Inherit the Wind
1960 US
Dir: Stanley Kramer
Str: Spencer Tracy, Fredric March, Gene Kelly
Why are American people so eager to watch court room dramas?
Obviously, there must be a certain difference in gereral character
traits between Japanese and Americans.
I've long been wondering why American people are so eager to watch court room
dramas. It seems that there are many American famous court room drama movies such as 12 Angry men or Judgement
at Nuremberg or Anatomy of a Murder. On the other hand, Japanese people, generally speaking, seem to
have an inclination to avoid watching such kind of movies. Although there must be several reasons for this, one
of them, I think, might be explained by mentioning the works done by the famous American cultural anthropologist
Edward T. Hall. Though, as I explained the notions brought about by Hall in another review (The Prisoner of
Second Avenue), I'm not going to elucidate it in detail here, he essentially distinguishes two types of cultures;
one of which is high context culture and another one is low context culture. The typical example of the former
is Japanese culture, and the one of the latter is American culture. According to Hall, the high context culture
values circumstantial contexts very highly and doesn't place much stress upon explicitly specified written materials,
while the low context culture, conversely, values explicitly specified written materials very highly and tends
to disregard circumstantial contexts. Therefore, as court room dramas are rather related to the materials whose
main purpose is to get the transparency out of entangled situations with the aid of legal sanctions that are obviously
based upon explicitly specified written regulations, it wouldn't be so strange Japanese didn't want to watch court
room drama movies. In other words, Japanese don't necessarily want to expose everything explicitly, and are liable
to cover what has actually happened with a silky veil as what has been done has been done, even if they knew such
attitude would be disadvantageous for the persons concerned. It should be well considered that , in Japan, whoever
made any litigation as well as whoever was made litigation against certainly would be considered to be dangerous
unless it was an extremely clear-cut case. Because such a person would be regarded by the community he belonged
to as a person who disturbed the stillness and the stability of that community. But, this very trait of preserving
the stability of community, as I will explain it later, seems to be seen in this movie Inherit the Wind,
though in a different form.
The scheme of Inherit the Wind is so simple that the viewers need
not to concern any unnecessary side plot; actually so simple
as
there is no necessity for explaining the story line
By the way, even taking into consideration the difference in general charactaristics
between Japanese and Americans as described in the previous paragraph, the movie Inherit the Wind, for me
as a Japanese, is quite an odd movie. Because it handles the issue concerning evolutionism founded by Charles Darwin.
It's quite astonishing for me to watch two famous American actors fiercely dispute about such kind of odd issue
like evolutionism in the court room. As the movie was made in 1960, which happens to be the year I was born, I
don't know how it was accepted in Japan, or rather whether it was accepted in Japan in the first place. To tell
the truth, I don't even know whether the movie was actually shown in movie theaters in Japan at that time. I guess
it couldn't have attracted much of the attention of Japanese audience due to the reason I said in the first paragraph
plus the oddness of the subject of this movie had it actually been shown in Japan. On the other hand, according
to the introductory promotion part provided in the VHS tape prior to the feature presentation and the writings
on the package of the tape, Inherit the Wind seems to have brought about quite sensation in other countries,
and it seems it was the first movie shown in an air liner to attract first class passengers. Obviously, Inherit
the Wind had a great impact upon the audience in many countries other than Japan. Although I don't know whether,
today, the movie could have an influence upon its audience to the same extent as had at the time it was firstly
shown were it revived and shown in movie theaters today, the power of this movie, I guess, would still hold for
those who prefer this kind of court room drama movies and conversation oriented movies. For, the literally explosive
performances from two eminent American actors, Spencer Tracy and Fredric March, are quite astonishing and even
unbelievable. Moreover, the scheme of this movie is so simple that the viewers need not to concern any unnecessary
side plot or something like that; actually so simple as there is no necessity for explaining the story line, which
I'm always doing in other movie reviews. Just Fredric March prosecutes a school teacher who gave a lecture concerning
evolutionism to his students and taught them that the human race derived from the lower form of animals such as
monkeys, and Spencer Tracy defends the teacher. That's what the movie is almost all about as to the story line.
Nothing else except the depiction of the relationship between the daughter who is also the fiancee of the teacher
and the father who is a priest and seems to be most eager to persecute evolutionism and, as a representative of
it, the teacher. Additionally saying, Gene Kelly appears as a newspaper correspondent, and seems to be adding some
spice to the movie as I will explain it later.
