INHERIT THE WIND
1960
Stanley Kramer
Last time we talked about getting an “idea”. This may be the hardest part. Once you have the idea, the problem becomes how best to express it. It seems to me that ideas are most easily found by thinking about the material and, when possible, talking about it. Things which seem clear become unclear when verbalized. This allows you to focus on the problem and begin to get an “idea” about what would be interesting to write about in a paper.
Once the idea is there, then it is a matter of stating it in a clear way and proceeding from there. Generally, the idea is presented in the first paragraph and supporting evidence is produced after that to demonstrate the position you are taking.
There seems to be some lunacy around that says a paper comes in three parts. In the first part you tell the reader what you are going to say. In the second part you say it. In the third part you tell the reader what you said. This is called redundancy and we can all live without it. Life is too short to have to repeat things over and over. Maybe when you write to some officials this is a good idea, but it is not in a paper.
Remember too that this is not an essay in the sense it is simply your thoughts and feelings about things. Rather it should take the form of a structured argument. Hence it is best to avoid phrases like “I feel that…” or “I really (dis)liked….” and so on. Instead of saying “The lighting was spooky” try to explain it. “The pools of light and darkness made it difficult to see what might be hiding in the darkness. The characters reacted to the darkness with suspicion and tension; emotions likely to be transferred to the audience as well.”
Some phrases to look out for:
Hint: If you can replace “you and I” with “we”, then it is correct. If you can replace it with “us”, then it is “you and me”
Example:
Which is correct?
Since you probably wouldn’t say “Just between we” then you should NOT say “Just between you and I”
If you say “Just between us” then you SHOULD say “Just between you and me”.
Last time – script written directly for film
This time, a stage play is the original source – Inherit the Wind
How Does Film Differ From Theater?
Background in religion and science In the mid 1800's most of the scientific world had developed an interest in "evolution" which was a Zeitgeist or a spirit of the times. Lyell had postulated evolution in Geology, Darwin in biology and people like Spencer, Tylor and Marx in society.
Early social evolutionist saw societies as evolving through specific fixed stages, going from savagery to barbarism to civilization, (or with communism as the end goal).
Early anthropologists who were evolutionists, initially saw magic (false cause and effect) => religion =>science.
The idea was that people realized that magic didn't work, gave it up and decided that the universe was not under their control, and so the decided that there was some more powerful figure they needed to supplicate. Ultimately they realized there was true cause and effect (science).
People never quite give up on earlier forms. In "civilized" societies with "science" religious and magical practices are considered "survivials".
Most scientists have dismissed this idea, and Malinowski, said that all societies have all three. The major distinction is that religion and magic deal with the supernatural while science deals with the mundane or profane.
Most of these are discredited now and the idea of a single line of evolution for all societies (unilinear evolution) is found only in popular writings, and not scientific ones.The idea of change is of course still in effect!
The sciences, attempted to give a picture of the reality of what had happened, although mnay people now believe that their theories reflected their own "Zeitgeist" - especially those of the social sicentists and those of Darwin.
Since in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions which are have the same source, there is a revealed text, taht is one which purports to be the actual word of God spoken through a messenger, real conflict becomes possible between two authorities - the scientific and the divine. This sets the stage for a serious conflict as to which do you believe?
America, as probably the most fundamentalist of all Christian countries, had and continues to have a major conflict between these two pieces which the society needs in some way to resolve. On the one hand, the religious may accuse scientists of atheism in choosing their "belief system" over the religious one, and scientists may hurl invictives right back.
The result was that Tennessee passed an ordinance holding it was illegal to teach Darwin in the school systems. Despite many legal battles, within the last 5 years there have still been attempts to get Darwinism "thrown out" of the classroom, and indeed some scientists themselves question much of his theory at the moment.
In fact, in the West, the major difference between science and religion is science's interest and willingness in testing itself and challenging its own beliefs, which religion does not do since it is "The word of God". The film is based in a real trial, held in Dayton Tenn.
William Jennings Bryant had run for president several times on a “Cross of Gold” platform – a famous speech to take America off the gold standard.
Henry Drummond was a famous attorney who fought many famous trials including the Leopold Loeb trial in which he argued against the death penalty (and won) for two killers. The film made about that trial is Compulsion With Orson Welles playing Jonathan Wilk the character into whom Clarence Darrow has “morphed” in this film. Another about the murder itself if Alfred Hitchcock’s experimental film Rope
REAL FILM ACTOR Dayton, Tenn. Hillsboro -------- William Jennings Bryant Matthew Harrison Brady Frederic March Henry Drummond Clarence Darrow Spencer Tracy John Scopes Bertram Cates Dick York
The actual trial took place in 1925. The play, Inherit the Wind, was written in 1950, but was not produced until 1955
FILM OPERATES ON SEVERAL LEVELS:
(a) evolution=creationism controversy
(b) religion vs. science
(c) freedom to think
Definitely a play of ideas – very verbal, much text and subtext? How to realize this in film?
"[They] used the teaching of evolution as a parable, a metaphor for any kind of thought control. It's not about science versus religion. It's about the right to think." Randall seconds this thought, saying, " When we opened on April 21, 1955, I did not think the play would be taken seriously; the fundamentalists had became a lunatic fringe. The play is one-thousand times more pertinent today. You think this is over? It's never over "
In postmodern age – what happens to the play?
Has there been a serious change in society since the play was written? Are audiences more likely to be sympathetic to the religious position. Are science and religion two modes of belief? Should the government validate science anymore than religion? Can a “should” question be answered scientifically?
Mob Psychology??? McCarthy era position (1950 – same year McCarthy makes speech about communists). Question about “enemies”, xenophobia. (See also The Thing). Is it politically justified? For Communists? Nazis? Terrorists? Scientists? Religious fanatics?
Performance
What kind of performances are there in the film?
Town as set
Trial as performance
Is the attack on Brady “fair”? What is Drummond trying to prove by attacking Brady? What is Drummond’s position on religion?
Are the characters well developed. It is a play of ideas, but at the costs of character? Do they become stereotypes (which has been argued).
Is there an attempt to keep faith and church apart?
Democratic situation. Do the people really get what they want?
Does the film have a political position? How would Christians deal with film?
Is it any more reasonable to outlaw the teaching of creationism that the teaching of evolution. Are science and religion both belief systems.
FILM
AFTER THE FILM
Play of ideas – how to film?
Opening Sequence (under titles)
Depth of field – isolated person in foreground, group in background. Person joins the group. But initial shot is one of isolation from group. Compare with speech made by Drummond about being lonely and hearing one’s own foot steps – etc.
Meeting “Hillsboro: A town with a future”
Hornbeck’s comments about Brady often show Brady in background responding: “Only man I know who can strut sitting down” “stuffing himself with fired chicken and belching platitudes”
People in court room – women knitting and shouting amens and hallelujahs
BACKGROUND ISSUES (subtext)
similarly important: Actual battle about teaching evolution is not as important as major theme of freedom to think and speak.
Does this have relevance in today’s climate – religiously and politically perhaps rather than religiously.
Performance The characters range from an over zealous minister to the devout Brady, to the free thinking Drummond to the cynical Hornbeck.
Hornbeck and the minister share the fact that they are extremists. Brady chastises the minitser for being over zealous and Drummond likewise erbukes Hornbeck.
How does it relate to “fitting into the group” (marches, insistence on singing, playing to crowd)
Language
Irony and cynicism
Much of the dialog is cynical (Hornbeck) but also very eloquent.
Consider Drummond saying “God” not permitted on radio; and also “hell”.
Town as set
What is the “feeling” about the town – how is it shown in the technique of film.