reduced to
attempted character assassination because his attempts to prevent the proving
of the validity of the theory of evolution (experts were not allowed to provide
evidence) and defend the Biblical version of the creation of life have failed:
Unable to call witnesses
in defence of the validity of Darwinism, Drummond is forced to seek weaknesses
in the Biblical version of creation. He calls Brady himself as an expert on the
Bible to the stand, and through a number of questions (the original courtroom
exchange lasted two hours), Drummond is able to cast doubt on the Biblical
version due to inherent omissions, internal contradictions and what are now
seen (due to accepted scientific knowledge and understanding) as
impossibilities. Drummond then pushes Brady into conceding that man should be
free and allowed to think, suggesting that God had perhaps spoken to Darwin
(Drummond initially wanted to pursue a theory that Darwinism and Genesis may
not be irreconcilable, but as Brady had no knowledge of Darwin’s book, this was
abandoned), whereupon Brady claims God speaks to him and he is God’s messenger,
suggestions which lead to loss of confidence and even derision in the public
gallery.
An excess of faith can
lead to delusion, and many who profess a faith in God can confuse this with
faith in themselves.
Somewhat crushed at
losing this argument and at least some of his standing in the community as a
result of this and his bullying of Rachel, Brady hopes to redeem himself with a
final flourish in the form of a powerful summing-up, but he is denied this chance
due to legal technicalities. Incensed by the situation, Brady starts to spout
his speech anyway at the end of the trial, but is largely ignored. Overwhelmed,
Brady collapses and dies, leaving the question of his sincerity unanswered. Did
he participate in this circus merely for his own ends, seeing the case as an
opportunity to relaunch his flagging career? Did he genuinely seek to defend
the validity of Genesis? Was his collapse due to loss of face and standing
which his ego could not bear, or was it due to his strength of feeling and his
desire to defend the place of God in our society?
Henry Drummond
Just as Matthew Brady stands
for faith and the maintenance of the status quo, so Henry Drummond represents
advances in science, education and the development of free thought (at one
point Brady’s wife states Brady has stayed still while Drummond has moved on).
Drummond is the voice of reason whose guiding principle is the pursuit of
truth. For Drummond, this case is not just about evolution versus Genesis, it
is about the right to be different, the right to think and the right to express
those thoughts.
According to Drummond, an
idea is greater than a cathedral and the advance of knowledge is a greater
miracle than any in the Bible, but the cost of such ideas and knowledge (which
Drummond is willing to pay) is the abandonment of faith (or, as he has it,
frightening people with a fable).
Drummond and Brady are
very different characters and there is a considerable contrast in their
personalities and style. While Brady arrives with great fanfare and loves being
the centre of attention, Drummond arrives quietly and humbly by bus and is met
by Hornbeck alone. When Brady dines grandly and holds court surrounded by
representatives of the media, Drummond eats alone and very simply. While Brady
ingratiates himself with the local populace and the public in the courtroom,
Drummond suggests the community is an insult to the world and states he wishes
to withdraw from the case because he feels his client has already been found
guilty due to the narrow-mindedness and bigotry of the local inhabitants.
Drummond’s purpose is
relatively simple – he is there to champion truth and defend/protect the
advancement of knowledge and understanding. In order to do so, he sets out to
establish that evolution is perfectly reasonable and that the law (in the form
of the Butler Act) is at fault and is not justifiable as it effectively impedes
education.
One of the principal
purposes of education is to gain knowledge (as well as the skills that allow
the accumulation and processing of such knowledge, including reasoning and
thinking). If individuals are to achieve independence and dignity (further
purposes of education), then knowledge, thoughts and opinions should be freely
available so individuals can draw their own conclusions. All positions in an
argument should be justifiable and should be open to doubt and question. After
all, one cannot be sure one is right if one doesn’t admit the possibility of
being wrong. If a stance cannot be justified, or if it collapses in the face of
reasonable challenge, it may indeed be wrong.