They must protect the community and their own life. Therefore,
they prosecute a teacher who teaches evolutionism to students.
The question firstly I would like to submit with regard to this movie is why
the issue of evolutionism is so important for those who are opposed to it in this movie. Why can't they simply
dismiss the notion out of their minds, and let it be as it is? After all, teachong evolutionism, as Spencer Tracy
suggests in a scene, wouldn't be able to cause any physical damage to the people who were told to. Just a theory,
isn't it? I'm not so sure about whether the people living in the countries other than Japan where the significance
of religion, I presume, is not so strong these days probably compared to other countries feel in the same way.
Anyway, I will proceed by assuming many persons feel in that way. But, I would like to suggest, should we take
into consideration the next aspect, the issue would surely be beginning to have significant meanings. That is,
by evolutionism, the stability of the community of that town where the trial takes place is at stake, for the community
is sustained mainly by the force created by religion, and evolutionism is considered by the folks belonging to
the community to be an element that might have the power of destroying this force based upon religious faith. In
short, if this fundamental force supplied by religion was destroyed by any means, it would, at the same time, mean
the fall of the community itself, and therefore the life of all the people belonging to that community, at least
from the view point of the persons living in the community. We will surely be able to notice, by watching this
movie, religion is not simply the matter of faith, but the matter of life too. This aspect will become much clearer
if you've read the books written by such sociologists as Peter Berger or Thomas Luckmann. Thus, almost all the
folks in that town with the exception of the students of the teacher seem to belong to the prosecuting side. For,
they also have their life, and must protect it from whatever might destroy it. For them, evolutionism has the most
dangerous factor that might make it actually happen. This can be evidently seen in the scene where, when the aforementioned
daughter who is engaged to the teacher has blamed the wife of Fredric March for defending her husband who tricked
the daughter in the court room, the wife responds to it by asking her such a question "What do you stand for?
What do you believe in? I believe in my husband.". In this case, it wouldn't be so wrong if I said, for her,
her husband also represents the community she belongs to. And, they believe in the community, or rather the stability
of the community and the stability given by the stable community. The destruction of the community, therefore,
would mean for them the destruction of their life too. By all these reasons, the folks belonging to the community
can't simply dismiss the notion of evolutionsim out of their mind.
The freedom of speech is also very important if we want to improve
our life. Yet, we will be able to undestand, by watching Inherit
the
wind, the reconciliation between the stability of community and
the
freedom of speech is quite difficult.
On the other hand, another important point is suggested in Inherit the Wind
through the figure of Spencer Tracy. That is, the notion individual persons have the right to think whatever they
want to think and the right to speak whatever they want to speak is a relatively recent notion, and has been acquired
through the very long long history, and this long history is easily forgotten altogether due to the fact now it
is taken for granted. The reason why Spencer Tracy who, as it turns out in the last scene, is a devoted religious
person himself so fiercely defend the teacher is not only because he is just doing his job, but also because he
knows if one's right to think whatever s/he wants to think and one's right to speak whatever s/he wants to speak
were once denied, it would mean the long striving history of acquiring those rights was also denied altogether,
and had to go back to the dark age when such rights were never even assumed. Briefly saying, Inherit the Wind
is not just a movie depicting the dispute concerning evolutionism, but a movie elucidating the importance of both
retaining the stability of community and acknowleging the right to think and speak freely, and the difficulty of
reconciling those two aspects. These two aspects are represented by the prosecuting side and the prosecuted side
respectively in the movie. I think what is claimed by either side has its own truth equally. It might seem that
so eagerly refuting just hypothetical probability of evolutionism is emotionally too much overloaded. Yet, it concerns
their life, and, therefore, can't be just a theory for them. And, on the other hand, the freedom of speech, of
course, is the prerequisite for acquiring new knowledge and improving one's life. Finally, it should be added that
this difficulty as to the reconciliation of those two aspects is also shown through the presence of Gene Kelly.
He appears to be the symbol of free speech as a newspaper correspondent. Yet, as told by Spencer Tracy in the last
scene, he actually is a floating weed with his bond to community completely uprooted, and all alone. Without the
firm basis supplied by community, he can't be but a vagrant. That is what is suggested through the figure of Gene
Kelly, I presume. Anyway, as a conclusion, I would like to say, Inherit the Wind is a very profound movie,
and there is no doubt in that I will watch it over and over again.
Go Back to Movie Reviews Main Page