Inherit the Wind, a play written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert
Edwin Lee, was written according to the authors as a response to attacks on
intellectual freedom coming from Republican Senator Joseph MaCarthy’s infamous
pursuit on communists during the early 1950’s.
The “McCarthy hearings” refer to hearings conducted when McCarthy headed
the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in 1953 and 1954, when
McCarthy sought to root out Communism in America, especially in the State
Department and armed forces. These
hearings are often confused with the activities of the House Committee on
Un-American Activities (HUAC) that focused during the same period (actually
beginning in 1947) on the film and theatre communities, and were seen by many
as a witch hunt, leading friends and co-workers to turn each other in for
suspected Communist leanings. McCarthy
did not launch his attack on Communism in 1950; the same year that Lawrence and
Lee completed the script of Inherit the Wind, thus the author’s
contention that the play was a response to McCarthyism is probably
disingenuous. It seems obvious that, if
anything, the play is a response to the activities of the HUAC and that
McCarthy was simply a convenient focal point for all efforts to suppress
Communism in the United States.
Inherit the Wind is
loosely based on the 1925 case of The
State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, AKA “the Scope’s trial” and “the
Monkey trial.” The play's preface says
that while the trial was its "genesis," it is "not history.” Nevertheless, the popularity of the plan
caused many people to assume that it was an accurate portrayal of the events of
the trial, and the true facts of the case are often forgotten. The play was not produced on stage until 1955. For the preceding two years, between 1952 and
1954, the authors could not find a buyer for the script. Finally, in 1954, Margo Jones, a producer from
Dallas, agreed to produce the play at Theatre '55. The opening of the play on
January 10, 1955, drew rave reviews. On
April 21, 1955, the play moved to Broadway’s National Theatre, and featured
Paul Muni, Ed Begley, and Tony Randall in the principal roles. Reviews were almost unanimously
favorable. The following appeared in April
25, 1955 edition of the Morning Telegraph
by
Whitney Bolton
For
what it has to say, and the explicit way in which it says it, there is no more
important play in New York that "Inherit the Wind," a dramatic
evaluation of the famed Scope trial of 30 years ago. This is a play which, in
the pleasant-tasting icing of excellent theatre, gets across to its audience
the core of value beneath the icing: there is no more holy concept than the
right of a man to think.
This
is important beyond description. In an era when this one right along is taking
a brutal beating, it is healthy and needful for creative men and women to take
their stand in defenses of such a right. "Inherit the Wind" could
have been much less a satisfying play and still would be a statement heartily
to be embraced and supported.
The
Scopes trial seems long ago and dimly away now. It seems ridiculous that an
entire nation could have been aroused and flung into two bitter camps because a
very small potatoes of a public teacher chose to state the theory of evolution
in his classroom. That this teaching violated a statute of Tennessee was then
and curiously is now true. Some statutory benefits came from the Scopes trial,
but erasure of the law forbidding the teaching of evolution was not one of them.
Nor is that of importance. What is of importance is that from that musty little
town, whipped into fervor by the presence of William Jennings Bryan on the side
of orthodox interpretations of the Bible, and Clarence Darrow, on the side of
enlightenment and science, came a note of hope; that men could think of
themselves without censure or impoundment and that the lost little soul of the
trial, the accused, made it easier, even though by only a fractional amount,
for the next accused thinker to take his stand for it.
This
is the rub of what Darrow fought for. He had no great interest in publicly
humiliating Bryan; he had no real concern with fighting the Bible orthodoxy.
His own estimation of the case went far deeper than that and into the realm of
something he looked upon as holier than sacred writ; the full, free, unmenaced
and unbruised right of a human being to think.
This
splendid theatrical presentation of the battle has been powerfully arrived at
by the precise writing of Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, and it has
received determined and affectionate direction from its producer, Herman
Shumlin. Mr. Shumlin is a man of thought as well as a man of theatre, and it is
plain in his work with this play and the people in it that is courageously
alongside the late Darrow in the conviction of what makes rights and what makes
the struggle to retain them.
But
nothing that the authors wrote and not enough of the direction Mr. Shumlin
provided would have had the thrust essential to the play if a lesser actor than
Paul Muni had occupied the principal role. His interpretation of the role that
is frankly Darrow is a wonder of performance, a full-bodied and magnificent
performance which stirs from the moment of silent, shuffling, round-shouldered
entry until the legally defeated and when his convicted little client receives
from Darrow the true import of what the trial has meant in terms of freeing the
minds of humanity for their noblest purpose, thought. This is one of Mr. Muni's
most colorful and brilliant performances in a long career of such. It reaches
horizons few actors ever see, much less arrive at, and it has the stature of
giantism.
Not
discernibly less brilliant is Ed Begley in a role just as frankly Bryan. Mr.
Begley brings to it the needful sonorous note, the pious humility of the
professional religious layman who, spreading himself in an area where only he
is saint and all adversaries are labeled sinful, gloats over and mocks his foe.
When these two reach their moment of clinch in the play, the work at the
National Theatre becomes a thrilling event.
In 1960, a film based on the play opened in Dayton,
Tennessee, the site of the actual Scopes trial, on July 21, the anniversary of
the verdict rendering in the actual case in 1925. The film was produced and directed by Stanley
Kramer and starred Spencer Tracy as Henry Drummond, Frederick March as Matthew
Harrison Brady, and Gene Kelly as E. K. Hornbeck. Like the play, the film was both a critical
and financial success. Most of Kramer’s
films were noted for engaging the audience with political and social issues of
the time and included such “message movies” as High Noon (1952, as
producer), The Defiant Ones (1958), On the Beach (1959), Judgment
at Nuremberg (1961), Ship of Fools (1965) and Guess
Who's Coming to Dinner (1967).
Drummond v. Brady
To briefly summarize the play, Inherit the Wind is a
courtroom drama set in the imaginary town of Hillsboro in an unspecified State at
an unspecified time, "Not long ago"
according to the stage directions. “It
might have been yesterday. It could be tomorrow” according to The Playwrights' Note. A young school teacher, Bertram Cates, is in
jail for violating a State law prohibiting the teaching of the theory of
evolution in the public schools. His
principle in-town persecutor is Reverend Jeremiah Brown, a fundamentalist
Protestant Christian preacher of indeterminate denomination who believes in
Biblical literalism. He is widowed, and has a daughter, Rachel who is
romantically linked to Cates. The trial
is something of a cause célèbre and the local district attorney has recruited
famed orator and three time Populist presidential candidate to be the primary
spokesperson for the Prosecution. For
the Defense, the Baltimore-based newspaper, the fictional Baltimore Herald has hired Henry Drummond, another nationally known
attorney who was once Brady's closest friend, and has dispatched a glib and
cynical reporter, E. K. Hornbeck to cover the trial.
The carnival atmosphere surrounding the trial is evident by
the sundry vendors hawking Bibles and hot dogs to the town people as they await
the arrival of Brady. The sarcastic
Hornbeck watching the scene remarks, “Ahhhh,
Hillsboro- Heavenly Hillsboro. The buckle on the BibleBelt.” The sentiment of the crowd gathered by
Reverend Brown to greet Brady is evident in the posters they carry:
ARE YOU A MAN OR A MONKEY?/AMEND THE
CONSTITUTION- PROHIBIT DARWIN /SAVE OUR SCHOOLS FROM SIN/ MY ANCESTORS AIN’T
APES!/WELCOME MATTHEW HARRISON BRADY/ DOWN WITH DARWIN /BE A SWEET ANGEL, DON’T
MONKEY WITH OUR SCHOOLS!/DARWIN IS WRONG! /DOWN WITH EVOLUTION /SWEETHEART,
COME UNTO THE LORD
Brady from the beginning is portrayed as a caricature of the
southern politician, large than life, both literally and figuratively. He sprinkles compliments on the townspeople
like sugared candy while chowing down on huge quantities of food. He can win people over with his affable
manner and he succeeds in gain the confidence of Rachel Brown, extracting
information from her about the defendant Bertram Cates.
Similarly, the Reverend Brown is performed as an intolerant
zealot, again a stock figure of the southern fundamentalist and religious
bigot. When he learns from Hornbeck that Henry Drummond will represent Cates in
court, his response is predictable:
“I
saw Drummond once. In a courtroom in Ohio. A man was on trial for a most brutal
crime. Although he knew-and admitted- the man was guilty, Drummond was
perverting the evidence to cast the guilt away from the accused and onto you
and me and all of society… You look into
his face, and you wonder why God made such a man. And then you know that God
didn’t make him, that he is a creature of the Devil, perhaps even the Devil
himself!
The Reverend Brown
Quick to pass judgment on the state of another man’s soul,
he even alienates his daughter first by denouncing Cates and her relationship
with him as sinful, and then in a frenzy of zealotry by cursing both Cates and
Rachel to Hellfire. At a rally he leads
his flock:
BROWN: (Pointing a finger toward the jail) Do we curse the man who denies the Word?
ALL: (Crescendo, each answer mightier than the
one before) Yes!
BROWN: Do we cast out this sinner in our midst?
ALL: Yes!
BROWN:
Do we call down hellfire on the man who has sinned against the Word?
ALL:
(Roaring) Yes!
BROWN:
(Deliberately shattering the rhythm, to go into a frenzied prayer, hands
clasped together and lifted heavenward) O
Lord of the Tempest and the Thunder! O Lord of Righteousness and Wrath! We pray
that Thou wilt make a sign unto us! Strike down this sinner, as Thou didst
Thine enemies of old, in the days of the Pharaohs! Let him feel the terror of Thy sword! For all
eternity, let his soul writhe in anguish and damnation-
RACHEL:
No! (She rushes to the
platform). No, Father. Don’t pray to
destroy Bert!
BROWN: Lord, we call down the same curse on those
who ask grace for this sinner- though they be blood of my blood, and flesh of
my flesh!
This is even too much for Brady who interrupts to put an end
Brown’s hateful fanaticism.
"Heavenly" Hillsboro
The town itself also takes on the role of a character in
this drama. It is divided between the
devoted and the indifferent. The devout
are the narrow-minded, mean-spirited amen chorus who follow Brady into town
singing “If it’s good enough for Brady
then it is good enough for me.” and join Reverent Brown in condemning Cates
to Hell and damnation. Later, they are
burning Drummond in effigy and singing about ”hang[ing] Bert Cates from a sour apple tree.” The indifferent are represented by the two
jurors with speaking roles: the illiterate Mr. Bannister who wants “that there
front seat in the jury box” because “everybody says this is going to be quite a
show,” and George Sillers who works at the feed store. Sillers
stays “pretty busy down at the feed store” and lets his “wife tend to the
religion for both of us.” We are told in
a stage direction that Cates has a “smattering” of supporter but we neither see
nor hear from them.
The trial rapidly transforms from focusing on Cates’
singular crime of teaching evolution in opposition to State law to an
indictment of the law itself and the mindset of the people who enacted and
supported it. Brady, Brown and the town
of Hillsboro see the trail as a defense of the law and by extension their faith
in the Bible as the literal and unambiguous word of God. In a comment to Hornbeck, Brady reveals that
which he fears:
I
have been in many cities and I have seen the altars upon which they sacrifice
the futures of their children to the Gods of Science. And what are their
rewards? Confusion and self-destruction. New ways to kill each other in wars. I
tell you, going the way of scientists is the way of darkness.
