Didnt the Teacher do all this just for publicity for the town? - Inherit the Wind (1960) Discussion

[–] Roquefort 12 years ago

Yes.

http://evolutionfacts.com/New-material/InherittheWind.htm

reply

[–] Karl Aksel 11 years ago

That link would have been much more credible if it provided a link to the actual transcripts. As it was, it was laced with creationist bias throughout. Transcripts are easily found, and from a cursory reading I can tell that the link blatantly lies in its portrayals. For example, the link makes this claim, which is an utter lie:

Bryan was courteous at all times in his handling of witnesses as an examination of the trial transcript will reveal. Darrow, on the other hand, was at times condescending and contemptuous in his treatment of witnesses, jurists, opposing lawyers and even the judge.

The exact opposite is true. Darrow was courteous, whereas Bryan did not let an opportunity pass to insult Darrow. Here is an excerpt (and if memory serves, the movie isn't far off):

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm

reply

[–] OeditpusRex 12 years ago

Yes and no. John T. Scopes was an evolutionist — or, so he said in court* — who believed in the right to teach his views. His interest in the case was in challenging Tennessee's Butler Act, which prohibited teachers in the state from teaching anything other than the bible's version of the origin of the species. (The law presented a conundrum, as the state-mandated text, Hunter's Civic Biology, had a chapter on evolution.)

To effect this challenge, though, Scopes agreed to be the key in the scheme cooked up by Dayton businessman George Rappleyea to accept the ACLU's offer to defend a Tennessean charged with teaching evolution. Rappleyea and others believed the trial would publicize Dayton, whose population had dropped by almost half in the previous 30 years.

So, a case could be made that Scopes did it for the publicity simply because he agreed to do it on those terms.

*"Your honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom — that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our constitution, of personal and religious freedom. I think the fine is unjust."

—Scopes' only statement during the trial, after he was found guilty and his $100 fine was imposed. (The World's Most Famous Court Trial, Clarence Darrow and William J. Bryan [1925])

reply

[–] Owlwise 11 years ago

Except that the film isn't about Scopes. It's based on the Scopes trial, but the characters are fictional, in order to explore the issues at hand. It's not a documentary, it's a philosphical drama about blind belief, tradition, reason, and the difference between those who opt for fear & those who opt for hope.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel 11 years ago

Which characters are fictional?

reply

[–] atlasmb 10 years ago

All of them are fictional, though some are based upon actual persons.

reply

[–] fcolli 10 years ago

That is true. It is also important to remember that the play was written to protest the excesses of the anti-communist hysteria of the 1950's, not as a reaction against creation science or intelligent design.

I disagree with what you are saying, but I will fight to your death for your right to say it;-)

reply

[–] atlasmb 10 years ago

Decades later, Lawrence said that the play was written to promote an individual's right to think. He also said that it was an allusion to the McCarthy Era's abuses.

Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" was presented in 1953, during McCarthyism, making it a bold statement. "Inherit the Wind" came years later, after McCarthyism, so Lawrence & Lee could have easily just written a play about McCarthyism. There was no need to write a play about another historic event as an indictment of McCarthyism, which had already been condemned. Also, McCarthyism encompasses a list of abominable behaviors (e.g. proclaiming guilt by association); the right of an individual to think could be considered one of them, but it is not the major thrust of it. You could say "The Crucible" was about the right of someone to be a witch, but that would be missing the point of the play.

As Drummond says, "An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral." That statement champions the power of man's intellect. Drummond asks that people not deny that faculty that separates man from other animals. He was not just championing the right to think, he was celebrating the power of intellectual thought. Faith, on the other hand, is not about the intellect. In fact the standard definition of faith has to do with believing in things that intellect denies. Given a choice, it is clear where Drummond comes down on this issue.

That said, Drummond is depicted as an agnostic. More importantly, he is willing to consider any evidence from any source. And he is definitely someone who would fight for the right of any theist to believe what he wishes.

reply

[–] kevin-bergin 8 years ago

He did not have a full time teaching job, although he was a football coach. He was probably not in any pension plan, no tenure track protection, etc.
Hey, it got him a graduate scholarship to University Of Chicago for geology and a career in the oil business.
As the song says, "freedom's just another word for nothing else to lose."

"It's the system, Lara. People will be different after the Revolution."

reply