So many fools posting on IMDB

You still have not commented on the quality of the film, either. You went for the History and the History of the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 is public domain.

If you are "paid" to teach, you scare me more. The educators I know get paid squat so thier interest is more in the love and teaching of education rather than the dispute of it. I love to educate people in entertainment advertsing and Public relations at this point becuase I've spent so many years in it as a working professional. Not everyone in these areas have had my experience, and the young adults today may be more experienced in it right now than I am because of technology.

Law has changed since 1925 (thanks to progressing trials and ammendments) but this is being put before courts as recently as 2005. And as many trials as I have sat through, law is really boaring and long. This is a two hour film. A darn good peice of celluloid fiction-drama based on a factual case headlines and concluding with the same case result.

"Popularity does not imply truth."

And who are you to tell anyone how they should view this film? I don't recall anyone setting you up as any kind of authority on this or any other film. Maybe you should investigate your own anger before you go on senseless rants like the one you posted. I'm very glad people have different takes on what this film means to them. I find it very interesting to read different points of view about this film and others.

Don't be ridiculous.

As a teacher I'd think you'd be familiar with the concept of using historical facts to examine wider issues. The film was intended to do exactly what you accuse it of trampling on - make a point about truth and freedom of thought and speech, and the obligation of the law to uphold those rights. This is about the Scopes trial in the same way that Richard III is about real dynastic politics in 15th century England, or "Amadeus" is a biopic of Mozart, ie not at all.




It's Eyre. As in Jane.