User reviews

It's a rare American film that takes the grand clash of ideas as almost its entire central subject matter, and Inherit The Wind has for that reason alone for long been a personal favourite. It's also a film that features some outstanding, larger than life acting, notably from the leads, whether it is Tracy, playing the crusty liberal for whom "an idea is more important than a monument" or the superb March, his performance full of facial tics and movement, and whose fundamentalist character does "not think about what I do not think about." Director Kramer clearly places his sympathies in the former camp, although he does not bludgeon the audience with preconceptions. In fact as a filmmaker he had a reputation for making movies that held opinions and took stands, with a particular weakness for courtroom scenarios. Inherit The Wind came after the post-apocalyptic On The Beach, and just before the sombre Judgement At Nuremberg (also with Tracy). In the mid-1970s the director also made three 'judgement' films for TV based on other real trials.

Whilst On The Beach offers a verdict of its own on humanity's military foolishness, and Judgement At Nuremberg is a just as sombre account of another judicial milestone of different significance, arguably Inherit The Wind falls neatly between the two in ways other than just the order of production. Like On The Beach, it makes its judgement too: not on a worldwide disaster visited by man upon himself, but on the perils of stifling free thought. And, as in Judgement At Nuremberg, it's a trial of ideas here too. But whereas the evil ideology of the Nazis ultimately brought millions to their deaths and stands condemned with its architects, it is enough in Hillsboro that "That if you take a law like evolution and you make it a crime to teach it... tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it. And soon you may ban books... because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding." In fact Tracy and March, with Kelly's able help, hold the centre stage for so much of the time that despite their best efforts the supporting cast seem a little enervated. The romantic subplot between Cates and his girlfriend (ostracised by her father for straying into the wrong camp) is occasionally a little cloying and, upon reflection is too much of a reflection from the main event. More damagingly, the character of the Rev. Jeremiah Brown, as portrayed by a miscast Claude Akins, is so fervent and cold hearted in the cause of the righteous that it occasionally wonders too close to self parody. An improvement to historical events is made by the introduction of a, for the most part, even-handed trial Judge Mel. It is he who provides an anchor for the audience in court as the two heavy weights slug it over points of order and procedural objections. Judge Mel also provides one of the trials more memorable, quiet moments when, just as it did in the real case, he finds the increasingly frustrated Drummond in contempt of court - only to see the fine which he levies paid for by the parents of a drowned child condemned by the fundamentalist lobby.

In the light of today's religious debates in the US, Inherit The Wind seems braver than ever, and Tracy's character is allowed several hard hitting outbursts which, one wonders, would remain as so powerfully expressed if rewritten for a modern retelling. When he says, "I don't swear for the hell of it. Language is a poor enough means of communication. We've got to use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words anybody understands" we all know what he means. And when he campaigns for a man to have the same right to think "as a sponge" it's a moment that remains starkly memorable. Curiously, a less emotional Darrow variant was essayed a year earlier by Orson Welles in Compulsion (1959), a version of another famous criminal trial. Inherit The Wind has been remade thrice more to good, but ultimately less memorable, effect (including once with Kirk Douglas) but the Kramer version remains ahead.

Dramatic variances aside, inevitably any presentation of the Scopes trial, and such controversial material as it contains, will never please everyone. The source play upon which Kramer's film is based simplifies matters a little too readily and other criticisms can be made: for instance the original textbook from which the schoolteacher was convicted of teaching illegally evidently contained an advocacy of racist policies and eugenics unacceptable today while it also accepted the notorious Piltdown forgery as genuine proof of a 'missing link' and so on. Again, the relationship between Bryan and Darrow was more complicated in real life than the film has time or care to show - although ultimately one is so caught up in the fairground of judicial combat as the case progresses that one forgives such accommodations with the truth.

Inherit The Wind stands badly in need of a decent special edition, a golden opportunity perhaps being offered by the widely followed 2005 debate that took place in Pennsylvania. The current disc offers little more than the film, although the widescreen presentation does justice to the splendid black-and-white cinematography of Ernest Laszlo, which effectively conveys the sweaty claustrophobia of small town, Bible-belt America. Whether or not the hesitation in bringing out such a potentially controversial, expanded package is a matter of intelligent design or just random selection, the public will have to judge for itself.

