I was a black student in an all- white Catholic school more progressive than most. One of our field trips took us to a special screening of this great film. I have since committed it to memory as it was one of the most profound experiences of my young life. Bless this film.
Scott Miller, unfortunately there are have always been too many religious bigots to recognize this film for its greatness. Watching this film for the first time as a very young atheist, it was very cathartic for me.
Tracy, older than his years thanks to diabetes and alcohol, was fearful of taking on work by this point. He feared he'd lost his memory and his edge. He handles these long takes masterfully--reacting to Fredric March's replies quite naturally and hardly ever blinking when he returns a line (Anthony Hopkins did not invent this technique--nor did he claim to). There is so much of his performance in his eyes. Critics complained that Stanley Kramer's film resembled too much a photographed stage play, but that is so wrong. His directing studiously avoids getting in the way of these wonderful performances. The camera moves so smoothly behind the jurors that you hardly notice it when it happens--we are the jury here.
I have to side with the critics in that regard. Inherit The Wind is very much a filmed stage play. There isn't much here to enjoy if one is trying to indulge oneself in what made cinema so engaging. However, this film is engaging to watch because it showcases two phenomenal performances.
The Power to think ! The power to cognate and mull something over and have freedom to think an idea ! Right or wrong !!! In this year of Jan 2022 people want to cancel Spotify because Joe Rohan wants people to think . People fear freedom to think outside big pharma … even if there wrong, don’t they have a right to think what they want ? The freedom even to think wrong ???
@@ricardocantoral7672 The similarity to the stage play is somewhat unavoidable when you are literally adapting one into the other, but at least the camera moves in ways that would not be possible in an audience watching it on stage. But you're right: Their performances are what make this so great. It has been remade several times with top actors like Jack Lemon and George C Scott but those pale in comparison to this version, in my opinion.
MORE TOO -- THE point,...... wher did that second----- p***E of ASS,....come from? I was raised -- CATHOLIC! NO ONE - ANYONE has ANSWERED THAT ? - MY same [ ? ] NO - one! & OH YEAH,.....why did CAINE,.....take out ---- > HIS < brother. NOW WE ARE DOWN TOO (two) 2,.....MALES --adam / caine. Who else KNEW Abel's WIFE,...(adam ?) WHO else KNEW ----eve?
Powerful and excellent in every way and it wasn,t even nominated for best picture of the year. And Spencer Tracy and Frederick March should have been tied and both should have gotten oscars for best Actors of 1960 how could the academy overlook this ?????
And it still goes on today with people insisting that their creation myth be taught in public school on an equal footing with science. John Scopes was found guilty and fined all of $100. A legal defeat but a moral victory. Nevertheless, it had a chilling effect on American science education until Sputnik was launched. Don’t let it happen again.
@@jerometaperman7102 As I read, the conviction was overturned in the Tennesses supreme court. But yes, it did have such an effect as you mentioned. More proof, to my mind, that law has nothing to do with justice. That law was simply passed by ignorant bigots to suppress the rights of others just as laws are today.
I remember watching this film on the BBC years ago, this was long before video and no commercial breaks. I had to dash to get a bucket to pee in as I found the acting riveting.
First time I saw this on TV with my mom and dad as a kid it really opened my eyes to some things I had never even thought about in the bible, like, yeah, where DID Cane's wife come from? This started my decades long journey to agnosticism that culminated in my mid-thirties when I read a sentence in a book that hit me like a Mack truck: If I had been born somewhere else in the world and raised by different parents with a different religion, would I still believe the same things I believe now? The answer of course, is no. How can any of it be true if it depends almost entirely on where you were born and by whom you were raised? And as I researched the nuts and bolts of HOW the bible came to be assembled the way it is now I discovered what a human-made product the bible really is. Older manuscripts of books of the bible contain some things that are not in newer versions, meaning that things have been *removed,* and newer manuscripts of books of the bible contain things that are not in the older ones, meaning that things have been *added.* And most damning for a holy book that was supposedly written by an all-knowing and all-powerful being, NOT ONE original manuscript has ever been found so we have no way of knowing if what is in the bible nowadays is even what was originally intended!
Adapted from the 1955 stage play, Nedrick Young and Harold Smith's screenplay is compelling drama, acted by two giants of the cinema. A thinly veiled diatribe against the 1950's McCarthy era hunt for Communists. Excellent!
Look at March in this scene, not Tracy. March. He has the tougher part at this point, Look at him. Look at him concentrating, you can almost see the wheels turning in his head, the searching for how he is going to respond to his opponent, the determination, the clenched jaw, the eyes not really looking at Tracy, but providing a veil over this thinking, preparing his next series of blows back. And all this, ALL this, without saying a word. Reminds me of a great scene in of the Spencer Tracy Katherine Hepburn films where Hepburn had her back turned to the camera and she acted through it.
"I Prayed That God Would Emancipate Me, But It Was Not Till I Prayed With My Legs That I Was Emancipated."--Frederick Douglass So much for faith, hope, and charity...
Brady was also incorrect in saying that original sin was sex. Nowhere does the Bible teach that the sexual act transmits original sin, St Augustine in the early fifth century AD was responsible for that doctrine.
@@patrickhows1482 that’s crazy I’m glad I learned something new! It was kind of poetic tho, unintentionally when the defense said all the holy people were “begotten out of sin” which I took as we are all born into sin, knowing that we will commit sin and sinning is human nature and all that. I pondered that statement after he said it for a good 5 minutes or so
Soon after 1789 French Revolution established "Lacite", the First Amendment followed in 1792... Its opening Clause? "Congress shall make no Law respecting an establishment of Religion, etc..."
On the fifth day, "God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'" (Genesis 1:26). This occurred before God had created had Adam from "the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7), and Eve from Adam's "rib" (Genesis 2:21-22). Cain, therefore, took a wife who had descended from the earlier firth day creation, and not after his own, post seventh day, kind. It is not difficult to deduce, for those who are encouraged to know how to read. As for belief, that is not the issue, here. Class dismissed
Genesis 1:26 is the sixth day, not the fifth. The fifth day concluded in verse 23. And Genesis 2 is not a continuation of the creation story, it is a different version (starting at verse 5). In Genesis 1 man is created after everything else, man and woman created together. In Genesis 2 man is created first, even before plants. The other creatures were then made (also out of the ground) in an attempt to find a suitable mate for Adam. After countless failures (I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek), Eve was formed from Adam's rib.
H o t r e t a r d e d c h i X Whatever helps you maintain your beliefs and avoid cognitive dissonance I guess. I just didn’t want people unfamiliar with the text to casually read your comment and think it was accurate.
I don't think can you stand so close to the person being cross examined in the witness box He is right in Brady's face . perhaps back then you could. You can't applaud in court during a trial can you?
This is a play based on The Scopes Monkey Trial - Many details are accurate and I am sure in those times one attorney could get close to another in questioning. Scopes was so controversial they had to change the names in order to tell the story. Applause, would be up to the Judge to maintain the order in their courtroom.
'Inherit the Wind" was an entertaining movie with great acting, but most people fail to realize it was a highly fictionalized story of a real event that was much different than the movie.
@@Christopher-wm8vc- Sure, the movie used some of the transcripts and some exact quotes, after all, it was based on a real event.. Like I said it was entertaining well made with good acting, but it was a movie, not a documentary and the actual events were not quite like in the movie in that it told only one side of the story, as movies often do. The star of the movie was Spencer Tracy who played Clarence Darrow , a high-profile defense attorney of the day whose main claim to fame was defending Leopold and Loeb, the notorious thrill killers in Chicago who murdered a boy in order to commit "the perfect crime." Darrow saved Leopold and Loeb from the death penalty so apparently it was considered some kind of a victory, Nevertheless Scopes was found guilty also. The case was appealed and Scopes fine ($100) was cinsidered excessive so was rescinded, but Scopes was still guilty. Later he left teaching and I think worked as a car salesman. The law against teaching evolution in Tennessee schools was not repealed until 1967.
@@Christopher-wm8vc - Of course a movie based on a real event would probably use real quotes and transcripts from the trial, but it was a movie, not a documentary, and basically told only one side of the story, as movies often do, What is a movie> It is entertainment, right? The reason a film studio makes a movie is to make money and if the movie is good people will pay to see it. If you are looking for historical accuracy you have to look elsewhere, you won't find it in a movie, you have to dig a little deeper..
I’m actually in a production of the play rehearsing right now, and the reality is very different. For one thing, the townspeople were welcoming of both Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan (Drummond and Brady in the film/play) and the defendant was not threatened with violence or even held in jail. Heck, Bryan was even willing to pay the defendant’s fine. The infant ACLU wanted to challenge the law and the town of Dayton was happy to oblige, seeing the possible financial impact.
Darrow should have brought in a Rabbi who'd studied the bible. The Hebrew version has commentary that explains everything. A Jewish bible scholar would've had them all on their knees.
The historical incident this was based on- was one of the greatest con games in the last century. This was set up to attract crowds- with their money, the players in this bit of theatre were scripted on their dialogue, and the man sitting in the courtroom knew in advance he would suffer no professional repercussions and if fined, the cost to him would be covered in full.
Satan thought he was better than God and so God gave him the Earth for a while and the evidence of Satan's failures are manifest. The road is wide and the gate is narrow; many are called but few are chosen. God knows our hearts. Oh, and BTW, God love us and would never condemn those who reject Him to permanent torture in a hell but He just has the returned to the earth and will never enjoy the Paradise on Earth.