Drummond sets out to
prove the basis in reason and fact of evolution, but he is dogged by bigotry
and intransigence – there is a sign saying “Read your Bible” above the entrance
of the court, the judge announces a prayer meeting at the end of a session,
there are public marches threatening violence and Drummond’s highly respected
men of science (called to act as witnesses for the validity of the theory of
evolution and therefore support its inclusion in the education programme) are
rejected as irrelevant to the case. Drummond is accused of putting the law on
trial rather than defend his client, and that is indeed what he attempts to do,
in order to defend his client.
Unable to adequately
defend evolution, Drummond is forced to try to cast doubt on the validity of
Genesis and calls Brady to the stand as an “expert” on the Bible. At first the
fundamental incompatibility of faith and reason prevents Drummond from making
any progress (one need not justify beliefs based on faith, only maintain them
as the faithful may simply deny the consequences of reason, as does Brady when
he claims God can do anything he pleases). However, by use of reason and by appealing
to accepted rules of science, Drummond identifies sufficient internal
contradictions and physical impossibilities in Genesis to fluster Brady, and he
coerces him into admitting that man should have the right to think and
therefore develop his theories and knowledge of himself and his world.
When pushed about the
nature of the Bible, Drummond willingly accepts it is a good book, but adds it
is not the only book – there are other ways of looking at things. Man cannot
live by faith alone, though he does not suggest he should do without it,
entirely. Indeed, at the end of the film when Drummond is tidying away his
things, he picks up both a copy of Darwin’s work on evolution and a copy of the
Bible, perhaps suggesting that man is a physical and spiritual being and that
while neither book may contain all the answers, much can be learned from both.
Before this, however,
Drummond has an exchange with Hornbeck whose sneering cynicism has rankled him.
Drummond reveals a sneaking regard for faith and denounces Hornbeck’s
insistence on believing in nothing. For Drummond, it is better to believe in
something than nothing, and he may even have a little faith himself (or at
least he finds the notion appealing). It appears man cannot live by science and
knowledge alone.
The decision of the jury
is that Cates is guilty as charged. Given the circumstances and the fact that
he did, in fact, break the law, there was surely never any real doubt as to the
legal outcome. However, the judge goes on to impose a very moderate sentence,
fining Cates just $100. So, while the principle of the Butler Act is
maintained, its impact is greatly diminished. The judge’s ruling appears to
recognise the inevitability of change and the eventual abandonment of the
principle behind the Butler Act. That said, it was finally repealed only in
1967 in face of concerns over comparison of education programmes in other
nations, especially Russia, and the increasing separation of religion and
public education.
The script (and I’m
afraid I don’t know to what extent the original play was adapted by the screen
writers) is remarkably literate and engaging given the potentially dry and
academic premise. Sincere and rousing proclamations of faith are countered by
concise and insightful arguments and observations. Each character makes a
contribution to the whole, and in addition to dramatic exposition which helps
develop and clarify the conflicting positions, the authors manage to inject a
reasonable amount of humour to make the whole more palatable and entertaining.
Of course, the intention
of the authors of the play was to draw parallels with McCarthyism (the Cold War
was at its height in the 1950s and there was a movement to protect America and
its perceived values from potential communist infiltration which led to
something of a witch-hunt of left-wing authors, or those who offered any
challenge to the political and social status quo), and defend the right of
citizens to think and express views that might be at odds with the accepted
political and social values.
A few of the performances
may be a little staid or stagy by comparison to modern standards, but all
acquit themselves well, and the towering performances by Spencer Tracy and
Fredric March make it worth watching by themselves. Each brings humanity,
complexity, sincerity and wiliness to his role, and each brings just enough
knowing humour to allow relief from the intensity and high drama of major
scenes.
Stanley Kramer manages to
inject life and interest into almost every scene and treats his audience with
respect and intelligence as he (and the writers) transform what is
fundamentally an intellectual argument into an emotionally engaging piece of
entertainment, the theme of which is as relevant today as it was at the time of
production and at the time of the trial itself.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this page. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie
