Status
Call number
Call number
Collection
Publication
Description
A classic work of American theatre, based on the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, which pitted Clarence Darrow against William Jennings Bryan in defense of a schoolteacher accused of teaching the theory of evolution The accused was a slight, frightened man who had deliberately broken the law. His trial was a Roman circus. The chief gladiators were two great legal giants of the century. Like two bull elephants locked in mortal combat, they bellowed and roared imprecations and abuse. The spectators sat uneasily in the sweltering heat with murder in their hearts, barely able to restrain themselves. At stake was the freedom of every American. One of the most moving and meaningful plays of our generation. Praise for Inherit the Wind "A tidal wave of a drama."--New York World-Telegram And Sun "Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee were classic Broadway scribes who knew how to crank out serious plays for thinking Americans. . . . Inherit the Wind is a perpetually prescient courtroom battle over the legality of teaching evolution. . . . We're still arguing this case-all the way to the White House."--Chicago Tribune "Powerful . . . a crackling good courtroom play . . . [that] provides two of the juiciest roles in American theater."--Copley News Service "[This] historical drama . . . deserves respect."--The Columbus Dispatch… (more)
Subjects
Original publication date
Similar in this library
User reviews
For those who have never had the fun of watching Spencer Tracy and Fredric March thunder at each other in black and white (my apologies, but I cannot countenance any of the three TV remakes *smile*), this is a
The broad strokes of the story line are close enough to the original trial that many folks simply refer to the main characters as Darrow and Bryant, instead of Henry Drummond and Matthew Harrison Brady. The details and dialogue, however, are punched up for better drama. And, quite simply, once we get to the courtroom, there is plenty of drama. Brady stands firm on his certainty that the Word has been revealed and he has interpreted it correctly. Drummond, faced with an unambiguous law, hostile crowd, and unsympathetic judge and jury, pursues his guerilla warfare, little by little picking apart his opponent's position.
I was surprised at how much I enjoyed reading the play. You can sit and reflect about the events and arguments, or simply re-read the delightful sallies of Drummond's one-liner wit:
"If, in the beginning, there were just Cain and Abel, and Adam and Eve, where did this extra woman come from? ... You figure somebody else pulled another creation over in the next county somewhere?"
One of my favorite aspects of the play is the deliberate ambiguity as to whether Drummond is an exponent of secular or religious Humanism. Though the trial's official verdict is against evolution (as it was in reality), there is no doubt in the reader's mind which side won this battle. Had it ended with Drummond striding out the moral victor, it would still have been good. But, I think it was better that it ended with the realization that Drummond fought, not against the Bible, but for the right of a man to think.
"In a child's ability to master the multiplication table, there is more holiness than all your shouted hosannas and holy of holies."
With the new rise of "creative design" it is obvious that the conflict of ideas set forth in the play is still ongoing. While I consider myself a Christian and even meet some of the criteria of a born-again Christian I can never believe that God intended humans not to think. My only conclusion is that some people are afraid to think. Just as Matthew Brady in the play they embrace an ideology that provides all of the answers without the necessity of thinking. This seems to be part of human nature that will not disappear.
Although it's inspired by the real-life events, this story should not be mistaken for history (as an introductory note from the playwrights makes appropriately clear). It's probably not very realistic as a depiction of what goes on in courtrooms, either. And it's not exactly subtle about making its scientific inquiry-vs-religious dogma point. But is is a good drama, with some fantastic lines of dialog. And, subtle or not, the point it's making is certainly one I can get behind. I enjoyed it a lot.
Even though DeCamp is a thorough sceptic, I would recommend his book on the trial as a much more fair-minded version than this play.
