Talk:Inherit the Wind/Archive 1

Archive 1

Creationist ref

I would like to open a discussion about the reference to the Creationist article. It cleary assumed the play to be something it is not, a documentary-drama, in order to make jibes at it. Although it does provide a certain POV on the play, I'm not sure something this POV is a proper reference. The article states "Curiously, Inherit the Wind (unlike other documentary–dramas such as Gandhi and Patton) does not use the actual names of the participants or the places it portrays." This cleary shows the author is not considering this a critique of fiction, but a critique of a dramatized factual account, as the other stated works are. I don't think someone could be this blind to the truth about the work (read the author comments in the article) without specifically doing it for an agenda. And I don't think agenda refs belong, though I am not hot-set on removing it. It doesn't bother me being there, but I would like some comment from others.--DanielCD 16:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Come off it. The whole point is that so often, anyone involved in the creation-evolution debate is automatically slotted into a part of Inherit the Wind. So many people believe that ItW was a basically true dramatization of the Scopes Trial. The similarities are too close to be merely accidental. Sure, it mainly jibes at McCarthyism, but the playwrights were only too happy to stick the knife into Christians as well. There is no way this would have been tolerated if Jews or African-Americans were portrayed that way -- no one would have tried to defend this as a harmless anti-McCarthyist parable then! 138.130.192.82 14:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not Christians as such--only certain kinds of Christians. Not all Christians are fundamentalists by any means. Many Christians accept evolution as scientific fact, while still believing there is truth in the Biblical story of Genesis. More things on heaven and earth, Horatio, etc.72.229.110.85 (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read the article and I think it's clear what it is. I won't change your other edits, but the tone of this ref tries to say its a documentary, and it wants it to be a documentary for an agenda. People may believe that, but that's their problem. This article should be something that tells the truth, not something that repeats popular misconceptions. You can state the fact that people frequently don't distinguish the two and misconceptions are frequent or something, but state it in a factual way, preferrably with a ref. The comments by the authors are from the original intro itself. If you think this is unjust, I am willing to work with you on it. There are many other articles out there that say the same sort of things this ref does, but they do it without taking it for granted that the article is a documentary. Just do a little research. --DanielCD 14:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BTW, in the first link to Notes on Inherit the Wind, there is one review:

Jay Brown, Rating the Movies **** (of 4) "A fascinating slice of American history brought brilliantly to the screen....Tracy and March are superb as Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, respectively (emphasis added)

'Twould seem that even movie reviewers have treated it as history, and had no doubt whom the characters were supposed to represent.138.130.192.82 16:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I reread the ref article. While it is a little heavy-handed, it does state in the opening that the play is not a documentary, but is assumed by many to be so. My mistake; I removed the note. --DanielCD 15:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanx, and for the good formatting as well. 138.130.192.82 16:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This perhaps provides a little context

At one time, Inehrit the Wind was apparently staged at the Rhea County Courthouse in Dayton, Tennnessee where the actual Scopes Trial occurred. Around the time of the trial's 60th anniversary, this staging was replaced with a literal staging of key portions of the trial in the restored courthouse to further separate the play from actual history. Rlquall 00:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do people keep doing this??

The section on McCarthy makes the old confused association between SENATOR McCarthy and the HOUSE Un-American Activities Committee. Please, people! McCarthy was in the Senate UAC, seeing that he was a senator, not a Representative. 206.106.76.119 05:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've substituted a link to the Army-McCarthy Hearings article. I don't think we need to identify McCarthy's actual committee here; anyone who follows the link will find that it was the Senate Committee on Government Operations. As far as I know, there was no Senate UAC. JamesMLane 11:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Original sin

"In answer to a question from Drummond, Brady declares that sexual intercourse was original sin, which does not comply with Christianity "- Is this true?--Daddysmutantkid 09:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Which part? If you mean does Brady actually declare that in either the movie, play, or real life, I have no idea. If your wondering about Original Sin, it is my understanding (and I may be way off on this) that Original Sin was the eating of the apple in the Garden of Eden and that the sin is passed on to children when they are concieved and/or born. Jesus Christ died on the cross in order to wipe away Original Sin and mankind's other sins. Again, I may be way off on this, I'm not exactly well versed on the subject. --70.113.79.34 23:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in the play Brady declares sex original sin The evolution lawyer was pointing out all the sex in the bible, and then he asked what Brady thought of sex. He replied that it was original sin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.89.117 (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Scopes Trial

I removed the following from Scopes Trial because it is outside the scope of that article (no pun intended). Please integrate it into this article, if not there already. --Wasted Sapience 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It starred Spencer Tracy as Henry Drummond/Darrow, Fredric March as Matthew Harrison Brady/Bryan and Gene Kelly as E. K. Hornbeck/Mencken. In 1965 the play aired on television with Melvyn Douglas as Drummond and Ed Begley as Brady.

In 1988, a rewrite of the Kramer movie shown on NBC starred Jason Robards as Drummond and Kirk Douglas as Brady. Another version aired in 1999 with another pair of Oscar winners, Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott as Drummond and Brady. Playing the role of Drummond, Tracy was nominated for an Oscar, Robards won an Emmy, and Lemmon won a Golden Globe award. The 1988 production also won the Emmy for Outstanding Drama/Comedy Special. American schools' (sometimes exclusive) use of the film to teach about the trial has led to many public misconceptions about the subject. In March of 2007 the play returned to Broadway with famed actors Christopher Plummer and Brian Dennehy reprising the lead roles.

There were a number of substantial deviations from actual events in the movie:

• Brady was portrayed as refusing to read Charles Darwin, whereas Bryan was well acquainted with Darwin's ideas.
• It has the Bryan character ("Brady") claiming that sexual intercourse was original sin, although nothing at all was said about sex during Darrow's examination of Bryan.
• While the play had Brady betraying Cates' (Scopes) girlfriend, the local preacher's daughter, the real Scopes did not have a girlfriend at all.
• In the play Brady protests that the fine is too lenient; in real life Bryan, as noted above, actually offered to pay the fine himself.
• Brady dies, in the courtroom, almost as soon as the trial's outcome is decided; Bryan did not die until five days after the trial ended.
• In the play, Drummond brings up the issue of the Creation taking place over seven literal days to challenge Brady. In real life, the metaphorical "period" interpretation was Bryan's.

Cates is the teacher Rachel is defending him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.242.243 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverend Jeremiah Brown

In 2007, a citation flag was added to the "Inherit the Wind and history" section, specifically questioning the existence of a real-life Reverend Jeremiah Brown. But due to the playwrights' initial disclaimer, Reverend Brown's historicity is not in question and is assumed to be fictional until further proof can be cited, according to NPOV.

Therefore, no tag is necessary and has been deleted. If a public figure such as Brown were to truly exist in real life, the records of his public persona (as well as sermons) would be obviously linked to genealogical, newspaper, or church record. Obiwanjacoby (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)