The pleasure! Spencer Tracy and Frederic March going at each other. Masterfully spot on. As in most works of art, the passing of time adds to its relevance. Very much true in this case. Fanaticism without reason, such an everyday occurrence in our daily 2007 lives. There is nobody more deaf than the one who doesn't want to hear.Spencer Tracy personifies the truth, everything he utters is immediately believable. The cross examination of Frederic March is a classic on his own. The only discording notes are: the presence of Gene Kelly - very distracting indeed -and Claude Aikens in a way over the top performance. The way the trial is shot reminded me of the brilliant blocking of another Stanley Kramer film with Acting Giants And Relevant Themes "Judgement At Neuremberg" If you haven' seen "Inherit The Wind" do so, if you have, see it again and share the experience with your kids. I highly recommend it.

Sometimes a film becomes dated over time, that it lacks relevancy due to the way its filmed and its content. But in the case of Inherit the Wind, Stanley Kramer's production in terms of acting and staging is dated, but the themes are sadly still painfully relevant. Evolution vs. Creationism is still a hot button topic, though of course it shouldn't be (and the Supreme Court has ruled against Creationism as unconstitutional), but maybe even more shocking is to see the town of Hillsboro and how it could be like some small towns in America, mostly the South and the Midwest. One wonders if the mob could be as large and howling and fervent today as it was in Hillsboro (or how it was during the actual Scopes-Monkey trial in the 1920's).

But what stays most passionate about the film, and also at its most flawed, is its conviction about the issue. Kramer is a right director for this material, if not the best. It's full of passionate speeches- it could also be said 'preachy' not too ironically enough in some scenes- and blazing courtroom scenes that are not very realistic (the way the lawyers speak and speechify to the jury and the people in the courtroom and, of course, the audience in the theater), but somehow they're highly enjoyable. This doesn't mean the writing in the film is always great, or all of the characters. But the film is compulsively watchable 'issue' film-making, self-important but full of poignant touches.

The wisest choice that Kramer made, akin to what he did with The Defiant Ones, is put BIG actors in these BIG roles. Chiefly these are for Henry Drummond, the defense attorney played by Spencer Tracy, and the prosecutor Matt Brady played by Federic March (or rather, devoured by March). Like Frost/Nixon, the film becomes really as much about these two men, two old characters who have known each other over the years and have a real respect/hate relationship with one another (see the scene where they're on the rocking chairs to see their connection). So throughout the film, while the issue of evolution vs creationism is brought simmering to a boil, Tracy, a sensational actor, has to try to keep up with March who is so over the top that he cracks the ceiling with a sledgehammer.

Best of all is to see their showdown when Drummond puts Brady on the stand, a theatrical gesture but in keeping with the fact of the case (William Jennings Bryant really was called to stand during his own trial), and in having these two actors yell and stare and make big gestures at each other. If nothing else, it's worth it to watch the film for these two, though I might consider Tracy the winner overall, while March gets points in individual scenes, like when he grandstands towards the end when the case is dismissed (also when he stands up for the girl Rachel Brown when she is "damned" by her father, but as a calculating move to get her on the stand).

Which brings me to some of the flaws in the film. Kramer has a lot that he wants to say as a filmmaker, but he doesn't know how to tweak anything down past it being super theatrical. It would've helped, for example, to cut just a little of the dialog, some of the pompous exchanges between characters (albeit some of the dialog is actually pretty funny, mostly when Gene Kelly's reporter disses Brady). Another problem was Rachel Brown, who firstly is concocted as a contrivance (hey, let's make the daughter of the evangelical reverend also the fiancé of the science teacher), but more-so that she's just a lame character, poorly written like many characters end up being in Kramer films, if not anywhere near as bad as the daughter in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. And the last little moment of the film, when Drummond puts together two specific books together, is a completely tasteless gesture, meant to appease both the believer and non-believer sect after what was a satisfactory ending between Tracy and Kelly where the former tells off the latter.

But faults aside, the film does carry some legitimate power, and if nothing else I would watch it again just for the scenes between the two big stars. It's an actor's picture as much as a "message" picture, and as the themes carry some strong weight for discussion, not to mention the impressive semi-frightening sight of the Hillsboro religious mobs, it's really the actors who make it a (near) must-see.