@@stayoung80 Watch this movie. Alleged The Movie - Trailer th-cam.com/video/O1b8g8rUA6k/w-d-xo.html William Jennings Bryan, Scopes Trial Closing Speech 1925 - the trial ended before he could give the speech. history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111bryan.html
@@michaeldeo5068 "Alleged" is a poor attempt of a remake of Inherit the Wind and, based on the end of the trailer, obviously pro-creationist. The speech is nicely worded, but words are one thing, and the practice has proven to be somewhat different - the bloodiest wars and most heinous inhumanities have always been commited in the name of religion and particularly the Bible. We would still be crawling in the mud if there were not for men who think and use their intellectual faculties. I am not a supporter of Darvinism but even less that of Creationism. Faith is important but for people with brains, it has nothing to do with religion. Religion is poison and education is the only true salvation for mankind, and even though there is a price to pay, it is worth it. Whoever and whatever teaches you not to think but to accept any idea as it is for no argumented reason, cannot possibly be good. Finally, your words- a dishonedt account of what really happened. WHAT DO YOU MEAN? Is Inherit the Wind a documentary? Is it stated anywhere in the movie that it IS a true story, or it is BASED on a true story, but focuses on the point, which I argumented above? " Inherit the Wind is a fictionalized account of the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" Trial ... " is the official description of the movie.
@@stayoung80 If you watched the movie Alleged", you should see that " inherent the wind" by compassion is full of lies and half truths." The movie alleged does not have the big names or budget but it does tell what really happened. It is amazing that people can be convinced to believe Evolution as taught by Darwin is true and the rational position to hold to. The Movie is dishonest because it claims a false narrative that the Bible and science are not compatible. There is in reality what people claim to be science just as there are false religions. Scientism and false religions have much in common. "We would still be crawling in the mud if there were not for men who think and use their intellectual faculties." Actually it was out of a religious framework that the scientific fields thrived. Science is dependant on reliable cause and effects, on there being a reason for causality and that it is reliable. The Bible gives us this in the teaching that ultimate reality is Mind, the Supreme Being not mindlessness. "I am not a supporter of Darvinism but even less that of Creationism. Faith is important but for people with brains, it has nothing to do with religion." The belief that mindlessness is the Source and cause, which is the position one has to accept when denying the Creator, results in an irrational, blind faith. To claim that a faith in mindlessness is one that is more intellectual is absurd! Mindlessness cannot be the source and cause. Mindlessness is devoid of inherent causality, whereas the Creator, the Supreme Mind is self determined and gives us a rational foundation for reason. To believe our brains have been accidentally caused, ultimately by that which is mindless and devoid of intention but yet somehow we are able to trust our reasoning, is a faith based belief. One is really begging the question when they hold to this worldview. "Religion is poison and education is the only true salvation for mankind, and even though there is a price to pay, it is worth it. " Again, your assuming true religion is not true education. Also, salvation for mankind would be the end of sin which enslaves, and the end of death. Life in a mindless reality would not matter, and in fact would be against the nature of such an ultimate reality! True religion proclaims Life creates life and that Life is the goal! Scientism teaches the eventually heat death of everything. "Whoever and whatever teaches you not to think but to accept any idea as it is for no argumentative reason, cannot possibly be good." Agreed! The words of the Creator says to seek knowledge and gain wisdom. To come and reason together. The Creator says don't be fooled by the vain philosophies of men. The movie "Alleged" and the advances in science have both shown Darwin's theories to be unsupported and without real evidence to back them up. Now to your claim that about wars, please refer to the published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” by "authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare. While, for example, it is estimated that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone. History simply does not support the hypothesis that religion is the major cause of conflict. The wars of the ancient world were rarely, if ever, based on religion. These wars were for territorial conquest, to control borders, secure trade routes, or respond to an internal challenge to political authority. In fact, the ancient conquerors, whether Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, or Roman, openly welcomed the religious beliefs of those they conquered, and often added the new gods to their own pantheon. Medieval and Renaissance wars were also typically about control and wealth as city-states vied for power, often with the support, but rarely instigation, of the Church. And the Mongol Asian rampage, which is thought to have killed nearly 30 million people, had no religious component whatsoever. Most modern wars, including the Napoleonic Campaign, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the American Civil War, World War I, the Russia Revolution, World War II, and the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, were not religious in nature or cause. While religious groups have been specifically targeted (most notably in World War II), to claim that religion was the cause is to blame the victim and to misunderstand the perpetrators’ motives, which were nationalistic and ethnic, not religious." Shalom/Peace
@@michaeldeo5068 "false narrative that the Bible and science are not compatible. " Aaaaaand that's where I stopped reading your post. If you really believe that, then you have zero understanding of the underpinning mechanisms of science or faith. Does your precious creator reward ignorance?
Cain's wife? The answer is very simple, daughters were not usually named as only the first born sons represented the heads of new family lines are listed. Abel is mentioned because Cain failed in this role and killed him. Genesis 5:3, and Adam lived a 130 years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: 4 The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he begat sons and daughters. 5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died. There is no mention of the names of Adam's other sons or his daughter's. Think about it: 130 years is a long time for Eve to only have had a mere three children! That’s only one child every 43 years. Seeing that Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28) Since Seth was named by his mother, ( Seth means, He appointed) it is reasonable that he was now considered the first born son born after Abel's death and Cain's curse. To illustrate this in Genesis 5:6, it records the first born of Seth is Enosh. The firstborn son was the one who normally received a double inheritance, and was the one who would inherit his father’s role as head of the family. Shalom/Peace
@Connor Locock Belief in the Truth of the Word of Yahweh is built on reason and evidence not blind faith. Blind faith is to believe in the impossible, irrational teachings of Scientism and Secular Humanism. Humanity cannot progress in Truth until it gives up these false religions.
@Connor Locock The Universe and everything in it. Can you provide evidence for nonthinking, processes coming in to existence from nothing and causing, without being caused upon the information we see in the Creation?
@Connor Locock "it's a fundamental misunderstanding to claim atheists believe the universe came from nothing." No, it actually comes from thinking out fully what the Atheistic world view reduces to. The possibility of an unthinking, Eternal universe cannot be supported by logical reasoning or the scientific evidence because energy runs down. Entropy is the logical conclusion. This would have happened long ago showing our universe has not been infinite in the past. This is a major problem for the unbeliever. We logically must assume something has had to exist Eternally for anything to be in existence now. We cannot assume it is unthinking energy/matter because of the problem stated above and the fact that the leading scientific evidence points to a beginning for our universe. Unthinking causes always need another cause to act on them to do anything. It is because of all these reasons and evidence, the belief that eternal unthinking Energy/matter cannot be supported. Those saying it can have rejected reason and the scientific evidence, and have no foundation for the universe, so basically are believing in a universe from nothing or at least nothing they can point to from their world view! "For example, we believe in the fossil record which shows conclusive evidence for Darwinian evolution." Hardly, what the fossil record as many interpret it today, comes from is based on assumptions and the classifications given to other physical material. "We believe in the law of gravity, which explains why the planets orbit the sun. " Good, theist believe in the LAW of gravity as well, we just have a problem with believing laws exist without a law giver. Explaining how a machine works and believing there is NO machine maker is a problem for people of reason. "The ultimate cause of the universe's existence is currently unknown by scientists, but there are theories with some evidence to support them, such as the big bang. We still don't know for sure, but people are working on finding out. " The "We don't know" but people are working on it and will figure it out but it can't be the Supreme Being/Creator. is essentially a false faith, a false religion, it's Idolatry! "Also, if the universe can't have created itself, as you say, then neither can God. So what created God? Either you have an infinite regress of causes, or it is possible for something to have caused itself." No, ifs about it, unthinking energy/matter can't create itself as evidenced by the reasons above. We also Don't believe The God of gods created Himself. We belief Yahweh is the Ultimate Reality, the SOURCE, The ONE who is Eternal Existence itself who causes all others things and selves to come into existence. Yahweh the Creator is that Some ONE and Something that has always Existed, Who is Existence. Yahweh Being ultimate Reality, means Yahweh is What and Who is Ultimate Truth, Because the Truth is that which is Real. For this reason to reject Yahweh the Creator, the unbeliever is rejecting Truth and Reality and the very source of their Beings. That is not reasonable or very scientific. Shalom/Peace
Daughters are rarely mentioned in the Bible. The exception is Dinah, because her defilement at the hands of the prince of Shechem led to war. Then there's Serach, daughter of Asher, though nobody knows why she's mentioned.
@@michaeldeo5068 There's something missing in your argument. How did you arrive to the conclusion that Yahweh IS the creator? Contrary to what you're saying, we non-believers are willing to acknowledge, or in my case even worship, whoever created the universe. We're just having trouble pointing out who because there's no compelling evidence for any known deities today. Do you think you're up to the task?
I was a black student in an all- white Catholic school more progressive than most. One of our field trips took us to a special screening of this great film. I have since committed it to memory as it was one of the most profound experiences of my young life. Bless this film.
I guess it was predominantly white. I acted out this scene in school in 7th grade. Glad I got the Drummond part.
He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind
Seek answeres to the question ‘Why?’
The writing, the acting, the direction, brilliant all around.
God.
Spencer Tracy's death was such a loss.
Young actors everywhere should study this.
Agreed. Same for Fredric March. For a laugh, you should search, 'What's My Line Fredric March.' :)
from PL. Agre movie , acting -brilliant. Just sat thing is than HISTORY is so not tru.im wonder is it target or just exdently??? ( sory 4 my EN.)
This should have been the best picture of 1960!!!
@@scottmiller6495 It won at the Berlin Film Festival
Scott Miller, unfortunately there are have always been too many religious bigots to recognize this film for its greatness. Watching this film for the first time as a very young atheist, it was very cathartic for me.
Tracy, older than his years thanks to diabetes and alcohol, was fearful of taking on work by this point. He feared he'd lost his memory and his edge. He handles these long takes masterfully--reacting to Fredric March's replies quite naturally and hardly ever blinking when he returns a line (Anthony Hopkins did not invent this technique--nor did he claim to). There is so much of his performance in his eyes. Critics complained that Stanley Kramer's film resembled too much a photographed stage play, but that is so wrong. His directing studiously avoids getting in the way of these wonderful performances. The camera moves so smoothly behind the jurors that you hardly notice it when it happens--we are the jury here.
