this is an offensive movie!
I haven't seen it, but i read a very detailed synopsis on christian-right.com.
shareOffensive my eye, just a film regarding one of the longest going debates which is going to continue until Judgment Day.
share
MovieChat Forums > Inherit the Wind (1960) Discussion > this is an offensive movie!
Dude, don't be a sheep.
Watch it and make up your own mind.
I see you have the machine that goes PING
This movie is offensive, if you think it has anything to do with the Scopes monkey trial of the 1920s.
The whole circus was cooked up by the town leaders of Carthage Tennesee.They were looking for a way to gain some free publicity, and with Darwinism being debated all over the country, They went to work.
First they found a willing villian/victim. Scopes was a substitute teacher who agreed to say he used a text that hinted a evolution. Someone agreed to file a complaint, he was arrested. And so began the most hyped misdemeanor trial in history.
When people claim this was trial about evolution, censorship or academic freedom, they don't know what those words mean. Evolution was used all over the country in intelectual circles to justify everything from eugenics to Jim Crow laws.
Dude, keep your hair on. What you described would make a really boring movie. It's called "artistic license."
And by the way, the "circus" was actually put together by the ACLU, who discovered the law on the Tennessee books and wanted to challenge it in order to show people how ridiculous this was. See, Governor Peay only signed it into law because he didn't think anyone would raise any hoopla over it. Scopes was not a substitute teacher, he was a regular teacher at Rhea County HS and also the coach of the football team - he was actually quite popular, which fueled the fire.
And just because it's been used to justify bad things doesn't make it bad. Look what Christianity has been used to justify.
SHE'S SNUFFED IT! SHE IS NO MORE!
THIS IS AN EX-WEEVIL.
"Artistic License" should not be used to change history. Or be used to slander your political opponents, or clean up those you agree with.
If you can stand to stomach it, try watching one of hollywoods biopics of Margret Sanger. Never once is the word "eugenics" used. She herself would be infuriated that the concept she worked for her whole life would be swept under the rug.
mndude - in order for something to be "based on" real events, one out of every 100 things has to be true. The movie, and the play it was based on, were marketed as FICTION, not a documentary. While five characters (Drummond, Brady, Cates, Hornbeck, and the judge) were at least loosely based on real people, most of the others were created - like the Brown family. It's a fictional piece, and anyone who bothers to look up information about the Scopes trial will quickly learn this. And the fact that it's fictional doesn't change the fact that it's an excellent, thought-provoking film.
Like I said, the real Scopes trial would make for a very dry movie. A nice documentary, maybe, if anyone wanted to do it, but not a drama.
As to biopics of Margaret Sanger, I have no idea what you're talking about, so I can't comment.
SHE'S SNUFFED IT! SHE IS NO MORE!
THIS IS AN EX-WEEVIL.
If anyone bothered to look it up is the problem. Nobody does. Movies become history. In "JFK" Allan Dulles is portrayed as a president killer, not as the great public servant he was. In the movie "monster" The killers first victim is shown brutally raping her before she kills him. Theres no evidence of that, even the killer denies it. But now his family will have to live with that lie just so the film makers can give their subject some nuance.
My point is rewrighting history can have victims. Like in "The Accused" Jody Foster's rapists were portrayed as Blue collar all American working men. In the actual case it was based on, the accused were recent Portugese immigrants. You may ask "so what?" but if the reverse were true and a crime commited by native born white Americans were portrayed as commited by foriegners, you can bet there would be outrage.
My biggest problem with "Inherit the wind" is more with the anti-democratic tone of the film. The people through their elected representatives decided that the schools their tax money pays for will not teach evolution. Teachers don't have a right teach whatever they damn well please. Not in a public school. If your child was being taught holocost revisionism by his history teacher, I would hope you would try to put a stop to it.
"If your child was being taught holocost revisionism by his history teacher, I would hope you would try to put a stop to it."
Depends on the class and the context. I would kill any history teacher who tried to claim the Holocaust didn't happen, but <i>Triumph of the Will</i> should be required viewing for history and filmmaking students, to give them some insights into WHY nobody seemed to want to stand up against Hitler.
Again, BASED ON = one real happening out of every hundred. It's not the filmmakers' faults if people are going to be stupid about it.
Teachers may not have the right to teach anything, but SCIENCE teachers should have the right to teach SCIENCE.
THE MARQUIS: HES IN UR PRISONS, RITIN TEH SMUTFIC
Democracy has nothing to do with scientific fact. Even elected representatives don't get to rearrange reality, any more than they can pass a law to make pi equal to 3, to make geometry easier.
shareZING! There is no web site called "christian-right.com" is there?
Kodak makes films, Hollywood makes MOVIES!
lol. I guess not.
I'm really looking forward to yesterday.
oh god, why don't you watch the movie and decide for yourself. Part of the point was that people didn't give thoes who believe in evolution a chance to prove their point. They just blindly followed whatever their leaders said without question. The christian-right.com would have a bised view towards it. But watch the film and then decide for yourself weither it's offensive or not.
Then you can post here with absolute knowledge of the film and point out what you though it was offensive.
....idiot...
Wow! Great come back. I'm floored by your counterpoint, your perswasive argument. Now go and watch the movie and tell me if you thought it was bised or not.
*Forever Cho Chang Fan*
Cho's story continues at: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/1552296/1/
Idiot is a more then adequate response, in fact given the history of philosophical thought it's quite witty in its brevity.
In 398 BC, Socrates was lecturing to his secound rated, loyal hanger-ons on some crap about physics, then Thrasymachus got up and said 'STFU you n00b!' Then the whole gymnasium fell into disarray, Socrates the great teacher had just been totally pwned by an n00bling and his authority was undermined. He got so upset he tried to get drunk in order to forget about it and accidentally drank the hemlock.
People to this day thought he killed himself on the order of the state, truth is that the 'trial of Socrates' was on something unimportant and unrelated, library fines I think. The truth is that he did a Heath Ledger, anyone else saying something else is a liar. And a peado. That is all.
REAL STORY!!!!
peado? is that someone who has a fetish for small rodents inserted in the behind?
There's enough feces here to chase a coprophiliac from their desires.
You are an example of a classic religious sheep who is unable to think for yourself.
I am a four eyed evil genius.
Well I'm sure the Christian reviewers were very candid and objective...lol.
share