One of the least historically acurate films dealing with US history.

To begin, let me say that I am no creationist. I also really appreciated the superb acting and the wonderfully intense dialogue throughout the film. However, the film totally distorts William Jennings Byran. The man was no right-winger or conservative, he was a classic rural populist (and borderline socialist) guy from Nebraska who, like most rural people in that era--most of whom were fundamentalists--were old-earth creationists.

---------------------------------------------------------

NOwhere in the film is it stated or implied that Bryan was a Republican or favored big business over the little guy. However, his views on religion vs science do square with the Republican party of today.

-------------------------------------------------------------

It's too bad we couldn't find a happy medium between faith and science, allowing students to be exposed to both side by side. I think WJB was more right than he was wrong. Too bad hollywood made him out to be a horrible glutenous man whose intelligence was lowly, what a disservice to our history.

---------------------------------------------------------------

That happy medium is expressed well in the film in the portrayal of Darrow. In his examination of Bryan, he notes that compromise is needed in this area. And the ending, where he weighs the Bible and The Origin of Species in his hands and walks out of the courtroom with both books says it all.

With all respect, it seems as much of a mistake to view ItW as an historical representation of the Scopes trial - and to criticize its accuracy on that basis - as it would be to do the same with Citizen Kane in regard to Wm. Randolph Hearst.

Kramer's film is an adaptation of the 1955 play, which was described by its authors as a parable of the time in which it was written: the McCarthy era, and the threat posed to freedom of thought. It's true that both the play and the film could be said to have chosen sides; they had a message to communicate, and finding both inspiration and parallels in earlier events, fictionalized them (and the participants involved) in order to convey it.

Your effort toward even-handedness in finding fault in both "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints is to be commended, but it seems to me that the "happy medium" you propose "between faith and science" is something already available, if only it's allowed to exist in the appropriate venues: lessons in science in public schooling; lessons in faith in churches and parochial or private schooling, with neither encroaching upon the other.

The issue of "morality in America" is somewhat more difficult to pin down, being both arbitrary and relative, depending upon one's viewpoint. A past which many view as a more moral time was, as you readily acknowledge, rife with racism, bigotry and, I'd add, all manner of other injustices. It's worth considering that strides made in the direction of abating such injustices represent the very opposite of moral desolation, and that what might be seen as the trade-off - the concern of each of us with our own morality rather than that of others as measured against our own subjective standards - is actually a win-win.





Poe! You are...avenged!

The movie is based on the case, it's not a biography.

This is a work of fiction inspired by and loosely based on historical events - even the characters' names are changed to spell that point out for you. One doesn't normally expect works of fiction that are by their own admission loosely based on historical events to be historically accurate, and if you do, the problem is with your expectations and not with the work of fiction.

Darwin's theory was only about evolution. He never explicitly said humans evolved from apes.

Damn Fine Film ...




Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about.
be kind, rewind...

If you get a copy of the published version of the play, the authors inserted a preface clarifying that this is not intended to be a historically faithful dramatization of the Scopes trial, which is why they changed all the names.

I don't understand how your post makes the film seem inaccurate. Everything you said was your own opinion.