We have been blessed with many, many wonderful films over the decades, and we have also been blessed with seeing many, many fine actors and actresses. Here you have a film, with a host of stars; brilliantly portraying characters from a true story, with acting that is sublime. The dialogue is sharp, witty, and each performance is gripping. Small town America, religious bigotry are all handled in a sympathetic manner by the use of powerful acting. I gave this film a 10 purely because it is one of those rare gems that stay in the mind forever. It is truly memorable, and one can watch it time and time again to marvel at the superb portrayals. There is a saying that they don't make 'em like they use to. No sir, they certainly don't!

Like Elmer Gantry I first saw Inherit the Wind in the theater in Brooklyn when I was 13 years old. Both of those films dealt with issues arising from the Roaring Twenties out of religion. At the time I thought both were great dramatic pieces dealing with issues of the past. I thought how much we'd grown up as a country from 1925 to 1960.

If you had told me that 46 years later we'd be fighting these same battles and that preachers had as much political power as they do I and many others would have said you were nuts. Yet here we are today in an age when Pat Robertson is taken as a serious political figure.

Inherit the Wind is a dramatization of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 when a biology teacher was arrested and challenged a law passed by the Tennessee State legislature making it a crime to teach anything other than the account of creation as set down in the Book of Genesis. Dick York is the biology teacher here, renamed Bertram Cates for the play and the film version of that play.

In fact all the names of the dramatis personae of the Scopes Trial have been changed to allow some creativity by the authors Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee. Spencer Tracy and Fredric March play fictionalizations of Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan named Henry Drummond and Matthew Harrison Brady respectively.

Of course that is what Inherit the Wind is primarily known for, a duel of double Academy Award winners. In fact Spencer Tracy received another Academy Award nomination for this film, but lost to Burt Lancaster for Elmer Gantry. That's ironic to me because I thought March captured the essence of William Jennings Bryan better. Bryan is a man whose time has passed him by. But he's still a hero to the folks of small town rural America in the south and middle west. One thing to remember is that while Bryan was a great orator and advocate, he had not practiced law in over 30 years when he stepped into the courtroom for the trial. If he had been a better lawyer, he might not have fallen into the one big trap Tracy set for him and the trial and the attending publicity might have been better for his side.

As good as Tracy is, the year before in Compulsion I think that Orson Welles captured the real Clarence Darrow in his character of Jonathan Wilk. No one in Hollywood could do long take speeches quite like Spencer Tracy though. I'm sure that's why Director Stanley Kramer hired him and they developed quite the screen partnership with Tracy doing four of his last five screen roles for Kramer.

Stanley Kramer made some impeccable casting choices filling out the minor roles of the various townspeople of Hillsboro, Tennessee. There are two that I would single out. Claude Akins who usually played tough guys in various action films was astounding as the town preacher, the Reverend Jeremiah Brown. Sad to say there are still many like him out there. Akins's offbeat casting worked wonders, it turned out to be the high point of his screen career.

On the opposite end of the spectrum was Noah Beery, Jr. who is a farmer and who's son was drowned some time before the events of the film. Beery is the town non-conformist, he refused to allow his son to be baptized and Akins has said the adolescent is in hell because of it.

In a key scene when Tracy draws the ire of Judge Harry Morgan who sentences him to jail for contempt of court, Beery offers to put up his farm for collateral for Tracy's bail. Tracy's about to quit the case, but that simple gesture gives him hope, in the ultimate decency and clearheadedness of ordinary people. It's my favorite scene in Inherit the Wind.

Stanley Kramer lived long enough to see this film become so relevant for today's times. I wonder what he must have thought.

This movie is made by the performances. The material is very good, but at time its a bit melodramatic and obvious, which is the way the play is. Were it not for the collision of Spencer Tracy and Frederick March this would be just an excellent Hollywood film instead of the classic that it is.

I would be tempted to say that all you need is a basic knowledge of the plot and the ability to jump straight to the court room scenes, but that would be unfair. Watch the movie once and then after that you can simply watch the fireworks.

What can I say about the battle between Tracy and March? Nothing. Words fail me. This is one of the great battles on screen in any film. It should be seen by anyone who wants to see how "easy" acting should appear. All the more important is the fact that this is a battle of ideas that still matter today as much as then. If only all of the world's problem could be debated this perfectly we'd live in a happier place.

See this movie.

Too bad the battle over evolution still seethes in certain parts of the country, which means the movie still has topicality. This earnest version of the famous Scopes trial recounts that milestone event Stanley Kramer style, which means the message comes through loud and clear. It's an actor's hothouse, two hours of dialog with little action except for the marching mobs. Tracy wisely low-keys it much of the time while March, unfortunately, sometimes borders on loud-mouth parody. At the same time, Kelly manages the professional cynic in amiable style. And I really like York as the skinny, slightly befuddled teacher whose dedication to science in the classroom causes the big ruckus. Then there's the rather plain- faced Donna Anderson (Rachel) shrewdly cast as Cates' (York) girl friend, but more importantly, functions as the town's barometer of opinion.

All in all, there's no doubt whose side the movie's on. At times the backwoods fundamentalists are near caricatures, aggressively smug in their trust in the Bible and loud rejection of science as to humanity's origin. But it's important to note that Drummond's (Tracy) basically arguing for freedom of thought and not atheism per-se. Doing the latter would, of course, have spelled box-office doom. Still, it was pretty gutsy of Kramer to take on biblical literalism, even in 1960. In fact, Drummond's religious views are never made clear, though Kramer has him add the Bible to Darwin's tome as the movie closes.

I think it's fair to say that the movie takes a basically liberal position toward religion and reason, rejecting only that which cannot stand up to science. All in all, it's a histrionic powerhouse that at times fairly crackles with emotional give and take in an epic cultural clash.

This movie is well acted both March and Tracy perform remarkably. The story line depicts how ignorance and blind faith can generate a mob mentality. It beautifully reflects the social values of the time and depicts very well the attitudes of the time in which the movie was set. Like 12 angry men, it has simple sets and gives hope to the notion that not only can movies be educational and entertaining, there are producers that care about making a meaningful statement using a plot and acting to entertain.

I have recently seen this movie on t.v. and was highly impressed with direction, photography and of course the acting! Spencer Tracy is one of my all time greats along with Frederic March so imagine seeing them together! Some may thing March a little over the top but personally I find his performance one of the most riviting and engaging I have ever come across in film, he should have received an Oscar for this. Somehow although acting styles have become more naturalistic over the years the spark and energy given by the greats of the past is simply missing in the vast majority of modern performances. That God they are preserved on film.

After recently watching each remake of this film, one can easily appreciate what an incredible film the 1960 version is. It is the perfectly made film and should be held up to all as the pinnacle of film making. It has the perfect director and the perfect actors. It probably has the best behind-the-scenes crew ever assembled including the perfect film editor. The choice of black and white is also perfect. This is one of those few gems where every element of film making came together to make the perfect movie.

The story is very thought provoking from both points of view, the evolutionist and the fundamental Christian. While I am not even close to being a Christian of any kind, I am haunted by the speech given by Matthew Harrison Brady that says how our children will turn into a godless mob with no direction without the teachings of the Bible (paraphrasing). But, isn't that what has happened some 80 years after the story takes place? The actors effortlessly sell each character's point of view.

There is very little that can be said about Spencer Tracy, Frederick March and Gene Kelly that hasn't already been said. When you see the new version of this film, you can really understand why these actors are held in such high esteem. These guys are actors!

In short, this is one of the finest films ever made and should be seen by everyone.

A small (minded) town in America, where the natives inherit all they're preached about creationism - pitched against the fatal reality of evidence. Based on events from 1925 but, the characters it contains still walk the streets today, in various shades and extremes, and the rest of the world isn't such a different place either - with some parts of it exhibiting an ever more concentrated piety.

Great performances all round but the chaotic courtroom takes some swallowing.

The last time I saw this movie, which was the first time I saw it, it played on TV when I was a kid, in the 1960s. I appreciated even then that it was a good movie, with fine acting, but it was a history lesson: a story about bigotry and ignorance in a part of the country that had been bigoted and ignorant back in the 1920s. Looking at it from a northern suburb in the 1960s, it was a source of laughter. How could those bible-thumpers have been so ignorant as to have denied science? In 2007, when polls show that 40 percent of Americans - not just small town Southerners, but Americans in general - believe the story of the creation of the world as told in Genesis, when state after state finds itself debating whether "creationism" should be taught along side science in public schools, Kramer's film is if anything more powerful and prophetic than when he first made it. It demands the right of men to think freely, to be different, and that right has never been more under attack in this country.

This is truly a film that, unfortunately, has gotten "better" with age.

"Inherit the Wind" is a Biography - Drama movie in which we watch the true story of a case in 1925 in which two lawyers argue about a science teacher who is accused of his teaching and specifically about evolution and god.

I liked this movie because it is based on an actual case that had to do with a subject that is very important even today. The direction which was made by Stanley Kramer was very good and it was obvious through the whole duration of the movie his great job. The cast was equally good and made very clear the importance of people on every case and how people can influence or even change everything if they want. Finally, I have to say that "Inherit the Wind" is a very interesting movie and I strongly recommend everyone to watch it because even after watching it you will continue thinking about it.

People like to comment on this film's "overacting". Try watching any of Joan Crawford's movies from this period and then get back to me. Inherit the Wind is a totally compelling story of the traditional school of thought versus a new scientific one. It centers on a small southern town coming to terms with Darwinism and its implications on Christianity. Spencer Tracy is an eloquent defense lawyer fighting to let evolution stay in the public schools. The script is quite good. The court room exchanges are thought provoking and moving especially when one knows about the real people and events behind the story. It's very difficult to come up with a criticism here. Not a weak performance to be seen.

To see brilliant acting at by well-seasoned professionals at their very peak, rent or buy this great American film classic. Timing that is impeccable, nuance as subtle as could be, bravura declamations that are almost stunning in their power and intensity--this film has it all. It should be studied and analyzed by any serious actor in the profession. (It should also be studied and analyzed by any trial attorney as well!) Who'da thought that Fredric March's raging bull

personality could at times be so touching and tragic--or that Spencer Tracy's character should show such emotional and heartfelt depth when he is simply

grilling witnesses on the stand. The trial is the very heart of the movie--and yet it is supported by a wealth of early 20th century Americana--the fire-and- brimstone preacher, the look and feel of that hot Tennessee Summer, the

boistrous singing of "Gimme that Ole Time Religion" that makes the audience

want to join right in, these are all terrific details that add to the keen enjoyment of this film. But the trial's the thing. And it is riveting!

I happen to be watching this film (on television) for something like the 12th time in my lifetime, after having missed the opening titles as usual, and it finally dawned on me, this time, that the part of the benighted Bible-thumping counselor is played by Fredric March. That Fredric March, whom I have seen in every phase of his evolution from matinée idol in "Sign of the Cross" to middle-aged war veteran in "The Best Years of Our Lives". It never dawned on me before that that majestic and imposing but frightening patriarchal figure was actually achieved by purely actorly means - great talent, hard work, supreme concentration, attention to details and to the actors around him, magnificent make-up and outstanding mimicry. I somehow always assumed they had found a stage actor who fit the part to a "t", both physically and mentally, and who had never done film work before. Or maybe I thought they asked the real guy to reprise his courtroom performance for the cinema... That's how good March's performance is in this film. And he's just one of a hundred elements (including Gold's film score and Spencer Tracy's performance, of course) that make this a stupendous film.

1. One of the greatest movies ever produced, ever, mesmerizing, perfectly acted directed and written. Perfectly cast. If you are a fledgling reviewer and want to see perfection so you can judge all future movies against something, start here.

2.There is irony in the fact that the movie is about faith when in fact the hidden text here is the faith of Hollywood in itself. The year was 1960. According to many, the Golden Age of Hollywood had ended some 10 years earlier, and the 50s brought some of the strangest product ever to issue from the large studios and even the new indies. The late 50s catered mainly to teenagers and produced little that was memorable. Yet this masterpiece was done in 1960, just before Tinsel Town went into a bikini-world, Doris Day and Jerry Lewis and Elvis featured, spy and comedy fest that was so dreadful it would take another two decades before it could once again start entertaining people.

3. This film is a testament to Old Hollywood's faith in its ability to once again produce a masterpiece of the kind that made film and film stars icons. Incredible.

