Many Americans consider the classic Hollywood movie Inherit
the Wind as a factual presentation of the trial of The
State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, but it is anything but. Its true
purpose was malicious propaganda against Biblical religion, and an assault on
Middle America.
An article by James Perloff dissects the movie,
laying bare its many errors, or shall we say, departures from fact. The
plausible deniability concerning its propaganda value may indeed derive from
the argument that no reasonable person would consider this movie fact because
it is entertainment, which by its very nature has no obligation to factual
fidelity.
The defenders of the movie have a point, but
the reality is that this movie has been used for decades to gainsay certain
people, their religion, and way of life. The movie was released in 1948 and
made into TV movie in 1988, in order to sustain the propaganda franchise of the film
and case.
There can be no denying that the screenplay as
well as the movie is based on the famous 1925 trial in which Clarence Darrow
and William Jennings Bryan squared off against each other in one of the trials
of the century. But what would be the point of twisting the story so much if
not to score points against Christians by trumpeting evolution?
Perloff runs through the film by comparing
movie scenes with actual events from the trial, relying heavily on the court
transcripts to set the record straight. Much more often than not, the two tellings diverge starkly.
Contrary to many beliefs, the case was not
about evolution or science. It was about whether a school teacher, in this case
John Scopes, had violated Tennessee’s Butler Act which prohibited the teaching
that man descended from lower forms of animals. That was it. The consequence
for violating the law was civil fines – not criminality or jail time – a point
over which the film takes great literary license.
One of the interesting facts about the case
was its genesis – or shall we say its evolution. The town where the trial was
heard, Dayton, had some enterprising boosters who wanted to put the small town
on the map to lift its moribund economy.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had
been advertising for a challenger to the Butler Act when a local businessman
saw the ad, and persuaded his colleagues to enlist John Scopes as the guinea
pig for the publicity stunt. Scopes agreed and the rest was pretty much
history.
Thus for the city’s economic prostitutes there
was no principled interest in the law or justice. But for the Ziocon ACLU it
was a golden opportunity to spread its venom against Christians and
Fundamentalists, as well as anyone else who didn’t toe the line on evolution.
While the movie depicts the Dayton proxy town
filled with wild eyed zealots, the reality was quite the opposite as even
Darrow himself admitted concerning the town’s warm reception of him and his
northern carpet baggers.
The assertions in the movie that Darrow was
the underdog fighting for truth, justice, and the American Way is also another
fiction undermined by the facts. Darrow was heavily funded by Northern business
interests operating through the ACLU, and flanked by lawyers Arthur Garfield,
Dudley Malone, and John Neal, to name but a few.
The court bent over backward to accommodate Darrow’s
requests to introduce evidence, including his request to submit experts on
evolution who would not be subject to cross examination. Although the expert
evidence was heard without the presence of jurors, it was entirely irrelevant
to the claims of the state that Scopes had violated the Butler Act.
When Darrow was allowed to call the plaintiff,
William Jennings Bryan acting for the state, to the witness stand, it was done
under the assumption that Darrow, the attorney for the defendant, would be
subject to cross examination. Again, this unusual event was an attempt to humiliate
Bryan, but as we shall see, Bryan was denied his day in court so to speak.
Darrow knew that Bryan’s eloquence would more
than likely sink his case, and because he did not want to be subject to Bryan’s
rapier wit under cross examination, he instructed his client to plead guilty
the day following his grilling of Bryan. Darrow’s case was so weak that Scopes, as he
stated in his memoirs, could not recall ever teaching evolution in his class,
contrary to the carefully coached testimony of the students.
Scopes was a math teacher and football coach
who substituted for the biology teacher on the day the alleged legal infraction
occurred. In short the defense had no substance from its star performer, except that it perpetrated
a hoax and a fraud on the court.
When Scopes was fined 100 USD, Bryan offered
to pay the fine, but the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the penalty on a
technicality. Scopes was even offered his job back, but that is not what Inherit
the Wind teaches.
Thus the main purpose of the ACLU and its
masters’ conjuring up this case out of thin air was to stir up a craze of
publicity which was essential in its assault on biblical religions. This
assault on Western civilization is the animus of Talmudism.
The movie likewise caricatured the event
beyond recognition, yet the masses of Americans considered the movie to be
based upon historical fact. The truth lies contrary to their beliefs. So while
Stanley Kramer pretends to be opposed to bigotry in his movie, he stirs up
hatred and contempt for Bryan and the citizens of Dayton and Tennessee with his
gross abuse of the truth.
The movie is successful because of its stark
dichotomy of good and evil, a typical morality play devoid of any connection to
history, save that there was indeed a trial in Tennessee trying Scopes for
violation of the Butler Act, but never the quackery of evolution regardless of
Darrow’s attempts to do otherwise.
Perloff offers a more detailed account of the
movie and reality, a read which is worth the time.
Reference
James Perloff, Trial By Hollywood, James Perloff website, nd, accessed 9/14/2014
Copyright 2014 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.
I agree with you on the liberal propaganda. But the movie was from 1960 not 1948.
ReplyDelete