Inherit the Wind by Jerome Lawrence, Robert E. Lee Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.24 You Save: $5.71 (57%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $2.91 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Inherit the Wind
Book Review: A Classic - But Biased
Summary: 2 Stars
This was a must read for a college literature class. Although it is referred to as classic literature, it is very biased against Christians and those who believe in Intelligent Design. It makes christians look like the bully bad guys.Book Review: A Delayed Interpretation of theme...
Summary: 3 Stars
Inherit the Wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee is about a trial against a biology teacher that taught evolution. Towards the end of the play it was no longer about evolution vs. religion, but the right to think. Neither religion nor evolution won. However, there wasn't a winning side, but it was left for us to decide. The point that was to be proved was that every man has the right to think. The only character in my opinion that was fully atheist (it became obvious towards the end of the play) was Hornbeck, the cynical journalist. He was not ready to back down from his point of view. Drummond, the defense lawyer, doesn't agree with Hornbeck about the townspeople and says they have the right to their belief. The townspeople were followers, but that didn't matter either (it was brought up in many scenes of the play). At the end of the play, Drummond weighed the Bible and the Origin of Species in his hands like a scale. It was significant because he was called the devil (atheist), but he didn't dismiss one book or choose between the two. He wanted to balance them, in other words, faith and thought. In my opinion, the last idea was that everyone has the right to think and it matters on how you use your ideas. You can have faith and belief, but you also have a mind. It was biased, but that represents the atmosphere of the play. I don't think it was a debate at the end; it was what you want to think of it. Interpret and understand what you thought as you read the play.Book Review: A Timeless Play As Meaningful Today As When It Was Written
Summary: 5 Stars
Note: I made some Mormon reader angry over my reviews of books written by Mormons out to prove the Book of Mormon, and that person has been slamming my reviews. My review of "Inherit the Wind" is concise and to the point. Oh, I get it. That person is a fanatic, and he or she doesn't like that state of mind exposed.
This explosive drama is a re-enactment of one of the twentieth century's greatest courtroom dramas--the 1925 Scopes Trail. The collision of William Jennings Bryan (a religious fundamentalist) and Clarence Darrow (an agnostic) is wonderfully enacted. Scopes, a high-school teacher, was put on trail for teaching evolution.
The preacher's daughter is in love with Scopes, and the sparks fly over the conflict. The preacher's religious fanaticism threatens to destroy his own family. Thus, the line from Proverbs 11:29: "He that troubleth his own house Shall inherit the wind."
I would also highly recommend Eric Hoffer's classic little book, "The True Believer." A must for educated readers.
The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (Perennial Classics)
Book Review: Dishonest and Disrespectful
Summary: 1 Stars
I did a little research on this movie and turned up some unpleasant truths: About once a decade, an "anti-religion propaganda film" comes out of Hollywood. I can name three of them and this is one. Really, if such a movie targeted blacks or gays or Muslims, it would arouse an outcry, and it should. This movie, produced by an atheist Christian-hater, is simply a thinly disguised attack on Christians. A teacher who shows this to his class is perpetuating this prejudice. The film does everything it can to portray southern American Christians as hateful, bigoted, intolerant, narrow-minded, ignorant, anti-scientific, and utterly unsophisticated. But, isn't such a hateful portrayal itself bigoted, hateful, & intolerant? Is such an image REALLY accurate about ANYONE? Here in Canada we are taught not to tolerate religious bigotry any more than racial bigotry. Anyway, "hate & mockery" truly describe the spirit of this film - it is so extreme, it is almost unique in this way. As for its content:
The film is technically fine - a courtroom drama. But unfortunately, it is not faithful to the facts of the trial; in fact, the whole picture is essentially a lie. For instance, no one arrested Scopes, the whole trial was initiated by the ACLU in order to overturn a penaltyless anti-evolution law. The ACLU convinced Scopes to play this role and even the prosecution cooperated as a test case. Scopes was not poor and defenseless either, a whole team of lawyers and scientists was brought from NYC by the ACLU. Thus, it wasn't really a normal trial - this is why the defense freely admitted Scopes "guilt". Scopes himself hadn't even taught evolution, the "defense" attorneys had coached the children three months later to say he had (read perjury). What Scopes had done is teach from a book which did teach evolution (the same textbook also declared evolution proved whites were superior to other races, by the way). Anyway, Scopes himself said in his autobiography that he was treated very well by everyone in town. As for the angry fundamentalist preacher and the violent lynch-mob, these were complete fiction - a straw man falsely representing only what the filmmaker WANTED to envision - in short, a lie. And...
It was Darrow, not Bryant, who was cited for contempt for his rudeness. Darrow was an avowed atheist who admitted in his own autobiography that his real goal for the case was to attack what he called "fundamentalists". In fact, the last day of the trial this man broke his word by refusing to testify. By contrast, Bryant, Darrow's opponent, was no intolerant, ignorant buffoon, as he is portrayed in the film - Bryant was chosen as the democratic candidate for president three times and was Wilson's Secretary of State. And the scientists? Darrow wouldn't even let them testify because he knew what Bryant could do to them on the stand! The whole movie deliberately twists the facts much like a Nazi or Soviet styled propaganda film. This movie is simply a deliberate slander: it has nothing to do with science - it was designed to slander Bible believers. Think about what you are really doing before you embrace this film. Using this film in a science class does not teach science; rather, it trains children to despise Christians.
There are few films I'd actually condemn - this is one of about ten. And by the way, before you mock creationists, intelligent design proponents, religious people, or atheists, be intellectually honest by taking a couple of hours to hear the specifics of what your opponents are saying; have you ever even heard what they have to say? Have you? Use science to carry on this controversy - not ridicule. Ridiculing others, as the filmmaker has so eagerly done, is just plain wrong.
Book Review: Good play, but I prefer the real thing.
Summary: 4 Stars
Inherit the Wind is a fictional play of a real trial that did happen in the early part of 20th century, tackling on the education of the students on evolution. While I did like the play, I prefer to read the real thing: the transcripts, the description of the atmosphere, and the whole nine yards. What I really didn't like about Inherit the Wind is how childish it seems. Most of the time, I was feeling, "Is this a kangaroo court or what?" Also, I didn't like a few of the characters, most especially E.K. Hornbeck the reporter from Baltimore. I like to say that I felt a deep meaning within the play, but that's not the case. It's basically a mocking of the religious people and their concept of life, and take that away, there isn't much else to speak of in the play because there is not enough of substance. In the end of the play, the idea of evolution eventually wins. Of course, I am all for it because evolution makes the most logical sense. All in all, Inherit the Wind is a good play filled with humor, but there is not enough of substance.