It was nothing short of spectacular. For two hours Tracy was really the Clarence Darrow type character & so realistic about it.
I have to side with the critics in that regard. Inherit The Wind is very much a filmed stage play. There isn't much here to enjoy if one is trying to indulge oneself in what made cinema so engaging. However, this film is engaging to watch because it showcases two phenomenal performances.
The Power to think ! The power to cognate and mull something over and have freedom to think an idea ! Right or wrong !!! In this year of Jan 2022 people want to cancel Spotify because Joe Rohan wants people to think . People fear freedom to think outside big pharma … even if there wrong, don’t they have a right to think what they want ? The freedom even to think wrong ???
@@ricardocantoral7672 The similarity to the stage play is somewhat unavoidable when you are literally adapting one into the other, but at least the camera moves in ways that would not be possible in an audience watching it on stage. But you're right: Their performances are what make this so great. It has been remade several times with top actors like Jack Lemon and George C Scott but those pale in comparison to this version, in my opinion.
MORE TOO -- THE point,...... wher did that second----- p***E of ASS,....come from? I was raised -- CATHOLIC! NO ONE - ANYONE has ANSWERED THAT ? - MY same [ ? ] NO - one! & OH YEAH,.....why did CAINE,.....take out ---- > HIS < brother. NOW WE ARE DOWN TOO (two) 2,.....MALES --adam / caine. Who else KNEW Abel's WIFE,...(adam ?) WHO else KNEW ----eve?
This movie is cinematic perfection. The acting is superb.
one of the greatest movies ever with extremely fine acting
I don't think you can stand so close to the person being cross examined
in the witness box He is right in Brady's face . perhaps back then you
could
Tracy and March are two of the greatest actors ever.
this movie... I look up to this movie so much
Powerful and excellent in every way and it wasn,t even nominated for best picture of the year. And Spencer Tracy and Frederick March should have been tied and both should have gotten oscars for best Actors of 1960 how could the academy overlook this ?????
"It frightens me to think of the state of learning in the world if everyone had your driving curiosity."
No joke... the quotes in the movie can help people in real life...
Brilliant line
And it still goes on today with people insisting that their creation myth be taught in public school on an equal footing with science. John Scopes was found guilty and fined all of $100. A legal defeat but a moral victory. Nevertheless, it had a chilling effect on American science education until Sputnik was launched. Don’t let it happen again.
@@jerometaperman7102 As I read, the conviction was overturned in the Tennesses supreme court. But yes, it did have such an effect as you mentioned. More proof, to my mind, that law has nothing to do with justice. That law was simply passed by ignorant bigots to suppress the rights of others just as laws are today.
@@danielheartfire614 - And that is why the founding fathers insisted on a secular government.
The acting from both , simply cannot be surpassed.( in my opinion)
I remember watching this film on the BBC years ago, this was long before video and no commercial breaks. I had to dash to get a bucket to pee in as I found the acting riveting.
I love this movie, I can watch it over and over again and I won't get enough of it
First time I saw this on TV with my mom and dad as a kid it really opened my eyes to some things I had never even thought about in the bible, like, yeah, where DID Cane's wife come from? This started my decades long journey to agnosticism that culminated in my mid-thirties when I read a sentence in a book that hit me like a Mack truck: If I had been born somewhere else in the world and raised by different parents with a different religion, would I still believe the same things I believe now? The answer of course, is no. How can any of it be true if it depends almost entirely on where you were born and by whom you were raised? And as I researched the nuts and bolts of HOW the bible came to be assembled the way it is now I discovered what a human-made product the bible really is. Older manuscripts of books of the bible contain some things that are not in newer versions, meaning that things have been *removed,* and newer manuscripts of books of the bible contain things that are not in the older ones, meaning that things have been *added.* And most damning for a holy book that was supposedly written by an all-knowing and all-powerful being, NOT ONE original manuscript has ever been found so we have no way of knowing if what is in the bible nowadays is even what was originally intended!
Adapted from the 1955 stage play, Nedrick Young and Harold Smith's screenplay is compelling drama, acted by two giants of the cinema. A thinly veiled diatribe against the 1950's McCarthy era hunt for Communists. Excellent!
Why don't we have movies today that give us so much of this sort of instinctual debate as this question does ?
1:48 Actually science has helped tremendously with conception, healthy delivering of a baby, and lower infant mortality rates.
Every junior High school student should watch this movie.
Spencer Tracy...words escape me. What a genius actor.
Here in the 2020's we are regressing to the 1920's. Oddly, centred in the same geographical area....
Love this scene.
And so does everyone else wish to think for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions.
Look at March in this scene, not Tracy. March. He has the tougher part at this point, Look at him. Look at him concentrating, you can almost see the wheels turning in his head, the searching for how he is going to respond to his opponent, the determination, the clenched jaw, the eyes not really looking at Tracy, but providing a veil over this thinking, preparing his next series of blows back. And all this, ALL this, without saying a word. Reminds me of a great scene in of the Spencer Tracy Katherine Hepburn films where Hepburn had her back turned to the camera and she acted through it.
