Inherit the Wind (1965 TV Movie) User Reviews

A good, abbreviated version of the Lawrence - Lee Play

[theowinthrop · 8/10 · 20 February 2006]

I saw this in 1965 and enjoyed it almost as much as the film version with Spencer Tracy and Frederic March. Melvyn Douglas portrayed Henry Drummond / Clarence Darrow in this version. He had briefly played the role on stage while Paul Muni was making a film or was on vacation. But more interesting was seeing Ed Begley Sr. doing his performance as Matthew Harrison Brady / William Jennings Bryan. He played Bryan on stage opposite Muni, and so his performance in this production was actually one of the few times a Broadway production was repeated and preserved on tape or film.

Begley was somewhat softer around the edges than March was in the film version. It was like Begley took Bryan's great orator (which March repeatedly returns to) and made it into an evangelical preacher type. Not that he forgot to be threatening at the right moments (when cross-examining Bert Cates' girlfriend, for example). It was just that the silk glove around the fundamentalist iron fist was more apparent.

It would not be Begley's only "Bryan" role. He appeared on an episode of the television show THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR as an honest reformer politician seeking to restore democracy to the town by running for Mayor. In that episode, where Begley's character represented the more progressive side of William Jennings Bryan, he actually made up - in part - for the negative view of Bryan that arises from this play.

It's also interesting to notice that Dick York plays Betram Cates again in this version of INHERIT THE WIND as in the film.

Inherit the Wind and the Golden Age of Movie Trivia

[malvernp · 9/10 · 22 August 2020]

This made for TV film version of the famous Lawrence and Lee Broadway success is a very enjoyable presentation, and captures two splendid veteran actors doing exceptional work in the twilight of their careers. Both Ed Begley and Melvyn Douglas had considerable experience in creating these roles for the Broadway stage, and this fact makes the present movie even more important as a historical document of the play. During the years since its original theatrical release, there have been two more made for TV film versions of Inherit the Wind (IW). Each of the four performances has champions and critics. All of them are interesting and worth seeing. None is dull and to be avoided. That in itself is rather remarkable. The four versions are:

(1) 1960 theatrical film starring Fredric March and Spencer Tracy.

(2) 1965 made for TV film starring Ed Begley and Melvyn Douglas.

(3) 1988 made for TV film starring Kirk Douglas and Jason Robards.

(4) 1999 made for TV film starring George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon.

Something very interesting happens when these four versions are considered as one body of work. Let me explain. For simplicity, I'll refer to each version by its indicated number.

Item: Three of the eight actors who played leading roles in the four versions of IW also played the identical leading roles in either a theatrical or TV film version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. They are Fredric March (1), Spencer Tracy (1) and Kirk Douglas (3).

Item: Two actors who had principal roles in one version of IW also appeared in Days of Wine and Roses. The man starred in the theatrical movie version, and the woman originated the female leading role in the earlier TV version. They are Jack Lemmon (4) and Piper Laurie (4).

Item: Two actors who had principal roles in one version of IW also appeared as co-stars in the film Spartacus. They are Kirk Douglas (3) and Jean Simmons (3).

Item: Two actors who had principal roles in one version of IW also appeared as co-stars in the film The Hustler. They are George C. Scott (4) and Piper Laurie (4).

Item: Two actors who had principal roles in two different versions of IW also appeared as co-stars in the film The Hustler. They are George C. Scott (4) and Murray Hamilton (2).

Coincidence? Of course. But interesting? You bet!

Stupidity highlighted in this great film.

[flusem · 9/10 · 19 June 2012]

Institutionalised stupidity was perfectly highlighted in this superb film. All the remakes and TV adaptations did the storyline justice but fell short of the originals impact. It reached a global audience, seriously damaging the image of religion in the USA.

A landmark cinematographic gem that quickly reached cult film status. It was responsible for fans coining the phrase Creatard, as in creationist retard. The storyline highlighted the blind faith thoughtlessness of evangelical, extremely commercial Christian fundamentalism. Demonstrating how it had corrupted both the education and legal systems.

When watching the film it is best to know before hand that Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. In the same way as evolutionary theory predicted genetics and the shared genome.

The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.

A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria -It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics. -It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct. -It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.) -It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time. -It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.) The first three criteria are the most important. Theories considered scientific meet at least most of the criteria, but ideally all of them. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc.

Now enjoy a cracking film!

STILL HOLDS UP MANY YEARS LATER

[catfanatic888 · 9/10 · 11 February 2021]

I just watched this movie for the first time this evening. What a fascinating and spirited one it is! And some parts of it remind me of some historical events going on today. This film is set in the 1920s but is still relevant today whatever your beliefs are. If you haven't seen this classic, give it a chance. The acting is terrific and the dialogue smart. No boring spots.