Inherit The Wind Essays (931 words) - Scopes Trial,

Inherit The Wind The Truth about Stanley Kramers Inherit the Wind History is consistently used in films as a technique to teach the values and morals of events that occurred. But whats the point in teaching history through films when they are terribly fictional? In films, the director finds the best scheme to intrigue their audience only by changing the actual event to satisfy their interest. This is true for Stanley Kramer when he made the history of John Scopes and his monkey trial into a film called Inherit the Wind. Kramer knew the exact stereotypical Hollywood history his audience enjoyed. The trial itself had a series of conflicts, the main one being evolution vs. religion. Yet there was also a series of tensions throughout the movie, including the argument between individual vs. society. The same themes from Inherit the Wind can also be seen from the actual monkey trial event in Dayton, Tennessee. It is sometimes said that truth is stranger than fiction and according to this film, truth is also stronger than fiction. Inherit the Wind ignored the true dramatic moment, which is essential to the actual trial that happened in Dayton, Tennessee. Kramer even portrayed his own opinion of this trial in this film. The truth was so distorted in the film so now the argument is not individual vs. society or evolution vs. religion but history vs. fiction. Inherit the Wind is set in the little town of Hillsboro when Bertram Cates (played by), a biology teacher, was thrown into prison for teaching Darwins theory of evolution. Two famous lawyers were behind this case, Henry Drummond (played by) as the defender and Mathew Harrison Brady (played by), as the prosecutor. Mathew Harrison Brady who was voted 3 times for a presidential candidate was sent to Hillsboro is carry out the job as a prosecutor for this trial. As for Cates, a journalist from Baltimore Herald by the name of E.K. Horrbeck willingly provided a lawyer named Henry Drummond for him. Horrbeck was interested in the Cates, expecting to make big bucks from this big media case. The two opposing lawyers, Drummond and Brady, were Kramers two main characters, both with different opinions on how humans arrived on earth. Drummond supported the evolution theory, while Brady, the creation theory. In this film, Kramer distorted the facts of the actual trial to make this film more of a dr ama than a history documentary. He added fictitious characters like Reverend Heremiah Brown (played by) and his daughter Rachel Brown (played by) to bring this drama out. Its obvious that Rachel is used as icon in Inherit the Wind to make film be seen as more of a drama with the typical love story that directly attracts more audience to his film. Kramer also added Bradys death in the courtroom. He dramatically died of a heart attack in the chaotic courtroom at the end of the trial after his last speech. Persecuted The film is far from the truth, the actual trial didnt happen in quite the same way. The 1925, Dayton, Tennessee went against one of its individual, John Scopes. He just so happened to be substituting for a biology class that was learning about the Darwins theory. Similar to the film, the actual lawyers, Darrow and Bryan were also famous in their position of the society. Darrow was the defender, and Bryan, the prosecutor. The characters in this film also had different personalities compared with the actual history figures they are. Take Drummond for example, he was less cynical and biting than Scopes actual defender, Darrow. Brady, on the other hand, was portrayed more of a comical fanatic at moments in the courtroom. From this event on, the flaws of this little town began to reveal. The townspeople of Hillsboro were far more frenzied, mean-spirited, and ignorant than the real citizens of Dayton were toward this trial. From the fictitious characters and the distant differences between the history and film, I can conclude that Kramer was completely biased when he was directing this film. When the actual trial and the film are compared, itd obvious that Kramer was not only thinking of his audiences interest but his own. He was biased