When INHERIT THE WIND first came out in 1960, I saw it in my native New York City as a college senior. Having majored in science as a pre-med student, I naively supposed this was an excellent movie about the 1920s. How could I imagine that it would be a harbinger of 2000? Now, we have the Kansas state board of education excluding evolution from public school science classrooms. So then Stanley Kramer's movie was a futuristic film in an early 20th Century setting. Considering his film was made during the communist witch hunting McCarthy era, and now Evil-utionists (using Matthew Harrison Brady's pronunciation) are in season, INHERIT THE WIND is even politically relevant (I almost wrote "correct" but today that word has lost its meaning) today. Now, I am a medical school professor who purchased two video cassettes of this movie right here. I can't stop watching this movie because the excellence of the acting and filmmaking is timelessly exciting. I certainly encourage all of my students and children to see this film for two reasons. The script provides a balanced insight into the personal issues associated with conflicts between scientific and religious (fundamentalist? extremist?) viewpoints; and also these are, even now, contemporary issues playing out in the theopolitical system that American democracy has become. And so Drummond's point to Brady is well taken: " ... does a man have the same right to think as a sponge?" This is still a valid question raised by a truly great, thought provoking and most entertaining American film. [Footnote criticism: Gene Kelly an otherwise good actor (and certainly great Hollywood dancer), seemed a bit out of place as the cynical newspaper man.]

"I didn't come here to make Hillsboro different. I came here to defend the right to be different. And that's the point." Based on a real-life case in 1925, two great lawyers argue the case for and against a science teacher accused of the crime of teaching evolution. Starring Dick York, Spencer Tracy and Gene Kelly.

The people of Hillsboro were caught between (in their view) defending the Lord and saving face as the country ridiculed them. Popular opinion is a strong thing, but if you have a conviction, you should stand up for it. So I can understand both sides of the issue in that light.

The film makes it seem as though the whole world accepts evolution aside from this small community, which is just not the case. Over fifty years later, a considerable percentage of the country accepts some version of creation. A newspaper making the bold pro-evolution claims that we see in this film, even if done today, would get some concerned letters. The Catholic Church may accept evolution as of the 1950s, but this does not mean the people in the pews do.

Today we see some parallels with intelligent design. A pro-Darwin argument could be that all ideas should be presented, whether right or wrong, to let the students decide. Today, this is much the point of the intelligent design group. The difference is that Darwin is backed by science, of course. (I hesitate to go further for fear of offending anyone.) What a wonder about films with political messages is whether all the actors support the messages or simply accept the role as part of their job. It would certainly seem that to be part of a film means you endorse it, but I am unsure. Gary Cooper starred in "High Noon" while remaining anti-communist, so it is hard to say for certain where a job ends and a conviction begins.

I do have to say the judge in the film is remarkably fair. One might expect him to naturally side with the people of Hillsboro, but he is pretty even-handed. He sustains objections that a more biased judge might let slide. I am impressed. The argument against the literal interpretation of the Bible is very well stated, and the judge probably should have stepped in at some point during this... it is quite the badgering of a witness, and of questionable relevancy. (Although, the prosecution at no time objected, so they are at fault, too.)

Inherit the Wind is a very good film. The story does start off very well, with a great and ambitious subject matter and concept that is relevant today, but in the second half or so it meanders in drags in the pace, consequently one or two of the later scenes lack conviction.

That said, it does look marvellous with striking cinematography, and Ernest Gold's music is also quite good. Stanley Kramer's direction proves he was the right man for the man, and the screenplay engrosses and makes you think.

It is the acting though of Spencer Tracy and Fredric March that makes Inherit the Wind so worth watching. Powerhouse doesn't come close to describe how good the performances of these two actors are, and their chemistry is a real treat.