The play presents characters in a far different light than their real life counterparts, which detracts from the true drama the trial inspired. Darrow, or Drummond in the play, is portrayed as a progressive thinker who is both tolerant and supports freedom of opinion. He is well versed in both the Bible and Darwin’s writings and uses this against the prosecution during the course of the trial. Bryan, or Brady, is shown to be both narrow minded and shallow. In reality, both of these representations were false. “In real life it was William Jennings Bryan who had read The Origin of Species, and also Darwin's The Descent of Man, and was able to quote from the latter to show that Darwin had indeed believed that men were descended from "old world" monkeys. In real life it was Clarence Darrow who was ill-informed on Darwin's ideas. He had tried to read The Origin of Species, but was unable to get beyond page 50 because he found it such hard going” (Bradburry). The plays representation of Bryan and Darrow made it clear to the reader who was right and who was wrong, a vast difference from the clash of opposing views which was presented in real life. What had made the trial striking was the lack of right and wrong, two famous lawyers putting forth their cases in a fashion that was not black and white. This type of drama was intriguing to nearly everyone, “At least 200 reporters, from all over the world, covered the trial; and thanks to station WGN, Chicago, the entire trial was broadcast over the radio, the first ever broadcast of its kind” (Bradburry).
Beyond changes in characters, important events in the play were often changed or completely fictitious which detracted. The play had made John Scopes’ infraction of the law seem far more serious than it actually was. It was clearly stated that Scopes could possibly be imprisoned for his actions in the play, but this was far from the truth. “Violation of the Butler Act was punishable by a fine of no less that $100 and no greater than $500; imprisonment was not a provision of the law” (Menton). In fact, Scopes had willingly gone to court on behalf of the American Civil Liberty Union, despite not remembering teaching evolution. The ACLU wanted to challenge the legality of the Butler Act, which forbade the teaching of evolution. This fact was omitted from the play in order to create sympathy for Scopes’ character; a teacher that risked losing his job and girlfriend. However, this omission will lead the reader to see those with faith as cruel, prejudiced, and uncaring. This makes the prosecution the cliché bully who continues to pick on the defendant. “On the contrary, the Evolutionists and the Anti–Evolutionists seem to be on the best of terms, and it is hard in a group to distinguish one from the other” (Menton). Two groups coming together and getting along, but capable of debating their views intelligently was what had made the Scopes Trial great. If the play had focused less upon the conflicts between the characters more attention could have been given to the real issue, the constitutionality of the Butler Act and the arguments presented by each side.
“While Inherit the Wind remains faithful to the broad outlines of the historical events it portrays, it flagrantly distorts the details” (Inannone). While changing some of the details did not destroy the story it did radically change the experience. Characters and groups of people were portrayed unfairly, making a very gray argument seem black and white. This play, which was meant to be taken fictitiously, is taken to be factual account of what happened. In truth, reality had a far more enriching experience than the play had given. The Scopes Trial had a level of drama that could not be made up, a level of drama that only reality can display.
The play is an interesting mirror held up to a critical bump in the road for science and this book probably needs a major re-release since the topic of intelligent design vs. evolution is again coming up quite a bit. A very interesting play about a very important piece of American history (even if it was initially only a publicity stunt as some say).
This is definitely a fictionalized version of the real events, but it’s close enough to give us a peak into the fall reach the case had at the time. One of the most important characters, in my opinion, is the cynical reporter E. K. Hornbeck, who acts as the lens through which we see the trial unfold. His quick wit and sharp barbs provide humor, but he lacks the empathy of characters like Drummond.
The real crux of the play hinges on man’s ability to think for himself and form his own conclusions. That message is beautifully stated.
BOTTOM LINE: The play is excellent, the movie is excellent, and I can’t wait to see this one performed as a live play one day.
“Lady, when you lose your power to laugh, you lose your power to think straight.”
“I’m sorry if I offend you. But I don’t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we’ve got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands.”
This is a great read, and the way Lawrence and Lee set the
But more than anything, Drummond's argument is about allowing people to think, and think for themselves, and how Truth is more important than Right; as this is exactly what the original Scopes trial, of which this is a dramatization, really boiled down to.
Also, I really enjoyed the character of Hornbeck, based on H.L. Mencken, although to my mind he reminded me of another newsman, Hunter S. Thompson, especially the way he treats Brady as the sycophants fawn over him.
Again, this is such a great read, and it stays relevant even today.