Being (almost) right on the issues doesn't make this a good movie. Okay, okay I get the point that suppressing free thought in defense of orthodoxy is bad, just stop beating me over the head with it. Inherit the Wind is neither subtle nor complex - it is essentially a propaganda film (as others have noted), albeit one whose point of view most people would agree with.
With the exception of the enjoyably smarmy Gene Kelly as journalist EK Hornbeck, I found the over-acting by the lead players tiresome. The writing too seemed quite poor. As an exposition of the issues at stake, the court room arguments were completely garbled. Either attorney would be hard-pressed to win a high school debate, let alone a high profile court case.
Defense attorney Henry Drummond's private reasons for supporting his client (and the moral of the story) are particularly wishy-washy. Rather than supporting the teaching of evolution on the grounds that it is the best-substantiated hypothesis while creationism is demonstrably false, he instead defends it on the basis that minority thoughts and viewpoints should be freely expressed. Unfortunately, the logical implication of this line of argument is that, in the current day and age, when evolutionary theory is universally accepted, any biology teacher who wanted to teach the minority view of creationism should be allowed to do so.
The film's biggest sin, however, is its lack of courage towards the end. [Possible spoiler ahead] Rather than fully developing the idea of the moral culpability of the citizens of Hillsboro, this film ends up focusing all the blame on the intellectual arrogance of a single man, the prosecuting attorney, Matthew Brady. What a cop out! This movie just didn't have the guts to come out explicitly with the conclusion that the biggest villains were the southern voters who elected those supporting this silly legislation.
With the exception of the enjoyably smarmy Gene Kelly as journalist EK Hornbeck, I found the over-acting by the lead players tiresome. The writing too seemed quite poor. As an exposition of the issues at stake, the court room arguments were completely garbled. Either attorney would be hard-pressed to win a high school debate, let alone a high profile court case.
Defense attorney Henry Drummond's private reasons for supporting his client (and the moral of the story) are particularly wishy-washy. Rather than supporting the teaching of evolution on the grounds that it is the best-substantiated hypothesis while creationism is demonstrably false, he instead defends it on the basis that minority thoughts and viewpoints should be freely expressed. Unfortunately, the logical implication of this line of argument is that, in the current day and age, when evolutionary theory is universally accepted, any biology teacher who wanted to teach the minority view of creationism should be allowed to do so.
The film's biggest sin, however, is its lack of courage towards the end. [Possible spoiler ahead] Rather than fully developing the idea of the moral culpability of the citizens of Hillsboro, this film ends up focusing all the blame on the intellectual arrogance of a single man, the prosecuting attorney, Matthew Brady. What a cop out! This movie just didn't have the guts to come out explicitly with the conclusion that the biggest villains were the southern voters who elected those supporting this silly legislation.