All in all, a very good film, relevant and worth watching for Tracy and March. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Top-notch courtroom drama set in 1925 upon Jerome Lawrence-Robert E. Lee 1955 play with nice script from Ned Young and Harold Smith . Dealing with a famous trial in Tennessee State : based on the 1925 scores Monkey Trial, in which a natural science teacher is arrreted and faced prosecution for lecturing on Darwinian theory in America Deep South . It happens a young schoolmaster, Dick York, was indicted for illegally teaching Charles Darwin's evolution theories. Then an agnostic, sympathetic Advocate at Law called Henry Drummond, Spencer Tracy, defends the hapless teacher against their rival antagonists , the conservative Fredric March, and a public prosecutor : Elliot Reid. While Dick York plays the ingenuous teacher and Gene Kelly bears inadequacy as the cynical reporter who lurks, danceless, in the sidelines and is comfortably denounced as the true villain of the piece. The familiar and notorious secondaries faces appearing are as follows : Gene Kelly who is rather let down by his miscast as a cunning journalist, Claude Akins as a stiff-upper-lip reverend who has a daughter : Donna Henderson, Dick York's girlfriend, the veteran Florence Eldridge, Noah Beery Jr, Ray Teal, Norman Fell, and Henry -Harry- Morgan as a judge. There is another rendition 1999, also based on the known incident, being directed by Daniel Petrie with George C Scott as rigid fundamentalist prosecutor who stubbornly prosecutes , Jack Lemmon as the atheist suplicator who defends , Tom Everett Scott as the accused of the crime of teaching evolution, Kathryn Morris, Piper Laurie, Lane Smith, John Cullum, Beau Bridges.

This is an excellent courtroom drama with hilarious elements , it is about the Monkey Trail that rocked America and in which Spencer Tracy gives a wonderful acting by repeating his usual style as the agnostic attorney who comes to town to defend an unfortunate teacher. Being a pretty good film, including debates direct and largely taken from the transcripts. Tolerably gripping in solid-fashioned, thanks chieftly to magnificent interpretation from a great main and support cast . The main stars steal the show by a thrilling confrontation that takes place between these giants of the cinema: Spencer Tracy and Fredric March. As veteran Fredric March is equally fabulous as the respected , ideologist Matthew Harrison who defends strictly the Biblic articles and attempts to keep religious teaching in the school.

It contains an atmospheric and evocative cinematography by Ernest Laszlo. As well as adequate and exciting musical score by Ernest Gold. The motion picture was competently directed by Stanley Kramer. He was a prestigious writer, producer, director who made a lot of films. Here Kramer makes an attractive and enthralling show of coutroom fireworks. As Kramer directed films of all kinds of genres, such as : Not as a stranger, The pride and the passion, The defiant ones, On the beach, Judgement at Nuremberg, It's a mad, mad, mad world, Ship of fools, Guess who is coming to dinner, The secret of Santa Vittoria, Oklahoma crude, The domino principle, The runner stumbles. Rating 7/10. Better than average. Well worth watching.

Top cast assembled in a dramatized history lesson roughly based on the "Scopes monkey trial." Tracy defends the embattled high school teacher and March tries to stir up the local opposition. March is a bit too overstated as the Southern minister/politician (clearly based on William Jennings Bryant), but Spence is right on as the cynical worldwise lawyer who tries to defend people's rights to be different. Kelly shines as a smarmy newsman, the type of role best suited to his character-style acting (as in his debut as a star in the broadway play "Pal Joey"). Morgan is the judge, who seems more wearied by all of this than anything. Excellent atmospheric photography -- particularly memorable in the opening sequences.

Those who trouble their own house shall inherit the wind, and those who dare to think differently from their own house shall inherit something worse. A small-town teacher in Tennessee of the 1920s brings science and evolution into the classroom and runs afoul of both the law and the bible in the process. Titans of the media, legal and political realms descend upon the town to participate in the trial.

This dramatic and fanciful retelling of the Scopes monkey trial of 1925 is fascinating for those like me who are interested in this nation's legal and political systems and its history. "I was a lawyer long enough," says the famous lead defense attorney "to know there are no victories anywhere." Exactly. Legal fights consume years from people's lives, deprive them of liberty, drain bank accounts and more. There are no winners (except the lawyers).

People are supposed to comfort others and promote enlightenment, not fan the flames of fear and ignorance, and Inherit the Wind highlights this supposition. What a difference between seeing this as a teenager and seeing it again now. It affected me when I was younger, but it is not deep enough now, in many ways. The character of Rachel is compelling, but for some unexplained reason she disappears somewhere in the middle of the film. "I was always more afraid of you" she says of her father. Too bad the spotlight isn't on her, it would be a better ending. The film, like the play it is based on, is meant as a damper to McCarthyism and it is relevant to today's unfortunate political climate.