Seeing this reminded me of a video here on TH-cam, Evolution by the channel breaking in the habit
Great old movie. Silly me thinking this meant we understood… As a society…
The Bible says that faith is not the most important thing. "Now abieth faith, hope, and charity; these three. And the most important is charity."
"I Prayed That God Would Emancipate Me, But It Was Not Till I Prayed With My Legs That I Was Emancipated."--Frederick Douglass
So much for faith, hope, and charity...
God I love this movie. Pun intended.
I object your honor. Counsel is testifying.
spencer tracy rules
While I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God Brady was very self righteous on the stand.
Brady was also incorrect in saying that original sin was sex. Nowhere does the Bible teach that the sexual act transmits original sin, St Augustine in the early fifth century AD was responsible for that doctrine.
@@patrickhows1482 that’s crazy I’m glad I learned something new! It was kind of poetic tho, unintentionally when the defense said all the holy people were “begotten out of sin” which I took as we are all born into sin, knowing that we will commit sin and sinning is human nature and all that. I pondered that statement after he said it for a good 5 minutes or so
In his magnum opus; “City of God.”
This IS acting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Soon after 1789 French Revolution established "Lacite", the First Amendment followed in 1792...
Its opening Clause? "Congress shall make no Law respecting an establishment of Religion, etc..."
On the fifth day, "God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'" (Genesis 1:26). This occurred before God had created had Adam from "the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7), and Eve from Adam's "rib" (Genesis 2:21-22). Cain, therefore, took a wife who had descended from the earlier firth day creation, and not after his own, post seventh day, kind. It is not difficult to deduce, for those who are encouraged to know how to read. As for belief, that is not the issue, here. Class dismissed
Genesis 1:26 is the sixth day, not the fifth. The fifth day concluded in verse 23. And Genesis 2 is not a continuation of the creation story, it is a different version (starting at verse 5). In Genesis 1 man is created after everything else, man and woman created together. In Genesis 2 man is created first, even before plants. The other creatures were then made (also out of the ground) in an attempt to find a suitable mate for Adam. After countless failures (I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek), Eve was formed from Adam's rib.
@@komo_ongaku8702 Nah
H o t r e t a r d e d c h i X Whatever helps you maintain your beliefs and avoid cognitive dissonance I guess. I just didn’t want people unfamiliar with the text to casually read your comment and think it was accurate.
ROTFLOL. Believers are idiots.
So Adam wasn't the first human? That's a bold statement.
I don't think can you stand so close to the person being cross examined in the witness box He is right in Brady's face . perhaps back then you could. You can't applaud in court during a trial can you?
This is a play based on The Scopes Monkey Trial - Many details are accurate and I am sure in those times one attorney could get close to another in questioning. Scopes was so controversial they had to change the names in order to tell the story. Applause, would be up to the Judge to maintain the order in their courtroom.
'Inherit the Wind" was an entertaining movie with great acting, but most people fail to realize it was a highly fictionalized story of a real event that was much different than the movie.
A lot of it was real. I encourage you to research the case and look at the transcripts. A lot of the script were exact quotes
@@Christopher-wm8vc- Sure, the movie used some of the transcripts and some exact quotes, after all, it was based on a real event.. Like I said it was entertaining well made with good acting, but it was a movie, not a documentary and the actual events were not quite like in the movie in that it told only one side of the story, as movies often do. The star of the movie was Spencer Tracy who played Clarence Darrow , a high-profile defense attorney of the day whose main claim to fame was defending Leopold and Loeb, the notorious thrill killers in Chicago who murdered a boy in order to commit "the perfect crime." Darrow saved Leopold and Loeb from the death penalty so apparently it was considered some kind of a victory, Nevertheless Scopes was found guilty also. The case was appealed and Scopes fine ($100) was cinsidered excessive so was rescinded, but Scopes was still guilty. Later he left teaching and I think worked as a car salesman. The law against teaching evolution in Tennessee schools was not repealed until 1967.
@@Christopher-wm8vc - Of course a movie based on a real event would probably use real quotes and transcripts from the trial, but it was a movie, not a documentary, and basically told only one side of the story, as movies often do, What is a movie> It is entertainment, right? The reason a film studio makes a movie is to make money and if the movie is good people will pay to see it. If you are looking for historical accuracy you have to look elsewhere, you won't find it in a movie, you have to dig a little deeper..
I’m actually in a production of the play rehearsing right now, and the reality is very different. For one thing, the townspeople were welcoming of both Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan (Drummond and Brady in the film/play) and the defendant was not threatened with violence or even held in jail. Heck, Bryan was even willing to pay the defendant’s fine. The infant ACLU wanted to challenge the law and the town of Dayton was happy to oblige, seeing the possible financial impact.
The play basically used the Scopes Monkey Trial as a commentary on McCarthyism.
But that's not what jactitation means!!!!
Darrow should have brought in a Rabbi who'd studied the bible. The Hebrew version has commentary that explains everything. A Jewish bible scholar would've had them all on their knees.