And in the courtroom he expands on this after interviewing
one of Cates’ students:
I
am sure that everyone on the jury, everyone within the sound of this boy’s
voice, is moved by his tragic confusion. He has been taught that he wriggled up
like an animal form the filth and the muck below!(Continuing fervently, the
spirit is upon him) I say that these Bible-haters, these “Evil-utionists,” are
brewers of poison. And the legislature of this sovereign state has had the
wisdom to demand that the peddlers of poison- in bottles or in books- clearly
label the products they attempt to sell!(There is applause. HOWARD gulps. BRADY
points at the boy.) I tell you, if this law is not upheld, this boy will become
one of a generation, shorn of its faith by the teachings of Godless science!
But if the full penalty of the law is meted out to Bertram Cates, the faithful
the whole world over, who are watching us here, and listening to our every
word, will call this courtroom blessed.
Henry Drummond, in spite of the invectives hurled against
him by Brady, Brown and the people of Hillsboro, is in the courtroom not to
destroy their faith, but to demand the right to question it as he expresses in
this exchange:
DRUMMOND: I am trying to establish, Your Honor, that Howard (the boy from
Cates’ class)- or Colonel Brady- or
Charles Darwin—or anyone in this courtroom- or you, sir- has the right to think!
JUDGE: Colonel
Drummond, the right to think is not on trial here.
DRUMMOND: (Energetically) With all respect to the bench, I hold that
the right to think is very much on trial! It is fearfully in danger in the
proceedings of this court!
BRADY (Rises) A man is on trial!
DRUMMOND: A thinking man! And he is
threatened with fine and imprisonment because he chooses to speak about what he
thinks.
It is Brady’s tactic to attack Cates, the man. He uses information learned from Rachel Brown
in confidence to attack Cates religious views.
Calling her to the stand, Brady twists her words and bullies her into
tears, and it is only Brady’s wife’s horrified outburst stuns Brady back to his
senses.
It is Drummond’s strategy not to defend Cates’ act, but to
attack the law:
I say that you cannot administer a wicked law
impartially. You can only destroy. You can only punish! And I warn you (Points
first at BRADY, then to various members of the audience and the JUDGE) that a
wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches! Its upholders as well
as its defilers!
Can’t
you understand that if you take a law like evolution and make it a crime to
teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in
the private schools? And tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it?
(Turns to the crowd in the gallery and begins addressing them. The crowd has
grown strangely quiet during all of this as they listen. BRADY looks
worriedly.)And soon you may ban books and newspapers. And then you may turn
Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try foisting
your own religion upon the mind of man! If you can do one, you can do the
other! Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy and needs
feeding.(Strides slowly back to the JUDGE’S bench)And soon, Your Honor, with
banners flying and drums beating we’ll be marching backward. . . .BACKWARD-to
the glorious ages of that sixteenth century when bigots burned the man who
dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!
But in the end, when Drummond’s attempts at an argument of
ideas fail, Drummond too resorts to a personal attack against Brady and his
fundamentalist beliefs. Having all of his attempts to show the rationality of
Darwinian theory, Drummond calls Brady to the witness stand in the capacity of
an expert witness on the Bible. Drummond’s goal is to demonstrate through
that the Bible is not to be taken literally Brady’s pride leads him to
answer Drummond’s challenge. Brady’s responses to Drummond’s mocking questions
reveal him to be closed-minded and utterly unable to respond to questions about
Biblical incidents that contradict natural law. He is shown to be more
unthinking and unquestioning than faithful and he is finally goaded into
admitting that the “days´ of creation
need not have been twenty-four hour days at all” and that the scientists
might just be right in dating the age of the Earth at many millions of years
instead of the 6,000 year old Earth accepted by Biblical literalists. Drummond succeeds in undermining the credibility
of Brady and his beliefs by making him appear ridiculous, the one thing Brady
cannot bear.
The trial ends in Cates being found guilty but this is a
hollow victory for Brady who has been marginalized by his testimony. When, at the trials conclusion, he attempts
to recapture the spotlight with a victory speech, he is utterly ignored, even
by his former followers. Mid-speech, he
falls over and dies. The play concludes with Drummond eulogizing his fallen
friend and adversary:
A giant once lived in that body. But Matt Brady got lost. Because he was
looking for God too high up and too far away.
No comments:
Post a Comment