An expert on the Bible would no more convince the rational person to believe, than would a comic nerd convince you that Spiderman exists.
ok jew
Will Hillary attempt to follow in Bryan's footsteps becoming a three time loser?
The historical incident this was based on- was one of the greatest con games in the last century. This was set up to attract crowds- with their money, the players in this bit of theatre were scripted on their dialogue, and the man sitting in the courtroom knew in advance he would suffer no professional repercussions and if fined, the cost to him would be covered in full.
he lost
Satan thought he was better than God and so God gave him the Earth for a while and the evidence of Satan's failures are manifest. The road is wide and the gate is narrow; many are called but few are chosen. God knows our hearts. Oh, and BTW, God love us and would never condemn those who reject Him to permanent torture in a hell but He just has the returned to the earth and will never enjoy the Paradise on Earth.
What a ridiculousness farce and distorted, dishonest account of what really happened.
What do you mean?
@@stayoung80
Watch this movie.
Alleged The Movie - Trailer
th-cam.com/video/O1b8g8rUA6k/w-d-xo.html
William Jennings Bryan,
Scopes Trial Closing Speech
1925 - the trial ended before he could give the speech.
history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111bryan.html
@@michaeldeo5068 "Alleged" is a poor attempt of a remake of Inherit the Wind and, based on the end of the trailer, obviously pro-creationist.
The speech is nicely worded, but words are one thing, and the practice has proven to be somewhat different - the bloodiest wars and most heinous inhumanities have always been commited in the name of religion and particularly the Bible. We would still be crawling in the mud if there were not for men who think and use their intellectual faculties. I am not a supporter of Darvinism but even less that of Creationism. Faith is important but for people with brains, it has nothing to do with religion. Religion is poison and education is the only true salvation for mankind, and even though there is a
price to pay, it is worth it.
Whoever and whatever teaches you not to think but to accept any idea as it is for no argumented reason, cannot possibly be good.
Finally, your words- a dishonedt account of what really happened. WHAT DO YOU MEAN? Is Inherit the Wind a documentary? Is it stated anywhere in the movie that it IS a true story, or it is BASED on a true story, but focuses on the point, which I argumented above?
" Inherit the Wind is a fictionalized account of the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" Trial ... " is the official description of the movie.
@@stayoung80
If you watched the movie Alleged", you should see that " inherent the wind" by compassion is full of lies and half truths."
The movie alleged does not have the big names or budget but it does tell what really happened. It is amazing that people can be convinced to believe Evolution as taught by Darwin is true and the rational position to hold to.
The Movie is dishonest because it claims a false narrative that the Bible and science are not compatible. There is in reality what people claim to be science just as there are false religions. Scientism and false religions have much in common.
"We would still be crawling in the mud if there were not for men who think and use their intellectual faculties."
Actually it was out of a religious framework that the scientific fields thrived.
Science is dependant on reliable cause and effects, on there being a reason for causality and that it is reliable. The Bible gives us this in the teaching that ultimate reality is Mind, the Supreme Being not mindlessness.
"I am not a supporter of Darvinism but even less that of Creationism. Faith is important but for people with brains,
it has nothing to do with religion."
The belief that mindlessness is the Source and cause, which is the position one has to accept when denying the Creator, results in an irrational, blind faith. To claim that a faith in mindlessness is one that is more intellectual is absurd! Mindlessness cannot be the source and cause. Mindlessness is devoid of inherent causality, whereas the Creator, the Supreme Mind is self determined and gives us a rational foundation for reason.
To believe our brains have been accidentally caused, ultimately by that which is mindless and devoid of intention but yet somehow we are able to trust our reasoning, is a faith based belief. One is really begging the question when they hold to this worldview.
"Religion is poison and education is the only true salvation for mankind, and even though there is a
price to pay, it is worth it. "
Again, your assuming true religion is not true education. Also, salvation for mankind would be the end of sin which enslaves, and the end of death. Life in a mindless reality would not matter, and in fact would be against the nature of such an ultimate reality! True religion proclaims Life creates life and that Life is the goal! Scientism teaches the eventually heat death of everything.
"Whoever and whatever teaches you not to think but to accept any idea as it is for no argumentative reason, cannot possibly be good."
Agreed!
The words of the Creator says to seek knowledge and gain wisdom. To come and reason together. The Creator says don't be fooled by the vain philosophies of men.
The movie "Alleged" and the advances in science have both shown Darwin's theories to be unsupported and without real evidence to back them up.
Now to your claim that about wars, please refer to the published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” by "authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare. While, for example, it is estimated that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone.
History simply does not support the hypothesis that religion is the major cause of conflict. The wars of the ancient world were rarely, if ever, based on religion. These wars were for territorial conquest, to control borders, secure trade routes, or respond to an internal challenge to political authority. In fact, the ancient conquerors, whether Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, or Roman, openly welcomed the religious beliefs of those they conquered, and often added the new gods to their own pantheon.
Medieval and Renaissance wars were also typically about control and wealth as city-states vied for power, often with the support, but rarely instigation, of the Church. And the Mongol Asian rampage, which is thought to have killed nearly 30 million people, had no religious component whatsoever.
Most modern wars, including the Napoleonic Campaign, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the American Civil War, World War I, the Russia Revolution, World War II, and the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, were not religious in nature or cause. While religious groups have been specifically targeted (most notably in World War II), to claim that religion was the cause is to blame the victim and to misunderstand the perpetrators’ motives, which were nationalistic and ethnic, not religious."
Shalom/Peace
@@michaeldeo5068 "false narrative that the Bible and science are not compatible. "
Aaaaaand that's where I stopped reading your post. If you really believe that, then you have zero understanding of the underpinning mechanisms of science or faith. Does your precious creator reward ignorance?
Cain's wife?
The answer is very simple, daughters were not usually named as only the first born sons represented the heads of new family lines are listed. Abel is mentioned because Cain failed in this role and killed him.
Genesis 5:3, and Adam lived a 130 years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: 4 The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he begat sons and daughters. 5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.
There is no mention of the names of Adam's other sons or his daughter's.
Think about it: 130 years is a long time for Eve to only have had a mere three children! That’s only one child every 43 years. Seeing that Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28)
Since Seth was named by his mother, ( Seth means, He appointed) it is reasonable that he was now considered the first born son born after Abel's death and Cain's curse. To illustrate this in Genesis 5:6, it records the first born of Seth is Enosh. The firstborn son was the one who normally received a double inheritance, and was the one who would inherit his father’s role as head of the family.
Shalom/Peace
@Connor Locock
Belief in the Truth of the Word of Yahweh is built on reason and evidence not blind faith.
Blind faith is to believe in the impossible, irrational teachings of Scientism and Secular Humanism. Humanity cannot progress in Truth until it gives up these false religions.
@Connor Locock
The Universe and everything in it.
Can you provide evidence for nonthinking, processes coming in to existence from nothing and causing, without being caused upon the information we see in the Creation?
@Connor Locock
"it's a fundamental misunderstanding to claim atheists believe the universe came from nothing."
No, it actually comes from thinking out fully what the Atheistic world view reduces to. The possibility of an unthinking, Eternal universe cannot be supported by logical reasoning or the scientific evidence because energy runs down. Entropy is the logical conclusion. This would have happened long ago showing our universe has not been infinite in the past.
This is a major problem for the unbeliever. We logically must assume something has had to exist Eternally for anything to be in existence now.
We cannot assume it is unthinking energy/matter because of the problem stated above and the fact that the leading scientific evidence points to a beginning for our universe.
Unthinking causes always need another cause to act on them to do anything.
It is because of all these reasons and evidence, the belief that eternal unthinking Energy/matter cannot be supported. Those saying it can have rejected reason and the scientific evidence, and have no foundation for the universe, so basically are believing in a universe from nothing or at least nothing they can point to from their world view!
"For example, we believe in the fossil record which shows conclusive evidence for Darwinian evolution."
Hardly, what the fossil record as many interpret it today, comes from is based on assumptions and the classifications given to other physical material.
"We believe in the law of gravity, which explains why the planets orbit the sun. "
Good, theist believe in the LAW of gravity as well, we just have a problem with believing laws exist without a law giver. Explaining how a machine works and believing there is NO machine maker is a problem for people of reason.
"The ultimate cause of the universe's existence is currently unknown by scientists, but there are theories with some evidence to support them, such as the big bang. We still don't know for sure, but people are working on finding out. "
The "We don't know" but people are working on it and will figure it out but it can't be the Supreme Being/Creator. is essentially a false faith, a false religion, it's Idolatry!
"Also, if the universe can't have created itself, as you say, then neither can God. So what created God? Either you have an infinite regress of causes, or it is possible for something to have caused itself."
No, ifs about it, unthinking energy/matter can't create itself as evidenced by the reasons above.
We also Don't believe The God of gods created Himself. We belief Yahweh is the Ultimate Reality, the SOURCE, The ONE who is Eternal Existence itself who causes all others things and selves to come into existence.
Yahweh the Creator is that Some ONE and Something that has always Existed, Who is Existence.
Yahweh Being ultimate Reality, means Yahweh is What and Who is Ultimate Truth, Because the Truth is that which is Real.
For this reason to reject Yahweh the Creator, the unbeliever is rejecting Truth and Reality and the very source of their Beings.
That is not reasonable or very scientific.
Shalom/Peace
Daughters are rarely mentioned in the Bible. The exception is Dinah, because her defilement at the hands of the prince of Shechem led to war. Then there's Serach, daughter of Asher, though nobody knows why she's mentioned.
@@michaeldeo5068 There's something missing in your argument. How did you arrive to the conclusion that Yahweh IS the creator? Contrary to what you're saying, we non-believers are willing to acknowledge, or in my case even worship, whoever created the universe. We're just having trouble pointing out who because there's no compelling evidence for any known deities today. Do you think you're up to the task?